Talk:Pavlova (food)/Archive 1

Picture Concerns
The picture in this article is certainly not an accurate depiction of the standard pavlova. It has wine gums on the top!! That is not a pavlova. Needs changing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTait (talk • contribs)
 * Feel free to provide a better picture. Putting cleanup-image in the article is not appropriate.-gadfium 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask why not? It certainly draws attention to the issue.--HTait 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The minor reason is that the template is intended for the talk page of the image in question, not for an article in which the image appears. See Category:Images_for_cleanup, into which the template puts any page it is placed on. The major reason is that you are not objecting to the quality of the image, you are objecting to its content. The template is intended for images which need to have their balance adjusted, or be cropped etc. It would be possible to remove the winegums with a photo-manipulation program, but that would not be honest. You are going to have to buy or make a pavlova which you think is more authentic, and photograph it for the article.- gadfium 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Next time i visit my parents i will get a good shot of one of my mums pavlova's. Virtual circuit 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you having been home in over year since this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.4.126 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rarely at home
Does anybody else dispute the sentence "Pavlova is rarely made at home in Australia or New Zealand today"? In New Zealand, virtually every pavlova I have had the pleasure of eating was home made. - GaryW 20:21 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I agree! Supermarket pavlovas - yuck. Piha 21:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think supermarket pavlovas are nice! :-) and a hell of a lot easier.
 * Easier yes. Nice...? You obviously haven't tasted a real home-made pav.
 * I making a pavlova soon, i have never made one before are they hard to make?
 * I make my own even if it comes out of a plastic egg from woolies.petedavo 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere?

 * Do other countries have them? The article doesn't really emphasise NZ/Aussie thing. Tristanb 12:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I just had Christmas dinner with a Californian visitor who'd never seen one before. Securiger 12:18, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Never heard of them in the UK prior to coming to New Zealand. Presumably with the number of antipodeans in the UK now they're pretty well-known there, though. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]
 * Things called pavlovas are all over the place, but the toppings can be anything at all, and are hardly ever the tradition Australian ones. I don't know whether this is a new UK version of the word, or whether it's like this in NZ. JPD (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's tastes and looks like some sort of Meringue and in Russia it's called Beze (безе) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.130.31 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unheard of in the US and Canada and Britain, and certainly not in the heavily French-influenced East Asian pastry/desserts scenes although other types of meringue desserts are very popular in the Western-style desserts scene everywhere in the world (Baked Alaska is one famous American example that is well known in Asia). Vinegar is not added in making the meringue in making these desserts.--JNZ 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With two decades of being obsessed with Neighbours and other Australian soap operas and other items of Australian culture, it seems unlikely that pavlovas are unheard of in the UK. Asa01 07:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unheard of in the UK? As an Irish person - this was a very common dessert in my childhood - I have also heard the story of it being named after Anna Pavlova - although I must admit I never heard any mention of NZ or Australia as the country of origin. Anyway - if it's common in Ireland I'd expect it's at least a familiar dessert to most in the UK62.203.138.217 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pavlovas are definitely well-known in the UK. You can buy them frozen in supermarkets, though usually topped with swirly cream and raspberries, and looking a bit too perfect.(118.90.12.180 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Note quite so. My British migrant acquaintances do disclose that they never heard of it before arriving in NZ.  --JNZ (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NZ or Aus
The NZ/Australian origin of the Pavlova is an interesting question. As far as I can tell, New Zealand can certainly claim credit for the name "pavlova". But, and it is a big but, the "pavlova" that was created in 1926 in New Zealand is not the same thing as the "pavlova" that was created by Bert Sachse in Perth in c. 1935. The New Zealand "pavlova" contained gelatine. The Aussie "pavlova" does not. There are probably other, more significant differences. The point is that when the world says "pavlova" nowadays, it means the entity that had its origin in Australia, not the entity that had its origin in New Zealand. So, it is an Australian recipe. I think we Aussies are being more than generous in allowing our Kiwi cousins to claim credit for coming up with the name - but only the name. JackofOz 06:35, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * That's like saying that although the Soviet Union was the first country to put a man in space it doesn't count because he was a cosmonaut and not an astronaut - and since everyone knows that space travellers are called astronauts the US can say it was the first.
 * I thought I was the master of false analogies, but that takes the cake! You must be a Kiwi. (1)  Since when did the USA ever claim it was first to put a man in space? All it's ever claimed is to be the first to put a man in orbit (John Glenn), and the first to get humans to the Moon and back alive. (2) The point I was making was that, although the same name "pavlova" has been applied to the NZ dish and the Australian dish, the 2 dishes are different things because they have different recipes.  The Australian dish is what the world recognises as a "pavlova".  The NZ dish is something different (although obviously not fantastically dissimilar).  NZ came up with the name, but the Australian recipe is the standard "pavlova", not the NZ recipe.  JackofOz 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse my slightly tardy reply, Jack, but I think the US has to accept that John Glenn was not the first man in orbit. See Yuri Gagarin and Gherman Titov. They probably didn't dine on pavlova while in orbit, but then I doubt that Glenn did either.- gadfium 07:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, fair crack of the whip mate! The Australian recipe is the standard pav recipe? No way. Check out Wikipedia's pav article, and Wiki BooksCookbook:Pavlova. They (and thousands like them) are the NZ recipe. The Ozzie bible must surely be the Australian Women's Weekly's Complete Book of Cookery cookbook. It has cornflour in the recipe! Yech. That is not the standard recipe by any stretch of an Aussie imagination. (Please don't mention the cricket, but it's OK to talk about rugby union and rugby league if you wish). Moriori 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And who says the Ozzie bible is the Australian Women's Weekly's Complete Book of Cookery cookbook? My mum's pav recipe is the best, and whatever that is, is the standard pav recipe.  When it comes to culinary matters, no book is better than any Aussie guy's Mum's cooking.  JackofOz 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have a brother I didn't know about! You must be, because that's MY Mum you're talking about. (Imagine the Merkins here trying to work out what Mum means. ):- Moriori 19:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Great to meet you, trans-Tasman bro. JackofOz 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that the "Ozzie['s]" cookbook is Margaret Fulton's Encyclopedia of Food & Cookery. Although I can't see Pav. in the copy I've got. Monkeyblue 07:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I now have a date for the creation of the Pavlova by Bert Sachse in Perth, Western Australia - the date is 3rd October 1935. I propose to enter this into the article as 'holy writ' if I don't get any alternative information. JackofOz 10:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just as long as you don't try to claim it was invented then :) Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 13:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

whos going on about american being the first to go to the moon? they never went at all. Ozzy can have the Pav, while us NZ'ers can have the bungy jump, electric fences (pioneered in the 1930s by Bill Gallagher of the Hamilton based Gallagher group), buzzy bees, the jet boat (hamilton jet), Richard Pearse "might" have (flew his homemade aircraft even before the Wright Brothers took off), number 8 wire, the britten motorcycle. spinnanz

Hey I'm from Ireland and we get Pavolva here too. Its been around for years and it has cornflour in it and we top it with strawberries and kiwi or other fruits and berries!!

NZ or AUS
Tell you wahat, how about if we get Crowded house, we let the Aussies claim Russell Crowe ;-).
 * They can have Joh Bjelke-Peterson as a bonus, if they like. Grutness...  wha?  08:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Any comments about the origin of pavlova which are nationalist in tone, or which are not genuine attempts to improve the article, will be removed.-gadfium 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

--I wonder if we should have a rivalry page to list the things contested between Aussie and New Zealand?

