User talk:Macrakis

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Sorry!

Sorry, I should have foreseen the enormous interest that gathers around anything falafel-related. But I did immediately ask la:Usor:Iustinus, 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 Aleppo soap 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 Wikipedia around the year 2003) in which little if anything could yet be done because no reliable sources had yet been found.

All good wishes Andrew Dalby 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, sourcing

FYI, I reverted your edit to Noah's Ark, 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 WP:V 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!   — Jess· Δ♥ 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by هاوية التغذية (talk • contribs)

Termes (olive oil)

Just a friendly note on Termes (olive oil). 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!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by هاوية التغذية (talk • contribs)

Eating habits of the Alans

Hi Macrakis! There is this interesting remark of Ammianus Marcellinus that I came across and which alludes to the way (and as to what?) the Alans 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 Gramineae? Many thanks! The details could be useful for various food-related wiki articles. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 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 link)"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 crib) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Where did you get the krevati>crib etymology?" From here (check CRIB at the bottom right of the page) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 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 Pu Erh, 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 Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Passes away

Sorry. My mistake. I've clarified my comment now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

John the Apostle

I have previously posted to the article's talk page (here) regarding the language template. Do you have the time to respond there? Regards Tiderolls 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. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quiz

Hi Macrakis and ``Hronia Pola``! I wonder if, as a self-declared foodie, you could spare a couple of seconds by having a look at a food-related quiz that I devised in the form of 10 already existing wiki articles that I am not quite sure that you are aware of (and which we ought to improve in 2012). Start by reading the names (without clicking on the links) and see if you know at all what they stand for (culinarily). So what is a Cullen Skink?, a Noilly Prat?, a longaniza?, what are the two different drinks that correspond to the names Pommard and Pommery?, what's the dondurma?, which country does the Bomba rice hail from?, what herb is called in Turkish Frenk maydanozu ("Frankish parsley")?, what is a flummery?, what's the difference between tempeh and tempura? and finally what edible mollusca is called in Spanish "caracol"?

At least 8 correct answers out of ten are needed in order to pass the test. 10 out of 10 would make you stand apart as a true connoisseur... Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I failed on Cullen Skink, Bomba rice, and Frenk Maydanozu... Well done anyway! I bet you thought that Bomba(y) rice must Indian! As for the Frankish parsley of the Turks, well, chervil is quite an obscure herb anyway, though I'm surprised that you failed to connect it to the Greek φραγκομαϊντανός Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Börek

Cited article doesn't connect the Romanian word 'buric' "navel" with the food. That's correct. It doesn't. It is the missing link that ultimately invalidates the hypothesis. But buric is the rhotacized version of umbillicum, something that those who analyze the etymology of umbilico clearly specify (see etimo.it). Could it have entered the Turkish lexical/gastronomical repertoire? I really doubt since the map of boreka (see map) does not cover Romania. Also, there is the Italian burriche to be found on the same map but I guess that it is unrelated to 'navel'. Or is it?

A photo of a plate filled with burriche à la Ferrara. They look like kourampiedhes to me :)Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Isola Bella

Re [this edit]. Yes, that’s the literal translation of course: but wasn’t the island actually named as a contraction of Isabella, wife (or something) of one of the Borromeos? Ian Spackman (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually do ignore that: I see that we give the derivation at the start of the article proper, and it is useful to include the literal translation. Ian Spackman (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: R bugs

Sir, software bugs should be mentioned in the software articles. Especially in stable releases. Wikipedia strives for unbiased assessment of things, correct? If we do not mention bugs, this won't be unbiased. Bug in the "stable" release is a notable and reproducible feature.

And - deleting a section is vandalism, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.66.10 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Levantine, derogatory/pejoritive/insulting

I was researching the term "Levant" in order to better understand a piece of literature. I think I am (at least a little) representative of many users, in that I was familiar with the term "Levant" but had never in my life heard the term Franco-Levantine. Furthermore, I never would have run a search on that term, and Wikipedia does not offer that term at all when I search for "Levant" or "Levantine" Therefore your burying the "derogatory" part in the Franco-Levantine section would have prevented me from understanding the literature I was researching.

Now I see that my efforts to improve the article have resulted in the article becoming worse; the "citation needed" section about "Levantine" being derogatory (in the post WWI years) has been moved/deleted. Is this a case of political correctness? Is someone worried that the Levantine community will be offended by reporting the fact that in the post WWI years "Levantine" was often used in a derogatory manner?

