Talk:Falafel/Archive 2

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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Academic politicizing of food

I believe that this complete section should be removed. The information provided in the text does not do the sources justice (cherry picked, holes, etc) and it could just as easily be summarized in 1-3 lines in the history section.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I want it to stay and I will also expand that section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But then we run into more weight issues. That is a drop in the bucket compared to other aspects (taste, prep, India, history, McDonalds) already provided in sources or available in quick Google searches. Maybe we need a POVFork so an article about food doesn't turn out even worse. Maybe thepoliticization of food in the Middle East is a better article for some if it is this hard to get tags removed.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if Israeli pictures can be half or majority of the pictures of this article, why cant the Israeli adoption be mentioned in half or majority of the article?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Cptnono. If the article will at some point give undue weight to the regional controversy over who "owns" falafel, there are lots of possibilities besides deleting this content. One of these possibilities is to split the falafel controversy into a separate article. But let's not delete promising content. --AFriedman (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is done, we need to ensure that the "controversy" remains encyclopedic in content and format and doesn't become a soapbox, like it was when SD created this article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nsaum i suggest you stop you rampant push of pro-israel point of view and you attempt to deny palestinian and arab culture. you comment here be disruptive and not warrant. israel have stole arab food and culture and it be worthy of extensive discuss here in article, so that it clear to reader that felafel be arab no matter what israel say. Stop try to rewrite or deny arab history with pro-jew and pro-israel misinformation. Israel "culture" and "cuisine" be "made up", and not really culture or cuisine, but in stead century old arab and palestine culture that be "rewrited" as "israel" culture. Since editor keep add more and more israel photo, then only fair that majority of article be about israel theft of felafel. Also there need be article on "myth" of israel "culture" that explain and reveal every thing that "Israel" stole from arab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ani medjool (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and let's not forget to mention all the Jews that were massacred in and kicked out of all the Arab countries. We need to make it clear that Israel stole these people. They had no right to do this! The Jews belonged to the Arab countries!!! If they decided to kick them out, Israel had no right to take them! They had to keep them out and give them no place to live, because that is what the Arab countries decided was the right thing to do to their Jews. These Jews who live in Israel today and their descendants are a "myth". They have no "culture" in Israel. They only steal Arab culture because this is what they grew up in. But once they got kicked out from Arab countries, they must abandon their lifestyle and have no culture or way of life left. Once a Jew is kicked out of Arab land, he is not allowed to continue living life like an Arab! We need a section about this for sure. Breein1007 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein user. Please stay on relevent food conversation. If you have issue with jews that leave arab land, then please discuss at that article. Ani medjool (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But I only agree with you in you say that we need article on Israel steal everything in their "culture", "cuisine", "people", "language", "weather", etc! You bring up idea here so why I do not able to support? If you no want people agree with you then please no bring up ideas in wrong place. Breein1007 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the lines used in the source don't even provide context (the fact that it became huge in Israel). It already has too much weight and adding more would be worse. A couple lines (my attempt was reverted) in the history section would make more sense. Maybe the Hummus/Falafel war does deserve its own article.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there need be article on theft of arab food by "israel". Ani medjool (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You should go ahead and write one. While you're at it, you should write one about Arab theft of Copt food, which would include Falafel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the historical content of this section to the History section, where it belongs. It relies on the best source in the whole article (Gastronomica, a journal of the University of California), a source written by an Israeli who wrote her Ph.D. thesis on Israeli nationalism and cuisine.[1] The 'appropriation' business I have left in a separate section, which I've re-titled "National claims to falafel". The title "Academic politicizing of food" is a POV attempt to frame the content as marginal, which is not appropriate. This section could be vastly improved. --macrakis (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you deleted the information on the history of falafel in Israel which I mention above with the strange comment "might as well go all the way if it is to be done" -- without even discussing here on Talk. This is the best-sourced historical information in the whole article. I realize that some editors don't particularly like this content, but Wikipedia policy explicity excludes such reasoning. Could you please explain why the history of falafel in Israel should not be covered in this article, or why you believe this is a poor source? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What I saw was info being duplicated. Some of it was already moved out of the controversy section so I took it another step. I looked at it as consolidating. As mentioned above, info was cherry picked from the NYTimes piece. I thought the other stuff available summarized it enough. The tags were also cause to be a little more cautious with how much detail was provided. I feel that the info I added should clear the tags, summarizes it better, and simply works in a way that shouldn't cause stress for the reader or those editing. That is my opinion on it only though. This is a collaborative process so feel free to alter it or revert it if it comes across worse. Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if editors don't feel like collaborating (sic), they can intentionally abuse Wikipedia's policies (photos), insult & attack opposing editors, AND be rewarded for it by getting what they want in the name of article stability and "MoS". Sad. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 11:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't see what was duplication you saw in the Raviv material on the history of falafel in Israel. After your deletions, there was nothing on the history of falafel in Israel at all. Please restore this.

As for the 'appropriation' discussion, I don't see why that should be removed from the article. Personally, it seems to me just as legitimate for Israeli cuisine to adopt falafel as it is for American cuisine to adopt pizza or Bosnian cuisine to adopt shish kebab (ćevapčići). But my personal opinion doesn't matter. This is Wikipedia, where we are supposed to report on disputes, not judge them or ignore them (cf. WP:NPOV). I agree that they need to be reported judiciously, but simply deleting the discussion doesn't move that effort forward. --macrakis (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You restore it nsaum75. I self reverted on the images originally and discussion stopped. So go for it if you want. And I don't care about your continued ~~moaning~~ mentioning/expressing concern with about the images just because you see it it as "rewarding". It was against MoS. I know it is frustrating but wikipedia isn't about winning. Apologies if that comes across a little too pointed.

macrakis: Israel is mentioned. Since the article has two tags (which I disagree with), there is some reasoning to not include too much about any one country. Israel is mentioned to some extent. An easy fix and a way to make sure there isn't too much weight is to expand it along with other aspects. Maybe add a couple more lines (the ones removed even) and throw in a couple more regarding other stuff. It being prevalent in some countries to be offered at McDonald's might be interesting. Go for it if you think more Israel stuff is in but try to watch weight.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If nsaum restore it be probably violate of 3rr and be against concensus reach by editor here. I agree with what cptnono say about issue.~~, that nsaum need "stop moan and whine". Dont be poor loser. By whine and moan, it be consider disruptive edit to talk page.~~ Ani medjool (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is he at 3rr again?If nsaum feels like modifying my edit, I assume it will be in the effort to reach a version that has consensus. I would be happy to attest to that at any noticeboard. And he isn't being a poor loser since no one but the reader should be losing or winning.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

~~You imply byself by say "moan" about photo. Moan not help and not produce. Ani medjool (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)~~

