Talk:Shakshouka

Shakshouka isnt Jewish and isn't prepared on Shabbat
In Jewish culture, a large batch of tomato stew is made for the Sabbath dinner and the leftovers used the following morning to make a breakfast shakshouka with eggs.

No, no and no.

There is no tomato stew in Jewish culture, annd shakshouka cannot be cooked on Shabbat morning. (only reheated) I have no access to the source.

Eliedaat (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This may relate to a recent Israeli hack to use leftover matbucha sauce as a quick base for weekday shakshouka.

February 2024
The statement "Shakshouka is a Maghribi dish" may be misleading. While it is true that chakchouka is popular across the Maghreb region, including countries like Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, it is primarily associated with Moroccan cuisine. Therefore, I suggest revising the statement to clarify that while chakchouka is enjoyed in various Maghreb countries, it originated in Morocco and subsequently spread to other North African and Middle Eastern countries. This part of the article: "Shakshouka is a Maghribi dish" used to be: "Shakshouka is a Moroccan dish" on this exact Wikipedia article.

It is misleading because the word Maghribi in arabic = Moroccan. However the change made here not to use the Arab word for Morocco, but to make the dish anything but Moroccan.

The assertion that "shakshouka originated in Ottoman North Africa" is inaccurate and irrelevant. I propose removing this information from the article altogether.

These changes will help ensure that the article provides clear and accurate information about the origin and spread of chakchouka.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylmt (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you can back up the Moroccan origin with a source, then please add it. But as previous discussions on this page will show, there already sources attributing the dish's origin to one place or another, as well as sources corroborating that its origins are disputed. (I've moved your comment, & replied to it, down here at the end to try and keep this page relatively tidy.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense (from start to finish). M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ... it is primarily associated with Moroccan cuisine: What does this mean, exactly? If it means, "when most people think of shakshouka, they think of Morocco", but if, as well, it is true that chakchouka is popular across the Maghreb region, including countries like Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, then the latter is what we should convey. Our goal is to inform, not to leave people's inaccurate preconceptions undisturbed.
 * If you meant something different, then that's another story. Largoplazo (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention the dish is north African at the start
after saying it's a Maghrevi dish, we should say "(North African)" right after. Raturous (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's redundant as the Maghreb is in North Africa. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * doesn't include Egypt, that's the point. Raturous (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor should it. Also, did you read the previous discussions? I did ask you to do so on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it should. I thought you meant talk here, it's my first time using this feature. The article literally mentions that Egypt is one of the disputed countries of origin and is part of Egyptian cuisine, that clarification in the beginning is important. Raturous (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ya you did tell me to use this talk page "use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes" Raturous (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those unsubstantiated claims shouldn't even be there. The bottom line is that this dish is associated with the Maghreb and nowhere else, even if it happens to be consumed worldwide. If you disagree, do what I did and provide some reliable sources that prove that it was known in Egypt in the 1950s or earlier. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of opinion, and it's insane that you're even disputing what's written in the article already further down. I actually happened to find another wikipedia article that mentions its Egyptian root here: Shakshouka Raturous (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you are not part of the culture, but to us disputing this is equivalent to disputing that we breathe air. Raturous (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right, it's not a matter of opinion, so please provide the reliable sources that prove that it has been part of the Egyptian cuisine for a long time. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i already have, click on the link Raturous (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now anyways as it was already mentioned in the article that the origins are disputed in Egypt, I will go to the middle ground of not removing Maghrebi at the start and adding "(North African)" as a clarification right after. If you want to remove that "unsubstantiated" part, I recommend you starting a new topic on this talk page removing the "Egyptian origins" all together, as right now it is literally contradicting itself. Please provide your sources while you're at it ;) Raturous (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your source is unreliable. Please read WP:RS and whatever you do, don't continue to edit war. I also suggest you read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i am not, I used another wikipedia article. Which is as reliable. I didn't continue to edit, I simply reverted. Please provide another article that disputes what I just sent. Raturous (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * also you arguing over what's already written below as well. I am just reinforcing that statement at the start. You need to provide proof that it the Egyptian origins part should be removed. Raturous (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. It's now clear to me that I have wasted my time trying to make you understand how Wikipedia works. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * please clarify, I read the policy you sent me. I followed it to the best of my knowledge. I understood where you were coming from, did not remove "Maghrebi" as your point was valid, included "(North African)" after, then went to argue that the "Egyptian origins" part written below shouldn't even be there and although I provided a source, you wouldn't provide one. I am trying to be constructive. Raturous (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5 Raturous (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are blogs and online guides, and are therefore unreliable. Consider reading WP:SPS. Skitash (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6 is from a news site Raturous (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6 Raturous (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7, the guardian Raturous (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 8 Raturous (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Came here via WP:3O. The Guardian article does mention Egypt. While this is not a highest-quality source, the sources that are used in the article to support the Maghrebi origin are of similar calibre (e.g., the Jewish Chronicle article). Therefore I think it'd make sense to call it North African dish in the lede. This information should also be added to the article itself, naturally. Alaexis¿question? 12:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Technically, this is a fourth opinion. Apparently, the OP has has also approached another editor (their claim that they stopped edit warring after receiving the first warning is obviously incorrect, and judging by what they wrote, it's fair to assume that they still don't understand what edit warring is).
