Talk:Baklava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z y (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 21 September 2007 (→‎Enough is enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 10:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives:

Important Note: Please do not modify any information as to the origins of baklava without first seeking concensus on the talk page. You might also try to peruse the archives on the right to get an idea of the discussions that have taken place on this subject in the past and the concensus reached.

Comments

Origin

People should stop editing the article to claim that Balkava is from one origin. There is a lot of evidence to point that it was created by a number of different groups, so we should just write that the origin is disputed rather than one side claiming that Baklava is "theirs." I mean it's just pitiful that there is an edit war going over something as trivial as "who's" is Baklava. It should be something that unites Near Easterners as it is a very ancient dish that draws from a breadth of cultural heritage. -Alexios Comnenus

Can you find scholarly support for your position? If so, please add it to the article. We can't just make up its "very ancient" history. --Macrakis 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pionted this idea before , Alexiosis is right.as this article is not actauly part of wiki project turkey only. Keep in mind that many people from different countries totally dissagree with the information you provided regarding to baklava's origin. Baklava can't be originated from nomad civilisation, this is just not logical.

Second many contents were added to the article and with some reason it was deleted, we are all interisted in any information related to this article, therefore we all can justify it's real origin. or we can simply write it's origin is disputed as Alexios Suggested. Alan 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that "many people from different countries disagree". What matters is whether serious, reputable sources disagree. As for me, I really don't care who invented baklava. I did some research, and found Perry's article in a very reputable collection. Perry is a serious guy with a Ph.D. in Arabic who has even translated al-Baghdadi, so he is not just making things up. Now, of course, he may be wrong (the way apparently Vryonis turned out to be wrong). If there is more recent serious literature (and I don't mean tourist brochures or cookbooks) about the origins of baklava, let's add it. But just reporting that the man in the street in Dimashq or Iraklio or Van disagrees is not very interesting.

As for "Wikiproject Turkey", I didn't add that and I have nothing to do with it. All it means is that some group of editors (in this case those interested in Turkish history and culture) are interested in this article. If there is a Wikiproject Food History, that should certainly be added.... --Macrakis 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Vyronis is not serious? Vyronis is a Harvard educated Byzantinist. He reads Medaeval Greek and Ottoman Turkish, so we cannot discount his opinion. Naturally Perry, who is also a serious Cambridge educated historian who speaks Arabic and Persian, disagrees, but he cannot dispite Vyronis' work showing that the Byzantines ate Baklava, as Perry does not speak Greek and cannot analyze Byzantine sources. Thus the origin of Baklava is clearly disputed. It is not disputed just by the man on the street in Greece, Turkey or Syria, but by scholars from the greatest Western Universities.

Thus we must claim that the origins are disputed, at the very least. It is unfair for us to declare Perry's opinion correct and Vyronis' incorrect when they are both serious scholars. -Alexius Comnenus

I know exactly who Vryonis is, and have the greatest respect for him. And his position is reported in the article. Have you read Perry's article? It discusses Vryonis's position, and it seems quite convincing that Vryonis's interpretation is mistaken. I am not aware of a published rebuttal. Is there one?

As for the other claimed origins (Phoenician, Arabic, etc.), what evidence is there for them? I really am open to other positions, but where is the published literature?

And "the name is almost certainly Arabic", where is the evidence for that? That it contains the Arabic root b-q-l? That is interesting, but not proof of relationship; consider for example Arabic kiyluw [kīlū] 'kilogram' which looks an awful lot like the root k-y-l 'to measure'. --Macrakis 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perry's refutation does not seem so strong, and he does not claim that Baklava is entirely of Central Asian Turkic origins-- http://www.peacereporter.net/dettaglio_articolo.php?idpa=&idc=44&ida=156&idt=&idart=5666

" Vyronis, according to Perry commits the same error, he fails to precisely identify explicitly what the layers of pastry are made from."