My bad if moan was too harsh.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool, I suggest you cross out your personal attacks from this talk page. If you continue making comments like this to other editors, rest assured that you will be reported to admins who have the power to ban you. Breein1007 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I merged the duplicated info together. I don't think Macrakis understood the lines we both included were almost identical. I did revert the removal of the Jews removed from the second source. Let me know fi that is a problem.Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fake felafel

I remove the fake felafel insert by nsaum because it not real. The gilabrand user also agree that it not belong. Ani medjool (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand doesn't own this article, nor do you. The source refers to the "tuna falafel" as "falafel". There is nothing fake about it. Simple as that. If people have a problem including it, it can be discussed and consensus reached. Until then, it stays in the article. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please not call edit of mine you no like "vandalism", when you no it not be. I think fish ball "felafel" not belong. What do other think? Ani medjool (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If sources say it is a variation then it is a variation. It is at least related.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The principal issue with the tuna falafel is not whether it is 'fake', but whether it is worth mentioning and who calls it falafel. Creative cooks do all sorts of things and newspapers and magazines are always looking for original ideas. The fact that Saveur magazine published a recipe entitled "Banda-Style Tuna Falafel (Sasatay)" doesn't mean that the dish Tuna Falafel suddenly deserves encyclopedic treatment, or that the term "tuna falafel" is widely used. Indeed, if you read the Saveur article introducing the recipe, you'll see that it isn't really called falafel at all: "Then there's sasatay, which is, as Mohammad describes it, a sort of tuna-based take on falafel, ...". And then if you Google 'sasatay', you find that that's not a standard term either -- on the Web at least. The dish is a sort of spicy tuna-and-almond fritter not even containing any pulses; presumably the author of the article called it 'falafel' just to compare it to something familiar. --macrakis (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See. It not belong, and be attempt to discredit arab food. Thank you Macrakis for bring to light truth behind fishball. Ani medjool (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everything is an attack on Arabs. Reducing the weight of the two lines and simply mentioning "nontraditional yada yada yada with meat and fish or something..."would be perfectly reasonable. We don't need to go into detail but making a mention should be OK.Cptnono (talk)

I agree that Ani Medjool's speculation that it is "an attempt to discredit arab food" is uncalled for. However, I still see no reason to include a mention to this creative variant. It's not as though it is a sensation that has swept the globe, and it stretches the definition of 'falafel' to mean basically 'spiced fritter', which is rather pointless. --macrakis (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: both Supreme Deliciousness and Ani medjool have been warned repeatedly in the past for their attempts to remove mentions of Israel from za'atar. Bear that in mind when you are dealing with them. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Variations

Added sourced info about french fries in Lebanon and UAE and Sumac in Syria.[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews in Jerusalem and Sephardi Jews

It says in the article: "Yemenite Jews in Jerusalem have historically prepared falafel only from chickpeas." ? Yemenite Jews arrived there in the last 50 years, how can we say that they have "historically" made it with fava beans?

And also, where is the sources for this sentence: "Falafel also appealed to the long-established Sephardi Jews." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 50 years is historic, wouldn't you? Breein1007 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, specially since the sentence puts Yemenite Jews at the same position as Palestinians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're the one who gets to decide the semantics behind the word "historical"? What shall the rule be... anything before, what, 75 years counts? Sooner than that and it doesn't? Get real. This is becoming old quite fast. Breein1007 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Yemenite Jewish immigration began in 1881.^[1]--Gilabrand (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) According to a food researcher named Joan Nathan, "favism, an inherited enzymatic deficiency occurring among some Jews--mainly those of Kurdish and Iraqi ancestry, many of whom came to Israel during the mid 1900s--proved potentially lethal, so all falafel makers in Israel ultimately stopped using fava beans." http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:VeQlqD1OKHMJ:www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/2/Food/Ashkenazic_Cuisine/Israel/Falafel.shtml+yemenite+felafel+history&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk--Gilabrand (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd page of the preview I believe but read it for yourself to be sure. There were also some Jews in the region before creation of the state. These left the Iberian peninsula as early as late the fifteenth century. Not sure if they went to Israel but they were established enough to to be sourced as such. Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote

I add this quote, wrote by Yael Raviv, professor at of New York University from book her publish: "a connection between the people and a common land and history had to be created artificially." Ani medjool (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Cptnono (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well another editor added some balance. I removed the neutrality tag based on those edits and the images. I was considering removing the overcoverage tag but wanted to double check with everyone to see if we are giving to much space to the drama of Israel's "theft".Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

If there is support from enough other editors, I am going to return the photos that were in the article prior to Ani medjool flooding the gallery. Given the appearance of Ani's edits here and at Za'atar, and his comments on his own talk page comparing Jews to Nazis, I am concerned his "contributions" have not been made in good faith. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What images and how many? I feel that it is perfect as is.

AE might be an option if you are concerned about Ani medjolol's comments. It would at east be preferable to going against image standards just because he has repeatedly said some offensive things.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated, its not the just the offensive language, its the manner in which this article has been not-so-secretly manipulated. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well take it to AE. Don't screw with the images out of spite though. They are currently inline with standards (except for the lack of alt). What was it that you were thinking of adding or replacing?Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cpt, looking back 7-8 days, there were six images in the article, surely not an excessive number or a giant leap from the current roster of three. NS, I am in agreement with you on every point with the exception of one word. You are concerned, I am convinced. Someone who has difficulty writing the word Israel without putting it in quotation marks has no business editing articles related in any way to Israel. Wikipedia doesn't need editors too blinded by hostility to avoid making a battleground even out of a food article. It wastes everyone else's time and energy. This article has been held hostage far too long. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not screwing with the images out of spite or whatnot. There was never consensus to change the images in the first place, that was a unilateral move by you in response to Ani flooding the gallery. I'm simply asking for input from other editors as to their positions on the issue. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything that has happened to this article in the last week is beyond ridiculous. I agree with nsaum that there was no consensus to support the unilateral change. Breein1007 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Super. Do you just like galleries or is there something wrong with the current settup?Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And what is wrong with it? It is well sourced. The silly controversy section was dumbed down. There is actually a history section. It looks 1000 times better if you look at it objectivelyCptnono (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to any of those changes. Should have been more clear. The additions/changes to text content are a separate issue. I'm talking about the images at this point, and I think the setup we had as of 2 weeks ago objectively looked much better and was more informative than what is left today. The gallery was not ideal, no. I mean what we had before that and before the unilateral flooding of images. Breein1007 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

this is from Jan 27 before the other editor started editing the images. Is that what you two are looking for? I actually don't love it (we only need one cafe, I don't care either way where they are but think something far away from the middle east stops the bickering, the chips seem uncommon but don't know if they are are not, the double images kind of overpower the lead but that could be a size thing and I might be having a knee jerk reaction) Consensus obviously isn't my opinion so I won't be reverting and think specifics are something that might need to be addressed.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent use of quotes