 * Anyway, since claims about history that are made by non-specialists are worthless, the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find (like we do for similar articles). I already have one in mind, and while not ideal, it's still better than what's in the articles. I'll see if I can find another one. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any other editors in this section. Anyway, if you can find better sources, that would be great. Alaexis¿question? 20:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You must have missed Skitash's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have. Alaexis¿question? 06:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * apologies, I am still learning the ropes. This is a good learning curve, learning the rules and understanding how to deal with such frustrating circumstances. There is also the NY times article that mention it being North African. Also in terms of referencing it to be Maghrebi, is usually in terms of the way to prepare the dish. Although it's vague, as each country in NA has a different method of preparing. Raturous (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * kind of odd, but glad you did your due diligence :) Raturous (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Beginning again from a new starting place?
Having followed this discussion a bit as Raturous's wiki-mentor, it looked to me like things were getting a little stuck on one word when the article had a larger problem that the lead wasn't actually just a citation-free summary of the body of the article, as it should be per WP:LEAD. I made some very WP:BOLD edits to the article just now with the idea of improving its overall structure and flow (i.e., grouping all the regional variations into a "shakshuka is various countries" paragraph) and moving all citations to the body, with a new lead that just summarizes the body. There's still a lot of room for refinement -- the article would really benefit from citing some food historians! -- but I hoped this would help un-stick the debate a little and move the article toward improvement. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to remove the word Maghrebi from the lead, especially given the fact that of all the cited sources, the only one that is written by a food historian states that Shakshuka is Maghrebi. I personally don't think much of Gil Marks as he sometimes makes some claims that are either extraordinary or factually incorrect, but since he is already cited, than it stands to reason to use him. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the thing it's not *EXCLUSIVELY* Maghrebi, it is Maghrebi too. Raturous (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think removing the word "Maghrebi" from the lead fails to accurately summarize the article as a whole, please just add the word back in or discuss here. There was no need to revert my entire edit, which included many other improvements. I ask that you undo your revert and make your own improvements incrementally, as is the usual way to contructively build consensus. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that I commented just as you did. I don't see that the article currently cites anyone for a claim that the dish is Maghrebi, which is why I removed that from the lead. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i found this book that mentions shakshouka in context of it being an old dish in Egypt. Here. Raturous (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the Pharaohs ate tomatoes? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No one did?
 * "Bird eggs were eaten and offered to the gods. Cooking eggs in pharaonic times was no different from the ways in which they are cooked in Nubia and Upper Egypt today, for in addition to sekheina of modern-day Upper Egypt, there was egga (where onion and parsley is added), and shakshouka (again with onion and parsley)."
 * Please do not put words in my mouth. Raturous (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i found this book that mentions shakshouka in context of it being an old dish in Egypt It doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i literally quoted the book... Raturous (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * on top of that if you mean to assume the "ancient" and "old" are synonymous in this context then you are mistaken. Raturous (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know and nowhere in it does it say what you think it does and "ancient" and "old" are your words, meaningless to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * as you quoted me "in context" Raturous (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * please remain objective and we will wait what others say :) Raturous (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from WP:CANVASSING (including on the Egyptian project). M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this source isn’t very helpful for this article — we’re trying to get away from cookbooks, and we have a stronger source in the Guardian article for the claim in “History” that Egypt is a possible origin of the dish., since you haven’t responded to my comments above, I’m going to reinstate my organizational edits to the article. You are of course welcome to continue editing the lead and the history section, but please don’t revert a whole restructuring of the article over a single word. Also, please keep in mind WP:LEAD: I removed Maghrebi in the lead because it is not cited anywhere in the body of the article; if you want to add it back, please do so, with a source. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The Guardian is not a strong source when it comes to claims about history. 2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert. 3) You are also aware that I am collecting RS to rewrite the origin section. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i haven't seen anything yet that says that shakshouka is exclusively a Maghrebi dish. I'm waiting to see this. Raturous (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The Guardian is stronger than the cookbook. 2) It is not reasonable for you to unilaterally revert any edit which changes this one word without engaging with my argument, namely, that the lead must summarize the body. 3) I am glad to hear you are planning to improve the origin section, but that has no bearing on whether other improvements there (and in "variations"!) can occur in the meantime. I reiterate my own key point: there is no need to revert an entire structural edit over one word. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) What cookbook are you referring to? 2) It's not reasonable for you to remove stable content in the middle of a dispute. As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go). The only reason I refrained so far from doing that is because I wanted to find better sources. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant the pharonic cookbook Raturous cited above, which I said was not as strong as the Guardian, to which you replied with your point #1. And, certainly, a rewrite using our strongest sources would be very welcome: that is why I tried to begin one. Instead of building on that, you twice reverted the edit entirely, which really feels more like edit warring and WP:OWNership than collaboration. It feels futile to attempt any changes because it feels like you will revert everything. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75644746/f4.item.r=chakchuka.zoom# Raturous (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a published source Raturous (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Back to the initial proposal
Here are the reliable sources  that I found so far. I cited the first two yesterday and I'm evaluating a fourth. I also intend on allocating some time this weekend to search for some more. If you know of any other RS (of the same calibre) that should be considered, please do not hesitate to share. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