Obviously something very similar to Baklava was enjoyed in the Byzantine Empire, so to deny the Near Eastern origins of Baklava and claim that it is purely Turkish is unfair. It is unclear what the Byzantines used as layers, but Perry has no decisively proved that they did not use Phyllo or something similar. I would assume that Vyronis' has not published a response as he is a more serious historian and he has much better things to do with his time than waste it researching the origins of a pastry.

In regards to your comment about Arabic, I actually speak Arabic and can respond. Your analogy makes no sense as Arabic follows clear patterns based which date back to the classical period. There is no Arabic form which adds the letter waw to a root verb, so your analogy clearly does not make sense to anyone who knows anything about Arabic grammar. You know very well that Kilo is a borrowing from Greek, probably via French or English. Anyway, a name does not necessarily show the origins of a dish, but I think we can agree that strongest evidence points to the word Baklava being of Arabic origins.

I probably won't write much more as arguing about "ownership" of Baklava at it is a total waste of time, the dish is shared by many nationalities and should unite rather than divide them with petty squabbles. -Alexius Comnenus

I think you are right that for Vryonis the history of baklava is not a central concern, which is one more reason to believe he may have been mistaken. As for the relationship of the root b-q-l and baqlawa, it is certainly possible, we agree that "a name does not necessarily show the origins of a dish" but I do not agree that there is evidence that baqlawa < b-q-l. Cf. the Arabic words /fall/ ('cork', presumably related to Greek φελλός) and /fillah/ ('villa', presumably related to the word 'villa'), neither related to the root f-l-l, to dent. What would be the semantic relationship between baqlawa and bql?

Finally, we are not discussing "ownership" (whatever that would mean). Clearly the dish today is shared by many peoples. We are discussing its history, which is a completely different matter. Compare with chocolate: no one doubts that cacao/chocolate comes from Central America; but central America does not "own" chocolate, and Belgian, Swiss, etc. chocolate is excellent. --Macrakis 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wehr's standard dictionary of modern Arabic does not list baqlawa under the root b-q-l, but as a separate item. --Macrakis 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Central asian and Turkic doesn't belong there since most sources online are Assyrian indeed. History of Baklava like the origins of most recipes habeeb Nareklm 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The history of baklava, like that of many other foods, is not well documented. Though it has been claimed by many groups, the best evidence is that it is ultimately of Central Asian Turkic origin, but that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace."
That sentence needs to be removed and than later it talks about the Assyrians but Assyrians have way more evidence than the Turkic origins what evidence? Assyrian baklava can be traced way back. Nareklm 12:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Turkic and Assyrian would be much better and just putting Assyrian the sentences are wrong very wrong i can list Greek, Turkish, Armenian, etc i don't know why Assyrian and Turkic gets up there. Nareklm 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you didn't know, South-East of Turkey, were around 'Baklava' is supposedly claimed to have been found, indeed was owned by Assyrians before the young turks (ottomans) had taken over. ILLeSt 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were and are many ethnic groups in what is now southeast Turkey. But the article only says that Gaziantep today is famous for its baklava. That's all. --Macrakis 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided doesn't seem so serious, only internet pages. You can find professional references at the bottom of the article page. Thanks.
--Chapultepec 12:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wheres the sources on the Turkic and Assyrian ones do you have any online? All around middle eastern is much better. Nareklm 12:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially Charles Perry, you can see the references at the bottom of the page as I said before. And without asserting professional sources, do not change the tag please. Thanks.
--Chapultepec 12:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off i can change the tags and these sentences do not make sense read it yourself it needs to be rewritten. Nareklm 12:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you change the text and I will wait, but if you change the meaning without giving any authoritative sources, I will have to revert accordingly.
--Chapultepec 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it finished?
--Chapultepec 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nareklm 12:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs revising its not written well. Tone and Re-writing is appropriate but one is fine. Nareklm 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, at first, Turkic is not Turkish. When we wrote Central Asian, we meant Central Asian Turkic mainly based on Perry's sources. So there is no meaning in separating them. And this is a referenced one, not a claim of our own.
If the article is not written in a well form, of course we can improve it. But to write it in a well form is far different than change the meaning. If you wanna change the meaning of the text you have to come up with professional sources.
--Chapultepec 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, it states Turkic, Central Asian, Ottoman cuisine don't you think its confusing? Nareklm 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's confusing, the modern form was developed in Ottoman cuisine, but the initial forms were created in Central Asia, this is referenced, not a claim by us. And the references are visible in the article.
As far as I can see, besides improving the text, you made some changes that changes the meaning of the text. Do you have any authoritative sources, not ordinary internet pages, that support these claims? This is a serious question, because there had been lot of discussions here and the text is a compromised one based on the authoritative references. Thanks.
Professional sources please???
--Chapultepec 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the problem is the person who wrote that sentence barely makes sense how do i know those sources are reliable with no web links i can simply make them up also under a well known cook or historian many websites state its Assyrian but the information on this article really need to be revised. Nareklm 12:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can search on the Internet about their reliability, amazon.com is a good source for that, of course you won't be able to find all these sources since they're professional and not open to public view. You can easily buy them or go to a library and search there. But one thing is for sure, they're more reliable than you are. So, you have to come up with your authoritative sources to be able make such changes in the article.
--Chapultepec 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last time i checked you cant have POV sentences or w/e like ....
Though it has been claimed by many groups, the best evidence is that it is ultimately of Central Asian Turkic origin
Or doesn't make sense
But Claudia Roden and Andrew Dalby find no evidence for it in Arab, Greek, or Byzantine sources before the Ottoman period. Nareklm 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though it has been claimed by many groups, the best evidence is that it is ultimately of Central Asian Turkic origin
This is not a pov sentence, this is referenced. If it doesn't make sense to you, you should supply your sources as I said before.
But Claudia Roden and Andrew Dalby find no evidence for it in Arab, Greek, or Byzantine sources before the Ottoman period.
This is also not pov, if you take a look at the bottom of this discussion, you can see there that Macrakis explains the reasons very well, again based on the references.
--Chapultepec 13:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest Sources