Firstly, I am not opposed to including information in the article which is critical of Israel's adoption of many fine and tasty Arab foods. Quotes can be helpful in an article, but they can also be used as a "slight of hand" or "backdoor" attempt to use terminology that would otherwise not be acceptable for use in a Wikipedia article. For instance, "Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations" states that quotes should not be used when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

It is my concern that editors may be unintentionally doing this, in regards to including the quote introduced into the article yesterday by Ani Medjool and the Jane Gbur quote suggested above by Supreme Deliciousness. Might there be a better way to word the information, without using the actual quote to bait the "other side" or to try to make a point? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion about how to incorporate the Israeli food editor's information in the section opened by SD above. Tiamut^talk 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me. Reporting an acknowledgment of origins or roots is one thing; alleging theft by quoting a source's use of the word "robbed" crosses a line best not crossed, and the bolded policy excerpt above bears that out. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum humor how you dismiss WP rule about photo, but claim WP rule when you think can use to repress important source information that expose theft of food and culture by "Israel". Ani medjool (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually completely agree with nsaum75. Wish I would have known about that along time ago since it is a common enough occurance. Take it to his talk page if you want to poke fun at him.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani, I realize the current state of affairs in the Middle East really angers you, but not everything is a part of a "Zionist plot" to steal or revise or repress Arab contributions to society and the world. Both sides of the issue share responsibility in the bloodshed and violence in the region. I would be lying if I said the IDF or Israel could do no wrong, but by the same token the PLO or liberation fighters or whatnot are not completely innocent themselves. But this article is about food, so lets get back to talking about food and not about a political situation that may not even end in our lifetime. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

The opinion of this one researcher cannot be presented in such a way in this article without breaking WP:UNDUE. It is a very short article and including such a minor opinion makes it seem tremendously more mainstream than it really is. Breein1007 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007 has removed this material citing WP:UNDUE (material was first dleted three times by Gilabrand [3] [4] [5] before she had second thoughts and rephrased it). Considering that this is one of the few pieces of information on this history of the food, I disagree. Yes, the article needs more information about the history of falafel that deal with other countries, but that does not mean we should remove existing reliably sourced information to balance things out. Indeed, above, it is being argued that there are too many pictures of falafel's use in Israel and those opposing the removal of photos are arguing that until we have more photos, these should stay. I agree with that line of argument and believe it extends to this issue as well. Tiamut^talk 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what in WP:UNDUE supports that logic? While your idea makes perfect sense, it can't be implemented without breaking policy. "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." I just can't see how including the opinion of that researcher into this article, as is, can possibly conform to this policy. Breein1007 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Who says its a tiny minority viewpoint? Tiamut^talk 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this article [6]. More than one commentator there says exactly the same thing. Tiamut^talk 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And Raviv, the commentator we were quoting in our article, seems to be something of a food expert. Besides the article she wrote that we quoted from [7], she also published this one on the same subject [8]. Note these are academic journals she is publishing in. Why should we discount what this reliable source has to say about the history of falafel? Tiamut^talk 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

She may be an expert, but it's only her, one expert. The first article you linked was also quoting her. Also, we have a sentence in our article already mentioning the Palestinian resentment that the source discusses. I think the way we have it presented is appropriate: a brief mention for a minority opinion. We can't go on and on and expand or else it gets too much weight, even if she is an expert. Breein1007 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it is a minority opinion? Meaning, can you provide sources that dispute this? Can you provide the sources of the same or better quality that dispute this? nableezy - 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And Breein1007, read the article (which was originally published in the NYTimes) again [9]. Its not just Raviv being quoted on this. The author Jodi Kantor writes it in the neutral voice and there's also this:Some Jewish settlers in Palestine referred to themselves as Hebrew Bedouins and donned kaffiyehs, or Arab headdresses. Politically, the Zionists ignored the Arabs, but culturally, they romanticized and tried to imitate them, said Yael Zerubavel, a scholar of Israeli culture at Rutgers. This imitation didn't seem like theft, Ms. Zerubavel said, but localization, a process of putting roots in soil. Tiamut^talk 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great image also: BILU in kuffiyeh --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

People invent a lot of hogwash to get attention. This gal found the winning combination. Come up with a silly theory that promotes hatred and hostility and get a radical magazine to publish it. Voila. Instant publicity via Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gilbrand, the New York Times is hardly a "radical magazine". Tiamut^talk 19:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be sorry. You have lots of reasons to be. The Palestine-Israel Journal is what we are talking about. You brought the link yourself. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your inability to discern reliable sources "radical" ones. You mean this Palestine–Israel Journal? Where is the reliable source calling them "radical"? Tiamut^talk 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The information in this edit belongs in the article. Those who remove this info, they remove it because they don't like reality. They don't like that Falafel has no connection to Jews or Israel, that its really an Arab dish that was adopted by them when they came to Palestine. They want to cover this up, and instead create a separate, made up "Israeli food" culture where they basically have just taken everything from Arabs and claimed it as theyrse, basically as the Israeli food editor Gil Hovav said on the BBC program Cooking in the Danger Zone, "Humous is Arabic. Falafel, our national dish, our national Israeli dish, is completely Arabic and this salad that we call an Israeli Salad, actually it's an Arab salad, Palestinian salad. So, we sort of robbed them of everything..." transcript --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, are you people trying to say that Teh Jews ate falafel because it tastes good or was widely available and not for some kind of political reason? I mean, seriously. How can this be anything but an attempt to usurp the Palestinian cuisine? There must be a master plan here, we just need to dig up the evidence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the same article: "Falafel is a biblical food. The ingredients are as old as you're going to get. These are the foods of the land, and the land goes back to the Bible. There have been Jews and Arabs in the Middle East forever, and the idea that Jews stole it doesn't hold any water." And another: "Claudia Roden, born in Egypt and the author of "The Book of Jewish Food," confirmed that while falafel was never specifically a Jewish dish, it was certainly eaten by Jews in Egypt and Syria." Hmmm. Why I wonder why you aren't you quoting these two sources?--Gilabrand (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He who said the first quote is an author of an Israeli cookbook. And she who said the second quote is an Israeli. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's wholly irrelevant SD. Gil Hovav is Israeli too (as is I believe Yael Raviv). What's pertinent here is whether or not the viewpoints being expressed are significant minority viewpoints, rather than fringe ones and whether or not those stating them constitute reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with including Roden's viewpoint in the article. Nathan's view that falafel is a biblical food is a fringe minority viewpoint, not borne out by any other scholarship of which I am aware. I still would not have a problem with including that view, if properly attributed to him. Would you like to restore what you deleted previously and include these view as well? that would be fine with me. Tiamut^talk 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I thought I added this information (including Roden's view) to the article before and indeed I did, back in Feburary 2008 [10] and again here, back in March 2008, after it was deleted by a disruptive editor. It seems this same information keeps getting deleted, over and over again. Why is that? Tiamut^talk 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand and Breein1007, please don't continue to remove Raviv's analysis. Of all the sources we have in this article, it is one of the very few which was actually published in a serious, reputable publication (Gastronomica, a journal of the University of California) and based on serious research (her Ph.D. dissertation at NYU "Recipe for a nation: Cuisine, Jewish nationalism, and the Israeli state"). It may well be that there are other serious, reputable opinions on how falafel became Israeli, in which case we should include those opinions as well, following WP:NPOV.