please refrain from imposing your POV through edit warring. From now, and to avoid a repeat of the same scenario, I suggest we make proposals for the rewrite here. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , if you had not been so fast to revert my entire edit, you might have seen that those three sources are exactly the three that I used to rewrite the article. However, naturally I cited the material to the authors of the works rather than the editors of the overall volumes. Your WP:OWNership behaviour at this article is verging on the absurd. Please undo your revert and engage constructively with my edits, using RS. I am beginning to think ANI may be the only path forward. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I ignored the aspersion casting once, this is the second. Needless to say that I won't do it again.
 * Care to explain why you keep removing the word Maghrebi from the lead? Do you dispute the fact that all three sources associate the dish with the Maghreb?
 * I also noticed that you're talking a lot of liberties with the sources. For instance: By the nineteenth century, shakshouka had become established as a Tunisian dish.. is your WP:OR (the source makes no such claim). Likewise, The similar Turkish dish menemen shares this origin (that you added in wikipedia's voice) is WP:SYNTH as that's not what either of the two sources (that combined through the use of this) say. M.Bitton (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1, I wrote the lead to summarize the body of the article, as I have explained several times. The three sentences I wrote about the origins were more specific and informative than the single word "Magbrebi." Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi, and the more recent food historians make it clear that Marks' proposed origin is no longer widely accepted. Sienna literally cites both Buccini and Marks and says that Buccini is more likely.
 * 2, "The appearance of shakshūka in U-vishalta Ve-akhalta and in these French cookbooks [from the 19thC] affirms Tunisian Jews’ particular affection for it." (Sienna 177) All of p. 176 is about shakshouka as a 19thC Tunisian dish. We could add "Jewish" to the sentence. Or we could to delete this sentence and use a different paragraph transition to the 19thC, maybe "The first published recipe for shakshouka...".
 * 3, "As shown by Anthony Buccini, shakshūka is one member of a widespread family of 'western Mediterranean vegetable stews' developed after the introduction of tomatoes and peppers in the early modern period; it is related to the Turkish menemen and more distantly to the Provençal ratatouille." (Sienna 175)
 * These kinds of refinements would be much easier if we were editing an article, where, for example, you could just rewrite the specific sentences that you find problematic. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To go further with #1 -- when you re-added Maghrebi here, you cited two sources for it: Marks (discussed above), and Buccini (via a malformed cite that attributed it to Hosking, the volume editor). Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi that's factually incorrect. This is also shows that you're only reading what you want to read: Sienna describes it as Maghrebi and Buccini associates it with two or possibly three Maghrebi countries (if you think that "Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?" are not Maghrebi, then there isn't much I can do to help you).
 * 2) By the nineteenth century, shakshouka had become established as a Tunisian dish.. is your WP:OR that you have failed to justify.
 * 3) The similar Turkish dish menemen shares this origin (that you added in wikipedia's voice) is WP:SYNTH. Again, your so-called justification for using "it is related to" to imply that the two share a specific origin (in Wikipedia's voice to boot) is really worrying.
 * 4) The stew spread to North Africa with the Moriscos is also your WP:OR that you attributed to a source.
 * 5) There, they introduced the stew as shakshouka your WP:OR, again, attributed to a source.
 * These kinds of refinements don't try to whitewash what you did, because I won't let you.
 * I don't know whether the above is intentional or due to an inability to analyse the sources. All I know is that you did it and that there is nothing that you could possibly say that will change that, especially now that you decided to waste my time with a frivolous ANI report in which you displayed the same behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, if we were editing an article constructively and collaboratively, you could just rewrite the specific sentences you found objectionable. Instead, you’re using a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, accusing me of only reading what I want to read, and acting like I need your permission to edit the article.
 * I have provided direct quotes from these sources, and I could provide the entire text of them to anyone who wishes to edit this article constructively. My edits were not written in stone and I do not feel particularly strongly about any of them; I would welcome collaboration. What I care about is following the sources, and providing a welcoming and constructive environment for newcomers to the encyclopedia. Accusing me of original research and POV-pushing, and telling me don’t try to whitewash what you did, because I won’t let you, is not collaborative. What I did was make a positive contribution to this article using academic sources. I have been reverted and harangued for doing so. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What I did was make a positive contribution to this article Nope. What you did is remove content without a valid reason and misrepresent the sources (that I looked for and shared with everyone).
 * I have provided direct quotes from these sources what you have provided has been dissected above and none of it comes close to explaining what you did.
 * Since you ignored my suggestion about making proposals on the talk page and are now threatening to edit war (I saw your discussion with the SPA who's manipulating you), I will ping someone who has experience dealing with similar subjects. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your summary of my conversation with a newbie I am mentoring strikes me as unfair. I disagree that it is edit warring to wait two weeks and then plan to put back in a version of what I wrote earlier, taking into account M.Bitton’s critiques of the sentences they didn’t like. Writing a new draft, revised in light of the feedback offered on the previous one, is a normal way to improve an article. I will be very happy to see any editor revising the article to address the problems with sourcing and the lead. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

without getting involved in the above dispute, would you be willing to summarize the three sources that I provided above for the history section? I just want someone else to do it (for reasons that I'd rather not get into).

The first source is easily accessible. Repeating what I previously said about it: I personally don't think much of Gil Marks as he sometimes makes some claims that are either extraordinary or factually incorrect. Luckily, the third source (see below) summarizes this source's most important claim.

The second source can also be accessed here. Please see the last paragraph of page 133 as well as page 137. Again, the third source summarizes its most important claim.

The third source is not easily accessible, but it basically boils down to this (though, I can send you the pdf version if it helps):

Ideally, one to two sentences per claim/source, including the third, should be more than enough (just like the third source summarized the others), but it's up to you.

If you'd rather not, I'll totally understand (no explanation necessary), but please let me know either way. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm going to note here that I've read the ping message here, but have not gone through all the prior discussion on this talk page or studied the history of the article, wanting to keep fresh eyes.
 * To keep it short, I'd propose something like:
 * One could obviously add more details. I was tempted to add more about Spain, but I tried to stick to what appeared in multiple sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good foundation to start from -- thanks. I think you're right that it would benefit from being expanded with more details, but for now, I'd say you can replace the "origins" section with this and update the lead to match. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * much appreciated. That's pretty much how it should be done, short and to the point (after all, these are just claims). If anyone feels like expanding it (whatever that means), they would need to do it here first so that it can be reviewed. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , it is really strange that you keep asserting that potential changes must be posted on the talk page for your review before they are permitted to be made. I do a lot of content creation, and it’s simply not true that such a process is either required or normal. For example, one expansion on my mind is to mention the 2018 National Restaurant Association survey, because I think it’s a useful indicator of the dish gaining global popularity. To add that information, the appropriate and normal process would be for me to just add it, and if someone sees a problem with it, they can rewrite it to address the problem. Even for slightly contentious material, it’s only necessary to drag things to the talk page after a few rewrites can’t hash out a consensus phrasing. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Talking of "abnormal" and "strange": misrepresenting the sources (like you did) is strange to say the least, trying desperately to whitewash it is definitely not normal. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , it is really strange that you keep asserting that potential changes must be posted on the talk page for your review before they are permitted to be made. I do a lot of content creation, and it’s simply not true that such a process is either required or normal. For example, one expansion on my mind is to mention the 2018 National Restaurant Association survey, because I think it’s a useful indicator of the dish gaining global popularity. To add that information, the appropriate and normal process would be for me to just add it, and if someone sees a problem with it, they can rewrite it to address the problem. Even for slightly contentious material, it’s only necessary to drag things to the talk page after a few rewrites can’t hash out a consensus phrasing. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Talking of "abnormal" and "strange": misrepresenting the sources (like you did) is strange to say the least, trying desperately to whitewash it is definitely not normal. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Article still has important problems
,, it’s been several days with no changes to the article, but it still definitely needs revision. The two issues are, 1, citations are primarily to low-quality cookbook and news sources; and, 2, the lead does not follow WP:LEAD in presenting a citation-free summary of the body of the article. I still think M.Bitton’s proposal, to rewrite exclusively from the food historians they found and remove the other material, is the right one. I am very willing to contribute to that work, but you’ve found every word I write unacceptable. Could you please begin to implement your own preferred edits to address these two concerns? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It has taken longer than necessary because of what you did and the time that I wasted dealing with it and the ridiculous ANI report that you started.
 * Anyway, I don't need to be reminded to finish what I started. As initially planned, I will set aside some time either this weekend or the next to look for other sources. The article has been the way it is for a long time, so it's not a week or two that will make any difference. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"in a sauce of tomatoes"
Hi, I tried to make a streamline and grammatical adjustment to the article (with a subsequent link to the corresponding wiki article), but the fix was changed back to its original form. Currently the article describes the recipe as being made from "a sauce of tomatoes". Firstly, the correct spelling of the fruit is "tomato" not "tomatoe". Secondly "a sauce of tomatoe" is the circuitous way to say "tomato sauce". Lastly, a "tomato sauce" wikipedia article exists here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_sauce Please consider my changes as they are helpful and informative to a potential reader of the article. Skylynx2 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear to me what your point is about tomatoes, whether you are arguing that it's incorrect or you're reporting that someone else is. To put it clearly, "tomato" is one of several English nouns that take the suffix -es in the plural, others including "potatoes", "heroes", and "noes" (the opposite of "yesses"). But I also don't see what that has to do with your edits, as you've made a great deal of revisions. Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My objective is to aide readers in cross-referencing articles that relate to the subject. By intentionally misspelling the word, you are disabling links.  Since this recipe utilizes tomato sauce, there should be a link to the tomato sauce artice.    Isn't the purpose of this site to pool information?  Also, what do my prior revisions have to do with anything? Skylynx2 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the recipe doesn't use a "tomato sauce". It uses a sauce that consists of a number of ingredients, with tomatoes being one of them.
 * Is this request related to this edit of yours? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a tomato sauce. Tomato sauces come in wide varieties.  In fact one of the earliest tomato sauces from Mexico included peppers.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_sauce
 * " They sell some stews made of peppers and tomatoes – usually put in them peppers, pumpkin seeds, tomatoes, green peppers and fat tomatoes and other things that make tasty stews."
 * You are intentionally skewing the article and are thus showing a bias. Skylynx2 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that you started casting aspersions, let me be brutally honest with you: your edits and all of this nonsense stink of nationalism, therefore, I suggest you seek consensus for that mumbo jumbo on how to spell "tomatoes".
 * Also, don't you ever dare to email me again! M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Current article greatly exaggerates dates
Currently the article states that shakshouka originated in Ottoman North Africa in the mid-16th century after tomatoes were introduced by Hernan Cortes. This could not be the case as Southern Europe and the Islamic world were at odds during that time. According to Wikipedia the Tomato didnt get to the Islamic World until somewhere between 1799 to 1825 by the British.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato Skylynx2 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR is based on a wiki article (that doesn't mention the maghreb) and your simplistic understanding of the relationship between southern Europe and the Maghreb. M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The article needs a revised lead
I am starting a new talk page section again in the hopes it will help this conversation stay focused on one specific problem with the article, namely, that it does not follow WP:LEAD in presenting a citation-free summary of the body of the article. I propose something like the following:

Shakshouka (Arabic: شكشوكة : šakšūkah, also spelled shakshuka or chakchouka) is a dish of eggs poached in a sauce of tomatoes, peppers, onion, and olive oil. The earliest origins of the dish are debated, with two theories pointing to the Ottoman Empire or the Western Mediterranean as sources. Tunisian Jews brought the dish to Israel in the 1950s, after which it became globally popular. A wide range of regional variations involve different ingredients for the base sauce or different accompaniments.

