Talk:Greek cuisine/Archive 1

Origins
I do not think that Greek Cuisine is a typical Mediterranean cuisine. In fact, Greek cuisine has had many influences, including from the Romans, Venetians, Balkans, Turks, and Slavs. Please take a look at http://greekfood.about.com/od/discovergreekfood/a/food_intro.htm and let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acotanidis (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine and Greek Cuisine
In case someone wants to write about the historic aspectes and/or the genesis of greek cuisine for the article.
 * Some Infos: *, *

What about Keftedakia ? - User:BalthCat 2006-02-28

Relationship of gyros and doner kebab
Two recent edits have comments about gyros reading: I find them both mystifying. I have never seen the claim that doner kebab derives from gyros, and it is implausible on its face. The older name in Greek for what is now called gyros is 'döner', which is clearly a Turkish word (a participle derived from dönmek, to turn).
 * how about doner kebab deriving from it?
 * doner is different meat, halal, never pork - gyros comes from "souvla", a Latin word in its origin

As for the second, I don't see what the etymology of 'souvla' has to do with the gyros. And I don't see what being halal has to do with the origin of the dish. Obviously in a Muslim context a meat dish would not be made with pork. But gyros is made with various meats (the best, in my opinion, with lamb). --Macrakis 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first edit summary was a sarcasm which means that we cannot not know which derives from what. I never claimed that Doner comes from Gyros, I hope you're reading my edits before you change them. The Turkish cuisine has as many influences from the Greek as the Greek does from the Turkish (if not more). Secondly, the origin of the word souvla/souvlakion is Latin, which means that this method of meat-cooking has pre-existed the Turkic appearence to Asia Minor. Thirdly and most importantly, the Doner is NOT the same as gyros, for the simple reason that it's a different type of meat (halal and never pork). It's naive to say that gyros is the Greek name of Doner just because they look alike, or just because in your own mind Greek cuisine has by default Turkish influences. Miskin 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1) As for what derives from what, it seems pretty clear that gyros and shwarma derive from doner kebab, and unlikely that doner kebab and shwarma derive from gyros. Please refer to the various sources cited in the doner kebab article. Turkish cuisine and Greek cuisine obviously have a lot in common, some of it specifically Turkish in origin, some of it specifically Greek in origin, much of it neither specifically Greek or Turkish, and some of it indirectly derived from Persian cuisine, as can be seen by the names of the dishes (cf. kefte, kima, etc.), but that is neither here nor there.  We are speaking specifically of doner kebab/gyros.

2) No one claims that spit-roasting (souvla 'spit') was introduced by the Turks. Obviously roasting meat on a spit is a long-standing tradition in many parts of the world, so the etymology of the word 'souvla' has nothing to do with the origins of gyros. Calling gyros served in pita bread 'souvlaki' (i.e. 'little spit' = 'skewer') is a recent phenomenon, referring to the similarity of the serving style between gyros in pita and souvlaki (meat on a skewer) in pita.  When the same preparations are served on a dish instead of a sandwich, they are not called by the same name.

3) Both gyros and doner kebab are made of various kinds of meat, typically including lamb, beef/veal, chicken, and pork (in non-Muslim contexts). Gyros is most commonly made of pork; doner is most commonly made of lamb/mutton.  The basic preparation, however, is essentially the same.  And as for the origin of the dish, which was the question being discussed, I don't see how the substitution of the meat changes the origin.  The text did not read "gyros is identical to doner kebab" but "gyros is derived from doner kebab".

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would cut down on the aggressive ad hominem remarks like "it is naive to say" and "just because in your own mind". These are uncivil and unconstructive, and don't help us resolve the substantive issue. --Macrakis 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah right, I'll trust the sources from "turkishcook.com". Anyway I'll reply only to the gyros-doner issue and avoid the babbling. If "souvla" spin-cooking is common throughout the world, and if gyros is exclusively pork/chiken while doner is exclusively lamb/mutton (as you recently discovered), and if doner is never pork and yet always Halal (look that one up too), then can you please ellaborate on how "The basic preparation, however, is essentially the same", because frankly I can't make any sense out of it. Oh I know, they both use the rare ceremonial procedure of "cooking the meat". Miskin 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again Gyros and Doner in the United States, Germany or France is essentially the same thing. So you probably do have a reason for getting confused. Miskin 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be maintaining that gyros is simply "souvla spin-cooking". But it is much more specific than that. Gyros/doner/shwarma are sliced (sometimes mixed with ground/minced meat, sometimes only ground meat) meat stacked (typically with fat on top) on a turning vertical spit and sliced off to order. From a culinary point of view, there are three distinctive things about this process: 1) it cross-cuts the meat (first when it is stacked, then when it is sliced off), thus reducing the stringiness/toughness; 2) the fat drips down from the top, basting the meat; 3) it gives every customer a lot of crust. All this is very different from spit-cooking in general, which is pieces of whole meat (not slices) cooked on horizontal spits and not sliced off to order, but removed whole.  It is also different from skewer cooking like souvlaki, shish kebab, satay, brochette, yakitori, etc. where small chunks of meat (and sometimes other ingredients) are put onto small individual skewers which are normally individual servings, and not turned continuously.

As for the meat that is used for gyros/doner, you are mistaken that doner is exclusively lamb/mutton. It can also be veal/beef or chicken. Gyros can also be lamb/mutton. There is a large overlap. I don't know why you make such a big deal of halal. Of course, cooks in Muslim areas will use halal meat, cooks in Jewish areas will use kosher meat, etc. Is a roast beef made with halal or kosher beef suddenly not roast beef any more? I really don't get why you're insisting on the halal issue. --Macrakis 18:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Your sarcasm ("rare ceremonial procedure") and condescension ("as you recently discovered") is getting really tiresome. I believe I have remained civil throughout this discussion. I ask that you do the same. --Macrakis 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On the question of, how turkish is "grilled meat", one should take into consideration that grilled meat is mentioned many times in the works of Homer (no, not Homer Simpson), and the term Obolus (means a long thin metal rod, such as a spit - actually for the purpose of grilling meat) goes way back into history. -- 62.178.137.216 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the full discussion above. Gyros is not any old spit-roasted meat; it is a very specific preparation. No one is claiming that spit-roasted meat is specifically Turkish. I suspect it is far older than Homer, for that matter. --Macrakis 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I ve read carefully the previous interventions and i would like to make the following remarks:
 * a)I agree that spit-roasted meat is quite a simple cooking method and so, it is reasonable to suppose that it was not the invention of a particular ppl.
 * b)Regarding the distinction between gyros and doner, according to the greek cuisine article gyros is "meat roasted on a vertically turning spit". according to the article on doner kebab, doner kebab is "rotating roast meat". i do not see the difference.
 * c)to state that gyros and donner kebab are different because turks do not eat pork is, at least in my opinion, misleading. White wine and red wine are both wine although they are made of different types of grapes.
 * d)given the above statements, i think it might be useful to merge the doner kebab/gyros articles. According to the article on merging, merging should take place when : "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." best--Greece666 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Relationship of Byzantine and modern cooking
A recent edit added to the introduction "Its base is Byzantine Cuisine,..." and removed "Due to the strong Ottoman presence, many Greek dishes are closely related to Ottoman/Turkish dishes." There are clearly some dishes that can be traced back to ancient Greece (e.g. trahanas, skordalia, lentil soup, retsina, pasteli) and some specifically to Byzantium (feta cheese, avgotaraho, paximadi). There are also many ancient and Byzantine preparations which are no longer consumed: porridge as the main staple, fish sauce, salt water mixed into wine, etc. On the other hand, there are also many dishes from the Ottoman/Persian/Arab tradition, and with clearly non-Greek names: moussaka, baklava, tzatziki, yuvarlakia, yoghurt, keftedhes, .... Of course, the name isn't a foolproof indication of the history of a dish; the ancients apparently made something very similar to dolma, and probably to some kinds of boureki. Very few dishes come from Italian cooking: pastitsio, makaronia me kima, ...

It would be good to provide a balanced introduction to all this. --Macrakis 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Feta cheese can also be traced to antiquity according to some sources. The dishes from the Ottoman/Persian/Arab tradition have reached the Greeks mainly via the Ottomans (and possibly earlier), and this is already implied in the "middle eastern influence" part. I removed what was the result of anon POV-pushing. Yoghurt specifically comes from the Bulgars and not the Ottomans, so it can be considered a Byzantine element too. I recently realised that the article is poor. Besides the head, there's no much information there. Miskin 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a good earlier source for feta, please add it to the history section of the feta article; the earliest I could find was Dalby's 1494. I have seen others claim that feta is ancient based only on the fact that cheese in general is ancient, which of course doesn't help.

What exactly did you have in mind by "its base is Byzantine cuisine"? How can that be made precise and verifiable?

Removing the Ottomans from the article strikes me as overreacting to what may or may not have been "anon POV-pushing". As you say yourself, their influence was huge. Unfortunately, the Ottoman cuisine article is terrible.

