Talk:Falafel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Case of the Missing French Fries

In the photograph entitled 'Falafel and French fries', the French fries are conspicuously absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.57 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that was what that weird looking thing in the pita was. It isnt supposed to be "falafel with a plate of french fried" but "falafel with french fies shoved in the sandwich covered in stuff" from what I can tell.Cptnono (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Spelling, dates, and conversions. Anyone care what variation of English we use? The only reason I ask is that the recent conversions and the dates do not match. I don;t care either way but if someone else wants to make the decision that is cool.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that the first one that was established in the article, given that there is no other obvious one that should have priority.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Name

This source that I provided here months ago say its an arabic name, No source has been provided saying anything else: "[from Arabic felāfil]" Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 [1], another source from the article: Cupboard Love: A Dictionary of Culinary Curiosities p124. So that is the only relevant translation for the name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the sources currently in? Do you dispute the current wording?Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the etymology section not this. Your source has nothing to do with that line. There was a previous consensus to remove the Greek translation so maybe Hebrew is the same scenario. I think is not necessary and only serves to stick it in Israel's craw. Not really a big deal though so screw it.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That does meant that "Egyptian and Sudanese Arabic: طعمية ta'miyya" also needs to go according to SDs logic.Cptnono (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but Cptnono is right. If the only reason to have the Arabic spelling/pronunciation is etymological, then there's no good rationale for keeping the Egyptian Arabic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a big deal if someone adds irrelevant translations for an Arabic name in the lead of this Arabic name. All the sources provided say its an Arabic name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources say it's related to ta'miyya, so by your logic that should be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But if it was created in Alexandria (

The original name is Arabic, and ta'miyya is another Arabic version of a name for it. Egyptian and Sudanese is arabic. Considering this, I don't know if ta'miyya should stay or go. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an Egyptian dish. It was adopted by the rest of the region, but what it is called in the place of origin should be included. nableezy - 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is widely believed to be started by Copts in Egypt but this is not 100% verified. Anyways, part of Egypt does not call it ta'miyya so unless you can show that it originates from a region that did and that it was originally called ta'miyya then it is not as relevant as your argument says it is. Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only "part of Egypt" that does not call it t3miyya is those who speak the Alexandrian dialect. There are 3 main dialects in Egypt: Alexandrian, Cairene, and Saidi. Alexandrian is identical to Cairene with the exception of a few words and forms, Sai'di is very different terms of pronunciation, not so much in vocabulary. The overwhelming majority of the population speaks Cairene Arabic. Your beliefs as to what is or is not relevant do not really concern me, I maintain that the name used in the place of origin should be retained. This is an Egyptian dish and what Egyptians call it should be retained. nableezy - 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But if it originates from Alexandria (we don't know of course but the Copts appear to have a very strong link to the city) then ta'miyya is not necessary. I still don't think it is a big deal but I also was fine with keeping all of the translations from places where it is a major dish. Speaking strictly about etymology being the reason for the removal of Hebrew than it applies to others as well. This is starting to become a little over nationalistic.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument revolves around the idea that maybe the Copts in Alexandria made Falafel and then maybe they didnt call it t3miyya and then maybe the other Egyptians did. Sorry, but that is an unconvincing argument. There are sources saying that the dish originated in Egypt and sources saying the name used in Egypt is tamiyya. End of story as far as I am concerned, the name used in the place of origin should be included. You can add your feelings on nationalism to the list of things I dont care about. nableezy - 21:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument revolves around it being Egyptian. Sorry, but that is an unconvincing argument. Alexandria is a pretty big town.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, my argument is that there are sources that specifically say that this is of Egyptian origin and give an Egyptian name. The name used in Alexandria is also included, so there is no issue there. If a different name was used in Alexandria that could also be included. As it is, we have a source saying that the dish is Egyptian and providing us with an Egyptian name. Your protestations are without basis and only brought up because you dont like the Hebrew name being removed. If you want to argue about that make that argument. At this point however your "nationalistic" protests are useless. Sources give the place of origin as Egypt and further give the name used in Egypt. Why exactly should that not be included? And "maybe it was made in Alexandria" is not a valid reason. nableezy - 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care if Hebrew is included or not. But if one thing is removed and not the other it smacks of nationalism which is annoying. Just because some people call it one thing in a country it may have originated from does not mean that it deserves prominence over a other areas that enjoy yummy food. It does not even appear to be Arab Egyptian in origin.Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And note that I have not made any change up until this point since it would be counterproductive. See what I am saying?Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"some people call it one thing in a country it may have originated from", interesting. A book published by Oxford University Press says the following:

It is, however, generally accepted that falafel originated in Egypt

and:

Falafel are called ta'amia in Egypt, except for Alexandria.

So "generally accepted" becomes "may", and approximately 95% of 80 million people becomes "some people". Would you like to try again? nableezy - 02:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don;t change the subject.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not. Would you like to try again? nableezy - 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You ignored the primary reason given for not including it and repeated an argument already responded too. There does appear to me editors in favor of removing it despite you continuing this debate.Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My inclination is that we should just have the Arabic spelling and pronunciation of Falafel up there but mention in the discussion of the origins that most Egyptians call it ta'amia.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the name used in the place of origin should be in the lead. The only reason to include the Arabic is because the word Falafel is of Arabic origin, if that were not true we shouldnt even need that. But the inclusion of the name used in the place of origin is independent of the etymology of the English word, on its own it merits being in the lead. nableezy - 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is a better idea to celebrate what is common and unites us as humans, like prosaic fast food. I'm not aware of cousin origin rule written anywhere in Wiki holy books. Many different and strange people eat the dish. From what I gathered in another delicious dish article, Tahini, we should not only restore פלאפל but also add Φαλάφελ. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know where it cam frome and we don't know what the Copts called it (since it is widely believed and all that it was them). The word used by some (or even most) in modern day Egypt is not needed there.

What it is called in the place of origin, as reported by a reliable source, belongs. If you have a reliable sourcefor what it is called in Coptic add that, but we have a source reporting the name used in the place of origin. nableezy - 05:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And AgadaUrbanit's idea sucks since we should use Klingon too! :) Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hands off hummus - it is totally Lebanese dish! Reliable sources report, Lebanon wins the hummus war. And one could test him/herself in Political correctness language, by answering how do they call the Turkish coffee in Athens. Etymology is definitely overrated.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Malik, Peter, and myself are in favor, SD said he didn't know, can't tell about AgadaUrbanit, Nableezy is arguing but so far hasn't convinced anyone. The arguments presented should be enough fr its removal. We can put Hebrew back in and it will be less of a touchy subject for some. We could also just remove it for the reasoning provided. Anyone else want to offer some thoughts before we just keep on reverting?Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You just admitted violating WP:POINT. You are only removing the Egyptian to prove a point about the Hebrew. One thing is not dependent on the other. If Greek and Italian and Spanish and Chinese were included as Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Chinese people eat falafel you would actually have a point about the Hebrew not being included. They arent, and it is a silly reason to include a name of a food. That people who speak a language eat a food is not a reason to include the name of that food in the language. The name used in the place of origin is wholly independent of such an idiotic reason that comparing the two is <insert disparaging remark here>. The Egyptian name for a food originated in Egypt should be included, I dont care about any of the reasons for or against including any other language. The only person making this a "touchy subject" is you. If you would like to stop making, oh lets go with your favorite phrase, "contentious" edits then there will not bet any further reverts. nableezy - 05:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't(edit: by some I meant what I presume will look like nationalism based squabbling to the reader. I wasn't clear but in all reality I shouldn't even have to bog down the conversation in defending myself) and you have just made an accusation I have already addressed and denied. It is true that I would have not even noticed without SD removing Hebrew but since I did notice and agreed with his edit to some extent (although I would be happy with multiple translations) then one name for it in part of Egypt is still not needed. And you again repeated another argument that I already addressed. Stop filibustering and try to see if we can get consensus (so far it is swinging in favor of SDs argument and my expansion upon it). And you mentioned contentious. You are the only editor out of four providing reasoning to keep the translation. I also doubt you would say that Malik and Peter are POV pushers of Israeli stuff. So I am actually considering reverting but would prefer not to. Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone agree that we don't need all that Sanskrit stuff?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (soing his best to AGF)