As for Joan Nathan's claim that "Falafel is a biblical food", I'd be very interested in Nathan's evidence for this remark. Sure, "The ingredients are as old as you're going to get", no question about that, but we're not talking about the ingredients, are we? After all, meat, cheese, and bread have been around for thousands of years but that's hardly proof that the ancient Greeks made cheeseburgers. And doubtless falafel was eaten by Jews in the Middle East before the founding of Israel; but how did it become such an iconic part of Israeli cuisine? --macrakis (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Article already has to much info about/from a certain nation making the article non neutral [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

India

Someone removed the India claims. The source used was one of a few I saw. It doesn't deserve much weight but it deserves some mention. I'll try to find a second source but might reinsert it with just the one since it is RS.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I removed that claim because it was (a) in a newspaper article (not a very reliable source) and (b) cited unnamed "food historians". Clearly there exist chickpea fritters in India, but falafel was originally a fava bean fritter. Anyway, if you do find a good source for this claim, so much the better.... --macrakis (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was worded pretty well without too much weight with "some food historians". Sucks that we don't have a who though. Funny art is there is always a source to contradict it or other information already in the article[12]. At least a mention of its popularity in India should be included since it is huge but I a still poking around for more sources.Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Egyptians stole falafel from the Indians!?!

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Those thieves! No. It is something I saw around the internet while looking for other sources last week. Traders going back and forth and all of that fun trading stuff. Of course I am failing miserably to refind those sources (some of them were poor). Chickpeas have been a staple over there since a long time ago but I am trying to find when they fried those bad boys up. One interesting thing I found is that it is similar to the acaraje in Kwaland(Africa?).[13] Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the NYTimes bit removed: [14]. I am trying to find something similar to [15]. Unfortunately that last one spells it out clearly but it isn't RS. It really just looks like an unlikely theory to me but it deserves some mention.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So there are two RS and an editor has removed it. That is silly.New York Times and Ynet. Is has now been dumbed down even more to "It has been theorized to a lesser extent that falafel has origins in the Indian subcontinent where it is also popular." Since the Copts and other origins are simply theories, presenting an alternate sourced theory without giving it much weight should be fine. It is inline with FRINGE, UNDUE, and V.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what the two supposed sources are and what they say. Source 1: an article in an online magazine written by an online media specialist with no background in food history. Article says: "A common theory suggests falafel was invented some 1000 years ago by the Egyptian Copts, who brought it with them to the rest of the Middle East. Another theory dates the invention of falafel as far as the 6th century AD, or even earlier, placing it on the subcontinent of India, which is known until today for making various chickpea-based dishes. And like anything else - some say it was invented by the ancient Egyptians." So even this article presents the Coptic theory first. The India theory is introduced as "another theory" with no source and no evidence other than the fact that chickpeas are widely eaten in India. Source 2: a newspaper article where a reporter interviews a chef and says "some [unnamed] food historians believe that [falafel] has roots in Indian cuisine". Again, no source, no evidence.

The evidence for an Egyptian origin (especially the Coptic part) is not definitive, but it is much stronger than that for India. We don't need to include every theory mentioned by every journalist.... --macrakis (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely why the Copts are given weight. It is a theory along with several others. A minority say India or at least acknowledge the possibility. Nothing wrong with presenting it as so. It isn't for us to decide what is the one but it is up to us to provide the available info.Cptnono (talk)

BBC program Cooking in the Danger Zone

This quote should be in the article: Israeli food editor Gil Hovav on the BBC program Cooking in the Danger Zone: "Humous is Arabic. Falafel, our national dish, our national Israeli dish, is completely Arabic and this salad that we call an Israeli Salad, actually it's an Arab salad, Palestinian salad. So, we sort of robbed them of everything..." transcript --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take that quote as an serious admission of guilt in a criminal act. It may well have been meant sarcastically or said in jest. That's indicated by the "sort of". Now I think I'll sort of go rob the Italians of a pizza. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of this quote, though I don't think we need to include the last line. The important (and serious and relevant) part has to do with the fact that many "Israeli" foods are actually Arab or Palestinian foods. Perhaps this could also be included by paraphrasing the idea (i.e. "An Israeli food editor noted that falafel, like many dishes that are considered to be Israeli national foods, is actually Arab/Palestinian.") and placing the quote in a footnote. Tiamut^talk 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to include every quote saying it is Arabic? doesn't that information already come across? I have seen a dozen interesting quotes calling it a huge dish in Israel but know that adding every one is simply obnoxious.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This good quote that use elsewhere in article about arab food. It need be include. Cptnono, "Israel" content be irrelevent this article because it be Arab food. Ani medjool (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ive added this to the article as it is relevant to the topic and sourced from a good and reliable source BBC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew name in the lede?

Why isn't the Hebrew spelling of "falafel" in the lede, and why is the Greek name there? The article doesn't say anything about Greece at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been disappointed in the lack of coverage on its prominence in Greek cuisine (or at least fast food). I assume it is in the lead because of its prominence in Greece . It at least is common in Greek joints throughout the US. Google news and book searches have many hits but it is only recipes and reviews from what I have found. If anyone finds someone discussing it then it should be thrown in. Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Greek spelling because there is no immediate or obvious need for it to be there. If the French eat sausages, the word saucisse does not need to be in the lead. The Hebrew spelling is not in the lead by past consensus, because it does not relate to the etymology of the word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the significance of Israeli contributions to both how falafel is eaten today (in a pita) and to it's early distribution in Europe, not to mention the fact it is considered a national food in Israel, why shouldn't Hebrew be included? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Falafel is eaten in khubuz in many places in the world including Europe, so its not only pita. And its not very clear who added Falafel to pita or introduced it to Europe since all the sources claiming Israel are Israeli sources. And neither pita or Falafel is Israeli or Hebrew. Falafel is an arabic word. So there is as much reason to put the Hebrew translation as putting Japanese or Icelandic translation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While your opinions are very interesting, the article says that Israelis were the first to introduce falafel to Europe and the first to put it in a pita. Falafel is Israeli whether you like it or not. This doesn't mean it's not Arab too, which is why we should have both Hebrew and Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, its not israeli. Its an Arabic food with an arabic name and therefore the arabic translation is the only one needed. All other translations including hebrew are irrelevant.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes some sense to me. ianmacm's argument of the etymology makes sense too but it does not appear to be followed very often on Wikipeida. Is there something in the style guides about this?Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that in English the word is pronounced "falafel" like in Hebrew and not "falafil" like in Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any source to show that "falafel" is a hebrew word or originates from hebrew, the Collins English Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says its from arabic:[16]. I have therfor removed the hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

