Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falafel

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cptnono (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 17 September 2011 (→Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s." and citation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:15, 17 September 2011 by Cptnono (talk | contribs) (→Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s." and citation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Good articleFalafel has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falafel. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falafel at the Reference desk.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falafel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEgypt Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIraq Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLebanon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falafel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

GA review

I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. Congratulations to all users that brought this article to GA status. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right on. Thanks for the review!Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


I enjoyed it too - congrats on GA status! I would like to make a suggestion for the North America section/reference to vegans: The word "vegans" should be changed to "vegetarians". A recipe for falafel is found in Moosewood Cookbook, a widely circulated and mainstream vegetarian cookbook. The copyright date on my copy of Moosewood is 1977, so to say "During the 20th century, falafel was generally known only by individuals who frequented restaurants in Middle Eastern and Jewish neighborhoods and by vegans . . ." is inaccurate. Oishiisou (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation in first sentence

ElComandanteChe, MOS you linked to says: "Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged.". . I don't see how this resembles the situation here.

Another guideline says: "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." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in the talk page archive. Since the word "falafel" is generally agreed not to have a Hebrew origin, it does not need to be in the first sentence. The פלאפל spelling is in the lead, so there is no need to give it twice. The Hebrew spelling is a transliteration, not a foreign language name.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've briefly looked through the archive, but probably missed it. Any chance you can point me to that discussion? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is at Talk:Falafel/Archive_2#Hebrew_name_in_the_lede.3F, although as ever it is hard to keep everyone happy. The current version of the article has the Hebrew spelling in the WP:LEAD, but not in the first sentence, which is a fair compromise. The word is not of Hebrew origin, so this makes sense.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I'm not going to reopen this discussion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I was never completely happy with the "compromise" since sources point to it not being of Arabic origin or even from Cairo. So the argument that since it is probably from Copts in Alexandria but we need to push its probably nonexsixstent Arabic Egyptian origins in a way to highlight its popularity in Arab countries is not appropriate. But, it has been stable and is now GA. I would actually go for removing the Arabic translation at the very beginning but no change works just as well for me as well.
And to the IP: Please do not make controversial edits without seeing previous discussions or allowing any new discussions to come to a consensus. This article is now GA and qe do not need political bickering to get it delisted. Follow decent protocol. And to everyone else: don;t edit war.Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You have mixed together the origin of the dish with the origin of the name for the dish.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And it is very convenient that the origin of name does not coincide with the origin of the dish but does highlight one POV while ignoring another. But your edit summary does not coincide with your most recent argument since you refer to native spelling. Consensus among the sources is that it is probably Coptic and not Arabic so it is not "native" to Arabs. Not using any translation would work fine for me. I also think that we could ax the Cairo dialect translation and would then see no reason to include the Hebrew. But as mentioned above, I am OK with no change if it keeps it stable. Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Falafel is an Arabic name, so its translation is native to its names origin. And its not established where the origin of the dish is from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This looks like it has already been resolved, but I just wanted to add my $.02: I would support axing the Cairo dialect and Hebrew from the lead because I don't see what they add, and I especially don't see any reason for them in the lead. However, the Arabic belongs at the very beginning because the word itself has been transliterated into English from Arabic, so it's important to show how it's actually written in the language from which the word comes. -- Irn (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess both the question of the language of origin, and the question of the language through which the word came into modern English are open. Moreover, I afraid the first question will remain mystery. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a question that the English word falafel comes from the Arabic فلافل? -- Irn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

