Talk:Za'atar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Incorrect statement[edit]

The statement here is not found in the book, it doesn't say that "Arab Jews" or that "Iraqi Jews" knew of and used the spice mixture in their traditional cuisine. Its only a recipe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a book of traditional Iraqi-Jewish recipes. When will you give up on this pathetic battle? Breein1007 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Just because a book mention recipe in it do not establish that it be food belong to "Arab Jew" or "Iraqi Jew". Source must specific state that food be traditional use by these "Jews", other wise it be false information use to propogate certain POV. Ani medjool (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Are we really going to argue over cookbooks? A cookbook about Arab or Iraqi Jews foods, is just that...a cookbook about Arab or Iraqi Jews and the food they eat. Just like if I opened up a cookbook about Lebanese Cuisine and saw receipes for Hummus.... Would I question that a parts catalog for a Ford Taurus be about Ford Tauruses? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the source, and frankly it's one of the weakest I've seen. It's a Jewish Iraqi cookbook based on the author's mother's recipes. One of the recipes is for za'atar. How one makes the leap from a recipe from a specific Jewish Iraqi woman's mother to "traditional Jewish Arab cuisine" is beyond me. To borrow nsaum75's example, it's like listing a Ford Taurus' top speed as 200 mph (320 kph) because an odometer in the parts catalog has numbers that go that high. ← George talk 05:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I ran this source by the reliable sources noticeboard. The way it's currently being cited was found to be original research. ← George talk 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the source that was being misused, but left the statement itself. If it's not contentious, maybe it doesn't even need a source? ← George talk 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


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

Name[edit]