As for yoghurt, yes, it was probably introduced to the region by the Bulgars before the Ottoman period. Does that make it "Byzantine"? --Macrakis 13:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Egon Friedell claimed that Feta was eaten by ancient Spartans, but I don't know where he got that from. My reaction is not overreacting, it's the result of anon long-term pov-pushing. There was definitely an important Ottoman influence, but we cannot know at what degree it represents the general middle-eastern element in Greek cuisine. This doesn't have to do with the fact that Ottoman cuisine assimilated much of its cuisine from the middle east, but with the fact that Byzantium has always had oriental influences in its cuisine even before the Ottoman domination. In other terms we could specify that Italian and middle-easter influences come via the Venetians and the Ottomans respectively, but I'm not sure how accurrate it is. Why would you not agree that the base of Greek cuisine is the Byzantine? What else could it be? I'm not aware of any trends of ancient Greek cuisine that were not transmitted through Byzantium. Miskin 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to learn where Friedell got his information. As for the connection of ancient and modern Greek cuisine, it doesn't seem that close to me (how many people do you see eating porridge as a staple these days...?). I'd be happy to have better sources about the transmission of Persian cuisine to the West and the East (the Gk. καβουρ-δίζω and Tk. kavur-mak appear to be from the same Persian (Mughal/Mongol?) word as the Indian dish korma).  And about the sources of Persian cuisine and food terminology, for that matter.  But alas John Perry says: "so far as I know, there's no comprehensive etymological study of the cuisine of Persia and its neighbors and debtors"  (private communication). --Macrakis 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So what would you suggest to use as the base of Greek cuisine? In my opinion Byzantine cuisine passed down the majority of both ancient Greek and Oriental elements that modern Greek cuisine currently possesses. I don't know much about Roman cuisine, but I doubt that it was as an important root of Byzantine cuisine as the article claims. Miskin 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not saying anything about the "(historical) base of Greek cuisine" until we have some solid, citable sources. Unfortunately, they are hard to find. For every cuisine (certainly not just Greek), it seems that legends and nonsense get invented and passed down in cookbooks etc. (See croissant, chop suey, etc.). --Macrakis 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think that it's more accurrate than claiming "with strong influences from the Byzantine Cuisine as well as Italy, the Middle East", which implies 1/3 contribution of each. That's not the case. Late Byzantines were practically early modern Greeks, the language has remained fairly intact, I don't see how the cuisine can have changed that much. Miskin 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't support the "1/3" wording. For one thing, the Italian contribution is relatively small as far as I can tell. Until we have stronger historical evidence, I think it is more correct to say that Greek cuisine has many commonalities (note that this avoids the question of origin) with Ottoman/Turkish cuisine.  "Middle Eastern" (as I think you've pointed out before) is less accurate than "Ottoman", after all, it has many fewer commonalities with Lebanese/Syrian cuisine (no kibbeh, no hummus bi tahini, no fattoush, no tabbouleh, etc.). Some specific dishes can be traced further: cf. Baklava (but also cf. the ridiculous POV-pushing at Assyrian cuisine). --Macrakis 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the usage of the term "commonalities". It is impossible to know for a fact who is "debted" to whom. Sometimes history helps, for example we know that Byzantium and Europe acquired yogurt from the Bulgar Turks, and that the Ottoman Turks adapted olive oil from the Greeks. As far as the oriental element in Greek cuisine is concerned, we cannot know where is the origin of what, since Byzantium used to be a relatively "oriental" civilisation itself. I agree that Middle Eastern cuisine is a very wide term, I think the best word would be "Oriental". Miskin 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The term 'oriental cuisine', which you might think was a good translation for ανατολίτικη κουζίνα, is in English nowadays pretty much reserved for East Asia (and not much for that, either); the older usage, like "Near East" and "The Levant", is basically obsolete. Levantine cuisine refers to the cooking of the Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria), and specifically not to Turkish cuisine. "Anatolian cuisine" is not a standard term, and anyway sounds like it's talking specifically of rustic food.  And I still don't think the 'Byzantine base' is useful to talk about. --Macrakis 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
"Greek cuisine is the cuisine of Greece or perhaps of the Greeks."

This needs to be rewritten. No offense to anyone involved, but that's a terrible way to start an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.61.13 (talk • contribs)


 * Greeks are traditionally a diaspora people, Greek cuisine is not restricted to the borders of the Greek state, and it does not originate exclusively in Greece. Miskin 17:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree with both of you. Clearly Greek cuisine is not just the cuisine of the state of Greece, but the way the article is currently worded is confusing if you don't already know what it means.  The "perhaps" is an especially odd way of saying it. I must confess to not having a good replacement on the tip of my tongue, though. --Delirium 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Add/change to "Hellenes" to clarify?

or will that add to the confusion?

Most here seem to lack a clue regarding this topic anyway, so what diff does it make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Anafas (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is really a point to the first sentence, I would just combine with the second: "Greek cuisine is typical of..." --Zhiroc (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not confused at all.

Warrington (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate entry on "Gemista" or "Yemista"
Gemista -the 5th entry in famous greek dishes- and Yemista -the last- both refer to the same dish. One of them should be deleted. Preferably the "Gemista". GiorgosV 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone also wikilinked yemista to dolma, which I removed. There are similarities between the dishes, but they're hardly the same. --Delirium 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the dolma article, I think you will find it describes yemista, which after all means the same thing (just like the Arabic mahshi). Of course, stuffed vegetables are not the same thing as things wrapped in grape leaves (Greek dolmathakia, Turkish sarma). --Macrakis 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, odd. In English usage at least, I've never heard the word "dolma" used to describe stuffed vegetables, only the grape-leaf wraps.  If you go to a Mediterranean restaurant anywhere in the U.S. (whether Greek or Turkish or Lebanese) that's the usage they use. --Delirium 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Greek cuisine article doesn't use the word 'dolma' to refer to stuffed vegetables, but just wikilinks to dolma using the link text yemista. As for the name in English, the heading 'dolma' in the Oxford Companion to Food does talk about the stuffed vegetable kind, while mentioning the sarma kind as well. --Macrakis 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanakopita/Spanakotyropita
In my experience (and I'm of Greek ancestry), these are two names for the same thing. I've never known a "Spanakopita" not to contain cheese (though I've no objection to its being tried). "Spanakotyropita" is the more accurate name, though, as it might be thought a trifle cumbersome, "Spanakopita" is by far the more commonly used.

Kostaki mou 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is spanakopitta without cheese, especially for days of fasting imposed by the churchHotspury (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Quote
There is no need for this long quote in the beginning on the relationship between Greek and Turkish food. Many of the origins of foods are uncertain, so it quite unfair to call this time of lifestyle "Ottoman" where the Ottoman Empire drew heavily from the Byzantine. There is absolutely no need for the beginning of this page to consist of a long quote on the relationship between Greek and Turkish food. Maybe there could a subsection, or a seperate page on Greco-Turkish culinary links, but the introduction should not be dominated by this. -AlexiusComnenus

Reviewing the talk, a seperate subsection on the influences on Greek cuisine might be nice. The article can discuss the Ancient, Byzantine, Slavic, Arab, Italian, Turkish and growing American influences on Greek cuisine. -Alexius Comnenus

If you have good sources for other influences on Greek cuisine by reputable scholars, please add them. There are certainly some basic foods -- like olive oil, wine, lentils, fish, lamb, and so on -- which persist from ancient to modern times. But if you read the literature (including Fragner, Dalby, and others), I think you will find that though there are certainly some elements of ancient and Byzantine cooking in modern Greek cuisine, there are also huge differences, just as in the West, starting with the staples (we no longer eat porridge) to the high cuisine. Modern Italian food is very different from ancient Roman food, and modern Greek food is very different from ancient Greek food. One of the reasons of course is the introduction of large numbers of new basic foods, like the tomato, peppers, and potatoes from the Americas, eggplant from the east, etc. And the overwhelming gestalt of Greek cuisine (and also Turkish, Bulgarian, Syrian, etc. cuisines) seems undeniably Ottoman. I do agree with you that non-Ottoman influences should be mentioned. As for the ultimate origins of Ottoman cuisine in turn, see that article, which mentions influences from across the Ottoman lands. Despite what Turkish romantics might want to think, little Ottoman cuisine is specifically Turkish or Turkic in origin (baklava and manti are exceptions), but has strong influences from Persia, greater Syria, pre-Turkish Anatolia (Greek, Armenian, etc.), and so on. Anyway, as I say, the more good sources we can get, the better. Alas, there are vast numbers of poor sources (cookbooks etc.) out there. --Macrakis 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I agree with Alexius on this one. There is a huge quote on the beginning of the article. I do not question the validity of the quote. I do not contest what you say above (not endorse it either because one need to research for passing a judgement) but sorry to say it just looks ugly. It also looks like an atempt to overstate the "Ottoman" character of the Greek cuisine. The lead and the artcile needs more research and definetely a tone down of "statements" and huge quotes that border POV-warrior tactics. 128.240.229.66 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you think it "overstates" the Ottoman character of Greek cuisine?
 * As for the length of the quote, I only put it in because the shorter versions "Greek cookery is typical of Ottoman cuisine" or "Greek cooking is similar to other cuisines of the region because of their common Ottoman heritage" (which were sourced to Fragner) were repeatedly reworded to vague, weaselly phrases like "Greek cooking has commonalities with other cuisines of the region", which did not accurately represent what Fragner said. It is precisely to avoid POV that I included the quote.  And, by the way, what do you think my "POV" is?
 * PS, who is 128.240.229.66? Did you forget to log in?
 * Alexius, I now see you're the same anon who deleted the quote -- so I guess it was explained. You should include edit summaries in the future to make this clearer.  Also, it is not generally considered good form to take solid, sourced material and simply remove it.  You might move it to a "history" or "influences" section, but removing it is not very cooperative.
 * --Macrakis 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I created a new "origins" section as a temporary solution-- the enormous quote in the introduction just looks too ugly and is extraneous.