mmmm GA. Tastes goood. Where were you guys then? The origin of the dish is not Arabic. The name is almost certainly. However, this is not wiktionary and if we run into a issue of asserting nationalism over NPOV then I am happy to disregard a template in the first line. If there is any question that we are calling it an Arabic dish with that translation then NPOV trumps it since it is not that important to the readers understanding (especially when we have a whole subsection devoted to it). It is stupid that Arabs and Jews are fighting over it but they are. And we do not take sides. As soon as it looks like we are giving preference (which we have with Nableezy doing everything possible to get Cairo dialect in and other editors making sure Hebrew is in) while others made sure Arabic was mentioned at the beginning) then it means we did it wrong. I am happy we got this to GA but if people are going to start crying over translations then the easy fix is to ax it since we have Wiktionary and a subsection and don;t need it. Note how nice the talk page was until people started whining about politics again. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that even when I am not here you cannot resist the urge to bring me up. Now that I noticed this I will respond. There is no "consensus among sources" that this was first made by Copts, there is consensus that this was first made in Egypt. I included the name used by the overwhelming majority of the people (including Copts) in the place of origin (and it is not simply a "Cairo dialect", it is an Egyptian dialect). I still see no reason why to include the Hebrew in this article. Falafel is also eaten in China, yet we do not include a Chinese name. This belief that one Arabic word has to be "neutralized" by a Hebrew word is nonsense. I realize that people from Israel like Falafel, thats great, God bless. But that is not a reason to include the Hebrew. I included the Egyptian name because, and only because, that is the name in the place of origin. The standard Arabic name should likewise be included as it is the source for the English name. Is there actually a reason to include the Hebrew name? nableezy - 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as much as the Arabic name. Did the Copts even speak Arabic way back? I am under the impression they did not. God bless the Egyptians for enjoying falafel but it is more than likely from a minority of the current state's population. Furthermore, it is more than likely from Alexandria where it is still not called "ta'amiya". It does not need to be nationalized and his is especially true since the descendants of those who most likely created it don;t even identify with the Arabs in Egypt. If you want to remove both translations i an attempt to limit nationalizing I might be on board with it but the Hebrew is handled perfectly fine. actually think the Arabic is now a little botched.
You also have began lowering this article on the quality scale. In your reaction to the IP, you added sources to lines that are not that controversial (verification wise) and addressed in the body. See the MoS on lead sections. I see a desisting pretty soon if editors want to start bickering over whos people get the most mention in the article. Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
And the "urge" is based on your content submissions. No one can disagree that you were trying to get the Arabic name in and there was tons of discussion on it. If you had not been pushing so hard I wouldn't be surprised if both translations were gone. And that would be fine by me if that is what it takes to limit politicization of this article.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Where are you getting that this was "likely" made first by Copts? Almost all the sources say that is an unverified claim. Please provide a source for your novel claim that it is "more than likely from Alexandria". The reason that standard Arabic word should be there is because the word "falafel" is an Arabic word. That you find the need to "balance" it with the word in some other random language says more about your urge to "politicize" such an article than mine. What exactly is the reason the Hebrew should be in the lead section? You say there "just as much" reason for the Hebrew as the Arabic. In 4 paragraphs about falafel in the Oxford companion to food the fact that falafel is known as ta'amiya in Egypt (which it identifies as the origin for the dish) is prominently identified. Notice that it words the idea that this was originally made by Copts as a "Coptic claim". Seems at least that source thinks what it is known as in the place of origin is something worth mentioning. Could you please provide the reason you say that there is "just as much" reason to include the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word in the lead of an article on street food? And, if you would be so kind, tell me how that reason is not "political"? Oh, to your accusation that I lowered the quality of the article. An IP requested inline citations. I know what LEADCITE says, thank you very much, but I would rather avoid an obsessive IP annoying me by providing the citation instead of removing the cn templates and having it quickly be reverted. nableezy - 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussions here and as an "outsider" arrived at the following conclusions:

  1. Numbered list item

1. After researching the history of the two editors involved in nominating this article for "Good Article" status, it appears both of them are extremely partisan and have a history of promoting Israeli & Jewish perspectives at the expensive of the native populations & native cultures in the middle east. In some literary circles this might be considered cultural and historical revisionism.

2. The most outspoken editors against the article being considered a "Good Article" have a long history at this article, which I noted from the article's edit history and archives. However they were absent during the article improvement phase and review process. I gather in one of the sections below that one of the editors was under some sort of editing restriction at the time, however that does not make her input in this article any less valid or important.

3. Falafel has no history in the Jewish or Hebraic community. It is not mentioned by the Hebrew people of antiquity nor the Jewish people immigrated from their homelands in Europe during the 19th century.