, I know that one of your concerns is to keep the term Maghrebi in the lead. However, I think something like the above is more appropriate because the two full sentences on origins are more informative than a single word. I'm proposing my rewording on the talk page since the lead has been contentious in the past, but please do feel free to rewrite the lead directly in the article to address WP:LEAD. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you as I see no reason whatsoever not to mention the undisputed fact that it's Maghrebi. Your insistence this is all the more puzzling, given that the two related dishes that you added (Ratatouille and Piperade) are described as "French" and "Gascon and Basque". Anyway, I see no point in repeating what has been discussed, let alone in yet another new section that you created while is still open (you know, the one in which you made the factually incorrect claim that "Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi"). M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I infer from this that you would find the lead below acceptable?
 * Shakshouka (Arabic: شكشوكة : šakšūkah, also spelled shakshuka or chakchouka) is a Maghrebi dish of eggs poached in a sauce of tomatoes, peppers, onion, and olive oil. The earliest origins of the dish are debated, with two theories pointing to the Ottoman Empire or the Western Mediterranean as sources. Tunisian Jews brought the dish to Israel in the 1950s, after which it became globally popular. A wide range of regional variations involve different ingredients for the base sauce or different accompaniments.
 * I think it's a worse lead than what I proposed but better than the one in the article. I continue to find it weird that this one word seems to totally block your ability to engage with any of the other changes proposed, and that you refuse to propose alternatives or edit the article directly.  ~ L 🌸  (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , you reverted this edit by saying I don't have consensus for it, but I thought I had addressed the concern you raised by including the term "Maghrebi." I am confused. Do you think this proposed lead does not accurately summarize the article? Could you propose an alternative that follows WP:LEAD, or identify your specific concerns for revision? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, you kept challenging the word Maghrebi until a citation was added to it. Then, you challenged the citations until you were proven wrong; and now, you decided to remove the citations and the link, and when reverted, you tell me that you're confused. Really??
 * As for the rest: the fact that you don't like the current lead doesn't mean that I have to agree with you or that I have to keep answering you ad nauseam. I see no reason to mention the claims about a remote possible ancient origin in the lead. The same goes for the etymology. The recent introduction to Israel is barely relevant in the body and has no place in the lead (the dish has been introduced to France in the 19th century and is consumed there by millions of Maghrebis without anyone making a big deal out of it).
 * In any case, as I've had enough of this, I will ping the other editors: your input on this will be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead is perfectly fine as it currently stands. I fail to see why it should mention the supposed remote origins of the dish or its introduction to Israel, especially when we already have a dedicated section for the origins of the dish. @LEvalyn, I suggest you refrain from edit warring and altering the lead without consensus. Skitash (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I overlooked the fact that you did revise the lead here. Thank you for that -- it is a clear improvement over the prior version. I do agree that this lead is fine, and maybe that is the source of our ongoing conflict: I am trying to make this article not just fine but good. Compliance with WP:LEAD is a Good Article criterion.
 * I get the impression that you two spend most of your time dealing with SPAs and newbies. I feel like this is causing you to misinterpret my edits here. After my mentee brought it to my attention, this article has attracted my continued interest because it is badly written. Badly written articles annoy me; I like to write good articles. My previous GAs are mostly related to historical literature, but now that I've done some research on this topic, I don't think I will be able to get the article out of my head until I bring it to GA status.
 * So, for this specific content dispute: a good lead must mention the origins (and the variations, and on reflection the etymology too) because, per MOS:INTRO the lead is supposed to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It's also the norm for the lead to contain no citations, as all its contents should be cited in the body. However, I don't mind letting the lead re-write wait while the body is improved.
 * Because encyclopedia writing is collaborative, I have tried to address concrete concerns when raised and I welcome additional contributions. You don't have to write a good article if you don't feel like doing that kind of content creation: the encyclopedia needs all kinds of editors. But I would appreciate it if you could also respond with a more constructive, collaborative assumption of good faith. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
All I'm gonna say is that really no consensus has been made, it's all what you want and the biased interpretations you have made. We just can't deal with the toxic environment you have kept us in. So I'll just wait it out until a more collaborative editor is involved :)) I wanna make it clear this is not a personal attack just an observation from the previous threads cause I can see how someone can misconstrued my statement. Raturous (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, you don't name a section after an editor (I renamed for you). Second, regardless of what you think, a consensus exists. Last, your verbal diatribe speaks for itself and says more about you than anyone else. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't realize I am not suppose to respond to a false remark that you've made 😂 Again a consensus hasn't been made, we just don't to work with you. Raturous (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like it's productive to get into another talk page argument, but I do want to note that if you're counting me as part of this "consensus", you are over-stating the consensus. From my point of view, we reached consensus that the new origin section is an acceptable improvement over the previous origin section. We have not reached consensus that the article or the section is complete and unable to be edited further. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Note on etymology
Mostly stashing this as a note to self, but I'd like to pin down a more concise and authoritative explanation of the etymology... this is what the OED has for the origin of the word: "Maghribi Arabic šakšūka, ultimately of imitative origin (compare the related šakšaka to bubble, to sizzle, to be mixed up, to be beaten together)." I want to see if any Arabic-language dictionaries have more detail but it's time for me to get to a meeting so this is a loose thread for now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are many references cited in the Etymology section. One of the references appears to be in Arabic, which I cannot read, so my comment does not apply to that reference. The other sources are in English, and not a single one of them is a reliable source on the subject of etympology. Wikipedia is full of bogus word-origin myths, and this is a particularly egregious examples. Cookbooks, newspaper articles, and travel guides, are not reliable sources here. Crowd-sourced online dictionaries are usually just as bad. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/shakshuka is an entry from a actual dictionary researched by lexicographers and etymologists, rather than chefs, cookbook authors, food writers, and travel writers. All of the imagined origins refering to any of the English sources should be deleted, along with the citations references, and replaced with a citation from a properly researched dictionary, such as Collins. If the Arabic source is from a chef, cookbook authour, food writer. or travel writer, it should also be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.198.242 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The arabic source is a news article, totally useless/unreliable for this context too. Thanks for digging up the Collins. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The etymology section is best kept and dealt with properly. The Collins claim is just as baseless as the rest as there is no such thing as "šakšaka" in the Maghrebi dialect. I'll look into this and will share what I can find. M.Bitton (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Collins Dictionary is... baseless? Anyway, as quoted above, it's the OED that links the word to šakšaka. It's a transliteration of شخشخ, which certainly appears to be an onomatopoeic verb relating to the right sound. (Elsewhere I see it translated more like "to sputter" which seems most relevant here, but in the article I used the OED's gloss.)
 * The etymology sourcing in the article is so poor that if the OED is unacceptable it would be better to have nothing at all. I checked the Doha Dictionary of Historical Arabic and Bibliotheca Polyglotta's Etymological Dictionary of Arabic (no entry for شكشوكة or شخشخ in either) and some fun linguistics articles (about how shakshuka can be a derogatory euphemism in Sudan), and didn't turn up any more etymological detail. So I can't see how we can write more than about a sentence on it. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, as neither of them is an authority in the Maghrebi dialect and their unsubstantiated claims are totally worthless. While you're welcome to waste your time on what the word means in the irrelevant countries (that are not part of the Maghreb), I will do what I said above: I will look into it (like I did for the rest). M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very surprising to me that you consider these dictionaries, which employ professional lexicographers for research, unsubstantiated and worthless. I don't think that is a widely-held opinion about the OED. But don't you think the dictionaries are at least an improvement over, say, Mug Meals: More Than 100 No-Fuss Ways to Make a Delicious Microwave Meal in Minutes ? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * don't you think the dictionaries are at least an improvement not when they are making an extraordinary claim about another language. The other sources are not wrong in stating that the word "Shakshouka" also means "mixture" (the closest word to the definition) in Maghrebi Arabic, but unfortunately, they don't address the context in which it is used in that sense. M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't assess reliable sources according to whether you happen to agree with a particular point they've made. The whole point of relying on them is that it's instead of arguing among ourselves, WP:OR-style, over what makes sense to us. The OED is a reliable source for etymologies. The people who do the research are entirely capable of knowing things that you don't. As for this case, since when do Maghrebis not know standard Arabic? Or maybe it was a word at the time the dish received its name but has now become obsolete so you'd be unaware of it? Or maybethe Maghreb is a big placeit's a word used by Maghrebi speakers in one part of the Maghreb but not in the area you're from? Even within what we consider a dialect, there can be considerable variation from one place to another. I don't know whether any of these possibilities is the reality, but the point is that you can't assume you know all there is to know. Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We asses reliable sources based on a number of criteria that I'm fully aware of.