I agree with you that Greek food changed significantly during the Ottoman occupation with the introduction of peppers, tomatoes, potatoes (which according to tradition were introduced after the revolution) etc. but this does not reflect Ottoman influences. These foods were most probably brought to the region by Italians, Armenians or Greeks who controlled the seafaring in the region. As you must know, most of the mercantile affairs of the Ottoman Empire were handled by Greeks. There is no real reason to call these developments coming from the Americas as "Ottoman influenes." -Alexios Comnenus

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Of course many of the merchants, cooks, etc. were Christian Greeks and not Muslims. But they formed part of Ottoman society. Similarly, if we talk about "Ottoman trade", we certainly don't mean the trade controlled by only Muslim merchants (by the way, they would not have called themselves "Turkish" merchants at the time). Fragner expresses it very nicely in the quote, I think. Along the same lines, when we talk about "American cuisine", we certainly don't exclude foods which were brought by various immigrants, e.g. Italian pizza, German frankfurters, Polish Jewish bagels, etc. What makes it American cuisine is the integration into American society. The further origins of Ottoman cuisine, including Byzantine, Persian, Arab, Spanish, etc. should be discussed in that article. There were also certainly regional and community differences within Ottoman society (as Fragner says). Thus, for example, in Baghdad the Muslims and Christians cooked primarily using sheep-tail fat, while the Jews cooked with sesame oil (which has a very distinctive smell). But that sort of variation is normal within a cuisine. --Macrakis 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I rather agree with what Alexios said near the beginning of this section. As part of a longer section on influences, the big quote might be fine. As it stands, it tends to over-privilege the Ottoman element slightly. Maybe I'll have a go at adding some stuff. And rew D alby  21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text/Dolmathes
In case that people want to challenge my last edit.--Z yTalk 13:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there's lots of disputes over the cuisine of this region, I think it makes sense to discuss all major viewpoints in the article, if they can be sourced to published articles and books. Why do you think that that particular source needs to be removed? --Delirium 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply because it gives a false impression that kebap&dolma is of Byzantine origin, which, except for some Greek nationalist writers, is not acceptable for the rest. However, you have right to mention all possibilities, especially on the Greek cuisine page. However in doing that, you should give explanations. Baklava page can be an example. It may not be the best example for sure, but there are lots of explanations there. For example, it is written that "X claims ... because ... but Y says ..." Arguments with explanations, traces, proofs, traditions etc. And if there are, counter arguments. All together. I mean writing that Ash says that these dishes are Byzantine does not make sense at all. Why does he say so? His arguments? Examples? What kind of similarities with ancient Byzantine dishes? etc. etc. It is not so easy to claim to be the owner of all these specialities. Especially where there are thousands of counter arguments which refute a thesis. I am even more suspicious when it comes to Byzantine origins cause in the past, some dishes&sweets shown as the ancestors of some specialities (such as Baklava) turned out to be totally irrelevant? So please edit the main text by giving more explanation. However be sure that I will add some counter arguments as well. That's why most of the time discussions about the origins are made on the principal pages of the dishes instead of cuisine pages? But if you want to start a discussion on the Greek cuisine page you can --Z yTalk 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason
Be a bit more reasonable, what the hell is that "baking remained a christian prerogative at least till XVIth century" !!! :) Maybe you should keep the citation, which, in the end, sheds light on how you think :) and what your problem is: Turkish obsession! So Ash says that Turks were not baking, cooking, or whatever till then. Lovely :) Greeks were cooking we were eating :) You can not write whatever you want here for sure. Keep pursuing your policy of not employing "Turkish" or Ottoman" in the article because, apparently, you are not able to handle the case --Z yTalk 11:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop POV-pushing on this article. If you dislike the assertions of Ash or Dalby, feel free to write them and tell them how you feel. However, per WP:NPOV, the mere fact that you disagree with the cited quote does not even begin to be a sufficient cause for removing it.


 * Note that your taunts and unfounded accusations are at least partly hypocritical, as it seems you have a problem with the presentation of any POV besides your own. The fact that you continue to remove the quotation here to eliminate alternate points of view betrays your own bias, and borders on censorship.--C.Logan 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The arts of baking and viniculture were also unknown to the Turks when they arrived in Anatolia and the latter remained a Christian prerogative at least as late as the sixteenth century". You are out of your mind! You should have lost your reason. The fact that these conclusions are quoted does not make such a ... untouchable. At least should not. Do not try to frighten me with lovely warnings :))) However, as I said above..."""BUT Maybe you should keep the citation, which, in the end, sheds light on how you think :) and what your problem is: Turkish obsession!""" --Z yTalk 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have such an issue with the presentation of views other than those with which you agree, then I would suggest that you refrain from getting involved in Wikipedia- that sort of mindset only damages it.


 * Why are you relating the citation to me directly? I wasn't the individual who added the text in the first place, so please cease making accusations like that triple-quoted nonsense above. The fact that I'm defending the presence of this quote is entirely based on your POV-based removal of it. Why must you resort to accusing me of an agenda in defense of your neglect of WP:NPOV?


 * I repeat: Please stop POV-pushing on this article. If you dislike the assertions of Ash or Dalby, feel free to write them and tell them how you feel. However, per WP:NPOV, the mere fact that you disagree with the cited quote does not even begin to be a sufficient cause for removing it. Thanks.--C.Logan 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * """The arts of baking and viniculture were also unknown to the Turks when they arrived in Anatolia and the latter remained a Christian prerogative at least as late as the sixteenth century"""! POV-based removal??? Interesting classification dear young POV hunter!!! --Z yTalk 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're removing the text because you disagree with what it says. That is to say, it is your point of view that the statement is false and not even worth mentioning. That, of course, is merely an opinion. So yes, your removal of that statement is POV. The fact that some researchers have come to such a conclusion is entirely notable, and in the interest of WP:NPOV, that information has a definite place within the article.--C.Logan 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not information in the strict sense of the word. This is a baseless and senseless judgment, because I can see the conclusion but can not see the explanation or any argument supporting such a conclusion (we can not see it tough cause there is not :) ) "Byzantine texts mention...". We have seen many recipes mentioned!! in Byzantine source materials :) Really. Which one? Which recipe? What? Just a biased account. Byzantine Empire has never been in Central Asia or in Circassian Region..All along the migration route of Turks is full of culinary traditions..Our "primitif instruments" stand for layered dough style in the world. Writing that Turks were not cooking before XVIth century is ridiculous. But believing that is even more dramatic on your part. Every fanatic can find literary support from somewhere, which does not make an allegation, an opinion in the end. --Z yTalk 09:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... again, where did I say that I believed the text itself? I've gone through several comments trying to explain to you why I'm reverting your changes, and "believing" the text is not listed amongst the reasons. Regardless of how ridiculous you may find a theory to be, your opinion on its veracity is insufficient reason for the removal of sourced information . If I went around removing every theory I thought was "ridiculous" (and I find many "scholarly" assessments of Christian history and theology to be dramatically deficient), I would run into some serious problems. Wikipedia is not the place for you or I to push our POV. You may disagree with what Ash or Dalby has said. I may disagree with what they have said. However, neither of our opinions on the assertion holds any weight against the citation. Understand this. Feel free to add any sources you'd like, and if those sources exhibit contrary information, so much the better. But the censorship of sourced material in this fashion is not permissible, regardless of how you feel about it.--C.Logan 10:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will do that ultimately. But it will turn the article into a discussion page, which I find, for an introductory text, utterly unnecessary. That's why I first tried to explain that such conclusion should either be evidenced or supported with further information. You or whoever edited the article did not do that instead you keep making loud cries because of being deprived of the freedom of speech! However, if you insist on keeping such a paragraph there, it is inevitable that others insert their counter arguments into the article whether it fits the context or not. The fact that I disagree with what is written there is not the reason for removing it. It has to be removed cause it is a mere judgment. I do not care about judgments. I and people should care about reasons, examples, explanations. """Kebap, Dolma, Baklava is not Turkish, they are Greek""". God knows which Byzantine text mentions which recipies..(so that we can know whether it is kebap or something else, the latter is always the case tough). Check the meaning of censorship in the dictionary first before classifying any action as censorship --Z yTalk 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC).


 * By the way it is quite arguable whether wikipedia is for farfetched opinions or for giving information to people. "... are bad, ugly, stupid and inferior people"(just to give an example). This can be your opinion but can not be written on a wiki page I think. Or what?  --Z yTalk 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Farfetched opinion" is an opinion itself. Additionally, when you say "your opinion", I take it that you mean personal opinion. No, neither you nor I can share our personal opinions: that's original research. Now, if an expert or notable individual makes such a statement, it depends on the article's topic, and the individual's area of expertise. For example, you wouldn't quote a mathematician on history; however, there are instances where the expert can have a cross-field value. Additionally, assessments made by notable people may be relevant. If Winston Churchill asserted that Hispanics are a "bad, ugly, stupid and inferior people", then it is certainly worth noting.


 * It should be noted that your example is a little over-dramatic, and is more of a straw-man than anything. Let's use one that's extreme, but not over-the-top. For example, let's say a historian asserted that Charlemagne never existed; that he was a fabrication. That's a pretty strong claim to make. Even so, assuming that the individual is a professional historian, is not self-published (and/or) has gained a notoriety for his views and contributions, then it would be worth noting in a small section or paragraph (per WP:UNDUE).