Can anyone find sources earlier than Athenaeus or al-Baghdadi that mention Baklava? John Kritivic

Provide accessible sources, I cannot just paste n'importe quoi in there. Also read the discussion above about the difference between the Byzantine food and the Turkic food. It has already been talked about. That's what I mean by not jumping into articles without knowing its background. Baristarim 07:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Athenaeus source is totally accesible to anyone who lives near a library. Someone else can provide more on the al-Baghdadi sources. John Kritivic

Then please give related citations from the source in question that you utilize. And please read the discussion and the main text and the sources mentioned at the bottom of the main text.
Chapultepec 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I cannot simply say "Pyramids were built by the Martians" ref/ New York Times, 1917 ref/ and say "go check it in a library". Internet is bigger than any library in the world by now, and you should have a easier time digging up the sources in the Net itself than in a library. "Go to a library" doesn't cut it for disputed claims.Baristarim 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. Though I agree about this particular edit, I don't think it is reasonable (or Wikipedia policy) to require that sources be available on-line, though of course it's always nice when they are. I was hoping to find Athenaeus at Perseus, but apparently they don't have it. (I have 4 of the 7 volumes of the Loeb edition on my bookshelf, but not the right volume....)
Anyway, in this case, the issue is one of interpretation, not of looking up the text (that would be original research, anyway). Athenaeus obviously doesn't use the word "baklava", but some people have thought he was describing baklava when talking about gastris or koptoplakous. That is what Vryonis is referring to, and what Perry analyzes in the publications referenced in the current text. Perry is quite convincing that Vryonis's interpretation is incorrect, and as far as I know, no one has disputed him in print on this. As for al-Baghdadi, Perry has recently published his translation of al-Baghdadi into English, and he doesn't seem to think that baklava is described there. --Macrakis 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cv05648

Your comments can take place in the article, but firstly you should supply your sources supporting your view. And secondly the history section is not the place for this text to take place. Thanks. --Chapultepec 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will relocate it below preparation section for the time being. But one problem, your source seems not so explanatory, would you please name your source in more details? It doesn't have to be an internet source, but it should at least be a book, a report or a documentary that can be reached with the given details. This way is not so acceptable. Thanks. --Chapultepec 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I got it. But noone can check a past news programme. There has to be some official documentation in the EU legislation regarding this. Would you please check the internet in official EU sites and find the related report or legislation regarding this, or at least a title or a text mentioning about this? --Chapultepec 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credible sources

The quality of the sources used in the baklava article has often been discussed, so I thought I'd write down some thoughts on the subject....