 * The OED is a reliable source for etymologies it's reliable for the etymologies of the English language. Claims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant, especially when they are extraordinary.
 * since when do Maghrebis not know standard Arabic? how is this related to what I said? The Arabic word that they quoted above is spelled differently ("k" is not "kh") and means something else. M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Claims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant It's the etymology of the English word "shakshouka". The etymology of most English words involves sources in other languages, to agree that it's reliable for etymologies of English words but unreliable the instant those words are from elsewhere than English is fallacious. In addition, there's the factor about your claim about the OED's claims about other languages being irrelevant. Why, because you say so? What makes a claim extraordinary? Again, it all comes back to whether it agrees with your WP:OR a priori understanding of the matter. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * how is this related to what I said? How is it not? Your argument was that even if it exists in Arabic, it isn't a word in Maghrebi Arabic. I'm pointing out that they could perfectly well have taken it from standard Arabic even though it isn't their local vernacular. Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The etymology of most English words involves sources in other languages it's not an English word, it's a borrowed word and the claim that OED is making is not about how it was borrowed and when, instead it's about another language that the OED has no authority on.
 * the OED's claims about other languages being irrelevant that's right. The OED is an authority on the English language and English language only. Other languages have their own authorities.
 * Going back to what the OED says (according to LEvalyn):
 * In which language is "šakšaka" supposed to be? M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The OED uses a very compressed style of conveying information which specialists are trained to decode. In context, the formatting of "Maghribi Arabic" with only Arabic in bold and the keyword "compare" together indicate that šakšūka is primarily in Maghribi dialects of Arabic but the related šakšaka is from any variant of Arabic. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the related šakšaka is from any variant of Arabic how did you come to that conclusion? M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Maghribi is not in bold to restrict all following statements to only the Maghribi contexts, and we are told to "compare" which means we are looking at a different linguistic context than the original piece of information. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it's not an English word, it's a borrowed word Can you explain how that quibble has any impact at all on the issue here? If by, say, 50 years from now, "shakshouka" is as accepted a word in English as "broccoli", will that magically change how much the OED genuinely knows about its origins? That objection of yours is a dead end.
 * You seem to be of the impression that if you don't know what language it's from, then either I have to know or you get to unilaterally discount the source incompetent. You are not the reliable fact checker on all our sources. The OED is an authority on the English language and English language only. Other languages have their own authorities. You're just repeating the same assertion that, as I already pointed out, doesn't make sense. Etymology involves going back to other languages. It's as though you told me that no credence can be given to OED when it traces the origin of "sugar" beyond Old French to Arabic because it isn't an authority on Old French etymology.
 * What do you think, that OED etymologies come to us from an in-house group of five or six people doing all the primary research on hundreds of thousands of words on their own, and making up words in Maghribi Arabic just to vex you? Don't you think they're accessing thousands of resources by people who are authorities in their respective domains and recording the information they receive from them? Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's as though you told me that no credence can be given to OED when it traces the origin of "sugar" beyond Old French to Arabic it's not the same thing since one is verifiable and attributable to multiple RS, while the other is not.
 * Don't you think they're ... I tend to judge the sources in context.
 * 1) They are making a claim about a language. 2) That language has dictionaries, etc. Now, this simple question should normally highlight what I'm referring to:
 * In what way is the word "Shakshouka" related to šakšaka? This is the same word that LEvalyn mentioned above (see شخشخ). If you know of any other "šakšaka" that they could possibly be referring to, then please do not hesitate to share. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ... it's not the same thing since one is verifiable and attributable to multiple RS ... is just more of "if I don't know where it comes from, then it isn't verifiable". It's like saying "OED may have half a dozen of its own reliable sources for this, but because I haven't seen them, then they don't exist and I get to declare that OED itself isn't a reliable source for this".
 * If you know of any other ... is repetition of the same bankrupt "if I haven't heard of it and you haven't heard of it, then I get to ignore the reliable source, or declare it unreliable" argument that I already addressed.
 * What's reliable and what isn't for Wikipedia purposes isn't determined by what M. Bitton and his interlocutors do or don't already know. Largoplazo (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say Claims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant, I think you aren't taking into account what etymology is or what lexicographers do. Lexicographers do not specialize in only a single language, because doing so would make it impossible for them to research etymology. For example, here is the OED etymology for algebra:
 * < post-classical Latin algebra algebraic computation (12th or 13th cent.), surgical treatment of fractures (c1300) < Arabic al-jabr < al the + jabr restoration (of anything which is missing, lost, out of place, or lacking), reunion of broken parts, (hence specifically) surgical treatment of fractures < jabara to restore, to reunite, (hence specifically in a medical context) to set broken bones.
 * Compare Middle French, French †algebre (now algèbre) (a1376 in an apparently isolated attestation, subsequently from 1554; 1546 in Rabelais as algebra, all denoting the branch of mathematics; 1611 in Cotgrave in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures), Spanish algebra (a1450 denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1552 denoting the branch of mathematics), Portuguese álgebra (1519 denoting the branch of mathematics; 1712 in medical use), Italian algebra (1598 in Florio denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1606 denoting the branch of mathematics); also Middle Dutch, Dutch algebra (1460 in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1612 denoting the branch of mathematics), German Algebra (1460 in puech algebra un almalcobula lit. ‘book of algebra and almacabala’ as the title of a translation of al-Ḵwārizmī's mathematical treatise; 1489 as algobre, denoting the branch of mathematics). Compare almacabala n.
 * Is it possible for the OED to be wrong? Sure, and if a specialist in Arabic etymology offered more or different information, we could use that over the OED. But the source you restored to the article, and are currently defending, is Mug Meals. As Largoplazo notes, we don't evaluate sources based on whether we agree with them. We evaluate them based on their verifiability and editorial standards. Moreover, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can upgrade from Mug Meals to the OED now and still upgrade again later if some even better source is found. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not compare apples to oranges. We're talking about a baseless claim here. As for the sources that are already cited in the article, they don't make any claims about etymology. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? My entire point is that the OED's claims are not baseless and we should cite the OED for shakshuka's etymology. If Mug Meals is not making a claim about etymology, why did you restore it to the article as a preferred citation for the etymology? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are baseless: the only word "šakšaka" that is found in the English sources refers to something else (written completely differently in Arabic). I restored them because they are about the definition (if that means that the section should be renamed definition and etymology, then so be it). M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're baseless because you say so, because you're certain that if you don't know something, they can't possibly know it. Got it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Answering this question would help. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are baseless: the only word "šakšaka" that is found in the English sources refers to something else (written completely differently in Arabic). I restored them because they are about the definition (if that means that the section should be renamed definition and etymology, then so be it). M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're baseless because you say so, because you're certain that if you don't know something, they can't possibly know it. Got it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Answering this question would help. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on etymology
Which sources are more reliable for the etymology of the word 'shakshouka'?

