Talk:Tajine Lham-Lahlou

Edit war
After multiple attempts to engage on an edit war. I have reverted back to the very first version I created for the Algerian version of this dish. Similar acts of vandalism have occurred on the French page, resulting in its lockdown.

This page specifically focuses on the Algerian variation of the dish. All the references provided here are directly sourced from Algerian sources, thus pertaining to the Algerian dish. Including a single reference discussing the Moroccan variation, which is distinct, is insufficient justification for merging the two dishes, considering that the majority of references pertain to the Algerian variation.

By the way, it would require just as much time and even less effort to create a new page for the Moroccan variation of the dish, if you strongly believe in its significance, instead of engaging in an edit war on this page.

sloth (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The main cited book source "Dictionnaire Amoureux de l'Algérie", explicitly says that the dish exists in both cuisines, Moroccan and Algerian, and there's no clear distinction in terms of ingredients or rituals around the dish, that would justify creating two separate articles. I don't see any edit warring here. This is suppression of information cited in the very sources of the article itself, pure and simple. There are several other (mainly web) sources that talk about this dish existing in Moroccan cuisine, so the statement is pretty well supported. Ideophagous (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited book source, "Dictionnaire Amoureux de l'Algérie" is the only reference among all the sources mentioned in the article that mentions a Moroccan variation of the dish in addition to the Algerian one. However, the other references primarily focus on the Algerian dish without delving into the details of a other variations from other countries. The author of the book Malek Chebel is also not an expert in culinary matters, he's an anthropologist of religions. His vague description of the dish leaves much to be desired. So, really, why should an entire article be changed based on just one flimsy reference?
 * Let's not forget that there's also Kurdish, Iraqi, and West Asian variations of the dish with slight changes. To avoid confusion arising from the numerous regional variations and names, it would be more appropriate to dedicate separate articles to each of these variations, including the Moroccan one.
 * Considering the highly contentious nature of the Algeria-Morocco topic and the close cultural and traditional ties between the two countries, one cannot help but raise an eyebrow at the incessant cycle of repetitive edits on this page. Such behavior unquestionably fits the very definition of an edit war.
 * Best. sloth (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Slothtysloth. There's a problem with your reasoning here:
 * You claim that we can't include a piece of information (that the dish also exists in Moroccan cuisine) from the source because the author is not an expert, and therefore the content of the source is not sufficiently reliable. So which is it: is the source reliable enough that we can use it in the article, as is now the case, or is it unreliable? In the first case, we should include every relevant information from the source, unless explicitly contradicted by other equally or more reliable sources (preferably several of them). It's not our job as editors to pick and choose the information we want to put in the article, that's the job of the sources. We only discuss and decide what to include when there's a clear contradiction between (equally reliable) sources, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If on the other hand, the source "Dictionnaire amoureux de l'Algérie" is unreliable, then it should be tossed out completely, and any information from it that's not mentioned by other reliable sources removed from the article. But first you'll have to prove that it's an unreliable source, otherwise there's no stopping anyone else from adding it again later. You might need to ask for comments from the community on Reliable sources noticeboard.
 * Using the same reasoning, we'll have to remove much content from many food-related articles, because they have a whole bunch of sources not written by chefs or specialists of food history or such. In fact, most culinary sources themselves, especially websites, are low quality blog-like pages to begin with (as they're not issued by known or well-reputed institutions), but we still use them, unless they're explicitly written as blogs.
 * The idea that the dish exists in Moroccan cuisine is rather trivial, and follows a general trend of North African cuisine being mostly shared between several neighboring countries. This can easily be verified with web sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4 to name just a few. Even if it were true that the dish was indeed a pure Algerian specialty, the simple fact that it bears strong similarity to other dishes in the Maghreb region would warrant a mention, as is customary in other food articles. This in my opinion does not take away from the importance of the dish in Algerian cuisine, just as mentioning that some known Morocan specialty also exists in Algerian cuisine does not suddenly diminish its importance in Moroccan cuisine either. And as I mentioned earlier, our judgment here is irrelevant. Let's just stick to the sources.
 * Concerning "edit warring", here's the strict defintion from the guidelines: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. As such, adding relevant information to an article in good faith is not considered edit-warring (feel free to read the rest of the policy page for more details). I would dare say that omitting relevant well-sourced information from the article (unless explicitly disputed or disproved by very reliable sources) would invite more edit-warring not less, as other editors might certainly try to add the information again, in good faith and according to the content of the sources, sooner or later. The only long term solution, in my experience, is for the article content to reach its most stable configuration, i.e. one which reflects the content of reliable sources. At this point, any editors working in good faith, i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia editors I would hope, would likely help protect the article from any sort of vandalism, intentional or otherwise.
 * Ideophagous (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)