Pav, obviously,

Phar Lap

Split Enz

Crowded House

Jandals/Flip Flops - They're called thongs.

...and every second touring car driver in both countries.

Russell Crowe and Joh Bjelke-Peterson can fit in a sub catergory, where each nation blames the other.

Toppings
I have never encountered or heard of a pavlova topped with anything except cream and fruit until reading this article. I would like to see a reference for the claim that Peppermint Crisp is a popular pavlova topping in Australia [unsigned]

Ive seen the peppermint crisp topping quite a few times, though honestly, strawberry and kiwi fruit are the most common toppings in my experience. I think its just one of those things that people experiment with just to try and be a little different. Simply because you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Ive also seen peppermint crisp used on cheesecake and cake also. [unsigned]

And just because you've seen it happen a few times doesn't make it common either. As an over-general, disputed, and unsourced statement, it makes more sense to remove it than to pretend it might be true and ask for a citation that will never arise. If someone can come up with evidence, by all means re-insert it. -dmmaus 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cornflour
I fully agree with Moriori that at least one very common pav recipe has cornflour in it. The one pav I've made was from the Edmonds Cookbook and that definitely had cornflour. It's what makes the meringue on the inside gooey rather than crisp, I think. If the Aussies sort out which book is their domestic bible, it would be good to cite both the main Aussie and Kiwi versions. --Tirana 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Edmonds (New Zealands most popular cookbook) has a very small ammount added in, cooked it a thousand times Paige Master 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Might that be because Edmonds make cornflour? Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:"Disputed", "Onesource" and "Factneeded"
Funnily enough, the whole point of the section that says the origin is disputed is to say it is disputed. Sticking a "disputed" tag in that is a little strange. The two sources listed, one as a reference and one as further reading, disavow the idea of this largely coming from one source. Those two sources also give the origin of the statement which was tagged with fact. None of these mitigate to the absolute certainty of the origin of the pavlova - they do however all point to the fact that the earliest known recipe for pavlova was published in New Zealand. So it will remain until such hypothetical time as an earlier source from Australia is discovered. As things stand, the summary given is accurate. Grutness...wha?  23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the book is a source then it should be under references not further reading. DXRAW 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

NZ vs Aus again
How is there a dispute here? As it is the history section appears to show fairly conclusively that the earliest  evidence is for a NZ origin, if the argument for an Australian origin can come up with evidence (rather than 'Sachse's descendants believe' which is neither here nor there, and certainly not evidence) then there might be a debate, but as outlined in the history section the actual evidence that exists predates even the unsupported (here at least) claim made by the Australians as to the date of the creation by at least six years. If there is actual real dispute to be had here then something approximating why should be on the page, not just what looks like clear evidence for a NZ origin and the Aussies blindly disagreeing anyway.Number36 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article's suggestion that any dispute actually exists seems like weasal words. Is there any reference that states that there is any dispute or debate? Is there any evidence that any Australians actually believe or actively claim that pavlova is Australian? There probably are people that have claimed this or believed this. It would be good to have a reference for those claims though. This article makes it pretty clear that this is a New Zealand invention. Format 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't live in either country :) The debate over the origin of the pavlova is a defining part of the rivalry between the two countries, and very important to the culture of trans-Tasman rivalry. A few possible web references on the debate include, , , , , or any of the other 17000 ghits for pavlova+origin+debate. Grutness...wha?  00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm not denying that there is any disagreement (by debate, I mean legitimate debate), just that when the actual evidence is presented (at least as it appears here), the Australian claims appear to not stand up, and since the article should reflect the actual facts, as they can be discerned from the evidence, it should be changed. Unless that is, any extra evidence has not been presented which should be (though from reading the links and some other sites, I haven't seen anything). Getting back to my point though, from the actual evidence the Sachse claim is voided when the evidence is taken into account and so should only be mentioned because it's widely held, but only in the context of also pointing out that evidence has shown it to be false, what his descendants 'believe' shouldn't be mentioned because it isn't evidence, and far from encyclopedic, and indeed seems a little after the fact. But most of all, as the evidence stands the article should reflect that it shows New Zealand was indeed the originating location. Unless to be fair, any evidence can be bought to light, but wiki isn't a crystal ball, so it should be changed now, and only changed if new evidence is discovered.Number36 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you don't seem to understand. Grutness had it right.  For the sake of our respective national psyches, it's essential that this debate continue forever.  For any actual evidence to be adduced that would actually put the matter to rest would be unthinkable.  JackofOz 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with jack - I seriously think that something would be lost for New Zealanders as well if the debate stopped, even though we all know that the Australians don't really have a case. Grutness...wha?  05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's that, but I think it's rather naive to think something as minor as the facts could stop the Australians arguing the point ;) I'm not saying the debate itself should stop, just that facts of it could be related in the article better. Number36 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ay, there's the rub. It's the facts that we take infinite pleasure in disputing.  May it be ever thus.  JackofOz 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well never one to deny someone their enjoyment, is there any specific fact that you can dispute? Since at the moment the facts appear to support NZs claim. Or do you dispute this? ;) And if so, can you back it up with anything?Number36 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is or is not a fact is a matter of agreement. That's the definition of "fact": something generally believed to be true.  If 99% of people believed that Neil Armstrong never reached the Moon, then that would be ipso facto a fact.  If they all eventually changed their minds to believe he did get there, then that would become a fact, taking the place of the previous one.   In relation to the Pavlova debate, the best I can do is quote my answer from 2003 above (slightly improved): As far as I can tell, New Zealand can certainly claim credit for the name "pavlova". But, and it is a big but, the "pavlova" that was created in 1926 in New Zealand is not the same thing as the "pavlova" that was created by Bert Sachse in Perth in c. 1935. The New Zealand "pavlova" contained gelatine. The Aussie "pavlova" does not. There are probably other, more significant differences. The point is that when the world says "pavlova" nowadays, it means the entity that had its origin in Australia, not the entity that had its origin in New Zealand. So, it is the Australian recipe with a Kiwi-created name that we're talking about. I think we Aussies are being more than generous in allowing our Kiwi cousins to claim credit for coming up with the name - but only the name.  Cheers  JackofOz 07:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to quote Prof. Leach, "I found a recipe book in my collecting of New Zealand compiled recipe books from a 1933 'Rangiora Mothers' Union Cookery Book' for a pavlova cake. Now, it's the correct name and it's also the correct ingredients and the correct method." . Dear dear dear. next you'll be telling us you've got a better cricket team ;) Grutness...wha?  08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * lol Glen 08:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well quite aside from the fact that a fact is a matter of reality and not agreement (if 99% of people believed Armstrong didn't walk on the moon it still wouldn't be a fact if he did actually walk on moon, even if it was mistakenly believed to be one), the above fact concerning Prof. Leech's research is what I was mostly referring to, can anybody debate that. I mean 1933 is before 1935 so... Jack, since we all enjoy the debate after all;), can you debate that?Number36 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a matter of agreement. Until last year, it was a fact that Pluto was a planet - because everyone agreed it was one.  Now, it's not a fact that it's a planet, because the world has collectively agreed that Pluto now has a different label.  Although many individuals are finding it hard to let go of the old "planet" label, they're in the minority.   Currently it's a fact that Tensing and Hillary reached the top of Everest first.  If evidence is ever unearthed that proves Mallory got there first, then it would be a fact that he was the first conqueror.  "Facts" are not necessarily things that are incontrovertibly true - they are things that are generally believed to be true, a somewhat different proposition, although there is a considerable degree of overlap, admittedly.  And we do have a better cricket team, certainly when it comes to Test cricket, the only "real" cricket.  :)  JackofOz 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not a matter of agreement. Surely, you're being silly. The Pluto argument is preposterous, 'Planet' is an arbitrary term which was redefined (by the authoritative body governing such things within their discipline), nothing was factually changed. It was a fact that it was a planet then using the definition which was current then, now under the newer definition it isn't, there is no contradiction involved. At the moment it's certainly thought to be a fact that Hillary and Tensing reached the peak of Everest first, but if they didn't then it isn't a fact, merely mistakenly thought to be one, much as you mistakenly believe the Australian cricket team to be superior. BUT, all of that is beside the point, since to reasonably discern whether or not something is to be believed a fact we must look at and judge the evidence, and not 'what ifs'. So looking at the evidence here it would appear, unless you can indeed forward any counter point at all, that it's a reasonable deduction to make from said evidence that New Zealand was the originating location for said dessert. Because unless you can counter the evidence, I have to ask again, -how is there any debate?Number36 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay getting back; I've been somewhat sidetracked.
 * I've had this discussion with others, and they seem similarly shocked. If only they'd look in any decent dictionary and see what it says.  My dictionary gives 5 definitions of "fact":  1. what has really happened or is the case; 2. something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation; 3. something said to be true or supposed to have happened; then 2 technical definitions relating to the law.
 * I could give hundreds of examples of things that were once taught as facts, but were never true. Two that come to mind from my own schooling: (a) "the Sydney Harbour Bridge is the longest arch bridge in the world" - this was simply never true. The Bayonne Bridge is a foot longer, and was completed a year earlier.  Nevertheless, if I'd written in an essay that the SHB is not the longest arch bridge, I would have been marked Wrong; (b) "Ayers Rock is the world's largest monolith" - again, simply not true; it is not even a monolith to begin with, but even if it were, Mount Augustus (also in Australia, although relatively few people seem to be aware of it) is 2.5 times its size.
 * These fell under Definition 3 of fact, while masquerading as definitions 1 or 2. So, I remain secure in my position that a fact is a matter of agreement, not necessarily of incontrovertible proof.  There is a high degree of overlap between the set of things that are "true" and the set of things that are "facts" - but they are different sets, with constantly changing elements.
 * As to your last question, I can't counter the evidence we have in the article at the moment, and I don't reasonably expect to ever be able to. But I will continue to suspect the truth is otherwise.  Suspicions are half-way to the truth.  JackofOz 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those definitions relate to context as well, in the context of considering evidence (which we were discussing) the third definition can not apply and rather obviously the second does, and the first being what we are trying to discern, in fact it's a pretty terrible definition for most contexts of the word fact since it employs circular reasoning, it pretty much boils down to 'a fact is a fact if it's asserted that it's a fact', I can only think of a couple of ways to use it in a context and have it be meaningful, 'You're facts are wrong' is one use I can think of where it might fit, fittingly enough ;) .Number36 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd go just one step further and say "a fact is a fact if it's asserted that it's a fact and that assertion receives general agreement". JackofOz 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but nothing in your dictionary about 'general agreement' is there? Let's stick to the facts :) .Number36 01:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from Ireland and I would like to add that Pavlova is Yummy and we do know what it is over here and it is not unheard of. My family has been making it for years and it tastes good no matter where it came from!!
 * Good - as long as no-one starts claiming it was invented in Ireland ;) Grutness...wha?  23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I note your humorous Hibernianism that not only do the Irish know about it, but also it is not unheard of in Ireland. Very good indeed.  Long live the Celts, we'd be lost without them (that includes me, btw).  :)  JackofOz 01:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded here (and my ancestors were from Connacht :) Grutness...wha?  02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