 * We can not include or exclude assertions based merely on qualitative judgments.--C.Logan 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Farfetched opinion" is an opinion itself. Additionally, when you say "your opinion", I take it that you mean personal opinion. No, neither you nor I can share our personal opinions: that's original research. Now, if an expert or notable individual makes such a statement, it depends on the article's topic, and the individual's area of expertise. For example, you wouldn't quote a mathematician on history; however, there are instances where the expert can have a cross-field value. Additionally, assessments made by notable people may be relevant. If Winston Churchill asserted that Hispanics are a "bad, ugly, stupid and inferior people", then it is certainly worth noting.


 * Wrong. You can not, should not, note such a thing no matter how important the person who said that is. --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are incorrect. As I've said, it depends on the topic. Mel Gibson, for an extreme example, is an instance where inflammatory statements are included as relevant to the topic. Such statements should be assessed for relevance, however.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that your example is a little over-dramatic, and is more of a straw-man than anything. Let's use one that's extreme, but not over-the-top. For example, let's say a historian asserted that Charlemagne never existed; that he was a fabrication. That's a pretty strong claim to make. Even so, assuming that the individual is a professional historian, is not self-published (and/or) has gained a notoriety for his views and contributions, then it would be worth noting in a small section or paragraph (per WP:UNDUE).


 * You have no idea about logical fallacy. What you insist on keeping there is the God of logical fallacy! Second, if the theses of that historian have already been refuted at least you should also mention that, In addition if these opinions are outdated or based merely on a biased nationalistic stance, this is a different story, which is our story here --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You apparently misunderstand what I'm saying, as I'm going by policies, not by personal judgment. Again, the analysis of evidence forms a subjective judgment, in any instance. If two researchers examine the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions, it's difficult to say which view is more correct. In this case, if you have a citation where Ash or Dalby are directly refuted, then feel free to include such a note. However, this doesn't warrant the removal of their assertions; only a simple framing of their claims in the light of the rest of scholarship (if this is the case). Additionally, if you have multiple sources which have contrasting information, but are independent (i.e. the individual did not challenge a claim directly), it's best to use a neutral presentation. I'll elaborate on this if the need arises.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can not include or exclude assertions based merely on qualitative judgments.


 * You can. We are not doing chemical experiments here. Social sciences including history is all about qualitative judgments --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to be removed cause it is a mere judgment. Am I misunderstanding your phrasing here, or is this an example of preferential rejection of "mere judgments" that you disagree with? Note that the scholars are supposed to make these "judgments", while we, as editors, are not.


 * More importantly, Wikipedia editors are extremely limited in their actual by-the-rules power over what information is presented and how. Quality can be a subjective opinion. You may find Ash's work to be of poor quality, whereas user X may find it to be of superior quality. This is why qualitative judgments are not acceptable in determining which views deserve more coverage in any particular article.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what your business about "judgments" is. Verifiable facts are by-and-large determined by "judgment". I'm not sure if you intended to use a different word here, because it doesn't quite convey the meaning you'd like it to, I believe.


 * Additionally... what exactly is your concern with the article? Discussion page? Um, if there are alternate views in existence, you should add in information on a view you think is neglected. That's the basis of an encyclopedia: conveying information. I'm not sure why you think that the presence of this information will complicate the article later. It won't.


 * I happen to think you're a little confused. See, we're not here to convince individuals of a particular viewpoint. We don't "stack evidence", or go out of our way to provide "lengthy examples". The quote is self-explanatory: "Such Turkish staples as kebabs, stuffed vine leaves and stuffed vegetables were Byzantine staples. Börek, halva and baklava are well-attested in Byzantine and classical texts." We do not need to strip down and assess the source to determine whether or not an assertion is acceptable. These scholars have determined something based on the evidence which they have uncovered, and whether or not you enjoy the conclusion, it is presentable here. The previous quotation should require just as much "justification" or "evidence" for its claims, but oddly enough you aren't complaining about that one. I don't understand what you're asking for beyond this.


 * Once again, your own "judgment" and original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter what your opinion of the researchers' conclusions may be. Keep this in mind, and note what I tried to explain in my last comment.


 * Are you trying to insult me? I know what censorship is, and I deal with it commonly while editing. Let's take a simple scenario. Random guy browses through Wikipedia, reading about his religion. He reads an unflattering assessment of his religion's history by a certain scholar, and deletes the paragraph in question, citing his reasoning based on a personal judgment of the theory. Everyday, this cite entertains nationalists and religious fanatics who vandalize, censor and push their own POV on articles which contain unflattering information. This article has received nationalist vandalism and OR-POV-pushing before, as does the Falafel article.


 * Based on the above, it shouldn't be hard to grasp how the elimination of information which would be unflattering to "Turkish pride" could be considered censorship. As is clear, you have a serious problem with the "baking and vinticulture" issue, whether it is true or not. The fact of the matter is that the information presented there is a scholarly assessment, and is sufficiently cited. You may disagree with the conclusions, but as I've already explained in my last comment, yours or my own dismissal of an assertion as "ridiculous" or "a falsehood" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the item should be included in the article.--C.Logan 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what your business about "judgments" is. Verifiable facts are by-and-large determined by "judgment". I'm not sure if you intended to use a different word here, because it doesn't quite convey the meaning you'd like it to, I believe.


 * Mere judgments are not enlightening, illuminating I say. It is sometimes more important to know that how someone reaches a conclusion rather than the conclusion itself. --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of the encyclopedia, we are not required to show much beyond the conclusions themselves, and it would be improper to give undue elaboration to a view which has limited support in the first place. Additionally, as I've pointed out several times, the majority of the quote seems self-justifying. The only contentious statement is the "baking" assertion, which (even in this instance) we do not have to explicitly "justify". Like I've said, if you have opposing scholars who refute Ash and Dalby's claims, include those in addition.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally... what exactly is your concern with the article? Discussion page? If there are alternate views in existence, you should add in information on a view you think is neglected. That's the basis of an encyclopedia: conveying information. I'm not sure why you think that the presence of this information will complicate the article later. It won't.


 * It is not the presence of this information which will "complicate" the article. The bulk of information (consisting of all counter arguments and arguments verifying that all these "staples" are Turkish, Persian or Asiatic) which will be inserted into the article by me and other editors will complicate your article. However, once you put such an allegation in the article, you do not have right to complain about it. --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you're going here. If sources can be cited which show a myriad of different views, then effort should be taken to include such information. So, what you feel would be a "complication" to the article is, in actuality, something which should be reinforced in the first place.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to think you're a little confused. See, we're not here to convince individuals of a particular viewpoint. We don't "stack evidence", or go out of our way to provide "lengthy examples". The quote is self-explanatory: "Such Turkish staples as kebabs, stuffed vine leaves and stuffed vegetables were Byzantine staples. Börek, halva and baklava are well-attested in Byzantine and classical texts." We do not need to strip down and assess the source to determine whether or not an assertion is acceptable. These scholars have determined something based on the evidence which they have uncovered, and whether or not you enjoy the conclusion, it is presentable here. The previous quotation should require just as much "justification" or "evidence" for its claims, but oddly enough you aren't complaining about that one. I don't understand what you're asking for beyond this.


 * Of course you dont. Either you have no idea about the content or you know much about it, so this is the only way you can assert that borek, halva and baklava are Byzantine. --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, this is your personal judgment based on the evidence you've seen, just as Ash's view is a personal judgment based on the evidence he's seen. However, an editor's opinion on a source is largely invalid (that is to say, one can not eliminate a citation because of a personal non-belief, and so on). If you'd like to add scholars who disagree, I invite you to do so. I've already told you that I'm not on any particular side in this; I'm just following WP guidelines, and prevent any particular POV from taking prominence.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, your own "judgment" and original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter what your opinion of the researchers' conclusions may be. Keep this in mind, and note what I tried to explain in my last comment.


 * I am not talking about my personal researches. I am talking about worldy known cuisine writers and historians with whom you will meet soon. --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I invite you to add such information, but again, this does not provide cause for removing a cited quotation. Add the information to show contrast; removing the alternate views, however unlikely you find them to be, is improper and POV.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to insult me? I know what censorship is, and I deal with it commonly while editing. Let's take a simple scenario. Random guy browses through Wikipedia, reading about his religion. He reads an unflattering assessment of his religion's history by a certain scholar, and deletes the paragraph in question, citing his reasoning based on a personal judgment of the theory. Everyday, this cite entertains nationalists and religious fanatics who vandalize, censor and push their own POV on articles which contain unflattering information. This article has received nationalist vandalism and OR-POV-pushing before, as does the Falafel article.


 * Nationalist vandalism had sacked Turkish Cuisine articles since I and some other people intervened in the end. I am one of the persons who can understand what a nationalist vandalism is. However a quotation can not render a nationalist vandalism itself a reliable scientific opinion or scholarly assessment. We can find lots of info supporting jewish genocide under Nazi regime..So deification of scholars is not something respectful all the time as you present --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by your language here. I'm not saying that we should "deify" any point of view. That's just it... we're supposed to have a neutral presentation of all notable views. I'm unsure what you're saying concerning the Jewish genocide. In any case, nationalism is always a problem.--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the above, it shouldn't be hard to grasp how the elimination of information which would be unflattering to "Turkish pride" could be considered censorship. As is clear, you have a serious problem with the "baking and vinticulture" issue, whether it is true or not. The fact of the matter is that the information presented there is a scholarly assessment, and is sufficiently cited. You may disagree with the conclusions, but as I've already explained in my last comment, yours or my own dismissal of an assertion as "ridiculous" or "a falsehood" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the item should be included in the article.