4. Falafel is currently enjoyed by people residing in Israel, both the native arab populations and the immigrants and those decended from 19th and 20th century immigrants. In summation, given the facts presented above, the Hebraic translation does not belong in this article and it should have its "Good Article" status revoked until such time that neutral and factually correct information can be established by article newcomers and editors who did not participate in the flawed and politically tarnished original review process. ~MMFireman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmfireman (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think anybody wants to remove any Good Article status, whether or not the Hebrew is in the article. I dont think anybody is opposed to this being a GA, much less be outspoken about it. It is commendable that some editors want to improve an article on a topic, any topic, be it spiders or wars or falafel. There are problems with the article, whether or not it is a GA (and being a GA is really not that big a deal, one person reviews an article). One of these problems is, in my view, the inclusion of the Hebrew in a clearly transparent, even admitted to, attempt to provide some mythical "balance" to an Arabic word. I dont actually care if it is here or not, I dont think it should be, but it doesnt matter. What matters to me is the way an editor makes accusations about others politicizing an article on a food as though pushing for the inclusion of the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for an Egyptian dish is not "political". nableezy - 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, you need to answer my questions if you are going to make that revert. Specifically:

  • Where are you getting that this was "likely" made first by Copts? Almost all the sources say that is an unverified claim.
  • Please provide a source for your novel claim that it is "more than likely from Alexandria".
  • The reason that standard Arabic word should be there is because the word "falafel" is an Arabic word. The reason why the Egyptian Arabic word is in there is because a reliable source, in fact the Oxford Companion to Food published by Oxford University Press, identifies Egypt as the place of origin and further gives the Egyptian Arabic word as the name in the place of origin. What exactly is the reason the Hebrew should be in the lead section? You say there is "just as much" reason, please tell me what that reason is. And, if you would be so kind, tell me how that reason is not "political"?

Please answer these questions. nableezy - 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting book from 1981, written by several linguists, that says the word falafel entered English from Israeli Hebrew. Which makes sense since "falafel" is the Hebrew pronunciation. Arabic is "falafil". It also supports what the article says about Israelis bringing falafel to the US. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Its an off-hand mention contradicted by many more sources. And it actually does not not say what you say, it says that Israeli restaurants are popularizing the term in the US. Also, have you ever heard the term falafel in Arabic? In most dialects it is pronounced almost exactly as it is in English, with the khaleeji Arabic giving it a bit more of an i than a soft e. nableezy - 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not an off-hand mention, it's a specific example of a word that entered English from Hebrew, in a book about language in the US written by linguists and published by Cambridge University Press. That's about as RS as it gets. Which "many more sources" contradict it? And yes, I've heard the term falafel spoken in Arabic. Have you heard it in Hebrew? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is an off-hand mention, anybody who looks at the link can see that, seems silly to argue that point. As far as what sources that say it is an Arabic word, here are a few for starters:
  • The Oxford dictionary of foreign words and phrases (1997) p. 484 identifies falafel as coming from Arabic
  • Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (2006) likewise says it is an Arabic loanword.
nableezy - 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's an Arabic word that entered English through Hebrew. None of your sources contradict that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Uhh no. Each of the above sources identify the English word falafel as coming from Arabic, with no mention of Hebrew. It may well have been popularized by Israeli restaurants in America (which by the way is not the only English speaking country on the planet), but each of the above sources say that the etymology is Arabic -> English. Not Arabic -> Hebrew -> English. Take a look at the Oxford book above, it makes no mention of falafel in the list of English words coming from Hebrew, only listing it in the Arabic list. nableezy - 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? They all say it went directly from Arabic to English? Could you quote those parts? I must be overlooking it somehow.
Nobody is arguing it's not originally an Arabic word, by the way. The issue is how it entered English (or American English if you prefer). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Compare the Compact Oxford Dictionary etymology of falafel to that of paradise. Note the way in which the dictionary shows that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew.
Please note: I don't care whether the article includes the Hebrew or not, but I just want to be clear about the origin of the English word. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford book gives a list for each foreign language for the source of commonly used words in English. In the Arabic list falafel is listed. It is not listed in the Hebrew list. You can look at the quotes from the rest yourself, the links are given. They all give the etymology as Arabic, not Hebrew. nableezy - 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The origin of the word is Arabic, it entered English through Israeli Hebrew. That statement is supported by the source I provided and is not contradicted by the sources you provided which talk about the origin of the word, not how it entered the English language. I did look at those that are available online. I must have missed the parts where they say they're discussing how the word entered English rather than its origin. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You can keep saying that none of the other sources dispute that, but they all do. They all give the origin of the English word as the Arabic word, full stop. From Arabic to English. Not Arabic to Hebrew to English. Also, see Malik's link from the OED on the etymology. From Arabic to English, full stop. Also, see Merriam-Webster: falafel: origin: Arabic. nableezy - 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Indented line

Falafel's etimology is Arabic plain and simple. The food and its name have nothing to do with the language or people of the Hebrews of antiquity or the followers of Judaism whose forefathers left their European homelands in the 19th & 20th century and settled in Palestine.