--210.87.15.130 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC) LOL, who cares who came up with it first, the thing tastes awful anyway.


 * You've obviously been eating one of those God-awful commercially prepared concoctions sold in the frozen food section of supermarkets, and masquerading under the name Pavlova. I truly pity you.  You must come to my Mum's house some time and find out what a real Pav tastes like.  (That's a real Aussie pavlova, btw - oh, hold on, "Aussie pavlova" is a tautology, isn't it).  :)  --  JackofOz 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the word you're looking for is oxymoron, not tautology ;) Grutness...wha?  02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * :) - JackofOz 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's definitely "tautology". Or "redundancy" if you wish. Morandir (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has done a small amount of philosophy will see that the flaws of the earlier argument about what a fact is can be seen in the statement "It is true that this statement is false". If the 3rd definition is correct then this statement is necessarily true, however if the statement is true then this statement is false. Something cannot be both true and false as these groups are mutually exclusive. Do i need to elaborate on the problem here, or can we all see that sometimes what the dictionary says is not useful in helping us find the 'facts'. 203.97.237.98 01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the Esplanade Hotel, it's the old The Palace Hotel
There might only be 100 metres between them, but my local history says Anna Pavlova stayed at the Palace Hotel, that Alan Bond incorporated into the Bond Tower, and is now a Bank West office. Maybe she stayed at the Palace during her first visits to Perth. But the Palace Hotel was being renovated during 1935, so she must of went to the Esplanade.petedavo 11:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

George Negus media debate about the Origins of the Pavlova
Seems the Kiwi's won (for now). Maybe Anna liked the dish so much that she asked the New Zealanders to try and make it (well hoping so).petedavo 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * could be - though there's one further snag that no-one seems to have noticed to the Australian suggestion. Given that the pav seems to have been created in NZ from the time of Anna's 1926 tour (according to her biographer, Money), could it have been created by Sachse prior to that when she was in Perth? The answer is no - Anna Pavlova didn't visit Perth in 1926. She went to Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney . Which all means that she couldn't have tasted it then, and wouldn't have asked a NZ chef to copy the recipe. Grutness...wha?  04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources are required
I saw the debate on origin at WP:LAME. I added the fact tag (immediately reverted) because the statement about the earliest known source itself needs a source. We have some sources listed in the article, of course. Anyone can tell which of those sources has the earliest date. But that is not the same thing as the earliest source known to the world community. A statement about the earliest known source implies that some reliable source has taken the time to research the matter, and concluded that no earlier source exists. If a Wikipedia contributor is drawing that conclusion themselves -- in particular, if the statement is based solely on the fact that the contributor knows of no earlier source -- that would be considered original research (unacceptable at Wikipedia). Options at this point include providing a source, restoring the tag, or removing any conclusions about "earliest known" from the article. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I (immediately reverted) because the statement about the earliest known source itself needs a source. Perhaps it would have been wise for you to have given that for a reason in your edit summary, then, rather than using the line "who says nothing earlier exists". My reversion was simply because that edit summary was not supported by the text, which states that these are the earliest known sources, and as such, no-one is saying that nothing earlier exists. If you had given the real reason for your edit, I would not have reverted it. Grutness...wha?  00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. A misunderstanding.  That was indeed my intended meaning.  To my mind, they're largely the same thing.  Obviously, one cannot make any accurate statement about that which is not known.  (Proving the non-existence of something, etc.)  But you're right, of course, there's a subtle but important difference between "nothing earlier exists" and "nothing earlier is known to exist".  Sorry for the confusion.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And apologies on my part if the reversion seemed hasty. You're right of course that there should be some source cited which says "This is the earliest known". Grutness...wha?  08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RPP
Seems to be the occasional bit of vandalism to this page from IP's so I wonder if it's worth instituting a semi protect request on this article?  Petedavo talkcontributions  02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We usually only semi-protect articles where there are very many instances of vandalism a day, or a very determined vandal with a dynamic IP address. See Protection policy.- gadfium 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality
Since no reputable food historian has been able to challenge the long-held tradition that Bert Sachse first created the pavlova in 1935-ish and since both the pro-NZ origin faction and the pro-Aus faction continue baying, I've slapped a "Disputed" tag on this article. Morandir (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[[Category:]]
 * Actually, there has not been any serious disagreement over this page for about a year. Your swapping the names "Australia" and "New Zealand" around, and making a claim clearly refuted by the article does not create a dispute.- gadfium 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be any disagreement about this article. From what I can see, there's quite a bit of evidence that pavlova was invented in New Zealand, and this is cited in the article. But the relatives of Bert Sachse - according to the article - believe that he invented it, in Australia. It is not like the origins of pavlova are the biggest, most discussed, most important controversy in Australia these days, and outside mid-morning television chat shows and newspaper columns is it really very much discussed at all? This article seems to have been pretty stable for a long time and it is not like there's frequent edit warring. Format (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - this article does not need the disputed. What is disputed is not the content of the article itself, but rather the origin of the pavlova, and both sides of that dispute are well-explained in the article, with clear presentation of the cases and evidence for both sides. The only "baying" is largely from vandals wanting to assert a bit of national pride. In general, editors from both sides of the Tasman seem to be happy with the presentation of the contention surrounding the desserts origin as presented here. I would be interested, BTW, to know why you do not consider Prof. Leach a "reputable food historian". Grutness...wha?  23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My issue with Professor Helen Leach is that she is an anthropologist, NOT an historian. After extensive searching, the only publication of hers on a food-related topic that I can find is her work "1,000 Years of Gardening in New Zealand", (Reed, Wellington, 1984). She is not therefore, a food historian, nor can she be considered as an expert on 20th Century social history. I do not, in any way, cast aspersions on Prof Leach's record. I merely question her fitness to be held up as an expert on this matter. 220.233.178.130 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The accent
Pavlova is often mispronounced in English. In Russian (Па́влова) the first syllable is stressed (Pávlova) making the other vowels pronounced as shwa. --Atitarev (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be true when talking about the dancer, but the dessert is an Australian and New Zealand dish and the way it is pronounced in those countries is not incorrect because it differs from a Russian pronunciation.- gadfium 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's not always mispronounced but sometimes, mispronunciation usually happens when speakers don't know the correct or original way. It's only fair to pronounce it the original way. It all depends on speakers' background and knowledge. It's not such a long tradition with Pavlova dish, having at least an alternative pronunciation is better than assuming that was always the correct way. For example, "restaurant" can be pronounced in English with the last T pronounced (anglicised) or without it (Restaurang). The latter only is more accurate, in my opinion. So, is the case with "tsunami" /tsuːˈnɑːmi/, which has become "sunami" for some English speakers. "Garage" has at least 3 pronunciations in English.

(Edited original pronunciation: others -> other vowels) --Atitarev (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gadfium's right though - his point is that the dancer's name is correctly pronounced Pa'vlova, but the dessert is only correctly pronounced Pavlo'va. No-one from Australia or New Zealand would dream of pronouncing the dessert with the stress on the first syllable. The two words, though connected by the original etymology of the dessert, no longer have the same pronunciation. It's similar to the way that a comet named after Edmund Halley (pronounced Haw'ley) is now almost always pronounced Hal'ley, and a city in the United States named after a French city pronounced Or'leayaing' is pronounced New Orleen's. The pronunciation of the original term is not always carried over into the new term which develops from it. Such is the case here. Grutness...wha?  10:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusions, my only concern would be the need to find a reference, otherwise it seems like it should be classed as original research. Perhaps a dictionary that has a pronunciation with phonetic letters, combined with something similar along the lines of a Russian language guide, with a phonetic rendering of the word/name.Number36 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Heinemann New Zealand dictionary (Heinemann Educational Books, Auckland, 1979, ed. H. W. Orsman) gives "pav-lo-va" as the only acceptable pronunciation. Grutness...wha?  01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. Presumably, some people assumed the dancer's name was pronounced with the stress on the 2nd syllable, referred to her as such, and copied the erroneous pronunciation into the dessert.  But like it or not, "pav-lo-va" is the way it is.  This is a common phenomenon: Australia's highest mountain was named after a Pole, and rightly should be pronounced "Kosh-choosh-ko", but everyone calls it "Kozzy-os-ko", so that has become the correct pronunciation of the name of the mountain.  Hell, we had a tough enough job in getting the correct spelling restored only 10 years ago (the z was missing all those years), let alone trying to make non-slavophones get their tongues around Polish pronunciation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly, one of NZ's best know glaciers, Franz Josef Glacier, is pronounced "Franz" (rhymes with plans) "Joseph", whereas the Austrian leader would presumably have been pronounced closer to "France Yosef". Grutness...wha?  00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another salient point is that the ballerina's name always has a capital P, whereas the dessert generally does not. So the spelling is (marginally) different and the pronunciation is different - because they are different words, despite being obviously related.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wine gums
I've just noticed the picture. Looks delicious. But wine gums??? Does anyone actually desecrate a pavlova with wine gums? Well, obviously at least one person has done so, otherwise the photo wouldn't exist. But is this commonly done? I've never heard of such a thing in Australia. Here, you can get as creative as you like with all manner of fresh fruit, even chocolate shavings etc.; but honestly, if a host/ess brought out a pav decorated with wine gums, they should expect gales of laughter because most everyone would assume it was a joke. If the decoration practices vary between NZ and Australia that much, maybe we need a text explaining the differences. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've certainly not seen wine gums on a pavlova other than in that photo, and it seemed odd to me, too - fruit is the most common topping for pavlovas here too, sometimes, as you say, with chocolate shavings, chips, or buttons. I'd say strawberries and kiwifruit would be the two commonest toppings, though I've also seen one decorated with tinned mandarin slices, which was very tasty. Maybe wine gums is an Auckland thing... Aucklanders are a bit odd. Grutness...wha?  23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then it seems to be a somewhat atypical decoration, and we need a more conventional photo. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Living in Auckland all my life, and buying Pav's every few weekends, i have to say myself i have never ever seen a pavlova decorated like this is in any local foodtown Metagraph (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pavlova changes being reverted constantly
The article does acknowledge that both New Zealand and Australia lay claim to the Pavlova, however, deleting unsourced claims is well within wikipedia policy and these changes should not be reverted, I refer to:

The claim that it was an Australian invention states that the pavlova is based on a cake baked by Bert Sachse at the Esplanade Hotel in Perth on 3 October 1935[citation needed]. Sachse's descendants believe he may have come up with the recipe earlier than that[citation needed], since Anna Pavlova visited Australia in 1926 and 1929 and died in 1931.

This statement has no sources, and is only a theory, and wikipedia policy:

"Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... ...Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long.... It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced..."

Please take this into consideration, or instead of blindly reverting, find reliable information regarding the claim the Sachse's decendants have. Also, when reverting changes Grutness you noted this information is important even if it is wrong. Possibly someone with more knowledge could rewrite the section so its not giving false statements to everyone who reads it.