WP:IG. "The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved... or moved to Wikimedia Commons." We have commons. The encyclopedic value of so many images is questionable. The image detracts form the text. I propose removing all but the two currently used out of the gallery. The focus should be the food not where the shop is located.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it busy. I think felafel fryin in egypt and felafel be prepare in Ramallah be keep as represent of how felafel be made and serve. Ani medjool (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the two serving suggestions. The one in the infobox is from California and I think it is better than others from around the globe.Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with you on that. but also think it important to show process in which felafel being fried. Ani medjool (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Il Falafel di Ramallah.JPG shows both making and completed. Although it would be a shame to remove the presentation shown with the balls, this might be a suitable replacement.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that be good. I can agree. Ani medjool (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Unfortunately I disagree. What we have here is a probable case of wikilawyering, or the use of various wikipedia rules (in poor faith) to force desired changes. Its not a secret that two editors here have both have stated they wanted the Israeli images removed based upon their dislike of Israel. These two editors have raised the issue of wanting the Israeli images removed over and over at a number of articles, and when failing to achieve their desired result via the talk page discussion, they have proceeded to go out and search for images with the specific intent of replacing images they find offensive. The gallery was a sort of compromise, a place to hold images that represented a wide world view...that is until Ani Medjool started flooding it today. Now, by forcing the issue over and over and abusing the image Gallery to the point that it has been removed, the intent of both editors has been achieved -- the removal of the Israeli images they wanted gone. In essence by removing the gallery and the "disliked" photos from the article, we are rewarding disruptive behavior and wikilawyering. I request that Cptnono restore the images he/she removed until a consensus here is reached. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to revert. I'll disagree but won't edit war over it. Opposing the gallery is inline with Wikipedia's standards. Galleries are frowned upon by many editors, and this one was getting out of hand. So being pissed off about other editors aside (I know I am), how is the current setup? The images don't overwhelm the text and they don't mention any countries. I don't see any problem with it and I historically have an anti-Arab tilt in my editing.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, but my reverting your edit could be construed as 3RR, where as you reverting your own edit would not be. That said, and regardless of "pro israel" or "pro arab" viewpoints, we are rewarding disruptive behavior by allowing editors to achieve their desired results by using Wikipedia's own rules. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the editor who added the gallery, let me say that nsaum75 is essentially right: there was edit-warring over the images and the efforts to reach a compromise resulted in an unreadable article in which the text was sandwiched between right- and left-aligned images (contrary to WP:MOS#Images), so I moved all the images to a gallery to solve the problem. If you can convince everybody who edits this article to stop adding their favorite pictures, more power to you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize you were at 3rr. Forgetting the rewarding of poor behavior, it is inline with guidelines and 1 image of a finished pita and an image of different shaped ones being fried is all the article needs. I understand that we don't want to reward poor behavior but it looks to me that the solution is surprisingly perfect. No countries are mentioned, the images are fine quality wise, they show three important aspects, and they don't take away from the text. I want to keep this in but the principle is the principle. I'll self revert but might redo it if discussion doesn't come to a good fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nsaum and others, I think we can acknowledge that it's a step in the right direction when the editors who had been deleting photos are now adding photos. I am neutral about the gallery and for the moment, satisfied with the current set of pictures. Now that some good photos have been shared, I'd like to see this discussion over. --AFriedman (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is how it is: There are a group of individuals at wikipedia, who has at many articles tried and succeed into pushing their pov into articles, Falafel is a part of this, a couple of weeks ago, this article, which is predominantly seen as Arab food, had more pictures from Israel then any other nation combined, and when I question this, I do not believe I am doing anything wrong, I believe I have a neutral pov. So to balance out this pov pushing, me and Ani Medjool added more pictures from other nations around the world, then when this happened, the same group of pov pushers added even more israeli pictures so they were yesterday half of the pictures. Who is the ones who ís disrupting this article? who is carrying and pushing they're pov? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Those questions might be better addressed elsewhere. Does a picture of a pita pocket filled with the yummy goodness and a picture of a dude frying it up, and a commons link for the other pictures suffice?Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Awarding poor behavior is a crummy side effect of improving the article in this instance. I didn't self revert to have nothing. I'm just going to do it again unless we really are trying to reach consensus on how to make this inline with MoS.Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since it appears that I'm the only editor here who doesnt approve of feeding the trolls or rewarding blatant and repetative disruptive behavior, then go right ahead. MoS isn't written in stone, but then again, apparently neither is good faith editing. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely not the only one who doesn't approve... but I'm tired of fighting with them. If they want to insist on making the article worse by removing good pictures because they can't put their pathetic political motives aside for 30 seconds, then we can just remove all the pictures except the bare minimum. It's not the end of the world. Breein1007 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

finally someone had the sense to stand up and remove the israel photos. im glad. its disgusting that the jews try to claim everything as theirs. now if the rest of wikipedia could be deisraeled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaltsojoe (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FFS, that wasn't the point. Israelis and Arabs piss me off almost the same (hippies are the real enemy).Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

well i dont see anyone agreeing with nsaum. either way this article should be about arab contributions not anything the delusional israelis dreamt up. ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaltsojoe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) haaaah! that was easy! next article please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaltsojoe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

oh quit your whining. the days of israeli domination of wikipedia are over. all good things must end. all empires eventually fall. grow up and be a man. actually the israeli domination of wikipedia was not a good thing. haah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaltsojoe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm... falafel