• http://www.answers.com/topic/levantine-4#ixzz1kPR27aty
• Google Books "In spite of partition: Jews, Arabs, and the limits of separatist imagination" by Gil Z. Hochbe http://books.google.co.il/books?id=gjtb7K2IK_EC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA45&ots=nRexrAKgBk&dq=levantine+derogatory&hl=iw
• Search Google Books for "levantine, derogatory" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+derogatory&btnG=
• Search Google Books for "levantine, pejoritive" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+pejoritive&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmanoffesto (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Golindouch

Chalk it up to a brain fart. I've revised the cats. Though I suspect if she's pre-congregation she'd be venerated in the Catholic Church as well; such is my experience, as far as I know. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Crème Chantilly

Bonjour :). Puisque vous parlez français, je me permets d'utiliser ma langue maternelle, ce sera plus simple... Ce que vous avez écrit au sujet de la Crème Chantilly est tout simplement faux... Si vous aviez seulement lu le fichier PDF cité en référence [1], vous auriez constaté qu'il est fait mention du chateau de chantilly pour le déjeuner de la baronne d'Oberkirch. Ce n'est pas du tout le château de Versailles !! Traduction : it's not the château de Versailles but the château de Chantilly ! Le hameau du château de Chantilly a ensuite inspiré la reine Marie Antoinette pour la création d'un hameau identique au chateau de Versailles... C'est clairement expliqué dans le PDF page 4 [2]. Savez-vous seulement lire le français ? Apparemment, pas du tout... Deuxièmement, la fr:crème fouettée et la fr:crème chantilly sont deux recettes différentes. Je suis français, et je suis bien placé pour le savoir je pense ? ... Il y a deux articles différents sur le wikipédia francophone... Désolé de vous contredire... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleur44 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-bonjour. Je vois que vous comprenez le français, félicitations :) ... Vos sources ne sont pas vérifiables, pourriez-vous me donner un lien consultable en ligne ? En français "whipped cream" se traduit exclusivement par "crème fouettée". La crème fouettée, comme son nom l'indique est simplement "battue" sans aucune addition. La crème Chantilly, comme indiquée dans l'article de wikipédia, contient du sucre et de la vanille. Pourquoi la baronne d'Orberkirch aurait-elle utilisée le terme "crème chantilly" s'il s'agissait simplement de "crème fouettée" (= whipped cream in english) ? La crème chantilly a été créée au château de Chantilly, voici la raison pour laquelle elle porte ce nom... François Vatel était « contrôleur général de la Bouche » du Grand Condé au château de Chantilly en 1663, il en est plus que certainement l'inventeur. Si le nom de "Chantilly" ne vous plait pas (pour une raison que j'ignore), vous pouvez la renommer "Freedom Cream" si vous préférez :) ... Le french bashing est toujours à la mode dirait-on ? :) :) :) ... Je vous invite à lire la section "Stub Placement" dans la page de discussion [3] : 1 : Creme Chantilly is not the same as whipped cream. Whipped cream is 100% pure cream whipped until thick. Creme Chantilly is whipped cream that is sweetened and usually flavoured with vanilla - 2: The French name for whipped cream is more exactly crème fouettée. In my use of French (I'm a native speaker) this refers to the pure unsweetened version, while crème Chantilly is sweetened and usually lightly vanilla-flavoured. So this does not exactly refers to the same thing, even if the two are obviously related. I do not know about English use however, which may differ somewhat. Bertrand Bellet (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC). etc... Question subsidiaire : pouvez-vous me dire de quel pays provient la statue de la liberté ?? Bientôt on pourra lire sur Wikipédia qu'elle est une création américaine :) ... (humour) ... Fleur44 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Vos sources ne sont absolument pas vérifiables, pourriez-vous faire une copie intégrale du texte d'origine ou mettre un lien vers le texte d'origine ? La crème fouettée ne contient aucun additif, la crème chantilly contient du sucre et de la vanille. C'est la recette : "Pour faire la crème Chantilly, on prend un demi litre de bonne crème de lait, on lui incorpore 50 grammes de sucre pulvérisé et vanillé, puis on fouette le tout; au bout de quelques minutes le mélange devient léger et ferme, il gonfle qu'on appelle une crème Chantilly." [4] "La cuisine rationnelle des malades et des bien portants" (1907). Autre source sur la crème fouettée cette fois-ci : : Creme fouettée : Crème qu'on fait mousser en la battant [5] "Larousse Grand Dictionnaire du XIXe siècle (1869)" . Il n'y a pas de sucre ni de vanille dans la crème fouettée !!! Vous écrivez vraiment n'importe quoi pour avoir raison. Fleur44 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Absolute Value

Macrackis,

I appreciate the spirit of your recent edits to the absolute value page. Given your background, you are well qualified a contributor to the substance of this page. However, as an inclusionist, I find it necessary to take a strong stance in favor of retaining mathematical material that you, and, indeed, even I, may take for granted. Speaking specifically about your choice to remove the "trivial application of the chain rule", I believe that, for most of the people of who would visit this page, the derivatives of functions involving the absolute value are not trivial. It is easy for someone who teaches at the graduate school level to take certain mathematical skill sets for granted when the reality is that most people do not posess them. Therefore, I have decided, rather than reverting your edit, I am going to simply add the material once again, and provide a link to the chain rule. My hope is that you will see this as a fair compromise that is best for the average reader.KlappCK (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

canonical

Quite right, it was a bit well camoflaged for me. If you are happy to do the split then I will not object. Op47 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)