| Revision as of 13:26, 12 December 2011 editMacrakis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,710 edits remove insults by cowardly vandal← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:50, 19 December 2011 edit undo193.92.131.230 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == Sorry! == | |||
| Sorry, I should have foreseen the enormous interest that gathers around anything falafel-related. But I did immediately ask ], a long-term friend who is interested in Egyptian etymologies for food words (and whose Ph.D. is in this precise field) to comment. Meanwhile I quite see your point and I have added a note on the talk page to clarify my view. | |||
| Sorry also for not joining in at ] as you asked. I have been busy; but my honest feeling, looking at the page, was that it was in a protean state (like all of Misplaced Pages around the year 2003) in which little if anything could yet be done because no reliable sources had yet been found. | |||
| All good wishes <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI, sourcing == | |||
| FYI, I reverted your edit to ], which only added named refs to each sentence in the paragraph. Per your question in your edit summary, I thought I'd comment here to explain. Typically, you're right, we don't need to add a reference to every single sentence. I believe it is ] that mentions "''dubious statements''" must be cited, but typically we don't worry about citing uncontroversial facts. For those contested bits, if a reference is listed a sentence or two after the statement, that is sufficient for sourcing. Adding named refs throughout a paragraph only serves to clutter the prose (and reflist), and gives the reader a sense of added weight, as though a plethora of sources had been provided, when it reality it was only one or two. It also makes editing the sections harder, since one has to filter through all the ref tags littered through the text. I see you've been around for a while, so perhaps you know all this, and your edit summary was intended to be rhetorical. Either way, I figured I'd explain the revert. If the sources you listed cover that material, we can just remove the fact tags, instead of duplicating named refs every sentence. Feel free to engage me on my talk page, or the article talk page, if you have any questions/concerns/etc. All the best! — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == nutrition facts == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Thanks for your comments, your right the recipes for these foods are variable but usually I put the nutritional information for the most prepared recipe which is a typical one but I might be more specific by mentioning the ingredients used. | |||
| Regarding my sources i have gone through many food websites and found shahiya.com and allrecipes.com the only websites that have nutritional facts for Arabic recipes. I am adding information from these websites that I consider reliable sources since I am a dietitian and have personally checked nutrition facts of some of these recipes and found that they conform to the USDA nutrient database. | |||
| Regarding my sentence I will modify it | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| هاوية التغذيةNF 08:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just a friendly note on ]. Although the article truly does not indicate the importance of the company, it's been around since 2007 and already had two speed requests removed. Consensus has been in the past that articles like that need to go to AfD rather than speedy. Cheers!--] | ] 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == reply == | |||
| Im not adding links for SEO reasons, i have explained why im adding the nutritional information from these websites that i trust and consider reliable sources. Anyway if my work is not considered valuable for wikipedia im gonna stop adding any posts. Thank you. هاوية التغذيةNF 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Eating habits of the Alans== | |||
| Hi Macrakis! There is interesting remark of ] that I came across and which alludes to the way (and as to what?) the ] used to eat. | |||
| It is in Latin I wonder if you could spare a couple of seconds and look into it? Is Graminea standing for ]? Many thanks! The details could be useful for various food-related wiki articles. | |||
| ] (]) 08:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your help. I somehow secretly hoped that the Alans were 'exposed' by A.M. as 'grain eaters' (in the form perhaps of kashk :), gachas :)) but I guess it had been more easy for them to simply tuck in the flesh of their accompanying flocks. They were definitely carnivorous, meat affording. Yet I found this interesting passage on them: (see )''"Like the barbarians on the Rhine and in southwestern Gaul, the "bandits" of Armorica had been tamed and were now growing grain."'' | |||
| :As for what you call ''a wonderful collection of absurd etymologies'', yes, they seem now obsolete indeed though you never know if the author struck genius with some of the more daring of them at least. What he basically does is to point out at the kinship between the Ancient Greek and the Celtic languages of Gaul and Britannia. Since the Celtic languages are quite obscure and very few of us have a fluent command of them at present, I think that we should give the author at least the benefit of the doubt. | |||
| (on a side note, how many a Greek suspect that their ''krevati'' ('bed') survives as the English ]) ] (]) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re: "Where did you get the krevati>crib etymology?" From (check CRIB at the bottom right of the page) ] (]) 23:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re: "Again, a 1783 publication on etymology is surely out of date!". You mean it is past its selling date!? That should not always amount to a defect unless expiring food is involved (and even in this case, some aged cheeses like barrel aged feta or classy teas such as ], let alone vintage clarets improve their properties over the years). Anyway, joke apart, you are right and that's why I wouldn't go that far and make straight use out of these dodgy references in the wiki articles. Also, the author is one...Vossius. "The whole compiled from Vossius, ... and other etymologists. By the Reverend George William Lemon". Fair enough then! The 18th century abounded in polymaths, some of them incredibly smart and open minded religious men, especially when compared to our own hyper-specialized (and frankly speaking sectarian and narrow minded in its excessive prudence) century.But then I guess that wikipedia is above all a 21st century project and we must obey its peculiar ethos. | |||
| :::Re: "...the original meaning in English was not "a bed for an infant", but "a barred receptacle for fodder". A crib was baby Jesus' bed, or at least this was the term the Germanic people used for it. Afaik their Christian terminology had to adapt to whatever words were available at that time in their vocabulary. Interesting that the moden word creche comes from crib too... | |||
| ''creche'' "Christmas manger scene," 1792, from Fr. crèche, from O.Fr. cresche (13c.) "crib, manger, stall," ultimately from a Germanic source, cf. O.H.G. kripja, O.E. cribb (see crib). Also "a public nursery for infants where they are cared for while their mothers are at work" (1854). | |||
| Probably related to Ger. krebe "basket." Meaning "child's bed with barred sides" is 1640s; probably from frequent use in reference to the manger where infant Jesus was laid ] (]) 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Passes away == | |||
| Sorry. My mistake. I've clarified my comment now. ] (]) 22:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have previously posted to the article's talk page (]) regarding the language template. Do you have the time to respond there? Regards ]] 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Noah's ark == | |||
| Thanks - interesting discussion, lightened my day. | |||
| A sensible article on the ark would start from the proposition that it's a theological story with a theological purpose, and looking for a real ark or flood is about as sensible as looking for the real Screwtape. But I don't think that article's editors are the type to look for sensible treatments. ] (]) 04:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) | |||