 * What about information which is flattering to Hellenic vandalism? --Z yTalk 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the quote... remember WP:NPOV. You may not agree with everything you read on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't, but the view should certainly deserve mention, if only to be refuted. For example, "Ash argues that... but historians such as X, Y, and Z disagree with his assertion".--C.Logan 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Look what you have said: """it depends on the article's topic, and the individual's area of expertise. For example, you wouldn't quote a mathematician on history""" SO??? I just checked John Ash's work and utterly surprised! Do u want me to list them? AND THIS IS INCREDIBLE: NOW THAT I SAY MUCH WELL DOCUMENTED COUNTER ARGUMENTS ARE COMING SOON, LOOK WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT; """Additionally, if you have multiple sources which have contrasting information, but are INDEPENDENT (all of us need independence, a level of subjectivity and to some extent knowledge about the content), it's BEST TO USE A NEUTRAL PRESENTATION""". Was not it the fact that I have kept talking about from the beginning? or am I hallucinating? A neutral presentation! So we finally reached an agreement. Thank you. the discussion was worth then. --Z yTalk 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bed (1981 POEM), The Goodbyes (1982 POEM), The Branching Stairs (1984 POEM), Disbelief (1987 POEM) The Burnt Pages (1991 POEM), Selected Poems (1996 POEM) The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and The Pleasure Periphery (NOT POEM)... I will keep looking..be sure..--Z yTalk 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anatolikon (POEM!)--Z yTalk 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. As I've answered in the next section several hours ago: John Ash is also a writer who has made Istanbul and the history of Byzantium his primary area of study and commentary. I feel that we need corroborating sources, but in this instance it would appear that his commentary would seem appropriate in the context of contrasting views and of his own role as a non-academic. As per WP:RS, non-academic sources are acceptable within the appropriate context. That is to say, his viewpoint is acceptable to note if his comments are given framework; that is, of a non-academic writer studying historical documents. Further sources would be preferable. Dalby may offer corroboration from within the field in question itself. More needs to be studied concerning his writings, and as I've said below, I'm going to take a look at these books in the bookstore (maybe in an hour or so) to get some more specific information, if I can find it.


 * Please do not respond with such an excited tone of reaction, especially as it seems that a language barrier has more to do with our misunderstanding than anything else (so it seems). I'm not sure what purpose you're quoting my statement concerning a neutral presentation for, as you seem to misunderstand what I meant by it (or I was too ambiguous. All I'd said with that was that statements which were not direct critiques of either Ash or Dalby's work should be presented in a manner in which you do not force interpretations to discredit the aforementioned author's views. For clarification: not "Dalby says this, but his work is largely discredited by X", but "Dalby argues this. However, scholar Y considers the origins of". This may be a basic Wiki-style guideline, but I thought it would be useful to bring up.--C.Logan 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, there is a language barrier on my part for sure; """ please remain civil"""? Could not get the point? --Z yTalk 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Since you signed each paragraph, I assume I can reply between each one). I was noting your CAPS LOCK usage, and your exasperated, angry tone which follows at least partly from that small difference in letter capitalization. Our faults in communicating seem to make each of us impatient with the other, so we should just keep that in mind.--C.Logan 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, how do you presuppose that we will force interpretations to discredit the aforementioned author's view? How does it happen that all counter arguments or alternative explanations have turned out to be forced and distorted to discredit these famous experts of cuisine? Why I feel that any kind of counter argument may fall within that category if this is you who decide which one is what? Why all the rest of writers&researchers should avoid refuting your favorite one? Please re-read what you have said above and think it thorough.--Z yTalk 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really wish you wouldn't use the term "my favorite one", as I'm not endorsing Ash or Dalby (or anyone else, for that matter). "Facts" are tricky things; remember that Wikipedia does not act for proof of factuality, only verifiability. In that same vein, we're not here do endorse one view or another. It's fair of course, to note that "the majority of scholars believe that 'food X' was of Turkish origin", but that sort of "majority" statement requires a source. In summary: you or I may find that "Dalby's assertion has been refuted", but that's just our own opinion. We must present all views with a constant mind for neutrality.--C.Logan 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when listing the works of a poet became "an excited reaction".Please.Lets not lose our focus here...--Z yTalk 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Using CAPS LOCK is typically a written representation of anger or excitement. Its usage shifts the tone of your article to one written from exasperation, irritation or anger.--C.Logan 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And...No one here or in the world has a problem with Ash or Daby. People do not get discredited if their judgments are discussed and refuted by others. However, I still think that presentation of an idea here on wiki. as that of the majority is problematic. That's why you have to be even stronger if you claim something which is not accepted by the rest of experts&historians etc. Otherwise you seem to be cherry-picking to justify whatever you have in your mind or whatever pleases you.--Z yTalk 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, we are implored by policy to represent all major views. Presenting a minority view as a majority view is POV-pushing, but discrediting it is POV-pushing as well. Its status as a minority only extends to that fact, and does not verify or falsify the claims of that particular view. As such, there's nothing wrong with noting the assertions of these two individuals, and including the quote as well. More extensive coverage should be given on majority views (although that's a subjective judgment as well unless a source is found for such a claim... which is something else we should have here), but the information currently shown for Dalby and Ash's assertions should not be snuffed out of the article or discredited by user POV.--C.Logan 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against the risk of my reply being reverted or reorganised once again by Logan, I will try to write all here. I hope it is not too complicated to understand what I am responding to or commenting about. Lets not lose our point here I have to reiterate. I do not think that an analysis of my temper is interesting to anyone. Whether by excitement (that's what you say) or by the intention of making emphasis (I would rather say) I can use and will use CAPS LOCK. It draws the emphasis on the matter. Do not take affront. And unless we are out of the scope of discussion, you should not distract people by making psychological analyses. I can be "excited", angry, depressed or whatever. Look I have written down a paragraph for almost nothing, however, the fact that Ash is first a poet still DOES MATTER, especially where, there are other sources written by authors that are at least "more" focused on the cuisine or culinary traditions --Z yTalk 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We are all encouraged to be civil here, and therefore we should be mindful of the typical boundaries of what is "acceptable in conversation". Yelling may certainly emphasize points in speech, but it's considered rude and antagonistic. I'm not claiming that your words were, but the general tone along with the caps would lead me to believe such, and that's problematic. Obviously, emphasis can equally be achieved by bolding or italicizing by surrounding the text with text or text, respectively. In regard to your last point, that's the point of the WP:RS allowance in the first place. He's obviously a poet, but that's only one of his interests/occupation, the other of which being a writer who interests himself with extensive study of Byzantium.--C.Logan 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is implored to obey to prevailing opinions. Do not contort what has been said here. """Presenting a minority view as a majority view is POV-pushing""" Good. """but discrediting it is POV-pushing as well""" Well it depends. I found your refutation=discrediting the author conclusion purely defensive. I am standing for the representation of the facts in a neutral manner. Your description given above ("x claims ... but y says ...") is exactly what I tried to describe far above by giving example of baklava article. Due to nationalistic interventions and some level of censoring the article is not the best one but still there is information there. Arguments, basic links used in the arguments and counter arguments ALL TOGETHER. As by saying that """Presenting a minority view as a majority view is POV-pushing" I assume that you understood it had nothing to do with my Turkish pride, although such an "opinion" (a baseless one because neither me nor other people have been informed about the arguments behind this speculation) is tantamount to neglecting a culinary tradition of 4000 years, which has been influential all along the migration route of Turks, from Central Asia to Eastern Europe...--Z yTalk 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There's a big difference in saying "X and Y believe that the people of Z were incapable of A, however, a majority of scholars believe that the Z's were capable of A since at least the first century", and "X and Y believe that the people in Z were incapable of A, but scholars have since refuted their claims", or something to that effect. The former is what we should strive for, because the latter is POV- one is only "refuted" by the agreement of a subjective judgment, i.e. "It is my opinion that scholar X has sufficiently refuted Dalby's claims".


 * 2) "Truth" is something that I've found to be subjective in the real world; you or I can choose whatever "truth" we'd like based on the available evidence. I've seen so much arguing on many sides of historical issues, and I stay as neutral as possible. I found myself caught up in an argument about whether or not the ancient Greeks practiced pederasty, and a strong case was made against such a notion. However, that concept still propagates throughout many scholarly studies. Why? Again, it is because we ultimately choose our "truths".


 * 3) Following this line of thinking, your dismissal of Ash or Dalby, no matter how elemental or obvious analysis of sources may seem to you, may seem to be a nonsensical and uneducated conclusion to other observers. You've chosen one viewpoint, and hold a strong enough belief in it that you might view my perceived support of the inclusion of this quote as being a result of "either [having] no idea about the content or [not knowing] much about it, so this is the only way you can assert that borek, halva and baklava are Byzantine". Again, this is your opinion- that is, your own personal judgment based on the evidence you've seen, and is akin to saying "only an uninformed individual would believe that the Armenian Massacre never occurred": there's evidence for both possibilities, and there are certainly scholars and laymen supporting both conclusions, with extremists on both sides of the issue. Additionally, I've already explained my non-support of the quotation.


