Talk:Za'atar/Archive 2

The herb and the spice mixture
This article has an impressive amount of information about two things called za'atar in Arabic: the herb thyme and related species, and the mixture consisting of this herb combined with sesame seeds etc. Unfortunately, the article is written in such a way that the two things are conflated in many places. Thus, Preparation and variations says "Za'atar is generally prepared using ...", so this is clearly about the mixture, but then Geographical distribution talks about the use of the herb everywhere from Armenia to Morocco.

The history section starts by talking about the herb, and its uses in (among other things) the Parthian regale unguentum, which from Pliny's description is completely different from the modern Arab mixture (it contains, among other things, honey and wine). (By the way, Pliny talks about maron, which may or may not be the same thing as za'atar.) And then it segues into "along with other spiced salts, za'atar..." which is clearly talking about the mixture.

There are also some strangely garbled passages where the logic seems backwards:
 * "Za'atar barri (Arabic: "wild za'atar") is identified as Origanum vulgare which in English can refer to European oregano, oregano, pot marjoram, wild marjoram, winter majoram, and wintersweet." Presumably this means not "can refer to" but "is called".
 * "Thyme, one of the names for za'atar in Arabic, grows..." -- presumably this should this read "Thyme, which is one of the plants called za'atar in Arabic, grows...".
 * "Saadiah [et al.] identified the ezov mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the Arabic za'atar." I'm not sure what the point of this is, especially in the history section.

This all needs to be clarified, perhaps by separating the sections better, perhaps by making two articles. --macrakis (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Macrakis. Thanks for your insightful comments and helpful edits clarifying what teh original word used by Pliny was (Not being well-versed in classics, I have to rely on the translations provided by writers like Dalby).
 * You are correct to not that the article currently switches between discussions of za'atar as it refers to a series of herbs as well as to the spice mixture/condiment. It is kind of the same thing we encountred at Hummus, where the word serves two purposes in Arabic, referring to both the chickpea and the spread.
 * I don't think we should separate these uses into two different articles. But I do tnk we can better organize the way both sets of information are presented here. I basically amassed every reference to za'atar that I could find, and now would appreciate your help and that of others in organizing it better.
 * About the three specific points you raised:


 * Za'atar birri can be referred to as Origanum vulgare, but I think it can refer to wild species of thyme as well, which I why I used that slightly less direct wording.
 * On second thought, it still doesn't make sense. I'll look at some more sources to see if I can find another herb identified as za'atar birri too. If I find one, I'll add it. Until then, I'll change it to read as you've suggested. T i a m u t talk 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposed sentence about Thyme is bang on, please be bold and change it.
 * About the identification of ezov as Arabic za'atar by the three historical figures listed, perhaps it should go in the etymology section?
 * Thanks again for your comments and edits. Always a pleasure working with you.  T i a m u t talk 06:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence on thyme as you proposed.  T i a m u t talk 07:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Jews
You can't write "Israeli Jews" and mean "Askenazi Jews". You can't just ignore this way a large group, if not the majority, of Israeli Jews. The fact that the racist Israeli govenment does so too, doesn't allow you to do it. So please correct this to "Ashkenazi Jews" or delete this sentnce. I suggest deleting, because I don't see what makes Ashkenazi Jews important enough to be mentioned in an article about a food that is not theirs. Za'atar was used in many countries Mizrahi Jews immigrated from, like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and my own country of origin, Iraq. Ben Gershon (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ben. I think its pretty clear that Za'atar is an Arab food. Mizrahim Jews knew it by virtue of being Arab Jews. To me its important to explain how za'atar became known to Israelis and adopted as a national food. All sources I have seen indicate that it was a result of being exposed to Palestinian Arab preparations of the spice at Arab bakeries. I'm not for removing this information. If you have sources that discuss a unique contribution of Mizrahim Jews specifically to the dissemination and preparation of za'atar, I'd be happy to include it in the article.  