Current article sources:

Proposed alternative sources: ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am opening an RfC because my request for Dispute Resolution was declined, and recommended RfC as the next alternative. My opinion is that the OED and Collins are more reliable because they are written by professional lexicographers. I consider it a clear improvement to cite the article to them instead of preserving the current etymology section.  ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment this RfC doesn't make any sense and is just a waste of time and resources. For a start, the reliability of the sources depends on context. Second, this is not WP:RSN, and third, it's comparing apples to oranges (the already cited sources are about the definition of the word and not the etymology). M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it is a waste of time when the edit history shows the word "revert" or a longer form of it appears 166 times in the last 200 edits. In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer.  It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something.  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the issues have recently been resolved. The problem that remains is over a specific claim that is made by a dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kinda having trouble agreeing with that given the reverts in the last few hours, but I will hope that you are correct that this is the last issue to resolve. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. How did we get to a point where we need a RFC to settle whether dictionaries are more reliable sources for word etymology than recipe books and newspaper articles? Is there more to this that we're missing? Reading previous discussions didn't help clarify the argument against prioritizing dictionaries in this context. spintheer (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how that happened or why the OP decided to create such a RfC. The previous discussion was about whether a specific claim made by a specific dictionary was reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Skimming the discussions above, my understanding is that one user claims the dictionaries are not experts in a specific dialect and are thus not useable as a source for the etymology. It looks like there have been related discussions on if Shakshouka originated as a Maghribi dish or not.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The old discussion about the origin is unrelated to this one. The current issue concerns a specific claim (about the word "šakšaka") that is made by the OED (that's why I mentioned WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in the above comment). I don't want to repeat what was said, but I'll happily elaborate on any part of it if needs be. M.Bitton (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I saw the uses of Maghribi and Maghrebi in the discussion prior to the RFC and though the discussions were related to others.  Thank you for the clearer context.  --Super Goku V (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Not every print source is reliable. If an author is a subject-matter expert (for example: PhD in Food Studies with expertise in North African cuisine), they may be considered more preferable to a dictionary. However, dictionaries would be more reliable than random cookbooks. Anyone can get a book published. For example, regarding the first book (Mediterranean Cooking for Diabetics: Delicious Dishes to Control or Avoid Diabetes), the author is an actor: Robin Ellis His book may contain delicious and healthy recipes, but for Wikipedia purposes it is not really a reliable source. Bogazicili (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Dictionaries: The OED and Collins are clearly far better sources, and none of the arguments against them holds any water: This isn't Wiktionary where we allow OR on etymologies, & the notion that English dictionaries are only etymological reliable for English words just isn't a tenible consistent position. A specialist source on the etymology of Arabic would be better still, but the dictionaries are clearly superior sources to regionally non-specific diabetic or microwave cookbooks. The RfC equally clearly makes sense: The sources cited above are indeed cited in the article for the etymology; three editors have not been able to reach consensus and one has rejected mediation. Seeking additional input is the right path forward. Pathawi (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources cited above are indeed cited in the article for the etymology they are used to support the definition of the word and not its etymology, as previously said (in the discussion I mentioned that the section could be renamed to address that).
 * There are no arguments against the dictionaries, the arguments are against a specific claim that you're welcome to address. M.Bitton (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is factually incorrect, & what is of concern to you is apparently not the topic of the RfC. You've had plenty to say on this matter. You should probably just let folks comment at this point. Pathawi (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's your claim that is factually incorrect. Everything I said is easily verifiable. When you make baseless claims about what others have said, you will get an answer whether you like it or not. M.Bitton (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you intend to bludgeon the process. I'm not going to debate the standing text with you. Anyone can check the relevant ¶ & citations for themselves. Pathawi (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you insist on moving the comments around, but you can clearly see that I disagree with you, so please stop. M.Bitton (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But why do you disagree with me? At first you argued that I was moving your comment. I'm no longer moving your comment. I'm splitting this up for legibility which happens with a very large number of RfCs. I'm not changing your text at all. Your argument is as clear & as cogent as it's ever been. I'm trying to make participation more straight-forward with a very normal format. This isn't an RfC that you called for: From above comments, you appear to oppose it. At this point, the only thing I'm doing is creating a heading and moving my survey response beneath it. Pathawi (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't understand something as simple as "stripping the replies of their context" means that there is nothing else that I can possibly say to you and vice versa. In any case, I moved the replies to where they belong. M.Bitton (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks fine to me. Glad we're done. Pathawi (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Dictionary is almost always the most reliable source on the etymology of English words, including those of foreign origin. But this should have been discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard if there was an issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries are clearly more reliable than any of the other sources here. None of the cookbooks are remotely good sources. The only other source here that I'd use is the Irish Times, which we could triangulate with other sources if available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) PS Middle East Monitor, while in general a weak source, might be an OK source for a claim like "popular across the Middle East", but not for details of the history or etymology. For info, the MEMO article is a cookery column written by a Palestinian-American food blogger. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but some of the sources that are mentioned above are in the article to support the definition of the word and not its etymology. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some of these would be adequate as a source on usage e.g. Culture Trip. Don't know enough about Hespress to comment on that. But none of the first four are really reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question was framed more specifically, in relation to etymology, but for other claims: I think Culture Trip might be adequate as a source on usage. Don't know enough about Hespress to comment on that. The four cookbooks are not good sources for anything except perhaps if we need primary source examples of western recipes.