So I am bringing this up again but won't change it since it isn't my place to do so again. With the bickering dieing down, are there any other thoughts on removing the gallery? It is not exactly prefered and there are some amazing pictures at commons we don't use. Since I would rather cut it and rely on the commons link than add to it, I wanted to check in. Check it out: oh yeah. There are some good and sloppy looking ones (food wise not quality wise)Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In general galeries are a bad thing, but if this is the price for avoiding another edit war, I can put up with it.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone else agrees [17].Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My vote is to lose the gallery, because it looks like an indiscriminate collection of pictures. Even if they are copyright free, there is no need to mirror every photo of falafel from Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been stable, so my vote is to leave it alone. Removing it is libel to open a whole new round of edit warring over which photos should be included and/or if photos from a certain country are inappropriate for the article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If this were any other article, I would remove the gallery on the grounds of unnecessary cruft, as other users have pointed out. Wikimedia Commons is the best place to look at half a dozen photographs of the same thing. The gallery seems to be trying to keep everyone happy on the multicultural issue, but it does not look attractive or add significant new information to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the gallery. Its unnecessary. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallery un necessary and be use by some editor to insert POV into article about arab food. Ani medjool (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Which POV is that? Wait, don't tell me. Is it that it contains photos from Israel? Somehow, I'm not surprised. Here we go again. Let's not. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorely tempted to be WP:BOLD and remove the gallery purely because it does not look good on the page. However, the merry-go-round of the Arab/Israeli dispute might resurface. Such is the nature of WP:CONSENSUS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this sucks. This gallery has been a hot spot. I don't like it and want it gone. There are a couple editors who are against removing it. I would have a hard time being onboard without their approval.Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that we not need a gallery, BUT it has contributed to the stability of the article. Wikipedia is not perfect, and I would rather be all-inclusive than remove content based on visual appeal or an editor's disdain of a certain country and culture. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It would need to go for reasons based solely on improving the article and not the battle stuff. If nyone changes thir mind say so since it would be cool to have this done for the right reasons.Cptnono (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The gallery sucks. It has far too many indifferent pictures lifted off Commons, and is not keeping people happy on the multicultural issue. The comments above show that few users like the gallery per se, so it is not "keeping people happy". Regardless of how many concessions are made, there will always be trolling by the anti-Israel POV warriors. Goodbye friendless gallery, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we're having an edit war over the existence of the gallery anyway, then my reason for keeping it has gone. I therefore now say remove it. A nice thing about the pictures in the article itself is that none of them say where they were taken. The ones in the gallery have their locations mention in the vain hope of being politically balanced and therfore make a concession to the battleground types.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some would say indifferent, others diverse. I fail to see what the urgency is to banish the pictures. I'd say, let's wait to hear from a few other voices before pulling the plug. A consensus (without the battleground types) may be developing. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article already has a tag saying that Wikimedia Commons has media related to falafel, which is the standard way of presenting a range of images. The article is already clear on the Arab origins and the Israeli links. The gallery tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The gallery was created due to POV and POINTy editing by individuals who announced they were going to find new photos to replace Israeli photos -- not because the existing photos were inferior but because they found photos from ""Israel"" offensive. When an editor arrives and outwardly offends other editors by stating it is their mission to remove photos based upon political concerns, or they constantly refer to a sovereign nation using quote marks....well..it tends to politicize an article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the rewarding of poor behavior and potential edit warring was one of the reasons to remove the gallery. One of the accounts that had been battlelike is now indefinitely blocked. I hope that will reduce the concerns and that removal can still be considered. Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not trying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but it look like Ian agrees with me. Looks like Nsaum at least agrees with its POINTy nature. Cohen might agree (or is it simply based on edit warring?). And Hertz mentioned holding a bit a month or so ago. Any other thought? I don;t want o remove it without people clearly being cool with it.Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How is my most recent edit? I removed the gallery, put the photo of the falafel balls in the infobox, left the photo of the falafel being fried (its referenced in the article), and left the photo of the falafel & french fries (since its also mentioned in the article). --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would improve the article to remove the gallery entirely. It has a certain immediate appeal that trumps following a link elsewhere. However, by removing one of the six images (the most redundant or the least visually outstanding), the gallery would become more compact, by shrinking from two rows to one in many (possibly most) browsers—possibly an upgrade that would find consensus, in preference to radical surgery. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888, Please see WP:IG, which is part of our Image use policy. Image galleries generally are discouraged, and links to Commons are encouraged, except in specific circumstances that I don't think applied here.

nsaum75, Nice BOLD edit. Let's see if it "sticks". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. At first I was thinking the sandwich would be better but that might be based on me being used to that. Just the balls also highlights the fried goodness over all of the trimmings. Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I put the balls in the infobox, since that is the most basic form of the food; Its a clear and concise image, that doesn't favor any specific region or culture in terms of "food form" or serving style. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy at WP:IG sounds reasonable and the page looks good. My suggestion is moot, and that's ok. Thanks to all. Nsaum, I think you made the right choices. Well done. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to give Nsaum too big of a head or to jinx it: the article now has no tags, is more inline w/ the MoS, and has some decent sourcing and info. It really sucked having this be such a battleground considering it was linked in a wikilove template. I a stoked.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect statement

[18] I looked through both sources and couldn't find anything supporting the sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Roden ... feels that stuffing the native Middle Eastern bean croquette into a pita and filling it with salads is what transformed the ancient Arabic food into Israel's national dish.In Israel, falafel has first found its way into the pita bread. Maybe you didn't look hard enough. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see them. But the first one doesn't really say that "It was in Israel that falafel was first eaten in pita bread and filled with salads." and the second one, doesn't it really mean that the first "encounter" Israel had with falafel was through a pita bread? This doesn't mean that Israelis invented putting falafel and salad in pita. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you are misunderstanding the grammar used in the second sentence. It means that it was in Israel that falafel first found its way into pita, ie: Israel was the first place that falafel was put into pita. Breein1007 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems like an impossibility. Maybe the adding salad, but I doubt that was first done in Israel either. nableezy - 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's not up to us to determine the truth on Wikipedia. It's about verifiability, which you know very well Nableezy. Are you proposing that we discard this source just because it seems impossible in your opinion? Breein1007 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, in fact I am saying that any source that I find to be incorrect should be removed. I should have made myself clearer, my apologies. /sarcasm. nableezy - 21:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds improbable, but that's what the two sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ynet news not WP:RS for this article. Of course "Israeli" source going to claim "Israel" invent form of food, just like "Israel" source make incorrect claim Golan is "Israel" and East Jerusalem be "Israel" Ani medjool (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ynet, the website of Yedioth Ahronoth, is certainly a WP:RS. Please stop attacking editors and sources because they are Israeli. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I sorry if it seem I attack, I not intend this. But discuss on RS page seem conclude that "Israel" source not appropriate or RS for all article in all instance. This be one instance it appear "Israeli" source not be reliable credit. Ani medjool (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me this alleged discussion on WP:RS/N? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So many constant warnings for the same thing... does it seem like the message is being received? Breein1007 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 ~~(UTC)~~

He's disrupted this article enough but unless someone is going to risk starting another frenzy at ANI it is probably just better ignored. That is assuming publishers can write about topics regarding the country their offices are in.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned him yesterday that personal attacks will lead to a block. This was an attack on a source, not an editor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is deeper than that. I am just going to strike out my comment now since it could easily be taken as inflammatory. I'll have more coffee and not be a dick.Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In discuss here[19] on JVL, it be state that in controverse subject better non political source should be use. But like JVL, ynet news be pro-israeli, jewish-centric and israel-centric source that not be non politic and neutral. it natural going support agenda and view that not be non neutral, un like newspaper like washington post or new york time. Ani medjool (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Ynet isn't "pro-israeli, jewish-centric and israel-centric" just because you say it is. If you have a problem with Ynet as a source, take it to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit? what that mean? Ani medjool (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that bullshit is an Americanism. It means your argument is false. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:-( Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