Why not? Please see The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, discussing Falafel etymology. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a wild guess. If we look at etymology, طعمية ta'miyya sounds to me like tasty or tasteful, deliciousness if you want. No argument makes you think about falafel, kind of synonym. The root is Ṭāʼ-ʿayn-mīm, which means taste in a semitic language I'm familiar with. So nourishment, i.e. food is close but a little bit off. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falafel&action=historysubmit&diff=375979250&oldid=375978642 This edit] removed it from the body. That was one thing Peter had mentioned as reason to support removing it from the lead like it is. I was actually the one who added it in the body a month or so ago. Not sure if it is needed or not but wanted to mention it since it might trow off the reasoning to remove it from the lead per one of those commenting. Is it needed down there or is that a separate discussion?

And is the Sanskrit stuff available online that you know of AU? Doesn't need to be but I am feeling a little lazy and a link would be sweet if you have it.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, didn't realize it was sourced in the body.Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've stumbled at reliable sources describe the usage of ta'miyya term by Egyptians, we definitely need to improve the citation. The lede inclusion of the term and origin reasoning looks inappropriate to me and not supported by Wikirules and reliables sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does that even mean? A book published by Oxford University Press says this, no improvement is needed to anything. nableezy - 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, it says there "Origin can not be traced". So does "Slow food" source. We getting pretty sure, that some people are eating falafel today. We also know in Egypt, they have been doing it for some time, since Fava beans were found in Egyptian pyramids and Copts prepare falafel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"generally accepted" is clear. nableezy - 02:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Sanskrit in the lead? it even says "perhaps", it should be in etymology instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I read it as the Arabic term being drived from Sansktir but tat is not how it is written. AM I incorrect?I would be fine with removing both from the lead but that might be me "compromising" which is a poor reason.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what the source says. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language [2] Falafel-Arabic - of filfil - probably from Sanskrit pippal. So its not falafel thats from Sanskrits pippal, its Falafel from Filfil, and then probably (not confirmed) the filfil (pepper) from sanskrit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So Falafel is related to Sanskrit? I was reading it as Falafel is from Arabic and the Arabic word for pepper is from Sanskrit. But is it instead Falafel is from Arabic which took the term from Sanskrit?Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "felafel" is derived from the Sanskrit word for pepper via the Arabic word for pepper. The word for a certain style of facial fuzz is mutton chop which is derived from the French mouton meaning a sheep via the English term for a certain type of food of which the facial fuzz's shape is reminiscnet. I would not expect the opening sentence of the article on mutton chops to mention that there is an indirect linguistic French source to the term and I can't see how the current case is different.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptian name was once again removed from the lead without giving a proper response to the reasons to retain it. I have restored it. nableezy - 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are on the other side of consensus. Stop restoring. 4 editors disagree with you. Stop playing revert games and find an alternative.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not "whatever Cptnono and Agada Urbanit say". Which 4 editors disagree with me? The only thing Malik wrote is "If the only reason to have the Arabic spelling/pronunciation is etymological, then there's no good rationale for keeping the Egyptian Arabic." which, in case we need remedial lessons on English here, is an if then statement. If the if is not true then the then is not true (see, another if then statement!). Peter wrote that he would rather have it just in the body, which is an understandable position to take, though I invite him, as an editor I actually respect, to respond to my reason for including in the lead, that reason being that it should be included on the sole basis of being the name used in the place of origin. Not one person has actually given any type of response to that reason except for your laughable "well maybe it was made by the Copts in Alexandria and maybe they didnt call it tamiya and maybe the rest of Egypt changed the name". But I wont restore it exactly as it was, but I will restore it to the lead again. Give an actual reason, saying 4 editors disagree is meaningless, especially when it is not clear that they actually disagree. nableezy - 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already listed them. AU, Peter, Malik, and myself. I have also provided reason more than once. And you are edit warring again. Funny enough, I don;t mind your recent edit per WP:LEAD. You did handle it incorrectly again and I am considering another edit warring report since you just won;t stop.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

again, Malik has not given a position, he has made a few if then statements that leave it ambiguous as to whether or not he would rather include the Egyptian name in the lead. Peter below says he is fine with the way I put it in. So now it is down to you and Agada, and the "reason" you have given is baseless. And file whatever you want, your feelings on correctness dont really concern me. I am not "edit warring again" but if you would like a repeat of your last performance at AN3 feel free. Bye. nableezy - 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"but Cptnono is right. If the only reason to have the Arabic spelling/pronunciation is etymological, then there's no good rationale for keeping the Egyptian Arabic" Is a position. And I don't care what one admin said if you continually revert on the same thing you are edit warring. It is simple enough. However (as mentioned above and similar to Peter) I also am alright with you going the route of WP:LEAD to insert the info. I have expanded upon it to make it more inline with what is expected of a lead.Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what an if then statement is? Malik was arguing Supreme's logic dictated removing the Egyptian name, he did not however say that he agreed with the logic. The conclusion is dependent on the acceptance of the if and Malik has yet to make a statement on whether or not he agreed with the if. nableezy - 11:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Go Egypt! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with Nableezy's latest change. My objection was to it bring right in the first sentence. I'm not convinced by the claim of an ancient Eqyptian origin for the dish. It is sourced, but I suspect that the author's colleague in the main ancient history department of the university would be a lot more circumspect than this adult education specialist.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary (4th edition, 2000) is almost certainly wrong. It does not make sense from a semantic perspective. Alternative Syriac etymology for Levantine word is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Text taken out of context

Here it was added: "Historically falafel was also eaten by Jews in Egypt and Syria and other Arab world countries", this is presented as if it is was a historically Jewish dish, this is how the reader of the text will see it.