 * There are recipe books that might be solid sources for history if not etymology, e.g. Claudia Roden is also an amazing researcher, Elizabeth David is very noteworthy, but not these four. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I didn't recommend that the original poster submit an RFC concerning the reliability of sources. The proper forum for such a question is the Reliable Source Noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said that the next step was an RFC if the original poster wished to rewrite the article. Consensus at the article talk page has been against the original poster's edits to the article, which have been reverted.  This means that either they should stop trying to rewrite the article or submit an RFC concerning article changes.  This RFC is not about article changes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus being against the OP's edit regarding etymology. I see only one editor supporting the use of cookbooks and several advocating for dictionaries. Either way, if there is one or another editor unwilling to comply with consensus, then an RfC seems a good way out of the impasse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) nobody's supporting cookbooks and 2) the issue is not dictionaries vs something else, it's about a specific claim by a specific source. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that, to the best of my understanding, the specific claim is about the etymology of Shakshouka and the specific source is the Collin's dictionary. So this RFC is relevant to that discussion insofar as it reaffirms that we find Collin's dictionary one of the highest authority sources on matters related to Shakshouka's etymology. spintheer (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the OED. If we go from the principle that reliable sources are infallible, then there is no reason to discuss any of their claims or have rules such WP:EXCEPTIONAL. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to see nobody is supporting these cookbooks, so perhaps we should just remove them now? I don't think cookbooks are necessarily always bad sources (see my comment above) but these particular ones are especially week, and the question was about etymology, for which they're even worse. I'm unclear what the specific claim is, as nobody has linked to the diff.
 * Is it this?
 * The cookbooks are being used for the claim "Maghrebi Arabic", which I don't think they can support.
 * The dictionaries were proposed to support Tunisian Arabic and onomatopoeia, which they seem solid for.
 * Hespress is being used for In Morocco, it is referred to as (بيض ومطيشة "egg and tomato"), which seems unproblematic.
 * This particular use of MEMO is used to support this: The term shakshouka may have derived from "shak", another Arabic word meaning "to combine things together", as the dish combines tomatoes, chilies and eggs. That etymology fact seems weaker than the dictionaries.
 * I propose we delete the cookbooks and MEMO, add the dictionaries, and leave Hespress. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That all sounds sensible to me. Looking more closely at the Collins, it does also say that its origin is a Tunisian word for "mixed", but I'm not 100% confident from the sources that this is the same word as the šakšaka that the OED says is related. (A "compare" cue in the OED doesn't typically mean a direct derivation, but, e.g., two words with a common ancestor, a subsequent development, etc.) Perhaps these sources could translate in the article into something like the following?
 * The name shakshouka comes from a Tunisian Arabic word for "mixed".(Collins) Shakshouka is onomatopoeic, related to the verb šakšaka, meaning "to bubble, to sizzle, to be mixed up, to be beaten together."(OED) In Morocco, the dish is referred to as bīḍ w-maṭiša (بيض ومطيشة "egg and tomato".(Hespress) ~ L 🌸  (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope this won't come off as nitpicking, but the Romanisation should have a macron on both ‹i›s or not at all, & (unfortunately) ‹sh› instead of ‹š› for Wikipedia's Romanization: maṭīsha. Pathawi (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for pointing that out. In that case it should be shakshaka instead of šakšaka, too, right? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pathawi (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear what the specific claim is, as nobody has linked to the diff it's mentioned in the discussion (search for šakšaka).
 * I don't have access to the OED, but the little that I can see online says:
 * Do you have access to the rest? M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I provided the substance of the OED entry here when I initiated this discussion. I left out the bits about the French>English 20thC variant because it didn't seem relevant. The full entry for "etymology" is as follows:
 * ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, looking again at the Hespress, the article itself is a news article about how tomatoes have gotten very expensive. It mentions بيض و مطيشة several times, but never specifies that the dish is related to shakshuka or even what it is made of (other than, obviously, eggs and tomatoes). The idea that bid al-matisha is a regional name for shakshouka seems likely to be true but not actually verified, so I would consider leaving out the Hespress. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The French entry is obviously relevant since it predates the English one, which according to the OED, has multiple origins (including the French one). It's also commonly used in the English sources.
 * MEMO is indeed about the origin of the word, and therefore, it can be discarded.
 * The dictionaries make different claims that shouldn't be combined to make a new one (what was added previously is a clear case of WP:SYNTH). Also, while "Tunisian Arabic" is obviously Maghrebi Arabic, other sources say that the word comes from "Algerian Arabic" (which is also Maghrebi Arabic). We can either stick to Maghrebi Arabic, as used by the OED, or add all claims.
 * Obviously, the claims need to be attributed, i.e., they cannot be stated as facts in Wikipedia's voice.
 * My initial concerns about the "šakšaka" claim haven't changed.
 * the rest is unrelated to the RfC on etymology:
 * The other sources are used to support The word shakshouka (Arabic: شكشوكة) is a Maghrebi Arabic term for "a mixture". Such a statement of what is essentially common knowledge in the Maghreb shouldn't even need a source. Maghrebi Arabic has always been sidelined in its home in favour of Standard Arabic, making finding reliable sources about it difficult and extra work for nothing, but if others insist, then so be it.
 * Hespress doesn't mention the word "Shakshuka" and is no different than the other sources about the definition. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These comments would be more helpful if they included a suggestion for how the article ought to be worded. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is helpful and I feel we're getting there. I don't think we need to attribute strong sources like OED if there is no disagreement between sources, but do if they don't accord. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is helpful and I feel we're getting there. I don't think we need to attribute strong sources like OED if there is no disagreement between sources, but do if they don't accord. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI concerning this RFC and the edit-warring about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice this when I posted my survey response. I see no reason not to have an RfC about sourcing here. It is totally proper to discuss in-context reliability of specific sources for specific claims locally, or to involve the wider community at RSN. If there are more general implications, the debate could be moved to RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)