Oh, the joys of Wikipedia..... Breein1007 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

now know why factsontheground want retire. it hard be gang up on by all other editor who share viewpoint that be differ. Ani medjool (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Gang up? If you aren't willing to collaborate and discuss with other editors and accept that your viewpoint is contrary to Wikipedia policy, then maybe this encyclopedia is the wrong place for you to contribute. Breein1007 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about your viewpoint, Ani medjool, it's about your behavior. Attacking editors and sources because they're Israeli is not acceptable behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I try post this but I get error conflict. - I try discuss but all people argue and revert me. Now admin Malik Shabazz say me opinion and thought be wroth "bullshit". Wikipedia not friendly place for arab or palestinian editor unless editor agree with "israel" lobby. this make sad me, because hard editor find truth. Ani medjool (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How about we continue this on a user page or noticeboard. I think such discussions can be necessary to better the project but have been told to not have them on the article's page. So for now (unless a new subsection is needed), are most of us in agreement that the source is fine? It surprised me when I first saw it but it is in a couple sources and everything points to them being correct It shouldn't be that hard to find a source saying another country used the pita first if it exists. we have come across tougher challenges. Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Falafel hijacked

I'm not arab, indian, or jewish... but this article is very much americanised. In Australia it is very obvious where the first falafels were popularised and which ethnic minority popularised them, they are sold in the same Lebanese and Turkish restaurants that sell shawermas/gyros. Sadly I think the vegetarian self help books have been popularised by the "corporate" dignitaries of America, where the other ethnic minorities are not as prevalent. ie. this is a typical case inwhich history has been skewed by "first come first serve" majorities in a particular domain (ethnic popularity of Jews, vs other in america + the volume of published material concerning the topic in that country falsely supports the majorities claim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.154.55 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

category arab cuisine

Some arab countries aren't in the Middle East, so this category is needed: [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it was just fine as Middle East but since this is contentious Israel is back too. No reason to start a fuss over it. The article makes it clear that Israel deserves some weight and if it helps with navigation it is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How was it "fine" if some Arab countries aren't in the meddle east? and why did you ad Israeli cuisine when its already represented in Middle eastern cuisine? [21] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jewish cuisine might be a decent alternative if nationality is the sole reason for removal.Cptnono (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats not the "sole reason for removal" the reason for the Israeli cat to be removed is that its ready represented in Middle eastern cuisine, do you want to ad the cats for all arab countries also? Do you have any reliable source that say that Hummus is Jewish cuisine? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Israeli cuisine and that cat should be in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Are you arguing just to argue? I don't understand your concern. Nationality is covered by region so fine then. This article is not about humus. And yes, google news and book "Jewish" and "falafel" and you will see that there is coverage of the correlation. Cats are for navigation not defining the subject or some I-P battle. There really should be no worries now. For example lox is included in the cat and it all seems to makes sense if you look at it objectively.Cptnono (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There also is an argument against Arab cuisine since: "The Middle East (or, formerly more common, the Near East)[1] is a region that encompasses southwestern Asia and Egypt. In some contexts, the term has recently been expanded in usage to sometimes include Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and North Africa.." - Middle East.

I'm not going to argue against it too hard as long as Jewish or Israel get the same navigational representation.Cptnono (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I could support Jewish Cuisine as its not covered by one of the existing categories, if WP:RS is available for it. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a good way to never have to have this conversation again. Google books has tons. Israeli and Jewish are often interchanged in newspaper RS. One hit I did see in the news archives was "Jewish foodies, take note: An upcoming conference called 'From Farfel to Falafel: Food, Wine and Jewish Culture'...". And a little bit of OR on my part, falafel had its own display during the last Jewish holiday at QFC. Cptnono (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Non of those source say that "Falafel is Jewish" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Using "Jewish cuisine" is imprecise and an attempt to cater to POV pushers (whom as you can see above, don't really care or differentiate between the two). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, do you have any reliable source that says "Falafel is Jewish" ? This source says on p126 that Falafel is not Jewish: [22]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you click on the links I provided above? Why would you ask me to repeat myself? One source is outweighed by dozens.

If you do wish to dispute it, I will be more than happy to argue that Arab Cuisine is a subcat of Middle Eastern Cuisine which encompasses areas out side of what has been historically defined as the region and is therefore redundant. But arguing over this could be stopped just as easily. Cptnono (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont see anything you have shown saying "falafel is jewish" all we have is this source saying its not: [23], not at all because just because there is Arab cuisine in middle eastern cuisine, doesn't mean that there is Middle eastern cuisine in all arab cuisine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How about when the title of the book is "The Jewish Cookbook". Look harder or I am going to assume you are going out of your way to win.

And if No More Mr Nice Guy disagrees I completely understand. I think it is a shame to cater to inappropriate editing myself but there is also some argument for not having national categories. I believe this is outweighed by it being considered a national dish (how many Arab countries say that, huh?) but I can at least understand it. If you want to add it I won;t revert you but expect other people will. I am half way on board with the idea of keeping Israeli in. By second choice would be Jewish, and my third would be simply Middle Eastern.Cptnono (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So thats it, you have not shown any source that says "Falafel is jewish" what we have is one saying its not[24] therefor the Jewish cuisine category is contradicting the source and claiming something that is proven to be false, and therefor it must be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your own source says falafel is Israeli food. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia category policy tells us to try to limit both redundancy and over-generality in tags. The core areas for falafel are Egypt and the Levant (including Israel). As far as I know, falafel is not a typical dish of the Maghreb or of the Gulf, though I'm sure that nowadays there are plenty of falafel stands everywhere from Morocco to Dubai... but then, there are also plenty of falafel stands in New York City and Paris. So I do not believe Category:Arab cuisine is appropriate. The precise categories for falafel are thus Category:Egyptian cuisine and Category:Levantine cuisine; it is not useful to add Arab cuisine (which is too broad) or Israeli cuisine (which is too narrow). Of course falafel is part of Israeli cuisine, as it is part of Lebanese, Palestinian, and Syrian cuisine; it is just that Levantine cuisine covers all that. --macrakis (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources saying ts arab. And if its not typical in some parts of the Arab world doesn't means its less Arab, Mansaf for example is only eaten in some places, it doesn't mean its not Arab. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As for "Jewish cuisine", there is nothing specifically or typically Jewish about falafel. Of course Israeli Jews eat it, but then so do Syrian Christians and Egyptian Muslims. Should we therefore categorize it as "Christian cuisine" and "Muslim cuisine"? That would just be silly. --macrakis (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, its the same as saying "muslim" or "christian" falafel. And no source has been provided saying "falafel is Jewish" only that its not: [25]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli cuisine is not typical Levantine cuisine. Neither is Egyptian cuisine. We're talking 4-5 countries where Falafel is considered a national dish? Why not list them? I agree this isn't specifically Jewish cuisine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to remove Israeli cuisine from the levantine article and category: [26] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot I work for you. You just hold on there, I'll get to it soonish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And if the argument is now redundancy as Macrakis is saying, ALL of those are subcatagories of Middle Eastern cuisine. And Supreme Deliciousness is not reading the sources provided so I really couldn't care less about his argument until he does so.Cptnono (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any source, you have made a goggle books search, which shows nothing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually linked to one news story. SO yes, I provided a source. I also provided just the link for the books because listing them is not necessary unless you want other editors to put in more effort than is necessary because you are looking for an argument.