T i a m u t talk 20:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course Za3atar is an Arab food. As such, it belongs to the arabs - including the Arab Jews. The fact that Palestinian influence was very significant in making it popular in Israel, doesn't mean you can say that it is (or was) considered "exotic" to Israeli Jews. This is not "information". I have no problem that you write about the way Palestinians influenced Israelies and made Za3atar popular in Israel, but please don't write that it's considered "exotic" by us because it's not (and the racist Israeli government is not a valid source for anything). And please, when you write about Isralies or Israeli Jews, don't forget that the majority of the group you're writing about is Arab. Ben Gershon (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm happy to hear you think of yourself as Arab. Certainly I tend to view Jews with historical roots in Arab countries as Arab Jews. I agree with you that the Israeli government is racist and that its phrasing here is somewhat Orientalist. I think its view on how za'atar became "an integral part of Israeli cuisine" is relevant though. If we remove "exotic" and kept it as Israeli Jews associated it trips to Arab bakeries, that would solve some of the problem, no? It wouldn't preclude some of the Israeli Jews also being Arabs or running those bakeries.  T i a m u t talk 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy you're happy :) Of course I see myself as Arab. Despite the fact that Israeli governments have been trying since the beginning of Zionism to make us forget we're Arabs, they did not succeed, at least not in my case. We still maintain the culture, the music, the language, and yes - the food too. The source of the Israeli government quoted in the article is, as I see it, patronizing and racist. When the writer there writes "Israeli Jews", she thinks about herself and her own ethnicity - Ashkenazi. She totally ignores the existence of Mizrahi, or arab jews. That's why I don't take that source seriously, because it is just another manifestation of the Ashkenazi racism and ignoring of the Arab population of Israel. To be practical - yes, removing the "exotic" will be great. I have no problem with the part about the Arab bakeries, which just describes the way it became popular in Israel, but I do suggest we rephrase the whole sentence. I also suggest we replace "Israeli Jews" with "Some of the Israeli Jews" or "Some of the Israeli Jews (especially Ashkenazi)" Ben Gershon (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's start with the "exotic" for now. I'm not doubting what you are saying, but you are new here, and not familiar with some our policies. We need a reliable source for things we want to add. We are generally not allowed to interpose our own interpretations (no matter how valid) onto what a source says. So I suggest we look for sources about the use of za'atar by Arab Jews and their use of it both in their countries of origin and in Israel. Then we can balance out this statement by the new information. Juxtaposing them will clarify what's going on to the reader. I'll start looking right now.  T i a m u t talk 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Vast majority of Mizrahi Jews never heard of za3tar before they came to Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Supreme Deliciousness. Unless source can be find that specific say mizrahi jew ate za'atar [now or in history], then mention of mizrahi jew not belong. Za'atar is arab food and it appropriation by jews in Palestine is modern, no historic legitamicy have been present so far by source text. Ani medjool (talk)
 * That may be true, but it was known to some Iraqi Jews, at least according to this cookbook on Jewish-Iraqi cuisine that has a recipe for Chubz ab zaatar oo sumack. The author writes in the introduction that she cooked many of these Jewish-Iraqi dishes with her mother after they immigrated to Israel. I think we can add a sentence to the history section about this.  T i a m u t talk 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. And by the way, I'm not that new. I've been writing for more than 5 years in Wikipedia, but not in the English version; And it's sometimes hard to find a reliable source. I really have no book that says what my grandmother used to cook. And of course, Israeli government is not a reliable source. By the way, Tiamut, I used a userbox I found in your page and used it in mine, I hope you don't mind. I think it's taken from another user's page. Ben Gershon (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you share that userbox opinion Ben. I'm sorry I didn't know about your Wiki history. I know its hard to find reliable sources for our unique sub cultures. I made some changes introducing the new source and text. I hope you like it. If you want to change it some more we can of course. I agree the Israeli government is not a reliable source for anything, but at Wikipedia it is an WP:RS for its own opinions. The text used to prefaced at one point, attributing it to the MFA. Maybe we should consider that again? Anyway, cheers rafik.  T i a m u t talk 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! The last change you made is very good. I think it now describes things as they were - some of the jews knew za3atar from their home countries, and the rest of them were exposed to it by visits to arab bakeries; Too bad the Israeli government is considered here as a reliable source. I'm used to it in hebrew-wiki, but I thought here things wuold be different. Everybody knows the Israeli government really likes ignoring or even erasing parts of history and inventing others. But we have no chance of changing this wiki policy, right? :( About the MFA text - I'm not sure I understood your question. Maybe we should find another (more reliable) reference to replace it.  Ben Gershon (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we could try finding another source, and/or proposing removing this one. Generally, people have resisted treating the Israeli government as a non-RS. I was asking if we should attribute the text to them directly (as in to the MFA or Ministry of Foreign Affairs). But I don't think its necessary the way its phrased right now anyway.