But if you look at the source, it says. "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." "Yael Raviv of N.Y.U. added that falafel's lack of history as a specifically Jewish food speeded its adoption in the Jewish state" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"was also".Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To Malik

Where in the article does it say that Jews in other Arab countries then Egypt and Syria ate falafel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood your objection, which is now clearer to me. I'll self-revert. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Copts

The cited source does not say that it is generally accepted to have first been made by Copts. One source does say that it has been traced to the Copts, the other says that Copts claim to have invented the dish. What is "generally accepted" is that it came from Egypt. nableezy - 12:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Multiple sources say it and this shouldn't even be disputed. I will pull up more sources for you tonight (unless you have the time to do it yourself since it is so common it should be a breeze).Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that the Copts claim this as a Coptic invention, one source says there is evidence tracing it back to Pharaonic times, many more sources just say Egypt and end with that. I aint the one who put it in the article so I dont plan on looking for more sources, so yes, bring more sources. nableezy - 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"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." That says it pretty well. The author does go on to list the other claims but gives prominence to the Copts. He did it very well.[3] Of course, some sources say it as if it is fact. This is presumably because it is such a common theory ("...originated in Egypt with the Coptic Christians".[4] This one just says that it is "traditionally" Coptic.[5]

One thing you are correct about is that it is often cited as a claim. However, this is often done while disregarding the others so it might be appropriate to reword it (that it is a claim) while still giving that claim the same prominence that the sources do.[6][7] This one even says "particularly".[8]

Do you have any suggestions for rewording it?Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. In the lead and the infobox leave it as Egyptian and expand on that in the body citing the various claims made, giving more prominence to the one made by the Copts. It is widely accepted as a fact it came from Egypt, the level of acceptance of the "theory" or "claim" that it was originated by the Copts of Egypt does not reach the same level. Besides, Egyptian Copts are undeniably Egyptian, whether or not it came from the Copts of from the Egyptians of Pharaonic times or after the Arab invasion of Egypt doesnt change whether or not it is Egyptian. It is almost undisputed that the dish has an Egyptian origin and we can say that easily. It is not undisputed, or "widely accepted" as the text now reads, that it has a Coptic origin. nableezy - 05:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other solutions? Much like your reasoning for including the alternate name (is that what your argument is about anyways?) Copts recieve prominence in the sources and deserve prominance in the lead. Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My argument for including the Egyptian name was not that it is simply an alternative name but that it is the name used in the country of origin. If you insist on including Copts in the lead then word it as a claim, but remove it from the infobox as that is not the place for claims. nableezy - 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes we have already discussed that and I still disagree with you per the lengthy discussion above. What I meant was, is this request on the possible Coptic origins based on your need to include one of the Egyptian names in the lead?

Since it is all claims, the infobox would then be empty. So I don't know if that is the best method. The claim is the prominent one. For the lead, reworking it to make it clear that it is a claim that is often given credit would be fine. Toning it down to meet your needs (that it is especially the Copts who claim it) might be fine. I hate compromising on what appears to be going against many sources but getting something done that doesn't cause so much frustration is a nice carrot.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about?

Hello people.

I'm a regular guy, I was just eating some falafel, rather nice in fact.

So I looked it up on Wikipedia. What do I find? You guys in the Middle East fight over everything, even something that's nothing more than a snack.

I want to read about falafel, not some petty dispute about who invented it ages ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.223.128 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I second that emotion." I've eaten falafel in Egypt and Israel. Everybody loves it. Rather than bickering, why not incorporate all the various origin theories? Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Best talk page comment ever. I was under the impression that this was worked out though? Is there anything that looks out of place in the article (I know the talk page is a mess). I am still considering getting a pic of a mexican making falafel in a greek joint owned by a lebanese guy in seattle just for shits and giggles.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cat: Arab cuisine

Please discuss before removing this cat, its an Arab dish and there are Arab countries not in the Middle East. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As discussed previously, the Middle East can cover the other countries as well. "the term has recently been expanded in usage to sometimes include Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and North Africa.". Middle East is a simple way to handle the cats and is the parent of multiple other cats. However, if we want to include Israel also then it is less of a problem since it is clear that weight should be given to moth Arabs and Israel. "Middle East" was a way to not politicize it but if we want to do one then the other is needed.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten about that discussion, thought Macrakis had just now removed the cat without discussing it. But reading through it now I don't see consensus there to remove the cat. Consensus is based on arguments, not votes. Israel is in the Middle East so its covered by the Middle East cat, while there are Arab countries not in the middle east, and they are not covered by the Middle East cat, therefore the Arab cat should be re added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained (which you did not address), the Middle East cat should be sufficient but if we are going to politicize it then we need to do both.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw you linking to a Wikipedia article, do you have a reliable source that says Middle east is also North Africa? If not then Sudanese cuisine cat should be re added as its an arab country not covered in the cats now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that article has plenty of sources discussing the concept of "traditional" vs the G8 definition of the Greater Middle East. Click on those.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find a (reliable) source that say North Africa is the Middle East. Can you show me the source you used? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are more than capable of reading the article and clicking on the sources. You can also see the wikilink to the Greater Middle East. As previously discussed, it is believed to have originated in Egypt (probably by the Copts) before spreading throughout the Levant. Both are covered in the category. If you want to add countries in North Africa, please make sure to add countries throughout the Mediterranean as well. Since it is popular worldwide, we can probably even add dozens of country categories. You can do that if you want or you can keep it simple and use "Middle East" since that is more than likely where it originated and where it has historically been most popular. Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Sudan, its a neighboring country of Egypt, you can not put it in the same position as for example Europe. It is regarded as Sudanese food, and we have no reason to believe that it came to Sudan recently. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can;t we put in th same position as a country like Europe? We really don't need to anyways. Roderic H. Davison said it was in the Middle East (I don't know why you don't think he is reliable) and the BBC has it listed under the Middle East country profiles[9]. Sudan is also categorized as being in the Middle East here on Wikipedia. I understand that the concept of the "Greater Middle East" has received some grief but there could be an argument to make that cuisine in Sudan could be part of the Middle East cuisine cat if someone wanted.

I don't see it being that big of a deal navigationaly either but lean towards not using the country specific cat since ten it will seem odd not to add tons of other countries. Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New pic

Awhile back I took this photo of a falafel press and uncooked falafels. Maybe it would be useful in the article, since it shows a process that is currently not depicted. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this pic is cool and I like the way you artistically arranged all the items on the plate. What is the metal tool? BTW, on another front, falafel helps minimize people's impact on the environment and the harm they do to animals. It is a legitimate and well-established substitute for shawarma and other animal-based dishes. Meat and other animal products use several times the amount of resources as vegetarian foods, and livestock are usually kept in conditions of almost total sensory deprivation and confinement. While intended to encourage compassion and humility, even Kashrut and Dhabiha Halal do not address the horrifying conditions in which the animals live. Kudos to everyone who cooks and eats falafel, a dish that promotes non-violence to animals in the Middle East and wherever it is served. If only more of us were looking for ways to promote non-violence to people. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The metal tool is a falafel press, used to form and shape falafels. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet image. Unfortunately, I think it would be overstuffed (pun intended) if we added another. We currently have two showing different serving suggestions and one with a dude frying them (with a tool). Not sure if this should take place over those. Of course, I-P conflict wise it might be more smooth.Cptnono (talk)

The photo is fine. The article is long enough to support several photos. This is a utensil and thus shows another aspect of falafel preparation. Nobody has objected to the photo. Too much blah-blah is the problem here. Just put it in.--Yespleazy (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually isn't long enough. You sandwiched text which is against the MoS. I was tinkering with it (since guy facing away from the text is also frowned upon) but it ended up breaking into the next section if moved down a paragraph. That might be acceptable but I think it looks like butt that way. If people like this then cool but I saw enough concerns to revert. Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aleb falafel

The caption to the photo says the man is using an aleb falafel. That term isn't defined in the article until the following section ("Preparation and variations").

Would anybody object if I switched the two images (the falafel sandwich and the falafel cook)? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible move to me. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 05:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Falafel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose):I find the prose is clear and concise (even engaging), and the spelling and grammar are correct.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Lead comply with lead and perfectly meets this request: "establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more". It is not too long and authors found very good balance between "the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". The text of the article complies with requests of layout, although maybe it would be a good idea to have "See also" section with links including (i.e.) Middle Eastern cuisine and Vegetarian cuisine. In that case links to other wikiprojects (wikibooks and commons) could be placed in see also section which is more appropriate place for them than references section. Also, I hope that Nutrition template will have a better place in future, after the increase of the text of the article or template is improved and made collapsible. There are no words to watch in it.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   a. (references):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects): I think that Falafel is also very popular in Europe, not only in Middle East or USA but that is a possibility for the future improvement.