It got reverted to Israeli again. This was removed. I reinserted since the edit summary said there was no consensus. That obviously goes both ways and three editors think it should be in and two have provided justification (recently). So "Jewish" has sources. "Israel" has sources. Israel is part of the MIddle East cat but so is Arab. I don't care which is in but one of them should be in if Arab is used. It presents the information properly and makes navigation better. Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not built on votes. Just because you say that you have "provided source" for your pov doesn't mean its true. Your "news story" (jweekly.com) doesn't say that "Falafel is Jewish", it says: "A lot of foods we think of as Jewish are borrowed and adapted from their non-Jewish neighbors, and falafel is a key example", both macrakis and me pointed out that "muslim falafel" or "christian falafel" would make just as much sense. The link I showed specifically said that it wasn't Jewish, your goggle books search is no source and don't show anything, so no sources has been provided for that its Jewish, only that its not. Your pov pushing is evident when you keep on adding the Israeli cat while you are not adding all other middle eastern countries, you have already been told that Israel is in the Middle Eastern cat and that Arab is not the same thing as Middle eastern as several arab countries are not in the Middle East, so your behaviour is disruptive. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The only person here who's behavior is disruptive is you. While I know you don't like the word "Israel", you won't be changing reality through wikipedia. We have plenty of sources that say this is Israeli cuisine. Considering that Israeli cuisine is not typical Middle Eastern or Levantine cuisine, we'll be doing the readers of this article a favor if we give them an easy navigational aid to other stuff they might find in Israeli cuisine. Try to put your politics aside for just two minutes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you really believe Israeli cuisine is not typical Levantine or middle eastern cuisines, I told you, remove Israel from those cats and articles. If Israel is not removed from those cats and articles, then Israel is already represented in them, and no further Israeli cats is needed in this article since it would be a repeat and other middle eastern and Arab nations don't have separate cats. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speaking of disruption, the IP hit 5 reverts so it looks like no Israel and no Jewish is the way it is? Breein and I both tried making adjustments but it was unacceptable to the IP.

And SD, I know Arab and Middle Eastern are not necessarily the same thing. However, both are included in the cat and even the Wikipedia page references that nations outside of what is typically considered the Middle East is often considered the Middle East. I honestly don't even think you are reading the links provided since that is the second time I have said that. Do I need to write in bold or something?Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And this is not hummus. Falafel has been called a national dish in Israel. This is a different discussion for a different food. Similar stuff but not the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The way it is, is that Israel is already in the cats in the article:[27] Why aren't you complaining about no Syria, no Lebanon, no Iraq, no Egypt, no Palestine, no Oman, no Qatar, no Saudi Arabia, no Algeria, no Kuwait etc cats are in the article? Why aren't you edit warring to ad these cats into the article? I have read both links you added, one is a google search=no source, the other says its not Jewish. I care about what reliable sources say about what the middle east is:[28] not what other Wikipedia articles say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't go through the book search. It comes across like you just want to argue. When something is called the Jewish Cookbook it seems sufficient to me. There are several books discussing falafel as a Jewish food.a "representative food""These foods have a strong association with Jewish people""Traditional Jewish" section Jewish Cooking for Dummies Chapter 14: Jewish Food Practices. I shouldn't have to hold your hand just because you want to be stubborn. There are more saying Israeli though. Jewish also does not appear to have consensus so it is something that I hope other people will consider. If they do we can discuss it further.

And in regards to Israeli, I actually wasn't trying to edit war and would appreciate it if you didn't twist it around like that. I removed Arab since Middle Eastern was already in and Israel was removed. I have explained how Middle Eastern and Arab is redundant to a certain extent. I then added Jewish in since there is some reason for it from what I can tell. That was switched back to Israeli by someone else. I did make another revert when an IP removed that edit since consensus is disputed and plenty of rationale for Israeli has been provided. As someone else has clearly laid out, there is a difference between what what is typically considered Middle Eastern and what is considered Israeli. So I added Israeli ONCE. I personally was happy with just Middle Eastern but that was sufficient for people so I am going for an alternative. There is good reason to have it in and at least two other editors agree.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, Middle Eastern is commonly used and not Arab. So is it really an Arab dish? How about some sources if you want to play that game?Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono you need read argument by other user too, but you keep bring up same argument over and over. It you who want make neutral article bias by making pro-israel and pro-jew push discredit arab food. Please stop. Ani medjool (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I did read your argument (now removed). I am simply ignoring it for reasons that you are well aware of.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You chose ignore truth? Any how. There be no consensus to add "Israel" pov to article. Only concensus be to keep region category and arab category. Maybe we work on other issue this article have, like remove the gallery? Ani medjool (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I choose to ignore rants that are only questionably related and filled with spite. The gallery discussion is in another section. And again, other editors think Israeli cuisine should be a cat so don't pretend it is just me. And is there consensus to keep "Arab"? I don't see it? Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if this virtual food fight turns physical and people start hurling falafel balls at each other...I'll make sure to bring a plate and fork and pick up some of the "weapons" to snack on...mmmm... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is funny but there are three things that need to be addressed. It has become bogged down but is a) it Arab or simply Middle Eastern (and if so are a couple of countries in north Africa covered by Middle Eastern as seen in the Wikipedia article or are they enough to need Arab in addition to the Middle East parent category)? b) Jewish (see the recent sources) c) significant enough in Israel to deserve the category? I personally would like to get a section on nutrition in but his crap needs to be taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There be plenty of source about "Israel" theft of Arab food, but just because it be stealed, do not make it belong to "Israel" or be "Israel" cuisine. Just like the foto gallery that push Israel pov, it need be remove. All category was fine and article steady until pov pusher come along and try to rewrite history of arab food. Ani medjool (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Copt food. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

^ http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Xui-e0XZAvwJ:www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/arabia.html+yemenite+jews+to+palestine&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk The Jewish Kingdoms of Arabia

[1] ttp://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Xui-e0XZAvwJ:www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/arabia.html+yemenite+jews+to+palestine&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk The Jewish Kingdoms of Arabia

[1]

See also