The Wikipedia policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability require that we use WP:Reliable sources in articles (I'd strongly recommend editors read those policies carefully).

As with many subjects, this can be a challenge for food history. There are many legends about food history (see, e.g. Croissant), and a lot of national pride attached to many foods. The legends tend to be perpetuated in cookbooks, newspaper columns, Web pages, and other non-scholarly sources. Fortunately, for some foods at least, there are serious researchers who have looked into the history using good methods and sources and have published their results in reputable books and journals. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions are correct or definitive, but it gives some degree of confidence. And if there are contradictory scholarly theories, WP policy says we report them.

The current baklava article contains all the scholarly theories that editors have found so far and reports on their conclusions. Some editors have wondered why we should consider Perry as credible. Well, he's a scholar who has studied at Princeton and Berkeley; he has published a translation of al-Baghdadi's cookbook; he reads many of the relevant languages (Arabic, Turkish, Greek). He publishes his work in reputable places, like Petits Propos Culinaires, the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery History, the Oxford Companion to Food, and books edited by serious academics (like the one in question). He makes cogent arguments based on direct study of the documents in question. He references relevant secondary literature, even when it disagrees with him (like Vryonis and Koukoules, whom Vryonis references). Because he publishes in reputable places, he opens himself up to criticism, which means that there is an opportunity for rebuttal. His article on baklava is well-reasoned. He doesn't have any (obvious) axe to grind or conflict of interest (e.g. he is not working for the Uzbek Ministry of Culture). He is cited by other articles on the subject. (e.g. "The Westernization of Iranian Culinary Culture", Iranian Studies 36:1:43)

Of course, if any of us find other solid sources, we should integrate them into the article. --Macrakis 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there misunderstanding of the origin of baklava. Baklava making was first invented in the middle east where the Levant, Mesopotamian and Arabia. Baklava perhaps was introduced to Turkish by Arabs. Just like kunafa, lokum, halva, halawa, Kadayif and many other desserts, with keeping in consideration that the mentioned desserts contain Arabic origin names and not related to the Turkish language or origin. (unsigned comment by User:86.132.195.97 2007-01-07T06:02:52)

This is the baklava article; the other foods you mention have their own history sections. If you have reliable sources for a Middle Eastern origin for baklava, please contribute them. Thanks. --Macrakis 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter this article shouldn't state Turkic origin is the only possibility Perry is not the only scholar in the world who is reliable therefore changing it is necessary. Vryonis Speros who states that baklava has Greek origins. Vryonis is a Byzantine Professor who can read Ottoman Turkish and Medieval Greek. Source: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century by Vryonis Speros Jr. also there is an excerpt taken from Delights from the Garden of Eden: A Cookbook and a History of the Iraqi Cuisine written by Nawal Nasrallah. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Nasrallah is not a serious academic, however, his ideas are interesting. It should also be noted that Perry has read and translated al-Baghdadi, which Nasrallah uses as a source. Nareklm 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, Narek, copy pasting what I said from Myspace tsk tsk tsk :P :P :P HAHAHAH

Yeah man we need all the help we can get ;-) Nareklm 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Perry is not the only reliable scholar. Vryonis is already cited in the article for exactly the work you mention. Buell is also mentioned. I don't know anything about Nasrallah's book, but if she has solid research to present, why don't you discuss it here? --Macrakis 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Some Turkish foods are named after the way they are prepared. Here are some recipes that sound similar to baklava, using yufka (phyllo).

Yag-lama: (to make with oil) Flat bread just with butter, other variations exist. (yag = oil)

Kat-lama: (to make by folding) Borek/Pastry from folded yufka. (kat = step)
Kabak-lama: (to make with "Squash" - the vegetable, not the action) Pastry covered with grated squash. (if Kabak + lama sounds weird, think of "Carbon+izing", "Caramel+izing", "Egg+ing", etc.) (kabak = squash)

So, we know it's a way of preparing it but we need to determine how. Let's say the "V" is now an "M", as in -lava is a -lama as from the examples above (in modern Turkey anyway).

So it could be:

Bakla-ma: would be a gross pastry with a sort of Bean (a Bakla), plus the "-ma" extension in this case means "do not"

Bag-lama: which would be "to tie up", "to wrap up", "to roll up" or even "don't tie up" depending on the syntax ("bag" with the soft G used in Turkish) sounds close, but makes no sense to "tie up". (bag = lace,tie,string)
Bal-lama: (to cover with honey) sounds yummy, but they use syrup for baklava, unless of course syrup was called bal (honey). sounds wrong also. (bal=honey)

Nothing concrete here so let's try it with words from other Turkish-speaking countries.

bay-lama: (to enrich - Turkmen) doesn't sound like it, and makes no sense. (bay=rich)

bag-lama: (to pile, layer) - (Azeri Turkish) but missing the "V" and this was proposed already...very very close but is it this real meaning? (bag,bak=pile)

Let's try another approach:

The hand tool, a long wooden dowel, that is used to stretch the dough (a rolling pin) is called an "OKLAVA" in Turkish. Here we have the same problem as in Baklava, as in no real meaning behind "oklava" except that it's used as a "rolling pin". It is much thinner than a regular rolling pin, maybe 3/8 to 1 inch in diameter. An Oklava is shaped like an an arrow as far as the shaft part goes, but the ends taper off suddenly so that the ends don't cut or leave tracks in the dough while rolling.

Imagine a meter long, round dowel with both ends very gradually tapered.

So now we have at least another word with the same vowel harmony, as it happens often in Turkish.

Let's break it apart as we can with most real Turkish words:

Ok=Arrow, "pole (of a wagon)", shaft. (Turkish) oklava looks a lot like a wagon pole (http://www.turkishdictionary.net/)

Ok= Arrow, "Axis" (Turkmen Turkish) "Axis" makes some sense as far as rotating.

Thus, "Ok" is either the shape, or the way it rolls on it's axis. And "-lava" is the agglutinative verb, which in modern Turkish is "-lama". It uses other vowels for sound harmony, e.g. "ot-lama" (to graze), "kilit-leme" (to lock), "ek-leme" (to append), etc.

Therefore, "bag" or "bak" (pronounced almost the same) meaning "pile" or "bunch" or "layer" in both modern, older, and international Turkish, and with the morphed spelling of the -lama appended, means "to pile" or "to layer". Also, the pronounciacition between lama and lava is very similar, try it with: Baklama or Baklava.

If we compare to other pastries mentioned above, this means that it is named after the way it is prepared. Therefore, other pastries with similar ingredients but are not layered cannot be called Baklava.

I say that we completely dump the Arabic reference to the "bean" and the Mongolian reference to the name, and instead provide this "bag-lama" definition along with "oklava". Such as this.

The word baklava entered English from Turkish[4]; meaning "to make by layering". The word is composed of "bak" meaning "pile or layer" and "-lava" the agglunative verb meaning "to make with". Another example is "oklava" meaning "ok" meaning "a dowel or shaft" and again "-lava", meaning "to make with". Oklava is a Turkish Rolling-pin thin as an arrow's shaft, which is used to roll the dough into the thin sheets used in Baklava.

Who's with me? (unsigned comment by User:Oguz1 2007-01-25T21:33:00)

I agree that the Arabic "bean" content is unnecessary; the only reason it is there is that it is apparently a widespread folk-etymology among Arabic speakers and keeps getting added by Arabs. So we respond to that preemptively, saying that it is not an accepted etymology.
The exploration of Turkish etymologies is fascinating, but WP policy forbids the publication of original research here. There are also some problems with the theory, but this is not the place to discuss them. If you can get your theory published in a reputable journal, or if you can cite a serious source that gives this etymology, we should include it. --Macrakis 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian

There is no language known as "Indian." What has been written is a phoentic translation into devanagari script. This could be called "Hindi," but it does not need to be, as it could just as easily be "Marathi." The real point is there are 16 major lanuages in India, not all of them use the same script, but some do, and not one of them is called "Indian." Please take that down. G.Antonio.Malatesta

If you read the introduction to that section, or follow the link, you will see that it is a list of cuisines, not a list of languages. Now, I am aware that Indian cuisine is also a rather large and probably ill-defined category, like say Mediterranean cuisine or Chinese cuisine, but it is somewhat more respectable than "Indian language", which as you say doesn't exist at all.
But perhaps you could clear something substantive up here. Is baklava actually considered part of "Indian cuisine" the way (say) pizza (but not falafel) is considered part of American cuisine (yet another ill-defined category?
Thanks for your expertise. --Macrakis 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrong image

The image in the article is wrong it is not a Baklava. It is something similer to it but not. It is "Bülbül yuvası" in Turkish.--Plenumchamber 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy English

If you want this article to be comprehensible, I would advise you to leave my edits in. It's gone back to sounding like gibberish. Oh, and the reference to that city in Turkey as being "associated" with baklawa is also meaningless. It should say that this city is famous for its baklawa, or something of the sort. --Gilabrand 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it changed the meaning a little bit especially in the history section. Furthermore, I don't think that your version of history section was grammatically correct as well. For example one of the sentences used to start with "Other say baklava is of Assyrian origin,".
Chapultepec 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, would you please give a change suggestion for the sentence "In Turkey, it is particularly associated with the city of Gaziantep." ? Chapultepec 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably a typo, and should have read "Others say" - it is not a grammatical mistake. I offered a suggestion above about fixing up "associated" - you can write that the city is known or famous for its baklava. All the best,

--Gilabrand 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a try to make the change for the sentence in question. Chapultepec 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on English

Yes, a cuisine can most certainly "feature" a certain dish. From your edits, you are clearly not an English speaker. I happen to be a professional editor and translator, so maybe you can challenge me on information, but not on my English. And by the way, I agree about "developed in Ottoman cuisine" being meaningless. I took it out in my edit, and Chapultepec put it back. --Gilabrand 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand, I think I qualify as a native English speaker, having lived in the U.S. since birth and being educated here from preschool through Ph.D. (not to mention "life experience" as the diploma mills call it). If you don't like my writing style, kindly do not attribute it to my language skills. To my ear, saying that a cuisine "features" some dish or another sounds like airline-magazine fluff, not good writing.
You also changed the sense of the passage about baklava and restaurants. It is a popular dessert in Middle Eastern restaurants world-wide, not just in the Middle East. On the other hand, the habit of offering an assortment of pastries on a brass tray seems to be regional.
Finally, you restored South Asia to the list of regions in which baklava is "found" or "featured". As far as I know, baklava is not particularly well-known or common in South Asia, though of course nowadays you find it in Iceland, Peru, and Taiwan as well as in the Middle East. --Macrakis 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the South Asia bit, it was there, and I don't know if it is correct or not. You can remove it as you see fit. As for my editing and use of "feature" - I stand by what I wrote - and compared to the general level of English on Wikipedia, it is close to Shakespeare. I don't know if it was you who rewrote the sentence and took out the word restaurant but it is not true that in the Middle East baklawa is a popular dessert in general. It is served at restaurants and catered events like weddings. Oh, and for your information, being an English speaker doesn't mean a person knows how to write. I have spent close to 40 years of my life editing the work of university professors who claim to be writers of English. But let's not fight. There is SOOO much work to be done on this site. Every little bit helps.
Best wishes,

--Gilabrand 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"South Asia... You can remove it as you see fit." I did, and you reverted without explanation. Blanket reverts are poor form: please correct what needs to be corrected, no more, no less.
You also seem to agree that "developed in Ottoman cuisine" doesn't belong there, yet again you reverted it as part of a blanket revert.
Frankly, I don't think either "feature" or "found" is the mot juste. Perhaps "characteristic of" or "typical of"? As cuisine becomes more globalized, it is getting harder to describe traditional specialties: is doner kebab "traditional" in Germany? The modern form (served in pita) was apparently developed in Germany in the 1960's; and even in Turkey, it seems to only date to the 19th century, not immemorial tradition....
I do understand the difference between being an English speaker, even an educated English speaker, and being a good writer. And I would appreciate an apology for your explicit claim that I am not an English speaker and your implicit claim that I am not a competent writer. As you say, let's not fight. --Macrakis 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if I hurt your feelings I apologize. I did not do a blanket revert after we discussed it and I wrote "do as you see fit." Maybe it was someone else's edits that got in the way. All the work I did earlier today was reverted. And yes, it can be frustruating to see a lot of hard work go down the drain. Anyway I don't think this particular article is earthshakingly important - go see what's going on in the Jerusalem article...People are fighting over every comma. If you want to rewrite the stuff on here, go ahead. The only reason I got into this is because it breaks my heart to see English so badly mangled. Unless I know better, I try not to change the data on the assumption that the writer is better informed than I, but sometimes the original phrasing can be misleading. Again, I'm sorry to have challenged you on a mistaken assumption,

Best, --Gilabrand 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Develop

www.thefreedictionary.com

de·vel·op v. de·vel·oped, de·vel·op·ing, de·vel·ops v.tr. 1. To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment: an instructor who develops the capabilities of each student. 2. a. To expand or enlarge: developed a national corporation into a worldwide business. b. To aid in the growth of; strengthen: exercises that develop muscles. c. To improve the quality of; refine: develops his recipes to perfection; an extra year of study to develop virtuosic technique. 3. a. To cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate: began with a good premise but developed it without imagination. b. Music To elaborate (a theme) with rhythmic and harmonic variations. 4. a. To bring into being gradually: develop a new cottage industry. b. To set forth or clarify by degrees: developed her thesis in a series of articles. 5. a. To come to have gradually; acquire: develop a taste for opera; develop a friendship. b. To become affected with; contract; developed a rash; developed agoraphobia. 6. To cause gradually to acquire a specific role, function, or form, as: a. To influence the behavior of toward a specific end: an investigator who develops witnesses through flattery and intimidation. b. To cause (a tract of land) to serve a particular purpose: developed the site as a community of condominiums. c. To make available and effective to fulfill a particular end or need: develop the state's water resources to serve a growing population. d. To convert or transform: developed the play into a movie. 7. Games To move (a chess piece) to or toward a more strategic position. 8. a. To process (a photosensitive material), especially with chemicals, in order to render a recorded image visible. b. To render (an image) visible by this means. v.intr. 1. a. To grow by degrees into a more advanced or mature state: With hard work, she developed into a great writer. See Synonyms at mature. b. To increase or expand. c. To improve; advance: Their skill developed until it rivaled their teacher's. 2. To come gradually into existence or activity: Tension developed between students and faculty. 3. To come gradually to light; be disclosed: reports the news as it develops. 4. Biology a. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle: Caterpillars develop into butterflies. b. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more complex stages of evolution. --Z y 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New references

An anonymous user recently added some references and changed the intro of the article according to them.

As for the reference #3, which is in epicurious.com, the article begins with the word balkava, so raising doubts about the seriosity of the article. Furthermore it does not give any information supporting the sentence "Baklava is a popular dessert throughout the Levant and greater Middle Eastern areas". So, I'm reverting the sentence to the older revision giving necessary references.

As for the references #1 and #2, I can't say anything since I can't see their contents. But Byzantine claims were discussed here before and already take place in the article. So, everyone may read it. Thanks.

--Chapultepec 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

Some Greeks may want Baklava to have Greek-Byzantine origins but so far nothing has proved!!! All you claimed "ancestors of baklava" turned out to be some sweets lacking dough??? or salty pastries???!!!! All your nationalistic books have alrady been refuted by new ones!!! So stop trying to mislead people. You can not even stand for layered dough style??? Güllaç is Turkish. Su böreği is Turkish. Gözleme is Turkish. Etymologically Turkish. You do not have even a tradition of using layered dough in your desserts or other courses. Sorry for the inconvenience! As stated above, even the images you are putting on Baklava page do not belong to baklava??? INCREDIBLE. First learn what it is or how it seems like at least!!!! --Z yTalk 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you want the world to know the truth? 85.75.61.76 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous, the definition in the introduction of the article gives geographical information about the use of modern-day baklava rather than ethnic. And the use of Ottoman is much more suitable than that of Byzantine since modern-day baklava became widespread in these regions during the Ottoman rule and the extent of the Ottoman Empire was much farther where the use of baklava is also popular, such as North Africa, Arabia, Southern Ukraine etc.

Furthermore, so far as I can see, the sources you gave do not supply anything supporting your addition in the introduction. What they generally read is known theories that ancient type of baklava is attested in Byzantine texts. These were discussed here before and already take place in the article. Thanks.

--Chapultepec 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. the sources cited do indicate layered sweet desert with nuts and dough were in early Byzantine cuisine (as were stuffed grape leaves).
I think to draw a Turkish origin from the common use of a Turkish word is a logical fallacy in both cases.
I don't understand the lead paragraphs. the second graph as it stands at the moment serves no point but to repeat the first graph with the Word Ottoman and Turkish left in ans the other origin left out? The third graph on Gaziantep is really over the top. the citation is a non academic web site that contains no supporting cite itself and seems only to reflect a folklore and is fully contradicted by the text on origins later in the text which seems to be biased toward Azari origins.
I also find it strange that Vryonis argument is thrown out for not alledgedly not fully documenting dough, yet the lack of nuts in the Turkic folded breads is not challanged.
Again one sees a similar change from balance to ethnic nationalism on the Dolma entry. Adoption of the name in the Ottoman Empire does not indicate Turkic origin.71.252.92.239 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a total misconception, nothing reads in the article that it's Turkic origined just because the name is Turkish, or because it's adopted in the Ottoman era. The reasons are very clearly described in the article. Furthermore, the Azerbaijani baklava is not the origin, just the midway. You can also read through the discussion page to get a point of view. Thanks. --Chapultepec 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because this is not the truth!!!I am repeating what I said above and did not see anything new which needs a counter argument? Byzantines as far as I know have never ever been in Circassian Region (in today's Azerbaijan, lets say Turkic Republics) where baklava and all familiar courses are well spread over! And yes etymology is important to explain the origines of things, at least it helps! Your vine leaves story is a saga!! There is no dolma in the Byzantine cuisine. By the way, although it would not be my main argument, it would be ridiculous to say that you kept Dimitri, Yannis, Anastasia but were not able to keep the Byzantine word used for DOLMA!!! Why does it sound nationalist to you?? Cause etymology disturbs you. But it does matter and you have no right to challenge that if it has become widespread under that word all over the world! Rather think about how or why???

Greeks adopted layered dough style before the Ottoman Empire BUT through the Turks who came to settle in Asia Minor before 1071. Actually these were Byzantine Emperors who first gave land to Turks (Pecheneks and some other branches as well) in Anatolia. Turks brought oklava, sac and "layered dough style" from Central Asia. That's why you can find all on the migration route of Turks!!! The world and all writers including your references admit that. Some nationalist Greeks, among which the most famous one is also referred to in the main article (Vryonis, the one who associated baklava with a sweet which does not contain dough!), turns out to be contradicting with himself when claiming that sac and oklava (rolling pins) were primitif instruments and claiming that Baklava was of Byzantine origin at the same time!!! Cause it was through these primitif instruments people started to roll out dough and bake them!!! Perry and Halici refuted your theses thousands years ago!

Last point, that was Cyprus who dared to apply for registration of baklava as a Chpriot(?) dessert, at which, to be frank, we died of laughing! Who are the ethnic nationalist noisome think about that as well! --Z yTalk 12:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baklava&oldid=159379419"