Thank you! Metagraph (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sachse's claim is a very widely known one in both Australia and New Zealand, and is very notable in the history of the debate over the invention of the recipe. It is unsourced in the article at present, but that means that is should be sourced, not that it should be removed. The "even if it is wrong" comment in my edit summary was merely a dig at our trans-Tasman editors :) Sachse's claims are undisputed in the sense that hhis claim is well-known, and are listed in many sourced dealing with the pavlova's history (have a quick look here) - they are disputed only in the sense that he is unlikely to have been the inventor of the pavlova. As such, I don't think that the information qualified as "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Grutness...wha?  01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that no specific New Zealander's name has ever turned up as the creator, afaik. The best we have at the moment is "a chef at a hotel in Wellington, New Zealand". Surely that chef, or someone who worked with him/her, would have had an interest in making their name known, given the fame that the pavlova has now achieved, at least in the antipodes.  Or maybe it wasn't a NZ chef, but a visiting Frenchman or whatever, and they went back home and never realised the fame that would await them if they could ever now prove it was their creation.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * JackofOz, that is a good point but im not trying to prove the New Zealand theory, more disprove the Australian one. There are endless theories that could be contienplated, but the Australian claim states that the decendants believe he MAY have come up with the recipie earlier, purely based on the dates of Ánna Pávlova's visit. He could have created the recipie in honor of her death (in 1931, 7 years after New Zealand's original claim). Her visit has no direct relationship to the recipie, and she really only lends her name to the recipie, it is never said she directly inspired it by her dance. And to Grutness, im sorry for taking the "even if it is wrong" comment out of context. And i do agree i could have jumped the gun a little on deleting the whole part on his claim and will re-add it (im only human), but the last part "Sachse's descendants believe he may have come up with the recipe earlier than that[citation needed], since Anna Pavlova visited Australia in 1926 and 1929 and died in 1931." is not verified in the article, nor can it ever be as it even states itself that it is "believed", and not direct fact and should be either rephrased as such, or deleted completely. Metagraph (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you would object to mentioning Sachse's descendants belief that he may have come up with the recipe earlier. If they do in fact believe that then it would clearly be a fact that they do believe it. Whether it is true that he came up with the recipe earlier is obviously debatable, but I fail to see your logic in deleting it. Unless your objective is to censor any possible Australian claims to the dish. In which case this article is certainly doing a very good job. JackofOz does make a good point when he mentions the fact that no specific New Zealander has been popularized as the creator of this dish. Which probably lends more credence to the proposition that the pavlova was not created at a specific point in time, but rather evolved over a period of time. Also it is interesting to note that it is claimed by both Australia and New Zealand as an iconic national dish. Now it would appear very unlikely that the dish would attain such a status independently in both countries. So did it achieve this status in one country first, and did this popular appeal then flow over to the other country? I’ve never heard this point addressed previously, but I believe it is an important one. Clearly there needs to be some more research done on the history of this dish, more from the cultural point of view than the culinary perspective.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been extensive research, and the earliest evidence supports the New Zealand claim, whereas the earliest claim(ie; not proven) of the Pavlova being created in Australia is several years later. Therefore, the biased towards the NZ side is well within its rights to exist. However, you are right in saying that the Sachse family do believe that it could have been created earlier, however this is an encyclopedia, and claims without any viable proof should not be included. It could be added if it was worded correctly, but as with the hostility and the obvious POV issues with doing this, it should only be left up to the pro's. The Pavlova has evolved over time, however we are talking about the merangue like dessert that is depicted in the article, which is what the NZ recipie makes. Metagraph (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still do not follow the logic. Sure, unsubstantiated claims as a rule should not be included. But I would have thought the intention of such a rule is to prevent crank theories being included in articles. I don't think this is the case here. If the Sachse family do believe Bert may have created the dish earlier then that is relevant to the article. I note for example the claim made by Keith Money in his biography of Pavlova, namely that a New Zealand chief created the dish in a Wellington hotel during Pavlova's visit in 1926 is included without further comment. Why then has this claim not been supported by any other proof? Because if it is indeed true then the subsequent research of Professor Helen Leach, as quoted in the article, would appear to be redundant.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The disputed tag seems a little silly now, as both sides either seem happy with the section, and the disputed material was deleted If anyone has any objections towards removing the disputed tag on history, say them in the next few days or im gonna go and remove it. Metagraph (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Iv gone ahead and deleted it, if anyone has a problem with that say here. Metagraph (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't resist
I stumbled across this amongst my random writings, dated 26 April 2001: "The pavlova - at its best a magnificent culinary triumph; at its worst a sad mess that the swan would be glad to die to escape from". I'd quite forgotten it, but now that I've rediscovered it, I just thought I'd like to share it with you all. :) --  JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
Should searching Pavlova go to this article, instead of to the Pavlov redirect page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. At the very least, I suspect it should probably have a separate disambiguation page cross-linked to the one for Pavlov (in the same way, for instance, that there are separate dab pages for Saint Clair and Saint Claire) - there are at least six different Pavlovas on that Pavlov dab page. It is worth suggesting this at Talk:Pavlov before doing anything about it, though. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would bring it up, but im much too inexperienced to do it myself and id hate to mess it up. Ill wait till someone whom knows what they are doing comes along and wants to help out.Matt (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put a note at Talk:Pavlov. If no-one objects within a few days I'll turn Pavlova into a separate disambiguation page. Given that for much of the workd Pavlova instantly means the dancer, I think that's a better option than redirecting it here, especially since Special:WhatLinksHere/Pavlova shows a few links to non-food Pavlovas. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might also like to drop a note to User:Ezhiki, who merged the dab page on Pavlova into Pavlov.- gadfium 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Phar Lap a New Zealand icon?
In the New Zealand advertising section it appears to be stated that Phar Lap is a historic New Zealand icon adopted by Australia. I dispute this suggestion, although it does appear to be in line with the bias that is spread throughout this particular Wikipedia article. The fact is Phar Lap has been a national icon in Australia for 75 years. If Phar lap is indeed also a national icon in New Zealand, which is debatable, then the reasons for such a status have more to do with the New Zealand inferiority complex than anything of a historic nature, remembering that the horse never ran a single race in NZ.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fact that Phar Lap was born near Timaru in South Canterbury, New Zealand, has something to do with the fact that Phar Lap is a New Zealand horse and has been a New Zealand icon for so long? Being born in New Zealand then moving to Australia automatically means that he was "adopted" by his new home. You're just parsing the sentence incorrectly. It doesn't mean that his iconic status was adopted from similar status in New Zealand - it means that Phar Lap was adopted by Australia and is also a New Zealand icon. Not that any of this has anything to do with pavlova. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I agree with you on one thing, none of it has anything to do with pavlova. It is nothing more than Kiwi bias and propaganda, and should be deleted from the article.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Australian immagration policy, being born in a different country makes you there citizen, even if you get Australian citizenship. Therefore, one can conclude that Phar Lap is infact a New Zealand horse, and that it made its fame in Australia is quite irrelevant to him actually being an Australian icon. I don't actually know why the Australians claim him to be honest. The ad is relevant however, and taking out the Phar Lap statement would most likely be reverted anyway no matter how many times you tried, as its not NPOV. It is about the ad, not how badly the Australians need our iconic things, such as the Pavlova :) Matt (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Australian immigration policy being born in a different country makes you their citizen, even if you get Australian citizenship? Dude, I don't even know what that sentence is supposed to mean. Just how questions of citizenship would apply to a horse would be a moot point anyway. I guess the Aussies would claim Phar Lap for the same reason the Americans would claim Seabiscuit. Both horses captured the imagination of the public during the great depression. No dude. The ad is TOTALLY and UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. It's just another way for insecure New Zealanders to NIGGLE away at Australians. I DEMAND that it be removed IMMEDIATELY. Wikipedia is supposed to be UNBIASED. This article is so BIASED it isn't funny. It is a BLOODY DISGRACE.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems that it ain't the New Zealanders who are insecure about this issue, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. The article is unbiased in its presentation of the facts. And it's not meant to be funny - though if correct factual details were removed simply because of your SHOUTING it would be laughable. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to respect editors on here, or you'll be blocked. Your obviously not going to adhether to a NPOV, so i suggest you leave this page and never visit it again, or take a deep breath and calm down. This article was biased, now its factually correct. The ad is relevent because it shows how NZ icons are being snapped up by other countrys, and your deciding to be completely ignorant of the facts and claim that NZ is in the wrong. The article is widely accepted, and there have been no recent problems. According to Australian immigration policy being born in a different country makes you their citizen, even if you get Australian citizenship <--- This sentence refers to Australian Immigration Law, meaning that in Australian anything born outside its territories is not considered to be completely Australian, therefore one can deduce that Phar Lap is not infact Australian. Granted, this probably doesn't apply to animals, but its a good point all the same. Both horses captured the imagination of the public during the great depression. <--- This does not mean that Phar Lap was Australian. This is hardly relevant to the Pavlova anyway.. Matt (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting, Ernest, that many - possibly most - of the editors who have worked on this article are Australian - this isn't some sort of "Kiwi cabal article". None of them seem to have problems with the details as they are presented. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  08:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be having a laugh. Get off the bloody grass you guys. I'm not adhering to a neutral point of view? Streuth, I'd be the only one of us who is. This article is biased. That is a plain and simple fact. I claim that you Matt are biased. It is you who is not adhering to a neutral point of view. To threaten to block me is pathetic. Sure, I could leave and not return. But the knowledge that this Wikipedia article is being hijacked by propagandists would always be in the back of my mind, and a source of continual bother to me. I believe it is important to stand up for truth and fairness. The ad is not relevant. You have provided no logical argument that it is. Whether NZ icons are being snapped up by other countries is entirely irrelevant to this article. Any neutral editor would agree with me on that. Anyway, you don't really believe such schtich do you Matt? Oh, and can you please quote me the article of Australian immigration law which states that anything born outside its territories is not completely Australian, whatever that is supposed to mean. It sounds ridiculous to me, and leads me to question your credibility. Perhaps some Aussies have given in to persistent New Zealand bullying on this. But I'm going to make a stand on behalf of Aussies, and I'm not even an Australian. I believe I am in the right here and no one has yet provided an adequate response to a number of questions I've posed here and in previous posts to this discussion. I will not be intimidated on this matter I can assure you.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me, for a non-aussy you sure do use alot of australian expressions. Im going to ignore the personal attacks. Many editors (most much more experienced than yourself) come through here and find no problem with the article the way it is, so why do you feel that the article is biased? Are you ignoring the facts, or are you simply using the assumptions you were brought up with?