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Congratulations, not an easy job in this article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: I think that all past disputes are properly resolved following NPOV policy

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass.

Politics

There are too edits that I plan on reverting since it is uneeded politics. The name line just reads clearer to me with the explanation of it meaning fritters or the sandwich being first and all of the otherstuff together after. Unless we need to highlight the Arabness of it then there is no reason not too. The other was another editor who figured out a way to incorporate the Hebrew word. He did this very well in a way that improves the reader's understanding and is not overly descriptive. We should stop making this article overly political while highlighting Arab aspects while degrading mentions of Israel. We could actually go for GA if editors would lighten up. Reverting over etymology is WP:LAME.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The two changes you recommended are both good ones, so I put them back in place.

By the way, we're already lame. See WP:LAME#Hummus and friends. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize. LOL: "Conclusion: Tasty snacks in the Middle East are hilariously politicized." Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I'd be game for helping this reach GA status...Any suggestions on where to start? -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 09:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been toying with the idea. I think the prose are about good enough but that isn't my strongest area here. I was considering just banging out some Manual of Style stuff and going for it. But if you see anything then awesome. Getting an article that has had so much back and forth up to par would be sweet. And since it is in a wikilove template it makes even more sense. Do you see any road blocks withing the prose or anywhere else right now?Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. The biggest obstacle I can think of, and I hope it's a thing of the past, is that an article won't get promoted to GA if there's edit-warring or a content dispute. But the article has been pretty stable, so I don't think that should be a problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That is quick fail criteria even! Been concerned about it but so far it has slowed down and if it is in bursts from IPs and stuff it hopefully won't be a problem. Going from lamest edit war to GA would be an accomplishment.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well the history and variations sections are a bit wordy. The history section also seems to second-guess the lede. I think the history section should be rewritten to reflect what the majority of sources say about its origin while minor "alternate theories" (ie: the indian and pharoic origins) can reduced to a footnote...unless someone can find a way to include them neatly so they dont seem like they're just stuck there for the sake of being stuck there. Some of the sources could be of better quality too. For instance Ref #4, thefreedictionary.com, seems to use Wikipedia as its source. In my opinion this source, on pg. 183, seems to be rather comprehensive (in regards to the origins of falafel & copt influence) and, unlike some of the other sources, its a section/chapter actually focused on Falafel. Many of other sources are either political news articles or just mention falafel in passing (where the main subject of the source is something else).... I realize the source above may be called "encyclopedia of jewish food", but if one can look past the title, it does have some relevant, concise and good information about the history of the food. But thats just my two cents.

Anyhow I'll stop my rambling...How about we work on the MOS issues and maybe clean up the history and variations section so they have a smoother flow? Falafel is *very* big in the vegan/vege. community, so that might even be worthy of a subsection under variations. Thoughts?? -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I really like the alternate theories but they deserve very little weight and there is currently a WP:WORDS violation that bugs me. I do feel that a line is needed somehow since it fills out the article and addresses some sources. It is definitely a minority opinion but it is of unknown origin. Not sure ow to handle this one.

Good catch on Ref #4

I agree that falafel is not discussed in great detail in some of the sources but notability is established so we are just going for verifiability. The political aspect is of course a concern since it can just go too far. If there is anything that is contested we should consider that political leaning books might have their reliability comprimised.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We can also adjust wording on this end so it is more neutral if the source is considered reliable but biased.Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of rambling, now I am doing it. In regards to wordiness, I notice a little bit of it too. Redundant words should probably be trimmed per this respected essay.Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

Couple preliminary formatting notes

• Going to make the refs uniform. Will probably just use CS2 templates when they are not already the same. I started going through it but realized that alone will be a six pack down so will hold off until this weekend.
• Light cleanup regarding variances in language. The first versions are supposed to set the tone (I assume to have an easy answer to bickering on a first come first serve basis) but I personally have no problem with not American English, ISO, metric. So as it stands unless someone does have a strong second preference:
  • WP:ENGVAR is American English (I think) with yogurt not having an h.(Jan 2003!)
  • Date might be "month day, year" since this attempt at formatting a ref was not day month.2006
  • Sick of looking but thinking of putting measurements in United States customary units to make it uniform with the above.
• I love File:Il Falafel di Ramallah.JPG. The subject of the image facing away from the text is frowned upon. It is not prohibited. I am thinking no change is necessary but if someone thinks it should be put to the left or an alternative should be provided please say so.
• Images are licensed fine
• Alt text would be nice but is not GA (or even FA anymore I think) criteria.
• No dabs.[10]
• One dead link. That one was easy to find so should be easily replaced.

Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ideas sound good. I think the image was put on the left during one of the many photo disputes of the past. As it stands now, I dont see any formatting issues as to why it can't be properly placed in the article. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me right-aligning the image of the guy frying falafel? Its always bothered me being on the left side... -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do it. I kind of like it there but MoS is important. And if one of us doesn't like it then it means that others will also not like it.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Moved the image over.
• Added some sources. Added a few lines. Removed two whole paragraphs but replaced them with content (less, unfortunately) that was actually sourced. Probably a contentious edit but the tags sat for a few days.
• Needs a good copy edit (thanks for the handful of fixes, Hertz!)
• MoS with the translations needs to be addressed.
• The source that was mentioned above has some good info (surprisingly enough) so I did not remove it. Any bias lines that need to be addressed from it or is its overall reliability in question?

Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its looking better. I need to put in some of the vegan stuff I've found to help bulk it up. What source were you questioning? -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 08:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would love to see a little bit more on that side of things. As it is now, it being a vegetarian dish is sprinkled throughout but probably not enough. I was thinking you might enjoy the Vegetarian Times piece. Available on google books[11]

"Encyclopedia of Jewish Food" was mentioned last week.[12]

Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When we expand the nutrition section, we can add this nutrition chart:

Falafel, home-prepared

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy	1,393 kJ (333 kcal)
Carbohydrates	31.84 g
Fat	17.80 g
Protein	13.31 g
Vitamins	Quantity %DV†
Vitamin A	13 IU
Thiamine (B1)	12% 0.146 mg
Riboflavin (B2)	13% 0.166 mg
Niacin (B3)	7% 1.044 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5)	6% 0.292 mg
Vitamin B6	7% 0.125 mg
Folate (B9)	20% 78 μg
Vitamin B12	0% 0.00 μg
Minerals	Quantity %DV†
Calcium	4% 54 mg
Iron	19% 3.42 mg
Magnesium	20% 82 mg
Manganese	30% 0.691 mg
Phosphorus	15% 192 mg
Potassium	20% 585 mg
Sodium	13% 294 mg
Zinc	14% 1.50 mg
Other constituents	Quantity
Water	34.62 g
†Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

Already have the Veg. Times article saved. I was surprised at the quality of the info given in the Jewish Encycl...How its been used in the article, so far, does not seem to create bias...Although, as you know, in the past anything (sources, photos, even editors) with a "Jewish" or "Israeli" connection have/has brought fierce opposition from certain editors -- which was my concern in this case. If we can find a source that is as comprehensive as the one given in the Jewish Enc. of Food, it might be good to swap it -- in the interest of trying to keep everyone happy. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 09:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At one time Pasta was GA. Maybe looking at a version of it while it was GA would be helpful, since I have been unable to find many human-produced food articles that are GA [13]. (btw, I think there were some template changes, so you will have to scroll down) -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking. Unfortunately, it looks like this was the reviewed version of pasta which looks like it isn't good enough to emulate. That article does go into more detail but I don't know if falafel has as much coverage or is as prominent. The pasta article could be even longer than it is now.