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

Its an arabic name, no unrelated translations are needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi George. The word hyssop is Anglasized and is derived from the Hebrew word ezov. Biblical ezov is in fact oregano — which is, to say, zaatar.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────SupremeD. Lord knows I've made lots of elementary mistakes on Wikipedia and I've apologized for those mistakes and my apologies were not mere window dressing but sincere. However, anyone capable of making this comment and this comment without acknowledging that those comments were thoughtless and hurtful should not be editing this article. Indeed, should not be editing anything to do with Mid-East issues at all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would support a topic ban for this user. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For what? I revived a topic ban for those kinds of comments, and I have not made those kinds of comments again, now you added an unaffiliated translation and you have not provided one single source that show Za'atar being a hebrew word. Who is the one disrupting the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
After having been repeatedly asked, you have still not shown one single source to support that zaatar is a hebrew word or a source for anything else you are claiming.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@George. That's an excellent question George and indeed it is somewhat confusing. The condiment is called Za'atar and Arabs refer to the primary ingredient of Za'atar, which is Ezov as Za'atar. Israelis also call the condiment Za'atar but refer to its primary ingredient as Ezov, a Semetic word derived from the bible. Ezov was Anglasized to Hyssup which is oregano. Hope that clears up some of the confusion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much for clarifying JJG. I have a pseudo-proposal. This article should be about za'atar the condiment, and only about the condiment. It should not be about oregano (not even oregano in the Middle East). It should be focused on the condiment. For instance, this article says that "Ecologists state that plants like wild za'atar were on the verge of extinction in Israel due to over-harvesting..." - that's not talking about za'atar the condiment, it's about oregano the plant, and should be moved elsewhere. Since the condiment is called za'atar everywhere (including Israel, per JJG), and since za'atar is derived from the Arabic word from oregano, this article should only include the Arabic word za'atar. Since ezov already has its own article, as does hyssop, and since those words are derived from the Hebrew word for oregano, they should likewise only include the Hebrew word in their lead. I'm still not completely sure that we should have separate articles for hyssop and ezov, so we might want to consider merging them together as well. Thoughts? ← George talk 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of the inter-relationship between the words and ingredients, not to mention the fact that the condiment features prominently in Israeli and Arab cuisines, a merge might be a prudent course of action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
They should be kept as separate articles. Ezov states that Jewish tradition and most modern scholars believe that ezov does not refer to the plant now known as hyssop. It seems to be uncertain what ezov actually was, so it certainly shouldn't be merged with hyssop. On the other hand, splitting this article into Za'atar (plant) and Za'atar (condiment) (default redirect from Za'atar, with other use template at top) would seem to be a good idea. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to get off topic but I still would like to know whether SupremeDeliciousness still subscribes to these views[1] and [2] SD now is your chance to repudiate some very thoughtless and borderline racist statements. Incidentally, some of those comments were echoed by new accounts that popped up just as you began editing this and other Mid-East food articles. If you don't repudiate these comments, your views have no place in this or any article dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to show me a source that says Za'atar is a hebrew word or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Now is not SD's "chance"; now we are discussing the use of Hebrew in the lead sentence. This is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues you have with SD. Now, again, I put to you: the Arabic belongs because "za'atar" is the transliteration of the Arabic word into English. "Za'atar" is not the transliteration of any other word from any other language into English, and thus only the original Arabic belongs. -- Irn (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake, two years later and people are still arguing about this. If any of you had bothered to read the reams of earlier discussion about this, you'd have noticed that the only reason that the Hebrew word is in the lede is because I moved it there to stop it being continually deleted from lower down by various edit warriors and POV-pushers. Considering that za'atar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine", it seems perfectly reasonable that its equivalent name in Hebrew is mentioned somewhere in this article. Probably in the bit about Israel, hmm? Find a good location for it, get over yourselves and stop being childish. There's an arbitration sanctions warning on this talk page now, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS. This is an article about a crushed up plant used as seasoning. We all have so very many more better things to do with our lives. Ugh. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1. What source says that zaatar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine"? 2. Read what I said above: "even if you find a source that say its used in Israeli cuisine that is not enough to have the Hebrew translation, there are many cuisines that use many different types of ingredients, that doesn't mean we should ad all kinds of translations of those languages that may use a spice in their cuisine, only where the name is derived from, see for example: Jalapeño." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
What source says that zaatar is "an integral element in Israeli cuisine"?
Is it lazy hour in here or something? Your browser has a "find in page" function. Use it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Now look at what I said above in "2" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In the event that editors missed the notice at the top of the page, please be advised that this article is now subject to 1RR under the recent "supplemental" ARBPIA sanctions. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 05:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Hex. It's time someone said it, and I couldn't agree more. I hope you are not expecting too much in the name of sanity. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should look at the situation and ascertain the intent behind objections while keeping Good Faith in mind. This is a non-political article about food, I can't but help but wonder if there would be this much contention if the word in question was from some other language than Hebrew. Example articles where alternate words or pronunciations are presented: Dal, Ghee, Naan, Saurkraut -- None of those articles have been turned into a battlefield by one or two editors over the use of terminology, photos or content related to one specific culture and country like has been done here and Falafel & Hummus. It is a violation of NPOV to fight to exclude or demonize one country or culture in numerous articles even if you can procure sources to back up ones position. The only thing doing such actions establishes is that editors have learned how to effectively game the system, and not learned to edit neutrally. Its time to call a spade a spade and put a end to long term politicizing and disruptive editing --nsaum75¡שיחת! 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)po
Just because another article may have a translation that is unrelated to its name doesn't mean that we should also do the same here, that is not an argument. I find it disruptive and non neutral when some ad unaffiliated translations into articles, its like some are trying to push their own personal POVs into articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The same could be said for Jalapeno, which is my point. Maybe its not an argument in your eyes, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate to the discussion at hand. Articles are being turned into political instruments under the guise of WP "standards", in places where politics shouldn't come into play. Anyone can read the long archives (where issues have been repeatedly rehashed) and see where the objection to Hebrew/Israeli terminology & information is not about WP standards but about political concerns. Other articles (like those I mentioned above) handle varying viewpoints & cultures without turning into a battleground, so why can't this one? Again, we all have POV, its how we handle it that makes a difference. Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with? Or are we here to build an encyclopedia with the intent of being inclusive and helping to educate the reader instead of polarizing it and creating battlefields. Food is owned by the world, no one person or culture has a copyright or mandate over what something is called or how its made (even if a governmental organization like the EU says so) --nsaum75¡שיחת! 