I can't cite the law, because i don't know it. I know that it is true however, because Australia deported a citizen that had been born in NZ and moved to Australia when she was 4 weeks old, and after obtaining citizenship and living in Australia for 29 years, was still considered a New Zealand citizen more than an Australian. This has been the case for many deportations, and if your not wanting to accuse Australia and the Australian government of double standards, you'd have to assume this is the case for everything. As for you not wanting to back down, thats very respectable, but until you provide some contradictiary evidence for your case, your going to be ignored, and most probably blocked. And your verging on legal threats, watch out. Its a very fine line. Matt (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are mistaken. In fact Matt, your credibility is well and truly shot. There was indeed an item on the television a few days back about a woman known as the 'human crime wave'. She was fighting deportation from Australia to New Zealand. She was for all intents and purposes an Australian, but she was not as Australian citizen. That is the reason the Australian government could deport her. I'm not commenting on the ethics of the case, just pointing out the facts. I would be very surprised if there was legislation that allowed Australia to deport Australian citizens on the basis that they were really more a citizen of another country than Australia. But do feel free to back up any of your claims with verifiable references. I stand by my claim that this article is biased. I'm yet to see any adequate response to any of the questions I have raised. For example it is claimed in the article that research indicates New Zealand as the source of today's pavlova. A reference is then given to the work of Professor Leach. However Professor Leach does not quite make such a categorical statement. She talks of the possibility of a parallel evolution of the dish in both New Zealand and Australia. It would be accurate to say that the earliest prototype recipes for pavlova are found in New Zealand, but the dish has a history in both countries. A fair summary of the facts would be that the pavlova was not created at a specific time by a specific person, but rather evolved from the meringue cake which originated in Europe and was made in NZ and Australia prior to the visit of Pavlova. If you are a New Zealander Matt then I don't think you are the right person to be an editor of this Wikipedia article. Putting a Kiwi in charge of editing an article on the pavlova is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. A bloody stupid idea. I would like someone neutral to rule on this.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to learn more about Wikipedia before asserting that anyone is "in charge of" this article. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In which case why the threat to block me, or the threats of legal action. What is is that all about then? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was nothing to do with suggested changes to the article. That was because of your complete lack of civility in the discussion here. Shouting, demanding action, and accusing other editors of bias is not courteous editing. Read the first template box at the top of this page. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Im not going to adress any of your points until you take a step back and read into the facts. However, that cheap shot at my credibility was uncalled for. If i read correctly, the NZ claim is cited, while the Australian claim is pure speculation. Also, you can read 'pavlova changes being reverted constantly' above to see why the article is the way it is now.

One question, what nationality are you if your not Australian? Matt (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry Matt if I questioned your credibility. Even though I felt justified in doing so at the time, such conduct is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and I apologise for doing so. I shall try to tone down my subsequent remarks in this discussion. I however see that in my absence no attempt has been made to address any of the issues I have raised. I shall repeat it, this article is biased. I shall list below the reasons that have led me to this conclusion.


 * In the opening paragraph of the article mention is made of a multi-layered jelly as being the first known printed recipe with the name ‘pavlova’. Its Australian origin and first use of the name is highlighted in the bracketed comment regarding it as “being the first to bear the name which did come from Australia and is no longer baked”. There is a clear bias evident here by the use of the word ‘did’ as in ‘did come from Australia’. It is unnecessary and clearly hints at a predetermined perspective, and also a touch of condescension. In my opinion the word ‘did’ needs to be dropped from that sentence.
 * In the first paragraph of the history section mention is made of the Anzac biscuit with the claim that the earliest known recipes were also published in New Zealand. Leaving beside that this is also a contentious issue, the fact is that this is irrelevant to the article. As is the associated reference that is cited. They belong in the article on the Anzac biscuit, not this one. That sentence and reference needs to be removed.
 * Finally, the section mentioning a New Zealand advertising campaign is also irrelevant to the article. It may have a place in an article dealing with NZ versus Australia rivalry, but not here. This really is a no brainer and I’m surprised the matter has not been dealt with previously. But if anyone can provide a logical reason as to why it does then I’d be more than happy to listen. Otherwise that section needs expunging, as does the associated photograph and YouTube reference.


 * So I intend to make the above listed adjustments to the article. But in order to avoid an edit war I would first like to hear from any Wikipedia editors who would be against such changes, and the reasons as to why they would be opposed.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: the word "did" in the first paragraph, I oppose the change, as it is vital in the indication that the "pavlova" being described here is one no longer made which bears no relationship to what is now known as pavlova.