The Encyclopedia of Jewish Foods is something that could get swapped out or backed by other sources if available just to keep things smoother. I'll keep an eye out, too.

I saw you pop that template in last night and my initial reactions were 1) Sweet, more info! and 2)Whoa, that is long. Not sure what the MoS is for that sort of thing. Is it collapsible? Might also be a good option for b:Cookbook:Falafel? I'm not very familiar with that project.Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work with the article, Cptnono. With respect to the nutrition infobox, I don't think it's a problem. The two "sister projects" boxes already force the footnotes to the left. Why not fill the space on the right with the nutritional information? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about noming this now. In my opinion, it is a solid "B" class article with easy potential to be GA but not "A" class and certainly not FA. If I was reviewing it, I would initially think that it is a little short. However, I know what is available in the sources I have seen so doubt there is much more besides the politics. I would hate to add "meat" (pun maybe intended) to the article for the sake of adding to the word count since the only stuff left that I can think of is based on politics. Adding in much more info on that would overweight the article, IMO. So any other thoughts before pulling the trigger? Cptnono (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the nutrition box to the references section, per the suggestion by Malik Shabazz. I also added a vegetarian subsection with material sourced from vegan and vegetarian books & magazines. Perhaps someone should give it a once over copy/edit for clarity and to avoid potential repetition. Otherwise, I say go ahead and nominate it for GA. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work digging up those sources.

I can see the new subsection being a paragraph without a subheader in "History" but it also makes sense in the "Preparation and Variations". I lean towards preferring it in "History" but am not sure.

Any minor copyediting done or ref format tweaks is nothing compared to my sloppy drunken fingers so it is great.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The history section is written so hap-hazardly (jumbled?), and seems to have more do to with the Arab-Israeli conflict that it does with actual "history" of the food -- which is why I put it in the "variation" section. Otherwise it gets "lost" in the conflict "tirade" (maybe someone might want to pare down or reorganize the "tirade", so non political information doesn't get lost?). Anyhow, I tweaked the nutrition section, and added a bit of info about fiber content and the impact that high fiber foods like falafel have on health disorders like diabetes and high cholesterol. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 05:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the fence so if you think that is the way to go then it is fine by me.

Stuff like fiber and cholesterol is exactly what was needed to get it to what I would consider GA standards. Even if it does not make it, the base is so good that I am happy about it.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there someway we can collapse or "hat note" the nutrition box, so we can move it up to the nutrition section?? I've been looking but haven't seen anything like that available so far. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 05:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should nominate the article for GA review whenever you feel like it. There's usually a backlog at WP:GAN, so it's not likely somebody will be here tomorrow to review the article. In the next day or so, I'll take a close look at the text and make any minor changes I think are necessary. Great work, guys! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe in the meantime I can figure out how to create some sort of collapsible code for the nutrition box, so its not lost in the ref section. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 06:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume it needs to be a change to the actual template. Is that talk page or the creator still active over there? Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to check. I organized the history section into three subsections: middle east, north america and vegetarianism. This seemed logical and helps with the flow (I think). The north american subsection is small, but I'll dig up more over the next day or two. I also added additional sources to help shore up presently existing information. I also added sourced content to the middle east subsect. about one of the reasons falafel became popular with Jews (in Israel) was because it is parve under the laws of Kashrut. If someone objects to this, feel free to remove it. I only added it in because it explained partly why it became popular, since the section previously really only addressed the political contention between Arabs/Jews/Palestinians/Israelis/Fooians etc. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎}

You can use {{Collapse top|Title=text}} to collapse the nutrition box. Like so:

Nutrition information

Falafel, home-prepared Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) Energy 1,393 kJ (333 kcal) Carbohydrates 31.84 g Fat 17.80 g Protein 13.31 g Vitamins Quantity %DV† Vitamin A 13 IU Thiamine (B1) 12% 0.146 mg Riboflavin (B2) 13% 0.166 mg Niacin (B3) 7% 1.044 mg Pantothenic acid (B5) 6% 0.292 mg Vitamin B6 7% 0.125 mg Folate (B9) 20% 78 μg Vitamin B12 0% 0.00 μg Minerals Quantity %DV† Calcium 4% 54 mg Iron 19% 3.42 mg Magnesium 20% 82 mg Manganese 30% 0.691 mg Phosphorus 15% 192 mg Potassium 20% 585 mg Sodium 13% 294 mg Zinc 14% 1.50 mg Other constituents Quantity Water 34.62 g †Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried a variation of your idea. I need to work on getting it right aligned and floating....maybe tomorrow. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 06:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Somethings been bothering me

I am proud that we got to GA. I know it is silly but it makes me completely stoked. And it helped m Wikicup run (even though I wish it would have been passed just a couple days later for points in the group stage). But since I am looking at a topic ban I wanted to get this my thoughts on it out there before hand.

The Palestinian vs Israel thing lead to some horrible bickering. It is so bad even now that I question bringing this up. However, this is GA now and it should stay that way. I feel a single line discussing Israel "theft" of the dish is appropriate. Not paragraphs. Not lines with 5 citations. Not a separate subsection. Just a single line that adds on to the "resentment" line. I actually thought about removing some of the mentions of Israel while prepping it but the sources were just too strong. If someone can find a source saying "Arabs are upset since they feel that Israelis identified with the dish like they did with x,y, z (oranges, this dish, or that one with wikilinks)" that is reliable then I would be happy to see it in. I know there was one like this in but it was not RS. I believe there was another one in months ago but it was removed due to POV concerns.

I really do not want to see this article overly focus on politics. One more line may not hurt, though. might be overthinking it but am starting to worry about maintaining GA and presenting just enough that it is in but not so much that it overbalances the article. I know Nsaum believes there might be to much already so simply pruning the already in info might be a better choice. He might be right.

The line is too fine sometimes, right? Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I still believe the political contention part could be condensed or pruned. To the majority of the people in the world Falafel is a food, not a political instrument. Here in Oaxaca in restaurants that serve "comida de Oriente Medio" or "comida vegetariana", the politics behind the food never comes up. Heck, most people identify it as a vegetarian dish brought to Mexico by old American hippies (or young American hipsters), having very little knowledge of its middle-eastern origin. Anyhow, I plan on adding a European section once I've collected enough sources. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 01:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the key would be pruning a few of the "Iraelis did x,y, or z". I'm not sure what the line is but I know we have come close to it. A bit more or a bit less would satisfy my sense of what NPOV is. If nothing changes then that is fine too. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a line removed or a line added. It to me is so little that it shouldn't be much but I figure if I see a need for a minor adjustment then some editors might be looking for a paragraph difference. I'm OK with it as it is but if anyone wants to take a scalpel to the middleast section or add a line t it then it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I have to stress that I only see a minor change needed.Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation in first sentence

ElComandanteChe, MOS you linked to says: "Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged.". [14]. I don't see how this resembles the situation here.