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Nsaum75 just removed a comment where he said "It is not neutral", while at the same time adding that: "Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with?" [3], well that's maybe what you do, but I say its not neutral if its not neutral. My objection to the unrelated translation is because its an unrelated translation, not because its Hebrew. Thats why I asked people to show me that the translation in Hebrew is related by showing its a Hebrew word, but despite me repeatedly asking for the source, no one has provided it. This article also handles varying viewpoints, that information about Israel is in the article, but that has nothing to do with adding an unrelated translation to the lead, which is not backed up by sources. You are talking about something that is unrelated to the question here, I never said someone owns Za'atar, I said Za'atar is an Arabic word, so any other translation of it is unrelated and because of that its translation doesn't belong in the lead. You don't build an encyclopedia by adding unrelated translations in the first sentence to articles, that is the opposite of building an article as it makes the reader falsely believe that Za'atar has a connection to the unrelated translation. The fact that this has happened over many articles shows strong pov pushing by some editors, battleground mentality and politicization of Wikipedia by that these editors: "must have the unaffiliated translation in the same position as the translation of the names origin (Arabic)", when its something not factual. The fact of the matter is also as some have pointed out that the unaffiliated translation is not only unrelated by that its language has no relation to it, but the meaning of it is not "Za'atar", it is "Hyssop" which is another article, so the unaffiliated translation is unrelated to this in both etymology and meaning. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Funny how you hid the intermediate edits in that link you gave above, very clever. In any case your views on this are POV, as much as mine or anyone elses. We're human and its human nature. The question comes with balancing our own POV. This is a silly debate about food that has gone on way too long with only a handful of editors affecting the stability of it. Hex said he placed it in the lede because it was being continually deleted elsewhere. Numerous other articles contain alternate translations in the lede and elsewhere in the body. The MOS on terms does not seem to specify limitations on foreign translations appearing in articles or the lede, nor does the MOS on sentences. Whats next? Are we going to open an RfC on whether or not the Hebrew translation is going to appear in this article? Seems frivoulous.
An alternative, we could remove the foreign translations all together and put in the IPA pronunciation: /zətɑːr/. THAT might actually be more helpful to a reader than knowing the foreign translations. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The only foreign translation in this article is Hebrew, Zaatar is an Arabic word, so its translation is native. And the unaffiliated Hebrew translation is not for Zaatar, its for "Hyssop". And since you like essays as you previously brought one up in an enforcement against me and you have cited them in talkpage discussions:[4][5][6] here is an essay that says: Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly: "English title terms taken from a language that does not use the Roman alphabet can include the native spelling in parentheses. See, for example, I Ching (simplified Chinese: 易经; traditional Chinese: 易經; pinyin: yì jīng) or Sophocles (Greek: Σοφοκλῆς). The native spelling is useful for precisely identifying foreign words, since transliterations may be inaccurate or ambiguous. Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles.", its does not say anything about non-native languages about other words (Hyssop) be put in the articles. Here is Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical.", the unaffiliated translation in the article now is not a native name and its not even for Zaatar. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how your going through the Hummus article history to find my comments about the use of quotes has any relation here, except to show you are very good at picking apart a users edit history in an arena outside of AE/ANI. I have offered an alternative option of using the IPA to replace any/all foreign translations, since it appears that there is no agreement among editors about what translation should or shouldnt be used in articles. Since over the past few days no one else has chimed in on either position, I'm wondering if other editors have lost interest in the discussion and therefore WP:STICK may currently apply. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It shows that you used an essay in an enforcement against me and used it in discussions for your pov, and here we have another essay, why haven't you commented on it saying that it must be followed the same way you said that the other essay must be followed? I have already explained to you what the foreign translation is, neither you or any other person have showed one single source showing that Za'atar is a Hebrew word, and I showed you above a Wikipedia guideline that says that the native name should be translated in the lead, so why would we remove the native translation? Your suggestion is not based on policy, you say that the native translation following Wikipedia guideline should be in the same position as a foreign translation of another word, now why would we do that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Lost interest? You keep refusing to engage the argument, which SD has again restated above. I don't think I need to repeat myself again to prove that I haven't "lost interest" because you haven't yet responded to the argument. -- Irn (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I did address them, but SD responded back with his own comments without addressing mine. We need other's input on the options presented. Glad you haven't lost interest. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No you did not address them, I brought you a wikipedia guideline showing what translation should be in the lead, and I have pointed out repeatedly as other people have that the foreign translation is not even for zaatar but for Hyssop, and you haven't commented on this. And I did respond to you, you brought up that MOS doesn't say anything about translation in the lede, and I brought another Wikipedia guideline. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It would help if editors wold read the information and sources cited in the article before discussing here. Those sources clearly indicate that:
  1. Za'atar is an Arabic loanword to English
  2. Hyssop is not an ingredient of Za'atar (the condiment) - while Za'atar is marketed in Israel as hyssop, no hyssop grows in the wild in Israel and this is a marketing scheme
  3. Ezov has no uncontested established relationship to either Za'atar or Hyssop
Therefore, including Ezov in Hebrew in the lead is misleading and its irrelevant to the sbject of this article. Tiamuttalk 08:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
George's proposal above seems the most sensible to me. Different articles for different things:
  • Botanical articles oregano, marjoram, origanum and so on, which should include the culinary information about the individual herbs (as is done in oregano#Culinary). The only problem here is that some of these herbs are used more-or-less interchangeably, even across genus.
  • The ezov article about an herb (or herbs) mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, its textual contexts and ritual uses.
  • The za'atar article about an herb mixture and dip (za'atar with oil) found in Levantine cooking.
Since Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary, the various names for these things should not be the focus of the article. Oregano (Modern Greek ρίγανι) is of course hugely important in modern Greek cooking, but neither the Modern Greek word nor the Ancient Greek ὀρίγανον from which the English term indirectly derives is mentioned in the lead; it is correctly discussed in the etymology section.
The Ezov and Za'atar articles should include the Hebrew and Arabic names (respectively) since the English is a direct transliteration or borrowing. I see no reason that the za'atar article should include the Hebrew name in the lead, even if the za'atar herb mixture or dip are popular in Israel. --Macrakis (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am respectfully bowing out of this discussion thread and issue. "Anonymous" messages like this and emails I receive off Wikipedia, mute any desire to edit within this topic area. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@SupremeDeliciousness. Someone who espouses these racist and vile views[7][8]and then fails to repudiate them after several requests to do so should be banned from the Israel-Arab topic area--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Bibliography[edit]

The bibliography has a listing for za'atar - in the bibliography section, for the book by Ted Swedenburg: I looked for the book on line, using the ISBN, the following message "and the given ISBN does not appear to be valid; check for errors copying from the original source". (Dumarest (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC))

Za'atar from an herbal perspective[edit]

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

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

Endangered Species[edit]

It says that "Ecologists found that wild za'atar was on the verge of extinction in Israel due to over-harvesting." The source from Haaretz says "Even though hyssop continues to grow in the wild, it is a protected plant..." That isn't saying its on the verge of extinction and mentions no ecologists. The other source, from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been removed. There needs to be a source for the sentence or it should be removed. 100.2.12.66 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)