 * 4) A scholar's study can not be superior in quality on Wikipedia, but the popularity of a particular view can and should be noted clearly, as long as sources are provided to support this popularity claim.--C.Logan 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion sub-section, for navigation and editing ease

 * 1) 4) No, there is no need to classify opinions as that of the majority or minority..I mean, no need to state that "the overwhelming opinion is X". I am not looking for an emphasis on the opinion of majority. You took it wrong or I did not explain it well. What I say is that; if something has always been open to discussion and it is known to anybody (to the extent that it became even a problem between lots of states), and if you aim to give information about the matter, it would be "stupid" or too "political" just to mention one side of the matter. That is what you are doing in the article. Either you avoid triggering such a discussion or give place to all opinions and ideas. Otherwise, people, normally start questioning motives behind representing only one side of the discussion. --Z yTalk 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm at a loss as to how my opposition to the removal of sourced information was making the article "one-sided", when the statement in question was a dissenting view. If anything, the opposite is the case, and that's really the ultimate reason why I became involved here: to prevent the article from becoming one-sided by removing the information. Maybe we've miscommunicated this issue. In any case, it is important to note the majority/minority aspect of a view. For instance, it is important to note that the vast majority of scholars now dismiss the "Jesus never existed" theory (whereas it had gained some popularity in the past 100 years or so), as neglecting to mention the minority of such a dramatic theory would be deceptive. That's why I've argued that if Ash or Dalby have minority opinions, it should be noted.--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you can not prevent the article from becoming one-sided by keeping there JUST a dissenting view. We have already talked about that. If you set out a debate, you have to listen to all voices. We agreed on this. Second, whether an opinion is generally accepted or not is important for sure. But if you summarise all opinions in a brief way, you do not need to state particularly which one is the opinion of majority. Thus, you avoid endless discussions about which opinion is prevailing over others..If and when I insert other quoted information regarding the origins debate, it is going to be seen easily, what majority says. --Z yTalk 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Z y, you keep saying this, but... I don't know why. The article already reveals some views on the Ottoman origins of the food, so how can you claim that I'm "keeping only the dissenting view"? The point is that it is the only dissenting view, as the rest of the section supports the Turkish origins in cuisine. My reason for reverting the removal of this quote is that it is the only statement that disagrees with the rest of the section, and therefore the removal of this statement would effectively be the elimination of a valid viewpoint.--C.Logan 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * """as the rest of the section supports the Turkish origins in cuisine"""??? R u halucinating or what? It is just mentioned that there are some commonalities with Turkish cuisine. Look, I sincerely don't have a specific desire to have Turkish/Ottoman roots or influence on the Greek cuisine mentioned or emphasised in the article. Normally, it should be mentioned but if it is not mentioned, it is your business. I do not care. But when u specifically say that """x, y, z are not Turkish but Byzantine""" it is a strong conclusion, which automatically calls for further explanation and requires a fair argumentation of contradicting theses.--Z yTalk 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you certain you've read the section? The quote immediately following the statement you've noted goes on to describe the Ottoman influence on the cuisine of the cultures which which were within its dominion, and the paragraph after that presents examples of dishes derived from Arabic, Turkish and Persian influence, with Ash and Dalby's theories presented as a dissenting viewpoint to what the entire section had been arguing until that point. I'm wondering if your own viewpoint affects how you perceive the presentation in the article, because it clearly denotes Turkish or extra-Byzantine origin until the point of citation of Ash and Dalby.--C.Logan 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 2) An opinion can rarely be refuted in the way you describe above. You would never say X refutes Y normally. What is refuted is understood through arguments and counter arguments in a discussion. And everbody draws HIS OWN CONCLUSION from the discussion. Counter arguments brought to a thesis can lead to a refutation in the minds without any need to clarify that "X refutes Y". So I do not understand what your problem is with refutation and argumentation of a thesis. BUT if you deprive people of developping counter arguments, or bringing counter arguments already developed by scholars&experts&historians, the discussion can not be fair or just. --Z yTalk 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we may be on the wrong track. See, I consider the removal of the quotation to be the deprivation in this instance. I've never argued against adding new information (specifically opposing information), and I've actually encouraged you to do so several times. Can you explain to me how this applies to the removal of the quote, which seems to be the reason we're discussing this in the first place? Additionally, it would appear that there's nothing incorrect about "X refuted Y" in the first place, or from noting refutations when the statement is in reference to what individuals believe, i.e. "Biblical scholars and classical historians generally accept the historical existence of Jesus, with claims against existence regarded as "effectively refuted"."(from the Jesus article).--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can not take it simply as "the removal of the quoted material". You have to go into the essence of the quotation to see whether mentionning just that point of view can lead to misrepresentation of the facts. However, if we insert other arguments&opinions into the article, then it will be okey without doubt. --Z yTalk 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said above, the inclusion of the quote is not representing only that point of view- the rest of the section covers the (apparent) majority view clearly. The inclusion of this quote prevents the article from becoming one-sided by only reporting on the Turkish origin viewpoint, which is apparently not universal.--C.Logan 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Logan please! Now you changed your mind? The article is already fair enough so no need for further info? Is that what u mean? Unacceptable if this is the case--Z yTalk 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've explained above, the article has already 'argued' for the Turkish origin of many dishes. The inclusion of Ash and Dalby is neutralizing as it displays one opposing viewpoint. Please do not put words in my mouth. The article argues for your viewpoint, and the removal of Ash and Dalby's quote implies that the viewpoint expressed in the article is the only viewpoint. As I've told you countless times, add information to the article that supports the "majority view"; do not remove information that supports the "minority".--C.Logan 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 3) I am NOT DISMISSING Ash and Dalby. I want to dismiss your way of presenting facts, which I find partial cause it seems as if there were no room for discussion about it. By the way, I am still not sure whether they really said that "baking remained a Christian prerogative till XVIth century". I am on it. And yes, if you have even little information about the topic, you would be surprised at such an allegation without any need to choose a "truth". Your own conclusion can be subjective but it does not prevent opinions from being speculative and astonishing enough in a way requiring a fair argumentation of contradicting opinions--Z yTalk 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said earlier, I'm unsure what your issue is with my actions here are, as it would seem that the opposite of what you claim is the case. I'm diversifying the discussion by preserving the text which had been removed. I'm unsure how this could possibly make the discussion "partial"- simply add more facts which state otherwise, rather than removing sourced information.--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I have a few words about adding more facts. Of course I will add facts if you insist on keeping such an argument there. As the quoted sentences put there are quite extensive in content, then I will have to add info about 1) History of Turkish Cuisine 2) Origins of Baklava 3) Origins of kebap 4) Origins of borek 5) Origins of other Turkish staples mentioned by the author 6) Counter-arguments to the theses laid down in the article. Especially in an article in which people deliberately avoid mentioning the words "Turkish", "Turk", "Ottoman", I do not want to face with nationalist criticisms. On the other hand, me too, find unnecesary to make an extensive debate about the origins of mentioned specialities here, in an introductory text on the Greek cuisine page. BUT if the info you insist on keeping there is kept there, I will have to insert the bulk of information I have at hand. I was trying to warn you about next steps we had ahead (far above, read them again if you want).--Z yTalk 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said twice above, the view you espouse is already supported by the article, and therefore the inclusion of the dissenting viewpoints of Ash and Dalby is the only thing keeping the article neutral as it is. How do you continue to claim that the inclusion of a minority view, when the article presents the majority view already, is including "only the minority viewpoint"? That's false, and I wonder if I'm misunderstanding you here.
 * Additionally, I didn't notice any clear avoidance of "Turk/Turkish" or "Ottoman", which are mention 9 times and 6 times, respectively. "Greek" is mentioned 27-30 times, only 3 times more than Turkish, which seems appropriate considering that this article pertains to Greek cuisine, as the title clearly denotes. "Byzantine" is mentioned only twice.--C.Logan 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before I am not looking for particular emphasis on Turco-Ottoman history. No! BUT I really dont know how you get that meaning from the article, that other views are already supported in the article?..I will add facts if you insist on keeping such an argument there. As the quoted sentences put there are quite extensive in content, then I will have to add info about 1) History of Turkish Cuisine 2) Origins of Baklava 3) Origins of kebap 4) Origins of borek 5) Origins of other Turkish staples mentioned by the author 6) Counter-arguments to the theses laid down in the article.--Z yTalk 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I got "that meaning" from the article by reading it. I'm unsure how you're missing it, unless you really feel that the coverage of the viewpoint should be heavily reinforced (which raises POV concerns). Additionally, I'm a little concerned with these "counter-arguments": are they direct counter arguments to "those who suppose Byzantine origin", or are they synthesized original research on your part? The issue of "countering" a viewpoint expressed in an article is always a POV concern, and care should be taken in presentation.--C.Logan 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over the source text is important, and I'm making efforts to do so as well. Unfortunately, most bookstores I've been to require you to pre-order the books, and I'd rather not pay $45 dollars(!) for a book I'm using for such a small matter. Hopefully, if the claim is indeed improperly sourced, then we can end this discussion promptly (it wouldn't be the first time someone has slipped in false statements under the umbrella of quotation).--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a great number of source materials regarding cuisine except for that of Ash. A friend of mine has a book of Ash and Dalby and he said me there can not be such a comment there. He is checking. However I will check it myself too. But of course I have other sources that I frequently refer to on cuisine pages.--Z yTalk 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.--C.Logan 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "only an uninformed individual would believe that the Armenian Massacre never occurred". Yes it implies a judgment. And yes I have an idea about the history of Turkish cuisine :) However you should have already understood that what I want is NOT the insertion of my personal opinions or feelings about the discussion. I am claiming to a fair presentation of facts..Saying that "Armenian massacre did not occur" (WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ELSE to support your own conclusion) is equal to saying "All Turkish staples are Byzantine" if you ask me. You should ELABORATE. That's how people get information. --Z yTalk 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's certainly true, but the lack of elaboration doesn't mean that a statement should be removed, especially within a quote. I've explained to you that it's better to add information than to remove it, and that's why I suggest that if you disagree with the theory, it's better to insert information to the contrary than to delete a sourced statement. Certainly, having the sources at hand is essential for progress in this matter, as it is necessary for said "elaboration" to be possible.--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See above.--Z yTalk 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Yelling may certainly emphasize points in speech, but it's considered rude and antagonistic". Then do not yell when talking --Z yTalk 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're being facetious here. Typing with CAPS LOCK on is the equivalent of yelling in written form. From the Caps lock article: "On Internet chat systems and Usenet, typing in all capitals is considered rude, the large letters akin to shouting or yelling within the social context. On a more practical level, caps lock may be difficult to read." Capitalizing sections of your text is essentially "yelling" them.--C.Logan 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My goodness!OUT OF SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION.(However I have to say that I appreciate there is an article written about the use of caps lock???) --Z yTalk 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really see how it's out of scope...--C.Logan 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not discuss the meanings attributed to the use of caps lock on the internet!--Z yTalk 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to; you just need to understand what is perceived as "being uncivil"; namely, presenting your speech in a manner commonly perceived as "yelling".--C.Logan 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a saying in Turkish, "your aim is not to eat grapes, but to beat the grape grower". I am the grape grower here..Anyway..you say that I am uncivil. Well I am not. And you are not in a position to decide what is civil or uncivil --Z yTalk 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that you aren't civil, but I'm just trying to explain why your earlier comment (which I'd noted) could be perceived as uncivil. We're really way past all of that, but I just want to clarify some of my arguing points that I've brought up before. I'm not calling you anything anymore, just explaining why I did previously.--C.Logan 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-read the article (introductory part). AS IS, the representation of facts seem fair and acceptable. --Z yTalk 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you should add information on the Turkish origins of the dishes you'd mentioned, if you prefer.--C.Logan 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I sincerely believe that deeper discussions about the origins should go to the pages of the dishes; baklava discussion to baklava page, doner discussion to doner page, helva discussion to helva page etc. And information I added in the past or have just added is already there. Ash's speculation will be watched though. (I did not get the book yet, I will). --Z yTalk 08:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, believe me, I can not add info about the Turkish origins of all these dishes there, even if I had thought necessary, I could not have done so. In a second, they will be reverted. So lets leave it AS IS.--Z yTalk 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation: John Ash
John Ash is a poet, not an cuisine authority. We need here Byzantian Texts as sources. Regards. Must . T  C 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * John Ash is also a writer who has made Istanbul and the history of Byzantium his primary area of study and commentary. I feel that we need corroborating sources, but in this instance it would appear that his commentary would seem appropriate in the context of contrasting views and of his own role as a non-academic. As per WP:RS, non-academic sources are acceptable within the appropriate context. That is to say, his viewpoint is acceptable to note if his comments are given framework; that is, of a non-academic writer studying historical documents. Further sources would be preferable.--C.Logan 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a note, I'll look into this source if I get a chance, and I'll see if it references the specific texts.--C.Logan 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem rewording/rephrasing/relocating the reference, but it seems odd that people are so adamant about completely removing a source they happen to disagree with. We're not saying "here's what's true, because John Ash said it", but rather "here is the viewpoint of John Ash, one of several notable people who've expressed conflicting views on the subject". As Wikipedia our job is not really to decide who of these people is really correct, just to report what everyone has to say, properly attributing the claims and contextualizing them in some readable format. --Delirium 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See above. It is not as simple as you put the case. --Z yTalk 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it'd simplify this article if we moved the discussion of the origins elsewhere? We already have a little discussion in both Ottoman cuisine and Byzantine cuisine of the controversy over how/if they're related. In this article we could just mention that Greek cuisine probably inherits elements from either or both of the main empires that previously existed in the region, but what exactly was inherited from which is controversial. --Delirium 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"JOH"? or "JOHN"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Anafas (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Puffery
User:Gastronomos added the text below, and re-added it after my removal:
 * Greece is a country with phenomenal culinary resources, temporarily misplaced by postwar deprivation; the recovery is just now starting with chefs from all over Greece and Greeks of the Diaspora celebrating Greek culinary culture through their food.