Indented line

The invention of Israeli Hebrew in the late 19th & 20th centuries involved the "hebrewization" of many Arabic words and makes use of loan words from Aramaic and Arabic, since much of the ancient Hebrews language was lost and those words that did survive were liturgical in nature and suffered from language drift. So even if the word entered English from Hebrew, its more than likely that the Hebrew word was taken from Arabic by people instrumental in the creation of Israeli Hebrew. A search of online scholastic resources has yet to provide proof that the modern English word has any connection to Israeli or the ancient Hebrews languages. In summary the use of the Hebrew word in this article is incorrect and to use a term introduced by Jd2718, it is "synthasis" to have it in this article. Thank you. Mmfireman

Your comment reminds me that there are three issues that have been discussed 1) Should falafel have the Arabic translation in the lead. 2) Should the translation and alternative name from Egyptians outside of Alexandria (where it is likely to have been introduced) be in the lead and/or body? 3)Should Hebrew be in?
My thoughts:
1)The whole Arabic to modern usage is good enough for me to at least be in the article somewhere. I think that the lead causes nationalism issues so can understand it not being in the lead.
2)The alternative Egyptian name has some mentions in sources so I could see it being in the "Etymology" section but it is given too much prominence in the lead and it hampers a nice flow of the sentence.
3)The Hebrew thing used to be out of the lead if I recall correctly. It is done is such a nonobtrusive way that I would be surprised of the reaction from some editors if I did not know the history how contentious the food has somehow become. I would actually not cry too much with its removal if the not that common alternative name from Cairo was moved into the "Etymology" section and would also still be be happy to see it in the body as a simple translation within parenthesis somewhere in the history section. Other editors have seen it that way and been happy with it.
Basically, both Cairo and Hebrew can be in the body as far as I see it. I am on the fence with the Arabic translation in the lead since it causes nothing but trouble and may not be enough of a benefit to the reader to keep there. Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You have, once again, made unsubstantiated claims. To begin with, this is not an alternative name from Cairo, this is the name across Egypt, with the exception of Alexandria. Could you please provide a source for the claim that falafel originated in Alexandria? Could you please clarify what on earth you mean by "not that common alternative name from Cairo"? Several sources give this as the name in Egypt. Not as some uncommon name in Cairo as you repeatedly claim. Please provide sources for these claims. nableezy - 03:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