 * Re: the ANZAC biscuit, I agree that it has little relevance here, and feel no qualms about it being removed.


 * Re:The advertising campaign, it is of relevance with regards to the use of pavlova in popular culture, and as such definitely should not be removed from the article. It really is indeed a no-brainer as you say, and as such I'm surprised you even consider bringing it up for possible removal. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgiven, and forgotten. However, i must say i oppose some of the changes, and not on the basis that i am a New Zealander.

The first point you raise, about the statement in brackets, i support being changed, but not deleted. Possibly removing the 'and which is no longer baked' would be acceptable however. Then again, if your going to delete the 'did', the whole sentence should be deleted as then it becomes biased from the Australian POV. Also, i always interpreted the 'did' as how it used to come from Australia.

However, like the Anzac biscuit[4], the earliest known books containing the recipe were published in New Zealand. <-- You are right, this is a redunded sentence, but deleting it outright would disturb the flow of the first sentence, and should be re-written. To avoid any edit wars, i'd write on here what you plan to change about it.

The advertising campaign is relevant, its part of popular culture involving the Pavlova. A possible rewrite/expansion into a Pavlova in popular culture would be acceptable, however not outright deletion.

Thank you for taking a break, and coming back after things had died down. Matt (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is hard to sustain a credible argument that the use of the word 'did' is necessary to indicate that the 'pavlova' in question is no longer being made, especially when it is stated in the very same sentence that it is no longer made. I suspect that the use of the word 'did' was intended to indicate something entirely different. It should therefore be removed, we are agreed. Similarly, the reference to Anzac biscuits can go. We are agreed on that also. Finally, the ad campaign. Yes it might have some significance in relation to popular culture. But it is out of place in this article without the necessary context. People who come to this article with little or no knowledge of the pavlova will be perplexed as to what it is all about. Perhaps in a separate Wikipedia article dedicated to 'The Pavlova Wars' it might have a place, or perhaps an article dedicated to New Zealand versus Australia rivalry, where it can be properly considered within the context of the Kiwi psychosis.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We have not agreed. End of story, more discussion is needed. Matt (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... "end of story, more discussion is needed" ... hmmm. I keep wondering how to interpret that, but I'm not getting any closer.    --  JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the irrelevant section concerning the New Zealand advertising campaign is still included in this article. As I've stated previously it is pure propaganda. Neither pavlova nor Phar Lap are New Zealand icons that were adopted by Australia. In the case of Phar Lap he was an icon in Australia well before he became one in NZ, in fact it is debatable whether he was ever an icon in NZ. The inclusion of this section is an embarrassment to New Zealand and should be deleted immediately. But if people are not willing to take my word on the matter then they might like to read what the New Zealand social commentator Gordon McLauchlan has to say about it,.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant, it provides context. Also, there's a difference between the article asserting something and the article describing an assertion, there is nothing incorrect in the former regardless of your opinion about the veracity of said assertion. As to it being an embarressment to New Zealand, you may have noted in that section that NZI's parent company is Australian owned... and well, quite frankly I have to wonder if the 'friendly' part of 'friendly trans-Tasman rivalry' is flying right over your head, nobody attaches the huge significance to it, which it seems from your posts, you believe they do, and it is therefore absurd to contend that anyone could feel embarresment about this, or that it might warrant it. A widely viewed advertising campaign which references pavlova's place in our culture in the context of the light hearted rivalry which exists between the two countries is of course relevant for mention.Number36 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For a change I agree with MacLaughlan - Australians do seem patronising towards New Zealanders, and the same attitude is detectable in Aucklander attitudes towards South islanders. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the debate here, though. As to the article (which is by Peter Calder), No.36 seems to sum up the situation quite well. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is this Wikipedia article is about pavlova, not any light hearted rivalry that may exist between New Zealand and Australia. The information about the advertising campaign may indeed have a place in an article dedicated to this rivalry, but not here. The fact that NZI's parent company is Australian owned does not lessen the degree of embarrassment, in fact it makes the campaign all the more patronising towards New Zealand.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pavlova is one of the best-known examples of the rivalry between New Zealand and Australia - it is so well known as that, in fact, that it has been used as the subject of an advertising campaign focusing on that rivalry. The fact that the origin of pavlova is not only mentioned in the ad but is central to the campaign is also indicative of the strength of the rivalry. For both these reasons, it definitely belongs here. And there's certainly nothing patronising about the campaign, quite the opposite, in fact> And New Zealander have enough of a sense of humour about such things to know who the butt of the joke is - Australia in general and NZI in particular (it's good to know that a large company can laugh at itself like that). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not making a lot of sense. The existence of such a rivalry between New Zealand and Australia is going to be a little known fact for most, and the inclusion of the particular advertising campaign is going to add little to their understanding. In fact I'd suggest most would find it to be an odd curiosity and nothing more. I'm however slightly confused over your insistence that the advertising campaign is in no way patronising to New Zealand. You did read what Gordon McLauchlan had to say about such advertising, or am I missing something? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Presence of anything in any advertisement is due to the advertising company believing it will help sell their product. They are not having a laugh at anyone or anything (or themselves) per se, because ads do not exist for those reasons. Ads exist only to sell the product. Obviously they frequently might try to put in something that people recognise - like the Aust/NZ rivalry - but that is a decision made by the ad company and the company being advertised. It is not any accurate indication of the strength of the rivalry, it proves only that the ad company and the company being advertised believed the a reference to a rivalry - that they believe exists - might help sell the product. (Sorry this is getting off-topic.) Format (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Myth of creation
I’ve noticed both in the main article and discussions the idea that the pavlova was invented, and the possible locality and nationality of a creator, as being points of debate. It would also appear that at least some Wikipedia contributors have access to the recently published book by Professor Leach. It these people have read this book attentively then they will be aware that Professor Leach emphasises evolution over creation when discussing pavlova origins. Indeed, it would seem that the previously held belief that the pavlova had evolved from the meringue cake through the addition of key ingredients such as cornflour or vinegar would appear to be incorrect, as such ingredients were already being employed by bakers of meringue cakes in the United States and Australia at the same time. It would now seem that the pavlova emerged from the meringue cake by the simple act of renaming. So in that sense there can be no original inventor. Of course it has evolved over the years and many people have played important parts in that evolution, but no one person or country can claim to have invented the dish. These new findings need to be incorporated in the main article.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution from another source does not preclude invention, and the change of the name of an article to indicatee its uniqueness is also an important part in the process of the creation of a distinct product. Most foodstuffs develop from earlier foodstuffs, and eventually reach the point where they gain a new name and are recognised as separate items, even when these new items bear resemblance to older forms with older names. In this particular case, though pav may have evolved from an earlier meringue form that wasn;'t called a pavlova, there is still an initial recipe which is the earliest known to both be recognisable today as pavlova and bear the name pavlova. The current article indicates the oldest known recipe to meet those requirements. As such, the article correctly states information about the first known pavlova. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I support what Grutness says here, he's pretty much covered every point. Matt (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I however must disagree. Yes it may be possible to point to a particular recipe and say that it is the first published that satisfies a certain set of requirements necessary to be called a pavlova. But then that is all it is. The first published recipe. It is unlikey to be the first ever pavlova, and the creator of the recipe is unlikely to be the original creator. Now compare for example with the Peach Melba, created by the French Chef Auguste Escoffier. We can clearly say that this particular dessert was created at a specific instance in time, by a named person, and at a known locality. We cannot do that with the pavlova because the pavlova was not created at a specific point in time. There are also issues concerning how we define just what a pavlova is. Does it need to be named pavlova? Does the recipe need to include ingredients of cornflour or vinegar? Take for example 'Festivals' Pavlova from 1929, a two layered crisp meringue cake. We would probably not categorise it as a classic pavlova according to our rules as it lacks a soft centre. Yet nowadays the term 'pavlova' has become something of a generic term, and such a cake would most likely be called a pavlova anyway. As I said, these new findings and perspectives concerning the origins of the dish need be included in the main article.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the Pavlova in the picture. Nothing more, nothing less. Matt (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot do that with the pavlova because the pavlova was not created at a specific point in time - Well, there must have been a very first time that anyone ever (a) cooked something that qualifies as a pavlova and (b) named it "pavlova".  It would have happened on a precise date, by a precise person, in a precise location.  The problem is, the evidence for exactly what those details are seems lost.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are two separate questions or issues surrounding the pavlova. The first one concerns when and where a dish that would meet the definition of a pavlova was first concocted. This gets tricky though because we need to come up with some criteria that a dish needs to satisfy in order to be called a pavlova. If we agree that such a concoction requires inclusion of ingredients cornflour and/or vinegar then it is almost certain that such an event did not happen first in either New Zealand or Australia. Perhaps it occurred in a European kitchen some time in the early 1920s, but I’m not aware of any research that casts light on this question. It would seem that varieties of meringue cakes which included these significant ingredients were not uncommon in the 1920s, although of course they were yet to be called by the famous name. The second question concerns when and where a dish meeting the criteria of pavlova was first called such. At present the research favours New Zealand in 1929 as the place of occurrence (‘Festival’s’ Pavlova). However it should be mentioned that the name was being given to a wide variety of dishes at the time, and investigations into pavlova origins have to this point been more thorough in New Zealand than Australia. But even if the first use of the name can be attributed to New Zealand is this however enough to justify the claim that New Zealand invented the pavlova? I believe this is the main of point of debate. By the 1950s the pavlova was considered a national dish by both countries. In her book Professor Leach mentions a two-volume work entitled Home Management written for the British market in the mid 1950s. In it is included a section ‘Cookery at Home and Abroad’ featuring recipes from overseas supplied by writers and home economists representing 25 countries. In the Australian section were recipes for Anzac Biscuits, Gem Scones, Lamingtons and a Passionfruit Pavlova. It is likely that through such publications a process began to occur in which the particular variety of meringue cake favoured in NZ and Australia, along with its associated naming, came to replace other versions of meringue cakes which may have already existed in many countries worldwide under various names. I would therefore think it fair to say that both NZ and Australia can claim equal credit for spreading word of the pavlova to the rest of the world. As to which country can lay claim to inventing the dish, the answer has to be neither.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Rating
I bring up alot of points, and for that im sorry. However, should this article be moved up from start class? The line between Start and B class seems quite fine, but i think this article has gotten past quite a few of the milestones needed to rate it as a B class, but i could be wrong. Does anyone know more about article rating that could suggest some input towards this?

I do know that it doesn't match up to some other B articles, but this article does cover most points introduced.. it could use some further exploration into other forms of pavlova, but apart from that i don't see much that could be improved. Does this mean that this article is forever doomed for start class, or can it be upgraded by doing something? Matt (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does meet the B class criteria, although I'd prefer it to have more than three references (and one of those is to YouTube). See the Food & Drink quality scale (the New Zealand one is similar). I find the Military History checklist is very useful in assessing whether an article is B class.- gadfium  09:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall go and try and find more references for things said then! How many would you suggest? And who decides whether or not an article moves up? Matt (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There we go, theres another few. A few of them reference main points, but others are just for the recipie. References, nontheless! Matt (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article rating, up to class B, is purely informal. So long as no one edit wars over it, and is prepared to discuss it and explain why they think a rating is appropriate, anyone can change it. I've changed it to class B.- gadfium 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Still be discussed?
This still seems controversial. Maybe this article can help? Do we think this is a good enough reference? Seems to sum things up nicely. Format (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting link. I like the bit which says Bert Sachse found the recipe submitted by a Kiwi in a 1935 women’s mag "and (he) used it to create what he named, ‘pavlova’ ". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And its published by an australain magazine.. hmm.. Matt (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the magazine is Australian is irrelevant. It does however give an illustration of how complex the issue can be. There is still a lot of half-truths and outright misinformation being dispersed, the majority of it in good faith mind you. Take this particular article being linked to. Firstly it repeats the claim from Keith Money's book of a dish created by a Wellington chef inspired by Pavlova's tutu. It is a possibly plausible story, but there would appear to be no way to verify it. The inclusion of Kiwifruit in the dish does however add to the suspicion since it would not have been widely used at the time, commercial cultivation did not start until the 1940s, and this would have also been prior to the name change. Next,it states that the 'Davis Dainty Dishes' pavlova recipe was first published in 1927 by Davis Gelatine New Zealand. In fact it was first published in 1926 in Australia. The article then appears to confuse the 1926 meringue cake recipe in Futter's 'Home Cookery for New Zealand' with Festival's' 1929 Pavlova. Finally the article states that Sachse claimed to have found the 1935 recipe submitted to 'Women's Mirror' by a New Zealand resident. In fact what has been acknowledged is that Sachse read the women's magazines of the time. That he saw that particular recipe is purely conjecture. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he got his inspiration elsewhere. We cannot say for sure.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You catch on quick - maybe not. I thought User:Format was TIC, and I certainly was, and I think User:Metagraph was too. Still, it seems where it originated is the most important factor in the  lives of some people. That's sad.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you are talking about regards your first comment. As to your second, yes I agree it is unfortunate that where it originated is the most important factor to some. It is to the detriment of producing a fair and balanced article. I am neutral on this, but it would seem that a lot of the Kiwi editors do have an agenda.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I get it. People who say X, have an agenda, but people who deny X, don't have an agenda. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems quite clear to me that there is some truth in the suggestion that at least one frequent poster here has some form of agenda, or at least has some sort of...what were the terms? "inferiority complex"? "Psychosis"?... about this subject. Considerable numbers of editors from both sides of the Tasman seem quite happy with the general content of the article, and the way in which that content is presented. Only one editor seems to be kicking up a fuss about it, and seems to have spent quite some effort on trying to bend and redefine terms in order to suit his views. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recipe
In the preparation and consumption section, there is what I would consider a recipe of a Pavlova. Per WP:NOT this shouldn't be there, but I thought i'd ask here before changing anything. Thanks, MattWT (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a recipe, because it doesn't give the detailed instructions that a recipe would - the ratio of ingredients, for example. The purpose of the paragraph is to explain what a pavlova is rather than to explain how to make one.- gadfium 19:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "gnt" :
 * Boylen, Jeremy (reporter) (2004, August 20).Pavlova. George Negus Tonight, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
 * [see above]

Semi-protect?
Looking at the page history, I'm wondering whether semi-protection might be a good idea, to allow only established users to edit it. There are one or two good edits (including a revert or two!) from anon IPs, but anons are also the source of much of the vandalism - which is pretty persistent. What say others? Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the level of vandalism is sufficient to justify semi-protection. I would prefer to use semi-protection only for the most frequently vandalised articles.- gadfium 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)