This text contains one piece of blatant boosterism ("phenomenal culinary resources"); an unsourced theory about the development of Greek cuisine from WWII to now; and a cross between a tautology and cheerleading. I think the whole thing is unencyclopedic, but I am trying to follow the 1RR. If others agree with me, please remove this. Thanks, --Macrakis 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "the whole thing is unencyclopedic". And a turk just removed it. Why did you "GIVE UP" on the "turkish cuisine" article??? I have been reading here for a while, and while not a member I asked why is it that every time I read an article the page changes so dramatically. Until today. I read all the 'history' of this and 'turkish cuisine' and see that most of those watching this page are not Greek and if a remark is made by a Greek it is immediately deleted by a turk. FACT. On the 'turkish cuisine' article there have been many attempts to 'refine' the contents, by turks and non-turks alike, and the stubbornness seems to prevail in lieu of reality. Where here "Too much refinement is generally considered to be against the hearty spirit", at 'turkish cuisine' "refinement" is in the first sentence. Is there a bias??? Is there an attempt to PROVE something? What is this crap all about? If the moderators/editors of these pages are going to be mostly turks, then, yes, Greeks are not welcome, don't feel welcome, and are in the same minority as outside of Wikipedia with regards to their cuisine and everything else that has been stolen from them in the annals of history, prior to the re-writing of history by the turkish government. Macrakis, Siharitiria. You have made us all very proud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Anafas (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness! Please: "Greek cuisine (Greek: Ελληνική Κουζίνα) is the cuisine of Greece and of the Greeks". Compare it with: " Turkish cuisine inherited its Ottoman heritage which could be described as a fusion and refinement of Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Balkan cuisines"? If you dont put such a sentence you can not explain people why and how baklava is found in Asia, Middle East and Balkans??? --Z yTalk 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to correct the article so that it doesn't sound like a translation from the Greek. I'm quite new to wikipedia but I've observed that many articles within the Wikiproject Greece are written as if they have been directly translated from the Greek language. Wouldn't it be a good idea to use something like a Peer review (correct me if I'm wrong) so that native English speakers or professional users of English read the article before it becomes published? The quality of an article is not only assessed by the information it provides but also by its style and correctness. Articles about Greece (obviously written by Greeks) tend to be written in a very complicated way, with long sentences and words that would rarely be used by a native speaker... Pel thal (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a template.
This is a template. Please edit if you like. (sorry if this is the wrong place)

Greek cuisine is shaped by the country's temperate climate, its island geography and its history. The latter includes interactions with other European and Middle Eastern countries, and the importing of ingredients and ideas from places such as North America, Middle East and India during the time of the Ottoman Empire and as a result of post-war immigration. As a result, traditional foods with ancient origins, such as bread and cheese, roasted and stewed meats, meat and game pies, and freshwater and saltwater fish, are now matched in popularity by potatoes, tomatoes and chillies from the Americas, spices and curries from India and Bangladesh. French cuisine and Italian cuisine, once considered alien, are also now admired and copied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Anafas (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree "once alien", just as in America and abroad, but 'now' is a little late. Perhaps "has been/is" will fit? Also, I think that curries aren't at all popular if at all found.Natasa Sevoleva 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about something similar to this:

Greek cuisine is shaped by the country's temperate climate, its island geography and its history. The latter includes interactions with other European and Middle Eastern countries, and the importing of ingredients and ideas from places such as North America, Middle East and India during the time of the Byzantine Empire and as a result of post-war immigration.

As a result, traditional foods with ancient origins, such as bread and cheese, roasted and stewed meats, meat and game pies, and freshwater and saltwater fish, are now matched in popularity by potatoes, tomatoes and chillies from the Americas, spices from India and Bangladesh. French cuisine and Spanish cuisine, once considered alien, are also now admired and copied.

Greece is a country with phenomenal culinary resources, temporarily misplaced by postwar deprivation; the recovery is just now starting with chefs from all over Greece and Greeks of the Diaspora celebrating Greek culinary culture through their food. Pana Gamithis (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is old, may need editing:

There are millions of GREAT places to eat in Greece. Just as everywhere else in the world, NYC included, you have to chowhound. Walk, walk, and walk. Try what looks good and keep walking to find more. There are not many Michelin stars twinkling in the nighttime sky over Athens. But as a chowhound, you are surely not lured to the obvious. But after a salad of crisped loudsa, fennel, shaved graviera, and a citrus vinaigrette with grapefruit pieces one evening, and a moist lamb shank in a thyme sauce resting on a bed of tomato and feta risotto another night, you'll begin to wonder why. Welcome to the new Athenian cuisine. Moussaka? Sure, it's on menus everywhere. Lamb and fish remain staples, and are quite good at many traditional Greek restaurants. However, Athens has its share of good restaurants that raise traditional Greek cuisine to new heights while creating other dishes influenced by flavors more common to other parts of the Mediterranean that are/were inhabited by Greeks. In almost any large American city, Athens' best restaurants would be top-ranked, with prices to match: Notwithstanding Greece's reputation as a cheap destination, it's easy to pay more than $100 for dinner for two. That's without ordering a bottle of wine, which remains a risk in a country that is now known for producing some fine wines, but has yet to shake its reputation for resin-tasting retsina. The problem is that Greek food hasn't been well introduced to outside countries looking for the familiar. And when they visit Greece they are searching for the same easy crap. The simple approach that many 'ethnic' cuisines first suffer, and Greek cuisine STILL suffers, is that the first waves of immigrants display only what they THINK will sell well in a place where the hamburger is King. And what is easy to make and display, like the hamburger. Souvlaki and gyros is what people think of when they think "Greek". If they don't call them by the non-Greek name 'kabob'. Most, if not all, "Greek" roadside ramshackle 'pitarias' in Holland, and other Scandinavian countries, the UK, GB (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) and other places have been sold to Middle Eastern keepers. They change a couple of things here and there and call it by what they know. The problem comes when these places are remembered as being "Greek" and people associating BOTH as the SAME. They ain't. Times change, and so do people.

Even in Greece, as in most of the "old world", it is historically customary to dine at home. Doing otherwise would suggest that mom has "other" matters to attend to. NOT a compliment. Those days are fading fast, if not faded already. There is still that mentality amongst many (of the older set and those from the very few remote villages) that food prepared 'outside'(of the home) is cut rate, loaded with 'fillers' and never as good as mom made. I hear only this from coworkers and friends when I discuss their country of origin cuisine. I get it from "Little India" in Manhattan has keepers that are "in it only for the money", implying that the food isn't up to par. Also, I can't get many of them to eat there. To, "Why would I eat at an Italian place when momma has the best gravy at home?" And they are right.

Athens preparation for the Olympic Games in 2004 is now well underway which has resulted in the refurbishment of numerous older hotels in a contemporary style. The quality of restaurants is also improving and the style is becoming more contemporary. It is only a few years since the first places which really deserve to be called "gourmet restaurants" were opened. These sophisticated eateries offer world-class cuisine ranging from the classic to the innovative.

There are 'old style' places (tavernas) that feature some 'old style' Greek food that is typically found in restaurants, as opposed to 'home style' found in homes. There are Albanian immigrants and immigrants from all over the world selling their brand of 'Greek' 'food'. If you are lucky to avoid these places, and, like everywhere else, are 'in-the-know', you can find many, many hidden treasures.

In Athens there are also many contemporary places serving real GREEK food in a contemporary style. You most likely won't see many older mind set Greeks dining in those establishments as you would in the old style tavernas. The concept is too..... contemporary. (Like dining at the latest and greatest Italian spot in Manhattan. Many NY'ers, not many Italians from Italy (or Brooklyn, LOL - just kidding!) You will see Greek food in though. And a good example of it, if you chowhound. The Greeks are renowned for their hedonistic lifestyle and the long nights they like to spend eating, drinking and dancing. Few other places on earth can match the city's lively nightlife scene. Late dinners (taken at around 10pm) and nightclubs that fill up after midnight are extremely typical there so don't be alarmed by the empty tables if you show up early for dinner! Several factors make dining and partying so pleasurable in Athens. First there is the contagious joy shown by Athenians as they savour their food, dance on any available surface - including tables - and chat endlessly. Secondly, the picture perfect scenery - be it a traditional taverna located in a vine-covered backyard in Plaka or a seaside fish restaurant in Piraeus - will add to your enjoyment. Greece is a wonderland for chowhounds. Probably, by definition, the best chowhounding country in the world. But if you are an impatient/picky/particular chowhound and settle for the tourist traps and the usual glop, then you got what you came for. The rest will dine on some of the best cuisine in the world.

Natasa Sevoleva (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above text is unencyclopedic and doesn't belong in WP, not even in a Talk page -- but I'll leave it to avoid unnecessary disputes.... --Macrakis (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You still around? Fayez Kata (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis,

WTF?!?!?! Who ARE you? and what business do you have here? -- Boynuzlu (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New Version Origins
"For my part, I am convinced of the possibility that contemporary Greek food, when it is not directly taken from the Turks or Italians, has its roots more properly in the Greek Byzantium than it does in the classical era". Ok. BUT WHO ARE YOU? :) --Z yTalk 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing Dessert
I think that Ravani (Greek: Ραβανί) (a syrup cake) should be added in the list of Greek desserts!

An image of two pieces of Ravani.

And a typical recipe here.-- A.Cython (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ok I have added it in the list. A.Cython (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Colomo soup?
well.. someone added the "colomo soup" as a greek soup...

I am afraid I do not know it and I can't find anything in google so...Does anyone know it? Origins? Recipe etc etc

Please let me know. thanks in advance... A.Cython (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Halloumi, should it be here
There is a link to halloumi in the greek cheeses section, well its not a greek cheese, its cypriot and lebanese, they even make it in romania, but not in greece, and certainly not traditionally. Unless someone challenges me on this soon, then i will remove the linkHotspury (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * you imply that the people of Cyprus have no relation to Greeks? To the best of my knowledge in the area of what we call Modern Greece no-one produces Halloumi (people correct me if I am wrong), but on the other hand it does not mean that the people who live in Cyprus are not Greek. Before someone shoot me, let me clarify, on the island there mainly two kind of population the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Does what i said make any sense? A.Cython (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the turkish cypriots make halloumi as well, does that mean you would be happy for the section on turkish cuisine to claim halloumi as its own?. on the island, all the communities make halloumi. claiming that halloumi is greek is like saying that pizza hut is italian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspury (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally changed the first sentence of the article, defining Greek cuisine as Greece's cuisine and not the cuisine of the Greeks. Halloumi is a traditional Cypriotic cheese, made on the island, and therefore having nothing to do with the political division of Cyprus.  You can find Parmesan cheese in Greece too.  Does that mean that we Greeks should claim Parmesan cheese as a Greek speciality?  Halloumi belongs to the island of Cyprus where it is manufactured and should not create discussions about whether the Greek Cypriots are Greek or not. Greeks cook pasta too but that does not make it a Greek speciality. Pel thal (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned the political division for emphasizing the Greek element of Cyprus. Maybe it was misleading... anyway Pel thal said it better than me. A.Cython (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are agreed, there should not be a reference in the article that halloumi is a greek cheese?Hotspury (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Take away the reference about the halloumi and create an article about Cyprus'cuisine instead (if it doesn't exist already):) Pel thal (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bifteki?
Why isn't bifteki or bifteki gemisto mentioned ? A plain beef or beef filled with cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyalex (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe because it's made just as "keftedes" (i.e. meatballs). Their only difference is the shape of the minced meat that they are made of. I guess it's impossible to mention all Greek dishes.  However, please feel free to add any other dishes you may think of!  Pel thal (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * more likely because no-one has written about them then, get stauck in and add add add —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspury (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Baklava
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Baklava was very much a Turkish food? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.232 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, baklava is also a Turkish pastry (actually the word is Turkish). But we have it in Greece too.  Other Middle East countries also have baklava (e.g. Libanon, Jordan etc).  Guess the different cuisines influenced each other:) Pel thal (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Pasta
Do Greeks eat pasta? I was under the impression that Orzo was a Greek pasta. It sure pops up a lot in Greek American cuisine. And what about pastitsio?72.78.10.97 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Greeks eat pasta and, just as you mentioned, pastitsio is a Greek dish (even though Italians have it as well). As far as orzo is concerned, yes, it is a typical Greek form of pasta called "krithara'ki" (κριθαράκι). Bon appétit! Pel thal (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Laganes is the traditional and by that i mean old, very old name for lasagna, and its origins are in the area of northern greece/ southern macedonia/ bulgaria. the greek for egg pasta is Hilopites and is widely eaten wherever durum semolina is grown. the ancient greeks probably had pasta, and trahanas is a very primitive form. slightly different but often confused as the same thing, the greeks have kis kis, which of course is couscous, which again is a type of pasta. a very very tenuous link might even be to yiouvarlakia, which if you stretch your imagination is not soooo far away from kanaderli, a dumpling found in various forms from northern italy to poland! Pasta in the sense that we know it probably began life in what is now afganistan, where they still eat ashak, a dish of stuffed pasta dressed with spicy meat sauce and yoghurt. the armenians, turks and god knows who else have manti stuffed pasta again and the cypriots have ravioli- stuffed with haloumi and mint. quite traditional but probably brought from italy in the last 700 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspury (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Trahanas
Saw that an anonymous user deleted "trahanas" from the section citing ancient dishes. Maybe its not an ancient dish (I don not know if it is or not and I cannot provide sources), but trahanas is not made out of yoghurt as this user states in his summary comment. Just a clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pel thal (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much space in the "Origins" section
Hello everyone! How come there is so much empty space before the actual text in some sections of this article? Take a look at the "Origins" section for example. Speaking for myself, I'm useless at fixing images etc but maybe someone else could look into this aesthetical "problem"? Thanx! Pel thal (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Souvlaki??

Now let's be logical. Turkish people are originally from Asia, near of Japan and Korea. You may know that Japanese people have cusine food like Souvlaki, and Turks have also. Now I am asking could Souvlaki belongs to Greek cousine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.145.63 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)