No. You can read the article yourself. Copts in Alexandria is actually in the sources. Start reading, homie.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read the sources, and they almost all say that it is a Coptic claim, and I have yet to see one that says it was in Alexandria. Please say which sources supports your claims. nableezy - 07:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I will do the research for you. Give me a day or so since I really have to be off drinking and prepping myself for tomorrow's races (Midnight Interlude to place). So I am going to go off the top of my head and say "Med location = easier access to the rest of the region" (I am pretty sure that is a great paraphrase of a source already used but will have to double check tpo see if it was pulled in the GA push). So while I am researching it for you how about you answer the questions I asked you or actually address the attempt at NPOV listed above instead of latching on one single comment. C'mon. I gave you lots to work with and if you think the best solution is to keep on arguing instead of finding a solution based on NPOV then we are going backwards. How about I assume good faith and believe that you actually want to keep this article at GA instead of pushing a POV. Take a breath and think what is better for the article. A)MAKING SURE THAT ARABIC IS IN THE LEAD ARGH! or B)Masking the lead readable and NPOV. I'll AGF for a bit if it means that you will attempt to continue to improve this article instead of politizing it. BTW, every comment above is OK per the standards here. Go eat some yummy food and stop thinking about politics.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting. nableezy - 01:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
But the source is already in the article. Also, you should know that Alexandria was their center and not Cairo. That is probably why "falafel" is still the name in Alexandria. But I will let you read the article again since it is right there. Wow. Just wow. Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article says Alexandria being a port city made it possible to export the dish and name to other areas in the Middle East. That is nowhere close to your manufactured claim that falafel was invented in Alexandria. What that sentence means, for the English challenged among us, is that falafel spread to the rest of the Middle East from Alexandria. Not that falafel was invented in Alexandria. Wow indeed. Next time actually check to see if the things you are making up has a chance of being true. Again, please provide a source for these wild claims that you continue to make on this talk page. nableezy - 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no claims to falafel being from Cairo. In fact, they call it something else there. On the other hand we have multiple sources discussing its prevalence in Alexandria. And we have the luxury of knowing that Alexandria was a Coptic city a long time ago. But you still have ignored my solution. You have chosen to continue arguing when I laid out what I see as a possible roadmap to straightening it out. It appears to me that you would rather argue about it. If I am wrong (which I should be if we are AGF) then please feel free to actually discuss a solution instead of trying to poke holes in arguments. We do not need to pretend to be lawyers here. You know the argument and the possible solutions. So the best thing for the project would be for you to actually attempt to improve the article instead of using the talk page to continue the battle. Enough with the politics and games. You can chose to be a contributor here and not make the same mistakes as those that have been rightfully banned.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Now it is multiple sources? Again, this is not a "Cairo name". Can you or can you not provide sources for the claims you made in this article? Such as, falafel was invented in Alexandria. Or that it is more than a Coptic claim that was invented by Copts. I have given you multiple sources for everything I have said. You have first simply said that some mythical source in the article supports your claims, and now say there are multiple such sources. Please tell me, which ones. I have also provided reasons for the Egyptian name to be included. Multiple sources, when mentioning the place of origin as Egypt, say this is the Egyptian name. You have yet, despite repeated requests, to provide a reason for including the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for street food first made in Egypt. Can you do either of these things at this point? nableezy - 03:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am still waiting for the sources that back up the claims you have made on this talk page. Please provide them. nableezy - 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point. If there is a reason to include the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for a Egyptian street food, that same reason applies to including the Japaneses spelling of that same Arabic word (ファラフェル). Japanese people like falafel, there is a well known restaurant that specializes in falafel in Japan. Should we include the Japanese spelling in the lead as well? nableezy - 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Im still waiting on answers to my questions and the sources that back up Cptnono's position. I, again, request that the reason the Hebrew spelling of an Arabic word for an Egyptian dish is in the lead. nableezy - 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. And without a compelling answer, I see no reason for the Hebrew to remain there. Tiamut 13:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at RSN here regarding the word entering English through Hebrew. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I see that the outcome of the above link was that the source in not reliable and that the there is no contextual support for inserting a translation in either the language of the Ancient Hebrews or the suppositious Hebrew used by modern Israelis. It must be removed. Thank you, Mmfireman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmfireman (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why then is there an Arabic spelling of Jacob, who has nothing to do with Arabs? I'm not trying to make a POINT, but Falafel is at least as related to Israelis as Jacob is to Arabs. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already answered the questions but mine were not. So now that Hebrew is out of the lead it looks like we are off to a good start on removing politics and uneeded translations. Anyone mind if I remove the Egyptian spelling? The reasoning has already been provided. And since an edit war is probably starting (notice the recent reverts) it would make sense to end it now.
I don;t mind terribly if it is in the body but that citation needs to go per the MoS. This artilce made it to GA despite the bickering and should stay there.Cptnono (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
By the "Egyptian spelling" you mean the alternate name? If so, I agree, more appropriate in the body. Jd2718 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

palestinians resent our ecumenical enjoyment!

In Israel, falafel crosses ethnic and religious bounds, and is enjoyed by all sectors of society. This has led to resentment by Palestinians...

Seriously, is this just an unintentionally garbled summary, or what? There is no question of Palestinians resenting the fact that "In Israel, falfel crosses ethnic and religious bounds," and none of the sources given say anything like that:

says that Palestinians resent the association, in the West, of falafel with Israeli cuisine, which they see as cultural appropriation.

says "Many Palestinians believe that Israelis have stolen falafel," giving the example of a popular Israeli song which falsely claimed that "only we have falafel."

says that Arabs in the region are angry about an attempt by the Lebanese Industrialists' Association to declare falafel specifically Lebanese as opposed to a product of the Arab world more generally.

