User talk:Thinkfood

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!  nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pastirma[edit]

You say:

Do not undo/edit my edits which are sourced, with your "neutral" fairy tales, wherever you got it from. Pastirma is not of Tukrish origin, nor is it considered Turkish, except of course by Turks, Azeris and Macrakis

Your edit to the Pastirma article reads: "...of Armenian origin", with a footnote to Zubaida, Sami & Tapper, Richard. A Taste of Thyme. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, 1994, p. 35 & 39. The actual text in that reference is: "Armenians enjoy a reputation throughout the region as distinguished cooks.... They are particularly renowned for their pastry cooking and for fine basturma. They share in the cooking traditions of their original homelands in Anatolia." (p. 35) and "As I have indicated, Armenians are widely admired as cooks, especially for their pastries and sausages, notably pasturma [sic spelling inconsistent in source]." (p. 39). Neither of those passages claims that pasturma is "of Armenian origin". As for my edits, I never claimed that pastirma was Turkish (that was already in the article, and I just removed it). See my most recent edit, which incorporates some of your material. --Macrakis (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please don't accuse people of 'vandalism' when there is just a content dispute; see WP:AGF. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are engaged in vandalism for your ridiculous edits and misinterpretation of well sourced material, not to mention the lack of your own sources. I will undo every one of your fairy tale edits. Your claims belong on propaganda sites, not wikipedia.Thinkfood (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Right now, the article says this about history:

Wind-dried beef has been made in this region for centuries; dried beef was indeed made in the Byzantine period

This is sourced to Andrew Dalby's book Siren Feasts. If you have a WP:Reliable source giving more details on history, please add it. The Zubaida reference simply says that Armenians are famous for basturma, not that they invented it. And please try to be a bit more respectful and civil. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want civility and respect, I am all for giving it, however, your reversion of my edits was highly UNcivil and DISrespectful, not to mention based on fantasy more than reality. I did not provide Dalby's source, so I do not know about it, and if it was made in Byzantium, then why are you Turkifying pastirma? That in fact is even more evidence of Armenian origin, since Armenians were prominent in the Byzantine empire. And I reiterate, the Zubaida source legitimately indicated that pastirma is of Armenian origin, claiming otherwise after reading that passage, would make you seem like you can't put two and two together reading simple passages. Being "known" for something, indicates at worst that you "most likely" have credit for it.Thinkfood (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean about "not knowing about" Dalby. That reference was in the text before your edits.
Don't know what you mean about "Turkifying pastirma", either. The text I added five years ago said "pastırma itself is usually considered a Turkish or Armenian dish", with a good source. Some other editor in the meantime seems to have removed the "or Armenian" part (which I just restored). Anyway, that just says that it is "considered" Turkish or Armenian. So far, we have no good sources for its origin. The dried beef made in Byzantine times may or may not have been like pastirma -- was it spiced? with what spices? was it pressed? It was of course certainly not spiced with paprika, which came from the New World.
The Zubaida source says nothing about the origin of pastirma. It is not true that being famous for something means that you originated it. WP calls this sort of over-interpreting WP:Original research. After all, Germans are famous for beer, but beer existed long before Germans. --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing apples with oranges. I don't care about the Dalby source and I don't care about beer, I don't have that book. As for being known for something, again you are not understanding the point I am making, the book "taste of Thyme" is a book for Islamic Middle eastern foods, if Turks had any part of pastirma it would have said as such, or for that matter Iranian or Arabic. Do you understand this point? And as if "you care"... if you did, then why are you bringing in fairy tales of Central Asia into this WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE WHATSOEVER!? In Anatolia, especially Kayseri, the most likely origin of pastirma, was a historic Armenian city. As I said go to the discussion page to make your point, however lousy and biased it seems to me. As for myself I don't buy your "honest intentions" for one second.Thinkfood (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop shouting and listen for a moment.
1) It wasn't me that added the legend of the meat under the saddle. But the legend (qua legend!) is in fact documented even in Armenian-oriented sources. See for example [1], which mentions both the meat-under-the-saddle story and a Caesaria story taking it back to a Greek dish called pastron -- alas, I have not found any confirmation of the pastron story, not even in the Babiniotis and the Andriotis dictionaries, which are usually eager to jump on any possible Greek origin (direct or indirect) for words, nor in Dalby.
2) What do you mean you "don't care about the Dalby source"? Articles are based on sources; not every editor can have access to every source. It is a good source for Byzantine origins. What's your problem? I'd have thought you'd be happy about that.
3) What do you mean "the book "taste of Thyme" is a book for Islamic Middle eastern foods"? The book has a chapter on Jewish foods, it talks about Greek and Armenian and pre-Islamic foods -- as its subtitle says, it is about the "Culinary Cultures of the Middle East". Note the "s" in "Cultures".
4) I'm aware that Kayseri had many Armenians and Greeks before the killings and expulsions, and that it was famous for its pastirma. That doesn't prove anything about its origin, though, does it?
Again, please try to assume good faith -- it is hard to work with other editors otherwise. --Macrakis (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at my most recent edits, where I use the Petrosian source I just found. --Macrakis (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hummus[edit]

Please do not remove referenced material. The content was not inserted by anyone "desperate" but after consulting one of the most respected English dictionaries. Looking at your contribution history, you seem to have something against mention of the Turks. Please be aware that Wikipedians do not appreciate attempts to fight ethnic battles through the project. Also please be aware that, due to a totally different ethnic dispute, the hummus article is under editing restrictions which prevent people from undoing other editors' contributions more than once in evcery 24-hour period.--Peter cohen (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, looking at my contribution history and your above statement, it seems you do not have issues with ethnic propagandists who have brought their ethnic battle to Wikipedia, but rather with those that attempt to correct it. I'm sure Wikipedians also do not appreciate this as well. Before you make baseless accusations, and since you are speaking on behalf of all Wikipedians, I urge you to stick to the subject on hand. As for removing referenced material, I could not verify your claim. Thinkfood (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Turks[edit]

I need to remind you that both Dolma and Pastırma are Turkish words; the fact that the Armenians (a loyal people within Anatolian Turkish states for nearly a millennia) were of the countryside and pronounce(d) these words accordingly as "Tolma" and "Bastırma", respectively, -and very interestingly just like the Azeries- another rural people (of the imperial times). Reading the above comments I understand you have a registered lack of sympathy (so to say) for us, the Turks. What a pity for you... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, and I agree pastirma and dolma and many other dish names that Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, etc eat are Turkish names. But did you consider that all these people, many of them did not know their national language and instead had Turkish as their mother tongue? It is safe to assume that at least half of Ottoman Armenians did not know the Armenian language. And don't get things wrong, I am not anti-Turk just because I feel like it, but all the foods I'm reading about only Turks had something to do with its creation... don't you see something wrong with that? You are right that Armenians and Turks lived side by side for many centuries, and maybe even developed these foods together... but many Turkish and Armenian editors will not accept this I am sure. If you look into the eating habits today, Turks and Armenians nearly use the same foods, but not the Turks of Turkey and Turks of Central Asia. Why do you think this is? And btw if you are in Turkey or visited there, I am sure you heard of Apikoglu, a famous pastirma maker from an Ottoman Armenian family, but i don't know who owns it today. Regards. Thinkfood (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just saw your msg. Thinkfood, think food not national stories. Nobody claims only a Turkishness to those things. It is about the origin not the audience. If it were not for the Turks who made bridges between 3 continents you would not have that immense Ottoman culture, not only in gastronomy. (I mean the Ottomans surved as a conducive tie between many cultures, other than distributing their own Turkish-based culture.) Why do you think many vegetables have Persian names in the Balkans?) On personal experience: I ate a lot of Apikoglu brand "sucuk" in my life. Pastirma mostly came from Kayseri, without a certain brand, rather as artisanal product. When we or the neighboring Turkish family with a surname that ended in "yan" ate those sucuk, I do not think either of us thought anything regarding the origins of the producers. We just enjoyed the "sucuk". All the best. --E4024 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caution on editing articles subject to WP:ARBAA2[edit]

Hello Thinkfood. Your edits are being discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#Nationalistic editor. Some of the food articles where you've been editing recently fall under the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration decision. Please use caution not to express a strong nationalist point of view on the talk pages of those articles. You seem to be hinting in this comment about some kind of a Turkish conspiracy to slant food articles. ("..this article has been hijacked by biased Turkophiles"). Some of our articles may contain biases, but this is a fixable problem. This kind of thing can be worked out through discussion and by better sourcing. Please don't jump to conclusions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, I appreciate your comments and advise. Please take the time to read this as I will give my perspective on certain issues. Compared to some others I may not have a long edit history, but many of my attempts at constructive dialogue have previously failed. I am interested in Armenian cultural articles regarding food history, but I'm sure you are aware what this entails. Because of past historical events, it is no mystery that probably nearly always, Armenian history and Turkish/Azeri history by default stand in contradiction to each other. It is unfortunate, but a neutral source like wikipedia in such cases is often forced to take a side, to the disappointment and resentment of the other. But consider that nearly every food article I have visited, everything somehow magically is "Turkic" and originating in Central Asia. Isn't this nationalist? But yet I don't see anyone opposed to this. If left to the Turks, there would be no such thing as Armenian food, while history itself would suggest the opposite is true. While presuming that all other nationalities of the Ottoman Empire were eating grass and rocks for thousands of years until the Turks arrived, I do not appreciate being labeled and targeted a "nationalist" simply because I don't buy any of this "all foods of the Middle East come from Central Asia through the Turks" nonsense. And whenever I edit an article, if I feel it will cause a reaction, it is always sourced. Secondly, that much of Armenian and Greek foods have Turkish names is not in doubt, but the issue I have is that these Turkish users abuse the notion that all subjects of the Ottoman empire used Turkish as their mother tongue to communicate to one another, and this concept is used all over food articles as the 4th grader logic of "a food is named in Turkish therefore it is of Turkish origin". All articles in question either mention this directly or coerce the reader into believing that. And where they cannot find a Turkish-friendly "source" they omit history sections altogether with the fear that perhaps an Armenian origin or legitimate source may appear. I feel that it's not right for me to take all this time and effort to try to clean up all these articles, only to be accused of POV edits. I have no problems with Turks despite what one may think, but my main issue is cultural claims for nationalistic and/or political reasons on their part which is the tendency I see with a lot of edits. And one other thing I wanted to say about sources. I believe that sources can be wrong and/or overrated if they happen to contradict reason, and historical development. This is an issue I had recently with an editor. If you feel my approach here is wrong, I would be interested in hearing your perspective. Regards. Thinkfood (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why you would think that removing a reference to the Oxford English Dictionary from the hummus article was a good idea. We have steps that we usually follow when sources are in conflict. Throwing out the one you disagree with is not a good move. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the version I found does not mention this, so I could not verify it: [2]. I asked the user for a link which he did not provide either. The contradictory date given to Websters did not help matters either. If we put aside the source for a moment, it also sounded far-fetched and not reasonable that hummus entered English in 1955 through Turkish. This is the example I was giving above, the source here, deemed highly respectable, seems to be contrary to common knowledge. When I suggested this in the talk page, I was dismissed as a nationalist. Another user mentioned he knows to have existed since 1848. Thinkfood (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1848 information is useful, and is worth following up. It would be easy for you to check the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary if you truly doubt that Peter cohen is right about what it says. (The local library should have a copy). You appear to be substituting your personal knowledge for what the written source has indicated. WP:V is what we follow. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a first, but I think I agree with Thinkfood here. All the OED claims is that the word 'hummus' was borrowed into English from Turkish. Even if this is actually true (I have my doubts, and the OED doesn't document this claim), it is not terribly interesting. It might be interesting if English spelled the word humus as in Turkish, but it doesn't. It is an especially peculiar claim since humus is not a particularly widespread or well-known food in Turkey.
Part of the problem here is the definition of "borrowing". As the introduction to the OED says (1st edition, p. xxiii): "The circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernable circumference." When does a word go from being "foreign" (and simply quoted in an English text) to being "English"?
So I would actually be for removing the business about the word 'hummus' being borrowed from Turkish. --Macrakis (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'm agreeing with Thinkfood about the claim that the word 'hummus' was borrowed from Turkish. --Macrakis (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macrakis and Thinkfood, please try to reach consensus with the other editors at Talk:Hummus as to whether a Turkish origin for the word should be stated. At present all our article says is "the Oxford English Dictionary indicates the word entered the English language from Turkish." That simply reports the judgment of the OED editors, and it does not offer it as the official opinion of Wikipedia. It doesn't even say that the Turks invented the dish. Even this statement might be removed if the editors agree. Removing OED completely as a source would be unusual. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my statement on Talk:Pastirma[edit]

You clearly have had a strong interest in this article, and have gone to some length to explain your position on its Talk Page. So I am suggesting, as a courtesy, that you may wish to edit it further. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thinkfood&oldid=526371018"