 * I'll see what other sources there are for how za'atar came to be considered Israeli and get back to you with more soon.  T i a m u t talk 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! :) Ben Gershon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Commercial za'atar
The photo of two commercial example of Za'atar not need here and against wikipedia MOS. Also per qualificate that MOS in image say look for, the za'atar in bag be more representative of za'atar of commerce and because it clear it possible to see product in bag. Also because it come from Syria it be more representative of traditional arab spice. Pyramid bottle not display product in side and it also not typic of za'atar of commmerce. I also concern that specific pyramid shape may be under the copy right. There fore, pyramid shape bottle of za'atar from Israel should be remove. Ani medjool (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. That is invalid. Maybe you have a problem with the colour of the package? Since it contrasts poorly with the background? Try that route. In all seriousness, your concerns do not warrant deleting the picture. Breein1007 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see a pattern developing... -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I thought we were past this. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should check out falafel and the most recent battle over Israeli images. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 18:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The usual suspects I see. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Earl the Israeli photo need be remove from this article for same reason israeli photo no belong in Falafel. Concensus reach at falafel that no israeli photo belong so why you think new concensus can not reach here? Plus, this pyramid photo not be represent of Za'atar and be poor quality image because it not standard package and package not show za'atar in side. Also because much better photo exist, then MoS say two photo not require. Ani medjool (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ani medjool, there was no consensus at Falafel for removal of the photos from Israel, nor is there any here for the removal of the Za'atar photo. Given the statements and actions of you and several other editors at Falafel, it became evident that an edit war would have broken out over ensuring that the Israeli photos stayed out of the article.  In essence, that article is now being held hostage by a select few editors.  Its very sad that this has occurred, and even more sad that this disruptive behavior has been allowed to continue unabated.  You (and others) can say I'm "moaning" or whatever, but there's not much else to do when it becomes obvious that only one side is willing to come to the table to negotiate.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me think Ani medjool not belong on WikiPeeDia. MoS say POV editore not require.--85.65.105.191 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No one yet give good reason per the wikipedia MoS that two bottle of za'atar need be include, especial when one photo be much better, so I remove. Ani medjool (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "no consensus for removal" don't you understand? You have been warned many times to stop your hostility-based, uncooperative, anti-Israel editing.  This disruptiveness has to stop. Tick-tock, tick-tock... Hertz1888 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I meant by "rewarding" disruptive behavior at Falafel. Since the twisting of MoS was used to force the removal of "offending" photos there, now its being tried here.  Sigh... -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 04:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I second nsaum--there was no consensus at Talk:Falafel that photos from Israel did not belong in the article. I was involved in this discussion. -- AFriedman  (talk)  04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Ani medjool for 48 hours for politically-motivated editing. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
The statement here is not found in the book, it doesn't say that "Arab Jews" or that "Iraqi Jews" knew of and used the spice mixture in their traditional cuisine. Its only a recipe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a book of traditional Iraqi-Jewish recipes. When will you give up on this pathetic battle? Breein1007 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a recipe mentioning zaatar. Nothing more. The source doesn't support the text. Its totally original research and should be removed if no source can be found supporting the statement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because a book mention recipe in it do not establish that it be food belong to "Arab Jew" or "Iraqi Jew". Source must specific state that food be traditional use by these "Jews", other wise it be false information use to propogate certain POV. Ani medjool (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we really going to argue over cookbooks? A cookbook about Arab or Iraqi Jews foods, is just that...a cookbook about Arab or Iraqi Jews and the food they eat.  Just like if I opened up a cookbook about Lebanese Cuisine and saw receipes for Hummus.... Would I question that a parts catalog for a Ford Taurus be about Ford Tauruses?  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the source, and frankly it's one of the weakest I've seen. It's a Jewish Iraqi cookbook based on the author's mother's recipes. One of the recipes is for za'atar. How one makes the leap from a recipe from a specific Jewish Iraqi woman's mother to "traditional Jewish Arab cuisine" is beyond me. To borrow nsaum75's example, it's like listing a Ford Taurus' top speed as 200 mph (320 kph) because an odometer in the parts catalog has numbers that go that high. ← George talk 05:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I ran this source by the reliable sources noticeboard. The way it's currently being cited was found to be original research. ← George talk 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the source that was being misused, but left the statement itself. If it's not contentious, maybe it doesn't even need a source? ← George talk 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since me bringing up that the previous source the Jewish-Iraqi cookbook here did not support the sentence I removed, no one has been able to show a source confirming the authenticness of the claim that "Arab Jews knew of and used the spice mixture in their traditional cuisine". George apparently brought it to the reliable sources noticeboard and uninvolved editors saw it as OR. So when it was added from the beginning the source did not support it, so it was false from the start, and now more then one month later no one has verified this sentence. I have now removed this sentence as it is false and inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Za'atar from an herbal perspective
There are a couple of articles coauthored by Arthur O. Tucker, a botanist and herb expert, on the identity of za'atar. I read then a decade or more ago, but I don't have references for them. At any rate, they say that za'atar can be any of several plants (ones specifically mentioned are Origanum syriacum, Satureja thymbra, Thymus capitatus, and possibly Thymbra spicata), but only the varieties that share a certain flavor due to a specific combination of essential oils. In other words, za'atar, like oregano, is a flavor, not a specific herb. This flavor is in the same range as the thyme and oregano flavors, but isn't the same as either.

Although the standard translation in commerce seems to be "thyme" (possibly referring to Thymus capitatus), it was probably originally Origanum syriacum. I would suspect that references to Thymus vulgaris and Calamintha (probably really Acinos alpinus) are from people with limited knowledge of the subject trying to convert this common name to a botanical name using general reference works. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Name
There is considerable overlap between the articles on Za'atar and Hyssop, but a lack of clarity on the differences in the usage of the words. For example in the article on Hyssop, the word za'tar is not even mentioned and the the discussions in each entry of the medical uses and research into them differ a lot. (It is of course true for a great many herbs and spices that names can refer locally to different ingredients and mixes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.37.3 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Its an arabic name, no unrelated translations are needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Don't start this nonsense again. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What nonsense? What do you mean "point of view edit by persistent POV warrior", how is it pov ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Za’atar is derived from a plant that is as old as the bible itself. The plant is called eizov and is deeply rooted in Hebrew culture and tradition, though its current uses are culinary in nature. Za’atar is ubiquitous in Israeli cooking. The New York Times reference utilized in this article features the spice as an integral part of Israeli cooking. Your transparent attempts to erase Israeli culture and history have not gone unnoticed. You turn every article, no matter how innocuous, into a battleground and your behavior here is no exception.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Za’atar here, not one plant. Do you have a source that say that Za’atar is a Hebrew name? The NYT source identifies it as Arab, not Israeli or Hebrew, even if you find a source that say its used in Israeli cuisine that is not enough to have the Hebrew translation, there are many cuisines that use many different types of ingredients, that doesn't mean we should ad all kinds of translations of those languages that may use a spice in their cuisine, only where the name is derived from, see for example: Jalapeño. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the Hebrew word for za'atar? ← George talk 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't any, its an Arabic word.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain my understanding of this. Za'atar is an herb mixture, derived from the Arabic word for oregano, the primary ingredient in that mixture (which is also called Za'atar in Arabic). I can't read Hebrew, but I'm guessing that the Hebrew word Jiujitsuguy added is Hyssop, which has its own article, or possibly Ezov, which also has its own article. So, my questions are:
 * Is Hyssop (or Ezov) also the name of the herb mixture this article talks about, or is it just the name of the primary ingredient of that mixture?
 * What is the etymological relationship between the Hebrew word (whether it be Hyssop or Ezov) and the term Za'atar? Is there one? ← George talk 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi George. The word hyssop is Anglasized and is derived from the Hebrew word ezov. Biblical ezov is in fact oregano — which is, to say, zaatar.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not provided one single source that says that Zaatar is a hebrew word, or a source for anything of what you are claiming here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so what is the difference between za'atar, hyssop, and ezov? I mean, we have three separate articles on them (in addition to an article on the English word oregano). Should the articles on hyssop and ezov also include the Arabic word za'atar? Should the Hebrew be used in hyssop and ezov and the Arabic in za'atar? Should the articles on hyssop and ezov be merged? Should all three be merged together into one? Should some (or all) of them be merged into oregano (if they're just foreign words for oregano)? Just thinking out load, but curious what others think as well. ← George talk 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How are we having this discussion again? The Arabic belongs in the lead because za'atar is the English transliteration of the Arabic. Any other language does not belong in the lead. -- Irn (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. The very fact that these words are so intertwined means that the exclusion of the Hebrew semitic derivative would be to the article's detriment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How? They're only intertwined in Hebrew. This is the English Wikipedia, so that's not so relevant. The only reason to have another language in the lead is because the word comes from that language. -- Irn (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not intertwined and there is no hebrew derivative as you have not shown one single source to support anything of what you are claiming here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SupremeD. Lord knows I've made lots of elementary mistakes on Wikipedia and I've apologized for those mistakes and my apologies were not mere window dressing but sincere. However, anyone capable of making this comment and this comment without acknowledging that those comments were thoughtless and hurtful should not be editing this article. Indeed, should not be editing anything to do with Mid-East issues at all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I would support a topic ban for this user. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For what? I revived a topic ban for those kinds of comments, and I have not made those kinds of comments again, now you added an unaffiliated translation and you have not provided one single source that show Za'atar being a hebrew word. Who is the one disrupting the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After having been repeatedly asked, you have still not shown one single source to support that zaatar is a hebrew word or a source for anything else you are claiming.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @George. That's an excellent question George and indeed it is somewhat confusing. The condiment is called Za'atar and Arabs refer to the primary ingredient of Za'atar, which is Ezov as Za'atar. Israelis also call the condiment Za'atar but refer to its primary ingredient as Ezov, a Semetic word derived from the bible. Ezov was Anglasized to Hyssup which is oregano. Hope that clears up some of the confusion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for clarifying JJG. I have a pseudo-proposal. This article should be about za'atar the condiment, and only about the condiment. It should not be about oregano (not even oregano in the Middle East). It should be focused on the condiment. For instance, this article says that "Ecologists state that plants like wild za'atar were on the verge of extinction in Israel due to over-harvesting..." - that's not talking about za'atar the condiment, it's about oregano the plant, and should be moved elsewhere. Since the condiment is called za'atar everywhere (including Israel, per JJG), and since za'atar is derived from the Arabic word from oregano, this article should only include the Arabic word za'atar. Since ezov already has its own article, as does hyssop, and since those words are derived from the Hebrew word for oregano, they should likewise only include the Hebrew word in their lead. I'm still not completely sure that we should have separate articles for hyssop and ezov, so we might want to consider merging them together as well. Thoughts? ← George talk 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the inter-relationship between the words and ingredients, not to mention the fact that the condiment features prominently in Israeli and Arab cuisines, a merge might be a prudent course of action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They should be kept as separate articles. Ezov states that Jewish tradition and most modern scholars believe that ezov does not refer to the plant now known as hyssop. It seems to be uncertain what ezov actually was, so it certainly shouldn't be merged with hyssop. On the other hand, splitting this article into Za'atar (plant) and Za'atar (condiment) (default redirect from Za'atar, with other use template at top) would seem to be a good idea. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to get off topic but I still would like to know whether SupremeDeliciousness still subscribes to these views and SD now is your chance to repudiate some very thoughtless and borderline racist statements. Incidentally, some of those comments were echoed by new accounts that popped up just as you began editing this and other Mid-East food articles. If you don't repudiate these comments, your views have no place in this or any article dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to show me a source that says Za'atar is a hebrew word or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. Now is not SD's "chance"; now we are discussing the use of Hebrew in the lead sentence. This is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues you have with SD. Now, again, I put to you: the Arabic belongs because "za'atar" is the transliteration of the Arabic word into English. "Za'atar" is not the transliteration of any other word from any other language into English, and thus only the original Arabic belongs. -- Irn (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake, two years later and people are still arguing about this. If any of you had bothered to read the reams of earlier discussion about this, you'd have noticed that the only reason that the Hebrew word is in the lede is because I moved it there to stop it being continually deleted from lower down by various edit warriors and POV-pushers. Considering that za'atar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine", it seems perfectly reasonable that its equivalent name in Hebrew is mentioned somewhere in this article. Probably in the bit about Israel, hmm? Find a good location for it, get over yourselves and stop being childish. There's an arbitration sanctions warning on this talk page now, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS. This is an article about a crushed up plant used as seasoning. We all have so very many more better things to do with our lives. Ugh. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. What source says that zaatar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine"? 2. Read what I said above: "even if you find a source that say its used in Israeli cuisine that is not enough to have the Hebrew translation, there are many cuisines that use many different types of ingredients, that doesn't mean we should ad all kinds of translations of those languages that may use a spice in their cuisine, only where the name is derived from, see for example: Jalapeño." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What source says that zaatar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine"?
 * Is it lazy hour in here or something? Your browser has a "find in page" function. Use it. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now look at what I said above in "2" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the event that editors missed the notice at the top of the page, please be advised that this article is now subject to 1RR under the recent "supplemental" ARBPIA sanctions. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 05:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Hex. It's time someone said it, and I couldn't agree more. I hope you are not expecting too much in the name of sanity. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should look at the situation and ascertain the intent behind objections while keeping Good Faith in mind. This is a non-political article about food, I can't but help but wonder if there would be this much contention if the word in question was from some other language than Hebrew. Example articles where alternate words or pronunciations are presented: Dal, Ghee, Naan, Saurkraut -- None of those articles have been turned into a battlefield by one or two editors over the use of terminology, photos or content related to one specific culture and country like has been done here and Falafel & Hummus. It is a violation of NPOV to fight to exclude or demonize one country or culture in numerous articles even if you can procure sources to back up ones position. The only thing doing such actions establishes is that editors have learned how to effectively game the system, and not learned to edit neutrally. Its time to call a spade a spade and put a end to long term politicizing and disruptive editing -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)po
 * Just because another article may have a translation that is unrelated to its name doesn't mean that we should also do the same here, that is not an argument. I find it disruptive and non neutral when some ad unaffiliated translations into articles, its like some are trying to push their own personal POVs into articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for Jalapeno, which is my point. Maybe its not an argument in your eyes, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate to the discussion at hand. Articles are being turned into political instruments under the guise of WP "standards", in places where politics shouldn't come into play. Anyone can read the long archives (where issues have been repeatedly rehashed) and see where the objection to Hebrew/Israeli terminology & information is not about WP standards but about political concerns. Other articles (like those I mentioned above) handle varying viewpoints & cultures without turning into a battleground, so why can't this one? Again, we all have POV, its how we handle it that makes a difference. Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with? Or are we here to build an encyclopedia with the intent of being inclusive and helping to educate the reader instead of polarizing it and creating battlefields. Food is owned by the world, no one person or culture has a copyright or mandate over what something is called or how its made (even if a governmental organization like the EU says so) -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nsaum75 just removed a comment where he said "It is not neutral", while at the same time adding that: "Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with?", well that's maybe what you do, but I say its not neutral if its not neutral. My objection to the unrelated translation is because its an unrelated translation, not because its Hebrew. Thats why I asked people to show me that the translation in Hebrew is related by showing its a Hebrew word, but despite me repeatedly asking for the source, no one has provided it. This article also handles varying viewpoints, that information about Israel is in the article, but that has nothing to do with adding an unrelated translation to the lead, which is not backed up by sources. You are talking about something that is unrelated to the question here, I never said someone owns Za'atar, I said Za'atar is an Arabic word, so any other translation of it is unrelated and because of that its translation doesn't belong in the lead. You don't build an encyclopedia by adding unrelated translations in the first sentence to articles, that is the opposite of building an article as it makes the reader falsely believe that Za'atar has a connection to the unrelated translation. The fact that this has happened over many articles shows strong pov pushing by some editors, battleground mentality and politicization of Wikipedia by that these editors: "must have the unaffiliated translation in the same position as the translation of the names origin (Arabic)", when its something not factual. The fact of the matter is also as some have pointed out that the unaffiliated translation is not only unrelated by that its language has no relation to it, but the meaning of it is not "Za'atar", it is "Hyssop" which is another article, so the unaffiliated translation is unrelated to this in both etymology and meaning. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny how you hid the intermediate edits in that link you gave above, very clever. In any case your views on this are POV, as much as mine or anyone elses. We're human and its human nature. The question comes with balancing our own POV. This is a silly debate about food that has gone on way too long with only a handful of editors affecting the stability of it. Hex said he placed it in the lede because it was being continually deleted elsewhere. Numerous other articles contain alternate translations in the lede and elsewhere in the body. The MOS on terms does not seem to specify limitations on foreign translations appearing in articles or the lede, nor does the MOS on sentences. Whats next? Are we going to open an RfC on whether or not the Hebrew translation is going to appear in this article? Seems frivoulous.


 * An alternative, we could remove the foreign translations all together and put in the IPA pronunciation: /zətɑːr/. THAT might actually be more helpful to a reader than knowing the foreign translations. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only foreign translation in this article is Hebrew, Zaatar is an Arabic word, so its translation is native. And the unaffiliated Hebrew translation is not for Zaatar, its for "Hyssop". And since you like essays as you previously brought one up in an enforcement against me and you have cited them in talkpage discussions: here is an essay that says: Writing_better_articles: "English title terms taken from a language that does not use the Roman alphabet can include the native spelling in parentheses. See, for example, I Ching (simplified Chinese: 易经; traditional Chinese: 易經; pinyin: yì jīng) or Sophocles (Greek: Σοφοκλῆς). The native spelling is useful for precisely identifying foreign words, since transliterations may be inaccurate or ambiguous. Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles.", its does not say anything about non-native languages about other words (Hyssop) be put in the articles. Here is Wikipedia guideline: Naming conventions (use English) "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical.", the unaffiliated translation in the article now is not a native name and its not even for Zaatar. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your going through the Hummus article history to find my comments about the use of quotes has any relation here, except to show you are very good at picking apart a users edit history in an arena outside of AE/ANI. I have offered an alternative option of using the IPA to replace any/all foreign translations, since it appears that there is no agreement among editors about what translation should or shouldnt be used in articles.  Since over the past few days no one else has chimed in on either position, I'm wondering if other editors have lost interest in the discussion and therefore WP:STICK may currently apply.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows that you used an essay in an enforcement against me and used it in discussions for your pov, and here we have another essay, why haven't you commented on it saying that it must be followed the same way you said that the other essay must be followed? I have already explained to you what the foreign translation is, neither you or any other person have showed one single source showing that Za'atar is a Hebrew word, and I showed you above a Wikipedia guideline that says that the native name should be translated in the lead, so why would we remove the native translation? Your suggestion is not based on policy, you say that the native translation following Wikipedia guideline should be in the same position as a foreign translation of another word, now why would we do that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lost interest? You keep refusing to engage the argument, which SD has again restated above. I don't think I need to repeat myself again to prove that I haven't "lost interest" because you haven't yet responded to the argument. -- Irn (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did address them, but SD responded back with his own comments without addressing mine. We need other's input on the options presented. Glad you haven't lost interest. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 04:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No you did not address them, I brought you a wikipedia guideline showing what translation should be in the lead, and I have pointed out repeatedly as other people have that the foreign translation is not even for zaatar but for Hyssop, and you haven't commented on this. And I did respond to you, you brought up that MOS doesn't say anything about translation in the lede, and I brought another Wikipedia guideline. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if editors wold read the information and sources cited in the article before discussing here. Those sources clearly indicate that:
 * Za'atar is an Arabic loanword to English
 * Hyssop is not an ingredient of Za'atar (the condiment) - while Za'atar is marketed in Israel as hyssop, no hyssop grows in the wild in Israel and this is a marketing scheme
 * Ezov has no uncontested established relationship to either Za'atar or Hyssop
 * Therefore, including Ezov in Hebrew in the lead is misleading and its irrelevant to the sbject of this article.  T i a m u t talk 08:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * George's proposal above seems the most sensible to me. Different articles for different things:
 * Botanical articles oregano, marjoram, origanum and so on, which should include the culinary information about the individual herbs (as is done in oregano). The only problem here is that some of these herbs are used more-or-less interchangeably, even across genus.
 * The ezov article about an herb (or herbs) mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, its textual contexts and ritual uses.
 * The za'atar article about an herb mixture and dip (za'atar with oil) found in Levantine cooking.
 * Since Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary, the various names for these things should not be the focus of the article. Oregano (Modern Greek ρίγανι) is of course hugely important in modern Greek cooking, but neither the Modern Greek word nor the Ancient Greek ὀρίγανον from which the English term indirectly derives is mentioned in the lead; it is correctly discussed in the etymology section.
 * The Ezov and Za'atar articles should include the Hebrew and Arabic names (respectively) since the English is a direct transliteration or borrowing. I see no reason that the za'atar article should include the Hebrew name in the lead, even if the za'atar herb mixture or dip are popular in Israel. --Macrakis (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am respectfully bowing out of this discussion thread and issue. "Anonymous" messages like this and emails I receive off Wikipedia, mute any desire to edit within this topic area.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@SupremeDeliciousness. Someone who espouses these racist and vile viewsand then fails to repudiate them after several requests to do so should be banned from the Israel-Arab topic area--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On article talk pages, please comment on content, not contribtors. The importance of this was reiterated in at WP:AE recently.
 * As for the content question, can you explain why we should ignore MoS guidelines, and why we should include the Hebrew for a word (Ezov) that has its own page and isn't even the subject of this article?  T i a m u t talk 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)