So how do you get from that to "Palestinians resent Israel's ecumenical enjoyment of falafel?" So far as I can see, you don't, unless you're insanely sloppy or just want to make Palestinians look bad. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Or if we want to follow the sources. Any ideas for rewording it?Cptnono (talk)
I already did, and you immediately reverted it. What gives? 99.250.12.151 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You didn't reword it. You removed sourced content. SO per BRD you are free to make some suggestions on how to improve it but simply removing content from a GA is not the best way to go about it. We also do not need to give even more prominence to the "controversy". Editors here have agreed that politics was getting too much play and intentionally toned it down. So what gives ias that we created a GA and you were mucking it up. Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What editors have "agreed" that the article has enough information about what you call "politics"? 99.250.12.151 is right that the information in question is not presented accurately in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
SD - Perhaps you missed the agreement because the changes were made while you were topic-banned from all articles related to the IP conflict -- which this article sadly falls under. Anyhow, the editors involved in helping this reach GA status agreed that this article focused mostly on the political aspect of the food and not the food itself. Therefore they expanded the article with nutritional information about the food, its use in various diets, its health profile, and how its enjoyed around the world. An independent reviewer found the expanded article to be balanced and well written, hence it was promoted to GA status. If you feel that the Israel-Palestine-Arab political controversy aspect of this food is now insufficient and under-represented, you are welcome to make changes. However, given the history of this article being used as a battleground, I would suggest you have broad support from both administrators and editors before adding potentially contentious IP-related content into this article. -- nsaum75  23:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the line. Reading the source (the reference allows you to see more than enough, it is a delightful travelogue, a food-tourist story, well-written. But it cannot qualify as more than a culinary memoir. It is in this context not a reliable source.) Alarmingly, the sentence before and after (Israel considers it national cuisine, Palestinians resent that) formed one idea. Planting the "ecumenical" idea between created the worst kind of synthesis. An article must be more than three score lines, each individually sourced. Jd2718 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The source meets our standards and I was a little surprise that you used that as part of the reason to remove it. But I do agree with removal. The line added too much fluffy language that could be looked at as highlighting politics. It really wasn't needed since saying that it is iconic in the line just before does the job.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch. I think it is worth discussion, though there is no urgency, as this particular snippet doesn't belong for additional reasons. I would hold that the context and the content matter for assessing reliability. There is nothing inherent in the writing, essentially a food/travelogue, that makes it reliable, or not. I looked at its other use on the page, where it supports the ambiguity between the "ball" and the "sandwich", and found it perfectly reliable (his direct observation). I looked at "ecumenical enjoyment" and thought otherwise (his global generalization based on several observations). Before I decided to delete it I considered moving it to a place where it did not interfere with the meaning of the rest of the section, and found it insipid. It's a warning to all of us, and I think I've done it, about the danger of harvesting neat lines from RSs without considering context and flow. Jd2718 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced material

I don't think Wesam gobran's reasoning ("I deleted the line claiming that Falafel and Salad Pita sandwiches were invented in Israel as the reference cited for this piece of information is relatively weak (a journal article with no references), plus, the claim doesn't sound logical") justifies this removals (, and ). Galili's article is used as a source across the article and looks quite reliable — anyway there are no high quality sources published by Falafel studies scholars. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If Wesam gobran feels the newspaper article doesn't satisfy RS, it should be brought to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Newspaper articles seldom include references, but commonly serve as acceptable relable sourcing for WP articles. "I don't like it" is insufficient justification for removal of sourced content. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Noun Form and "a unit"

The "Etymology" also discusses the etymology of the Egyptian word used for a falafel (ṭaˁamiya) and mentions the word form from which that word is formed with the phrase ' the particular form indicates "a unit" of the given root ' May I suggest that instead of "a unit" that "a piece" or "a portion" be used instead? The words "a unit" (especially when discussing something made up of several parts) could be misunderstood to be a 'unit' meaning "a whole thing (of united parts)" rather than a 'unit' as in "a whole portion (of a collection of things)." Any objections? — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s." and citation

First of all this is my first contribution to a discussion page so please forgive me if I miss some procedure or protocol. I was lead to this page as a result of coming across an inaccuracy in this article. As a long-time Misplaced Pages user who appreciates the immense value of the site, I felt compelled to have it corrected. After looking in the help section on disputes and reading Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, I was informed that this was the first place to begin such a discussion.

The sentence in the article that is not entirely correct and in fact misleading is, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.", which can be found under the heading History and the subheading Middle-East.

I have two issues with the statement.

The first is personal. As a Canadian who grew up in the 60's & 70's I had the opportunity to eat Falafel in several cities throughout my childhood both in Canada and in The United States. On each of these occasions, the only falafel available were sold in Lebanese restaurants that were owned and operated by Lebanese immigrants and in one case, Palestinians. There were no Israeli restaurants in Vancouver, Edmonton, or Toronto (3 cities in the top 5 largest urban areas in Canada) nor Seattle, or Portland at that time.