Another guideline says: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical." [15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in the talk page archive. Since the word "falafel" is generally agreed not to have a Hebrew origin, it does not need to be in the first sentence. The פלאפל spelling is in the lead, so there is no need to give it twice. The Hebrew spelling is a transliteration, not a foreign language name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've briefly looked through the archive, but probably missed it. Any chance you can point me to that discussion? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is at Talk:Falafel/Archive_2#Hebrew_name_in_the_lede.3F, although as ever it is hard to keep everyone happy. The current version of the article has the Hebrew spelling in the WP:LEAD, but not in the first sentence, which is a fair compromise. The word is not of Hebrew origin, so this makes sense.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'm not going to reopen this discussion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was never completely happy with the "compromise" since sources point to it not being of Arabic origin or even from Cairo. So the argument that since it is probably from Copts in Alexandria but we need to push its probably nonexsixstent Arabic Egyptian origins in a way to highlight its popularity in Arab countries is not appropriate. But, it has been stable and is now GA. I would actually go for removing the Arabic translation at the very beginning but no change works just as well for me as well.

And to the IP: Please do not make controversial edits without seeing previous discussions or allowing any new discussions to come to a consensus. This article is now GA and qe do not need political bickering to get it delisted. Follow decent protocol. And to everyone else: don;t edit war.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You have mixed together the origin of the dish with the origin of the name for the dish.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And it is very convenient that the origin of name does not coincide with the origin of the dish but does highlight one POV while ignoring another. But your edit summary does not coincide with your most recent argument since you refer to native spelling. Consensus among the sources is that it is probably Coptic and not Arabic so it is not "native" to Arabs. Not using any translation would work fine for me. I also think that we could ax the Cairo dialect translation and would then see no reason to include the Hebrew. But as mentioned above, I am OK with no change if it keeps it stable. Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Falafel is an Arabic name, so its translation is native to its names origin. And its not established where the origin of the dish is from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it has already been resolved, but I just wanted to add my $.02: I would support axing the Cairo dialect and Hebrew from the lead because I don't see what they add, and I especially don't see any reason for them in the lead. However, the Arabic belongs at the very beginning because the word itself has been transliterated into English from Arabic, so it's important to show how it's actually written in the language from which the word comes. -- Irn (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess both the question of the language of origin, and the question of the language through which the word came into modern English are open. Moreover, I afraid the first question will remain mystery. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a question that the English word falafel comes from the Arabic فلافل? -- Irn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

mmmm GA. Tastes goood. Where were you guys then? The origin of the dish is not Arabic. The name is almost certainly. However, this is not wiktionary and if we run into a issue of asserting nationalism over NPOV then I am happy to disregard a template in the first line. If there is any question that we are calling it an Arabic dish with that translation then NPOV trumps it since it is not that important to the readers understanding (especially when we have a whole subsection devoted to it). It is stupid that Arabs and Jews are fighting over it but they are. And we do not take sides. As soon as it looks like we are giving preference (which we have with Nableezy doing everything possible to get Cairo dialect in and other editors making sure Hebrew is in) while others made sure Arabic was mentioned at the beginning) then it means we did it wrong. I am happy we got this to GA but if people are going to start crying over translations then the easy fix is to ax it since we have Wiktionary and a subsection and don;t need it. Note how nice the talk page was until people started whining about politics again. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that even when I am not here you cannot resist the urge to bring me up. Now that I noticed this I will respond. There is no "consensus among sources" that this was first made by Copts, there is consensus that this was first made in Egypt. I included the name used by the overwhelming majority of the people (including Copts) in the place of origin (and it is not simply a "Cairo dialect", it is an Egyptian dialect). I still see no reason why to include the Hebrew in this article. Falafel is also eaten in China, yet we do not include a Chinese name. This belief that one Arabic word has to be "neutralized" by a Hebrew word is nonsense. I realize that people from Israel like Falafel, thats great, God bless. But that is not a reason to include the Hebrew. I included the Egyptian name because, and only because, that is the name in the place of origin. The standard Arabic name should likewise be included as it is the source for the English name. Is there actually a reason to include the Hebrew name? nableezy - 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as much as the Arabic name. Did the Copts even speak Arabic way back? I am under the impression they did not. God bless the Egyptians for enjoying falafel but it is more than likely from a minority of the current state's population. Furthermore, it is more than likely from Alexandria where it is still not called "ta'amiya". It does not need to be nationalized and his is especially true since the descendants of those who most likely created it don;t even identify with the Arabs in Egypt. If you want to remove both translations i an attempt to limit nationalizing I might be on board with it but the Hebrew is handled perfectly fine. actually think the Arabic is now a little botched.

You also have began lowering this article on the quality scale. In your reaction to the IP, you added sources to lines that are not that controversial (verification wise) and addressed in the body. See the MoS on lead sections. I see a desisting pretty soon if editors want to start bickering over whos people get the most mention in the article. Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And the "urge" is based on your content submissions. No one can disagree that you were trying to get the Arabic name in and there was tons of discussion on it. If you had not been pushing so hard I wouldn't be surprised if both translations were gone. And that would be fine by me if that is what it takes to limit politicization of this article.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting that this was "likely" made first by Copts? Almost all the sources say that is an unverified claim. Please provide a source for your novel claim that it is "more than likely from Alexandria". The reason that standard Arabic word should be there is because the word "falafel" is an Arabic word. That you find the need to "balance" it with the word in some other random language says more about your urge to "politicize" such an article than mine. What exactly is the reason the Hebrew should be in the lead section? You say there "just as much" reason for the Hebrew as the Arabic. In 4 paragraphs about falafel in the Oxford companion to food the fact that falafel is known as ta'amiya in Egypt (which it identifies as the origin for the dish) is prominently identified. Notice that it words the idea that this was originally made by Copts as a "Coptic claim". Seems at least that source thinks what it is known as in the place of origin is something worth mentioning. Could you please provide the reason you say that there is "just as much" reason to include the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word in the lead of an article on street food? And, if you would be so kind, tell me how that reason is not "political"? Oh, to your accusation that I lowered the quality of the article. An IP requested inline citations. I know what LEADCITE says, thank you very much, but I would rather avoid an obsessive IP annoying me by providing the citation instead of removing the cn templates and having it quickly be reverted. nableezy - 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussions here and as an "outsider" arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Numbered list item

1. After researching the history of the two editors involved in nominating this article for "Good Article" status, it appears both of them are extremely partisan and have a history of promoting Israeli & Jewish perspectives at the expensive of the native populations & native cultures in the middle east. In some literary circles this might be considered cultural and historical revisionism.

2. The most outspoken editors against the article being considered a "Good Article" have a long history at this article, which I noted from the article's edit history and archives. However they were absent during the article improvement phase and review process. I gather in one of the sections below that one of the editors was under some sort of editing restriction at the time, however that does not make her input in this article any less valid or important.

3. Falafel has no history in the Jewish or Hebraic community. It is not mentioned by the Hebrew people of antiquity nor the Jewish people immigrated from their homelands in Europe during the 19th century.

4. Falafel is currently enjoyed by people residing in Israel, both the native arab populations and the immigrants and those decended from 19th and 20th century immigrants. In summation, given the facts presented above, the Hebraic translation does not belong in this article and it should have its "Good Article" status revoked until such time that neutral and factually correct information can be established by article newcomers and editors who did not participate in the flawed and politically tarnished original review process. ~MMFireman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmfireman (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think anybody wants to remove any Good Article status, whether or not the Hebrew is in the article. I dont think anybody is opposed to this being a GA, much less be outspoken about it. It is commendable that some editors want to improve an article on a topic, any topic, be it spiders or wars or falafel. There are problems with the article, whether or not it is a GA (and being a GA is really not that big a deal, one person reviews an article). One of these problems is, in my view, the inclusion of the Hebrew in a clearly transparent, even admitted to, attempt to provide some mythical "balance" to an Arabic word. I dont actually care if it is here or not, I dont think it should be, but it doesnt matter. What matters to me is the way an editor makes accusations about others politicizing an article on a food as though pushing for the inclusion of the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for an Egyptian dish is not "political". nableezy - 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, you need to answer my questions if you are going to make that revert. Specifically:

• Where are you getting that this was "likely" made first by Copts? Almost all the sources say that is an unverified claim.
• Please provide a source for your novel claim that it is "more than likely from Alexandria".
• The reason that standard Arabic word should be there is because the word "falafel" is an Arabic word. The reason why the Egyptian Arabic word is in there is because a reliable source, in fact the Oxford Companion to Food published by Oxford University Press, identifies Egypt as the place of origin and further gives the Egyptian Arabic word as the name in the place of origin. What exactly is the reason the Hebrew should be in the lead section? You say there is "just as much" reason, please tell me what that reason is. And, if you would be so kind, tell me how that reason is not "political"?

Please answer these questions. nableezy - 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting book from 1981, written by several linguists, that says the word falafel entered English from Israeli Hebrew. Which makes sense since "falafel" is the Hebrew pronunciation. Arabic is "falafil". It also supports what the article says about Israelis bringing falafel to the US. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Its an off-hand mention contradicted by many more sources. And it actually does not not say what you say, it says that Israeli restaurants are popularizing the term in the US. Also, have you ever heard the term falafel in Arabic? In most dialects it is pronounced almost exactly as it is in English, with the khaleeji Arabic giving it a bit more of an i than a soft e. nableezy - 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an off-hand mention, it's a specific example of a word that entered English from Hebrew, in a book about language in the US written by linguists and published by Cambridge University Press. That's about as RS as it gets. Which "many more sources" contradict it? And yes, I've heard the term falafel spoken in Arabic. Have you heard it in Hebrew? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is an off-hand mention, anybody who looks at the link can see that, seems silly to argue that point. As far as what sources that say it is an Arabic word, here are a few for starters:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• The Oxford dictionary of foreign words and phrases (1997) p. 484 identifies falafel as coming from Arabic
• Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (2006) likewise says it is an Arabic loanword.

nableezy - 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an Arabic word that entered English through Hebrew. None of your sources contradict that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh no. Each of the above sources identify the English word falafel as coming from Arabic, with no mention of Hebrew. It may well have been popularized by Israeli restaurants in America (which by the way is not the only English speaking country on the planet), but each of the above sources say that the etymology is Arabic -> English. Not Arabic -> Hebrew -> English. Take a look at the Oxford book above, it makes no mention of falafel in the list of English words coming from Hebrew, only listing it in the Arabic list. nableezy - 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? They all say it went directly from Arabic to English? Could you quote those parts? I must be overlooking it somehow.

Nobody is arguing it's not originally an Arabic word, by the way. The issue is how it entered English (or American English if you prefer). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Compare the Compact Oxford Dictionary etymology of falafel to that of paradise. Note the way in which the dictionary shows that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew.

Please note: I don't care whether the article includes the Hebrew or not, but I just want to be clear about the origin of the English word. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford book gives a list for each foreign language for the source of commonly used words in English. In the Arabic list falafel is listed. It is not listed in the Hebrew list. You can look at the quotes from the rest yourself, the links are given. They all give the etymology as Arabic, not Hebrew. nableezy - 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the word is Arabic, it entered English through Israeli Hebrew. That statement is supported by the source I provided and is not contradicted by the sources you provided which talk about the origin of the word, not how it entered the English language. I did look at those that are available online. I must have missed the parts where they say they're discussing how the word entered English rather than its origin. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can keep saying that none of the other sources dispute that, but they all do. They all give the origin of the English word as the Arabic word, full stop. From Arabic to English. Not Arabic to Hebrew to English. Also, see Malik's link from the OED on the etymology. From Arabic to English, full stop. Also, see Merriam-Webster: falafel: origin: Arabic. nableezy - 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indented line

Falafel's etimology is Arabic plain and simple. The food and its name have nothing to do with the language or people of the Hebrews of antiquity or the followers of Judaism whose forefathers left their European homelands in the 19th & 20th century and settled in Palestine.

Indented line

The invention of Israeli Hebrew in the late 19th & 20th centuries involved the "hebrewization" of many Arabic words and makes use of loan words from Aramaic and Arabic, since much of the ancient Hebrews language was lost and those words that did survive were liturgical in nature and suffered from language drift. So even if the word entered English from Hebrew, its more than likely that the Hebrew word was taken from Arabic by people instrumental in the creation of Israeli Hebrew. A search of online scholastic resources has yet to provide proof that the modern English word has any connection to Israeli or the ancient Hebrews languages. In summary the use of the Hebrew word in this article is incorrect and to use a term introduced by Jd2718, it is "synthasis" to have it in this article. Thank you. Mmfireman

Your comment reminds me that there are three issues that have been discussed 1) Should falafel have the Arabic translation in the lead. 2) Should the translation and alternative name from Egyptians outside of Alexandria (where it is likely to have been introduced) be in the lead and/or body? 3)Should Hebrew be in?

My thoughts:

1)The whole Arabic to modern usage is good enough for me to at least be in the article somewhere. I think that the lead causes nationalism issues so can understand it not being in the lead.

2)The alternative Egyptian name has some mentions in sources so I could see it being in the "Etymology" section but it is given too much prominence in the lead and it hampers a nice flow of the sentence.

3)The Hebrew thing used to be out of the lead if I recall correctly. It is done is such a nonobtrusive way that I would be surprised of the reaction from some editors if I did not know the history how contentious the food has somehow become. I would actually not cry too much with its removal if the not that common alternative name from Cairo was moved into the "Etymology" section and would also still be be happy to see it in the body as a simple translation within parenthesis somewhere in the history section. Other editors have seen it that way and been happy with it.

Basically, both Cairo and Hebrew can be in the body as far as I see it. I am on the fence with the Arabic translation in the lead since it causes nothing but trouble and may not be enough of a benefit to the reader to keep there. Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You have, once again, made unsubstantiated claims. To begin with, this is not an alternative name from Cairo, this is the name across Egypt, with the exception of Alexandria. Could you please provide a source for the claim that falafel originated in Alexandria? Could you please clarify what on earth you mean by "not that common alternative name from Cairo"? Several sources give this as the name in Egypt. Not as some uncommon name in Cairo as you repeatedly claim. Please provide sources for these claims. nableezy - 03:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. You can read the article yourself. Copts in Alexandria is actually in the sources. Start reading, homie.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read the sources, and they almost all say that it is a Coptic claim, and I have yet to see one that says it was in Alexandria. Please say which sources supports your claims. nableezy - 07:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I will do the research for you. Give me a day or so since I really have to be off drinking and prepping myself for tomorrow's races (Midnight Interlude to place). So I am going to go off the top of my head and say "Med location = easier access to the rest of the region" (I am pretty sure that is a great paraphrase of a source already used but will have to double check tpo see if it was pulled in the GA push). So while I am researching it for you how about you answer the questions I asked you or actually address the attempt at NPOV listed above instead of latching on one single comment. C'mon. I gave you lots to work with and if you think the best solution is to keep on arguing instead of finding a solution based on NPOV then we are going backwards. How about I assume good faith and believe that you actually want to keep this article at GA instead of pushing a POV. Take a breath and think what is better for the article. A)MAKING SURE THAT ARABIC IS IN THE LEAD ARGH! or B)Masking the lead readable and NPOV. I'll AGF for a bit if it means that you will attempt to continue to improve this article instead of politizing it. BTW, every comment above is OK per the standards here. Go eat some yummy food and stop thinking about politics.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting. nableezy - 01:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But the source is already in the article. Also, you should know that Alexandria was their center and not Cairo. That is probably why "falafel" is still the name in Alexandria. But I will let you read the article again since it is right there. Wow. Just wow. Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says Alexandria being a port city made it possible to export the dish and name to other areas in the Middle East. That is nowhere close to your manufactured claim that falafel was invented in Alexandria. What that sentence means, for the English challenged among us, is that falafel spread to the rest of the Middle East from Alexandria. Not that falafel was invented in Alexandria. Wow indeed. Next time actually check to see if the things you are making up has a chance of being true. Again, please provide a source for these wild claims that you continue to make on this talk page. nableezy - 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no claims to falafel being from Cairo. In fact, they call it something else there. On the other hand we have multiple sources discussing its prevalence in Alexandria. And we have the luxury of knowing that Alexandria was a Coptic city a long time ago. But you still have ignored my solution. You have chosen to continue arguing when I laid out what I see as a possible roadmap to straightening it out. It appears to me that you would rather argue about it. If I am wrong (which I should be if we are AGF) then please feel free to actually discuss a solution instead of trying to poke holes in arguments. We do not need to pretend to be lawyers here. You know the argument and the possible solutions. So the best thing for the project would be for you to actually attempt to improve the article instead of using the talk page to continue the battle. Enough with the politics and games. You can chose to be a contributor here and not make the same mistakes as those that have been rightfully banned.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it is multiple sources? Again, this is not a "Cairo name". Can you or can you not provide sources for the claims you made in this article? Such as, falafel was invented in Alexandria. Or that it is more than a Coptic claim that was invented by Copts. I have given you multiple sources for everything I have said. You have first simply said that some mythical source in the article supports your claims, and now say there are multiple such sources. Please tell me, which ones. I have also provided reasons for the Egyptian name to be included. Multiple sources, when mentioning the place of origin as Egypt, say this is the Egyptian name. You have yet, despite repeated requests, to provide a reason for including the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for street food first made in Egypt. Can you do either of these things at this point? nableezy - 03:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the sources that back up the claims you have made on this talk page. Please provide them. nableezy - 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point. If there is a reason to include the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for a Egyptian street food, that same reason applies to including the Japaneses spelling of that same Arabic word (ファラフェル). Japanese people like falafel, there is a well known restaurant that specializes in falafel in Japan. Should we include the Japanese spelling in the lead as well? nableezy - 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Im still waiting on answers to my questions and the sources that back up Cptnono's position. I, again, request that the reason the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for an Egyptian dish is in the lead. nableezy - 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. And without a compelling answer, I see no reason for the Hebrew to remain there. Tiamut^talk 13:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at RSN here regarding the word entering English through Hebrew. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I see that the outcome of the above link was that the source in not reliable and that the there is no contextual support for inserting a translation in either the language of the Ancient Hebrews or the suppositious Hebrew used by modern Israelis. It must be removed. Thank you, Mmfireman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmfireman (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why then is there an Arabic spelling of Jacob, who has nothing to do with Arabs? I'm not trying to make a POINT, but Falafel is at least as related to Israelis as Jacob is to Arabs. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already answered the questions but mine were not. So now that Hebrew is out of the lead it looks like we are off to a good start on removing politics and uneeded translations. Anyone mind if I remove the Egyptian spelling? The reasoning has already been provided. And since an edit war is probably starting (notice the recent reverts) it would make sense to end it now.

I don;t mind terribly if it is in the body but that citation needs to go per the MoS. This artilce made it to GA despite the bickering and should stay there.Cptnono (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

By the "Egyptian spelling" you mean the alternate name? If so, I agree, more appropriate in the body. Jd2718 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

palestinians resent our ecumenical enjoyment!

In Israel, falafel crosses ethnic and religious bounds, and is enjoyed by all sectors of society.[2] This has led to resentment by Palestinians...

Seriously, is this just an unintentionally garbled summary, or what? There is no question of Palestinians resenting the fact that "In Israel, falfel crosses ethnic and religious bounds," and none of the sources given say anything like that:

[2] says that Palestinians resent the association, in the West, of falafel with Israeli cuisine, which they see as cultural appropriation.

[9] says "Many Palestinians believe that Israelis have stolen falafel," giving the example of a popular Israeli song which falsely claimed that "only we have falafel."

[10] says that Arabs in the region are angry about an attempt by the Lebanese Industrialists' Association to declare falafel specifically Lebanese as opposed to a product of the Arab world more generally.

So how do you get from that to "Palestinians resent Israel's ecumenical enjoyment of falafel?" So far as I can see, you don't, unless you're insanely sloppy or just want to make Palestinians look bad. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Or if we want to follow the sources. Any ideas for rewording it?Cptnono (talk)

I already did, and you immediately reverted it. What gives? 99.250.12.151 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't reword it. You removed sourced content. SO per BRD you are free to make some suggestions on how to improve it but simply removing content from a GA is not the best way to go about it. We also do not need to give even more prominence to the "controversy". Editors here have agreed that politics was getting too much play and intentionally toned it down. So what gives ias that we created a GA and you were mucking it up. Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What editors have "agreed" that the article has enough information about what you call "politics"? 99.250.12.151 is right that the information in question is not presented accurately in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

SD - Perhaps you missed the agreement because the changes were made while you were topic-banned from all articles related to the IP conflict -- which this article sadly falls under. Anyhow, the editors involved in helping this reach GA status agreed that this article focused mostly on the political aspect of the food and not the food itself. Therefore they expanded the article with nutritional information about the food, its use in various diets, its health profile, and how its enjoyed around the world. An independent reviewer found the expanded article to be balanced and well written, hence it was promoted to GA status. If you feel that the Israel-Palestine-Arab political controversy aspect of this food is now insufficient and under-represented, you are welcome to make changes. However, given the history of this article being used as a battleground, I would suggest you have broad support from both administrators and editors before adding potentially contentious IP-related content into this article. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 23:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the line. Reading the source (the reference allows you to see more than enough, it is a delightful travelogue, a food-tourist story, well-written. But it cannot qualify as more than a culinary memoir. It is in this context not a reliable source.) Alarmingly, the sentence before and after (Israel considers it national cuisine, Palestinians resent that) formed one idea. Planting the "ecumenical" idea between created the worst kind of synthesis. An article must be more than three score lines, each individually sourced. Jd2718 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The source meets our standards and I was a little surprise that you used that as part of the reason to remove it. But I do agree with removal. The line added too much fluffy language that could be looked at as highlighting politics. It really wasn't needed since saying that it is iconic in the line just before does the job.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. I think it is worth discussion, though there is no urgency, as this particular snippet doesn't belong for additional reasons. I would hold that the context and the content matter for assessing reliability. There is nothing inherent in the writing, essentially a food/travelogue, that makes it reliable, or not. I looked at its other use on the page, where it supports the ambiguity between the "ball" and the "sandwich", and found it perfectly reliable (his direct observation). I looked at "ecumenical enjoyment" and thought otherwise (his global generalization based on several observations). Before I decided to delete it I considered moving it to a place where it did not interfere with the meaning of the rest of the section, and found it insipid. It's a warning to all of us, and I think I've done it, about the danger of harvesting neat lines from RSs without considering context and flow. Jd2718 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)