I distinctly remember the novelty as friends, family, and neighbours were all delighted with the introduction of falefel in these cities. When I came across the aforementioned inaccuracy purporting that Israelis were solely responsible for this deed, I sought to edit the sentence to include Lebanese and Palestinians. I did this by an edit on - 19:33, 31 August 2011 2.158.148.75 (talk) (25,188 bytes) (→Middle East) (undo)

which read to include:

“Palestinian, Israeli, and Lebanese entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s. ”

Israel may indeed have been responsible for participating in introducing the falafel to North America, but certainly by no means was exclusively responsible for it. Unfortunately, the edit to the page was quickly reverted.

My second reason for taking issue with the same statement came when I linked to its citation to verify it’s validity and found that it did not meet the guidelines stipulated by Misplaced Pages as it lacked scholarly consensus, a reference to studies, or historical data. The citation was in fact nothing more than a statement included in an “Lifestyle” opinion piece labelled, “a fact sheet”, by an author who has no experience in culinary history but is rather a Content Specialist & SEO Consultant with a background in IT and a BA, Bsc, in Political Science & Computer Science.

^ a b c d Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News. Retrieved February 6, 2011.

The cited article is found in an Israeli heavily biased website. From its homepage self-described as, “Ynetnews is the English-language sister-site to YNET. Israel's largest and most popular news and content website.”

Nowhere in the cited article does Galili, Shooky backup up his statement about Israel entrepreneurs being responsible for the introduction of the falafel to the United States with any supporting facts or background information. And as such is the case it doesn’t seem to qualify as an acceptable citation that meets with Misplaced Pages’s more stringent requirements.

On September 16, 2011 I decided to strike the sentence from the article with the following edit:

17:07, 16 September 2011 94.167.209.216 (talk) (24,484 bytes) (Removed: how falafel came to North America. Sentence/citation were opinion-based from an Israeli-biased “lifestyle” piece without facts/studies/or scholarly consensus to back it up, not meeting Misplaced Pages’s standards of credibility for citations) (undo)

Again, the Edit was promptly reverted.

Which brings me to this post. The information in the sentence is not correct. I’m not sure what is needed to rectify it and give Misplaced Pages readers the truth. Now that I have brought this issue to the attention of Misplaced Pages, I hope I have detailed the issue correctly as I should have. I would be grateful for any kind advice on what I must do next to see the sentence edited to correctly describe the accurate introduction of falafel into North America. Reading the sentence as it is today not only gives people false information but also is an affront to my childhood memories of eating delicious Lebanese falafels in the Lebanese restaurants that began to spring up in North America in the 1970’s. Thanks for your direction. Veritycheck (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What you would need to change the sentence is a reliable source per WP:RS (like Ynet, even if you think it's biased) supporting the information you'd like to add or contradicting the information already in the article. Your childhood memories can not be used as a basis for editing wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that whatever we do should be based on reliable sources. I do not believe the Ynet post qualifies as a RS, and we should be able to do better.
As to the substance, I suspect that the truth of the matter is that falafel was available in Middle Eastern restaurants for a long time (exactly as User:Veritycheck says), but only in Middle Eastern restaurants as an ethnic food. Some time in the 1970's, it seems to have been popularized as a street food for non-Middle Easterners in the US by Israelis who sold it from food trucks (there was one in front of MIT in the 1970's) and the like. Many ethnic foods "broke out" from specialized venues in this way. In London, apparently hummus was introduced by Cypriot restaurateurs (not Levantine), and is thought of as a Greek food, though it was unknown in Greece until recently. Go figure.
But we do need RS for all this. --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You know what happens when you ask for falafel at a Greek joint in Seattle? They look at you like you are a jerk. But that is OR. A source (Ynet is RS even if it is from a country that people don;t like) says so and that is good enough for me since sources have allowed for falsehoods before and this one at least appears more plausible than others. Sorry, WP:V is met. Go change other articles against RS when it favors you and be reverted. Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I am sure everyone in this discussion has actually looked for other RS. I assume everyone has done what IU already have. Other sources alluded to it. But if you want to fight RS then find RS against it. And then find RS supporting it and find reasoning to dispute that RS. I honestly can't trust any argument that isn't from someone who can say they have looked. Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Categories: