Jump to content

Talk:Baklava

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2003:ea:4f4f:cfa3:b921:8949:80fc:96a1 (talk) at 19:53, 19 January 2024 (→Why were my edits reverted?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. This is a non-starter for the reasons discussed and per the consensus below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baklava → Turkish baklava In 19 December 2013 Baklava became the first ever Turkish product registered list of Protected Geographical Indication by the European Commission.[1] Name of Antep Baklava or Gaziantep Baklava just used as local name in Gaziantep, it's recognized as Turkish Baklava from outside like Turkish delight.

Baklava should move to Turkish baklava above-mentioned reasons. Maurice07 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
I am unsure how to format my comment so apologies if this breaks the page. I am confused why the article has a description box saying the place of origin was the Ottoman Empire where as the article text explains the origin of Baklava is from Assyria. Can someone explain or fix this discrepancy? I do not have an account to do so since the article is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.117.241 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Nice to know you can't see my edits unrelated to Armenia. --Երևանցի talk 22:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origins of Baklava

I am unsure how to format my comment so apologies if this breaks the page. I am confused why the article has a description box saying the place of origin was the Ottoman Empire where as the article text explains the origin of Baklava is from Assyria. Can someone explain or fix this discrepancy? I do not have an account to do so since the article is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.117.241 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the "history" of this food need to be revised. The opening sentence is rather misleading: "there is evidence that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul."

The above quote accounts for its "current form" but doesn't account for its actual 'origins' and is thus, extremely misleading. The Assyrians have a historical claim to the actual, 'original' food as do the Byzantines and subsequently the ancient Greeks.

It is highly misleading to suggest that it was the invading Ottomans who only in the latter half of the 2nd millennium CE started serving this food; who pioneered it.

There needs to be further discussion regarding the 'origins' and not just the modern form. The talk about "layered breads" is irrelevant and somewhat of a red herring, given that it is in the 'origin' section. The line about the Sultan serving baklava in the history section further demonstrates that which I am describing. It does not explain the origin but is explicitly circumstantial though it is used as evidence to support an origin argument. The 'origin' is important and it deserves more than one sentence at the start of that section. The Ottomans pioneered it, yes; but where did it originate.

Taking Perry's word - a single source - for this is not effective information propagation. I have noticed that Perry has been used on all of the relating pages such as the Filo page as well, as though Filo just appeared suddenly when in fact it is a Greek word meaning "thin;" as in 'thin pastry.'

This sentence further illustrates what I am talking about: "The thin phyllo dough used today was probably developed in the kitchens of the Topkapı Palace." --- This needs a citation and does not have one as it is very important. You can not just make things up and pass them off as fact to suit a circular argument; in this case proving that Filo is of Turkic origins. "Probably," is not encyclopedic.

This topic needs further discussion and research. ONE source to cover the entire page's origin section is certainly, not enough. - Eidetic Man (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone knows for sure where phyllo dough was invented. We probably need to find several sources that meet WP:RS and attribute statements to the authors. I wouldn't normally do this, but I'm copying an old section from the archives below: Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 discussion on credible sources

The quality of the sources used in the baklava article has often been discussed, so I thought I'd write down some thoughts on the subject....

The Wikipedia policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability require that we use WP:Reliable sources in articles (I'd strongly recommend editors read those policies carefully).

As with many subjects, this can be a challenge for food history. There are many legends about food history (see, e.g. Croissant), and a lot of national pride attached to many foods. The legends tend to be perpetuated in cookbooks, newspaper columns, Web pages, and other non-scholarly sources. Fortunately, for some foods at least, there are serious researchers who have looked into the history using good methods and sources and have published their results in reputable books and journals. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions are correct or definitive, but it gives some degree of confidence. And if there are contradictory scholarly theories, WP policy says we report them.

The current baklava article contains all the scholarly theories that editors have found so far and reports on their conclusions. Some editors have wondered why we should consider Perry as credible. Well, he's a scholar who has studied at Princeton and Berkeley; he has published a translation of al-Baghdadi's cookbook; he reads many of the relevant languages (Arabic, Turkish, Greek). He publishes his work in reputable places, like Petits Propos Culinaires, the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery History, the Oxford Companion to Food, and books edited by serious academics (like the one in question). He makes cogent arguments based on direct study of the documents in question. He references relevant secondary literature, even when it disagrees with him (like Vryonis and Koukoules, whom Vryonis references). Because he publishes in reputable places, he opens himself up to criticism, which means that there is an opportunity for rebuttal. His article on baklava is well-reasoned. He doesn't have any (obvious) axe to grind or conflict of interest (e.g. he is not working for the Uzbek Ministry of Culture). He is cited by other articles on the subject. (e.g. "The Westernization of Iranian Culinary Culture", Iranian Studies 36:1:43)

Of course, if any of us find other solid sources, we should integrate them into the article. --Macrakis 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there misunderstanding of the origin of baklava. Baklava making was first invented in the middle east where the Levant, Mesopotamian and Arabia. Baklava perhaps was introduced to Turkish by Arabs. Just like kunafa, lokum, halva, halawa, Kadayif and many other desserts, with keeping in consideration that the mentioned desserts contain Arabic origin names and not related to the Turkish language or origin. (unsigned comment by User:86.132.195.97 2007-01-07T06:02:52)

This is the baklava article; the other foods you mention have their own history sections. If you have reliable sources for a Middle Eastern origin for baklava, please contribute them. Thanks. --Macrakis 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter this article shouldn't state Turkic origin is the only possibility Perry is not the only scholar in the world who is reliable therefore changing it is necessary. Vryonis Speros who states that baklava has Greek origins. Vryonis is a Byzantine Professor who can read Ottoman Turkish and Medieval Greek. Source: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century by Vryonis Speros Jr. also there is an excerpt taken from Delights from the Garden of Eden: A Cookbook and a History of the Iraqi Cuisine written by Nawal Nasrallah. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Nasrallah is not a serious academic, however, his ideas are interesting. It should also be noted that Perry has read and translated al-Baghdadi, which Nasrallah uses as a source. Nareklm 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, Narek, copy pasting what I said from Myspace tsk tsk tsk :P :P :P HAHAHAH

Yeah man we need all the help we can get ;-) Nareklm 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Perry is not the only reliable scholar. Vryonis is already cited in the article for exactly the work you mention. Buell is also mentioned. I don't know anything about Nasrallah's book, but if she has solid research to present, why don't you discuss it here? --Macrakis 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrin

An editor added Gastrin (a Greek baklava-like dessert) to the article and claims already justified by sources again, with the past fringe too. Please, if you want to add about it, which I guess you have taken from here:

  • greekfood.about.com/od/phyllopastriesbaklava/r/gastrin.htm Gastrin Recipe - Greek food. About.com

Then you have to source your claims. --92slim (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2022

I want to change gramlar mistakes 151.135.165.134 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place of origin in the infobox

Hi Uness232, you reverted my edit which removed the place of origin of this food from the infobox, however, the reason for the revert is simply not correct. You said "in its current form, it originated somewhere in the Ottoman Empire, that's for sure. See the second paragraph", that's the issue, the paragraph (and its sources) nowhere says that we know for sure the place of origin of this sweet, it only says "Although the history of baklava is not well documented, its current form was probably developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace in Constantinople (now known in English as Istanbul).", thus, there is no need to give an undue weight to an Ottoman origin. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the response from Uness232 was not the entirely correct. The problem is the "Place of origin". None knows where Baklava originated, but this is valid for the great majority of the dishes: however, it is a matter of fact that the first evidence of the existence of baklava in the form we know is in Topkapi Palace, Istanbul in the Ottoman age (third paragraph). The name is ottoman Turkish, and this is enough to write "ottoman empire" in the origin field, although, as I wrote above, this is misleading. It would be better to write "Attested for the first time" or something like that. Alex2006 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to remove the place of origin from the infobox, which is obviously misleading for our readers, the discussion about the origins of the food is quite well dealt with in the relevant "history" section.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the other way around: misleading is not what is written in the Infobox, but the history section. Everything written in the history section is, as we say in Italy, fried air. There, there is no mention of baklava, but of more or less similar dishes, which some try to pass off as the ancestors of baklava. Unfortunately, there is no proof that the dishes described in the history section (gastris, central Asia layered bread, placenta, etc.), which, mind you, are all very different from baklava, are its ancestors. What many do not realise is that the development of each new dish is not linear and progressive. It is not a technological product like an integrated circuit where each generation derives from the previous one and foresees the next one. It may be that an ingenious confectioner invented baklava from scratch, or from something we don't know: we will never know, because we lack evidence. The only thing that is certain is that Baklava's name is Ottoman Turkish, that the dessert first appeared in Istanbul, in the Topkapi, and that the Janissaries used to give a tray of it to the sultan. This is the only true facts we have, all the others are more or less guesswork. If a Persian cookbook from the 13th century will be discovered tomorrow with a recipe for baklava, then we can write: Origin: Persian empire. that's how the history of gastronomy works. The same applies to the vast majority of dishes, i.e. all those that were not invented by a person who went to the trouble of handing down the recipe by writing that he/she was the inventor. Alex2006 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i got you wrong, but if not, then i have to disagree with you. In the history section, the claims that some foods are ancestors of Baklava are reliably sourced, thus, it's not our business to comment what the sources say, but it's our duty to go with what they say, you probably know this as well as me, if not better than me, given that you've been editing here for much more time than me. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say that I've acted with too much haste when reverting your edit, and unfortunately do not have the energy to participate in this discussion. I apologize for this; if a consensus is reached here, do revert my revert without asking me. Uness232 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Wikaviani, certainly we work with sources (otherwise it would be OR), but no source states with certainty that baklava is derived from one of the dishes mentioned, and it cannot even do so, because evidence is lacking. In the case of this article then, if you read carefully, you can see that the history section is full of references to primary sources (which is forbidden in wikipedia), personal statements, and "probably," "maybe," etc. The main point, however, is another, and that is that the ~"origin" field denotes the region of the earth where the dish in question first emerged in the form we know from the mists of history, and is attested with certainty. And in the case of Baklava it is Istanbul at the time of the Ottomans (and the sources say so). Exactly as in the case of pizza the origin is Naples in the eighteenth-nineteenth century, but following your reasoning one would have to take Naples out of the field of origin because in this case one can go back as far as the fertile crescent (and with much more evidence to support it than in the case of baklava).
To sum up: "Origin" => first certain evidence of the dish. "History" => theories about the dish's supposed "ancestors", NOT the dish itself. Alex2006 (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the sources claiming that food X or Y are ancestors of Baklava seem stronger than the ones claiming that the current form of baklava originated in the Ottoman Empire, i don't have access to the Perry source, but the other source is unreadable and not a food historian. I know Gil Marks, for example, who is a food historian and who claims that Lausinaj is an ancestor of Baklava, while the sources claiming a Topkapi palace origin are not, as far as i can see.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever its ultimate origins, all the sources seem to agree that the modern baklava was developed in the Ottoman Empire, probably in the imperial kitchens. Yes, there are sources supporting the hypotheses that lausinaj or plakous are ancestors of baklava, but they don't claim that they are baklava. --Macrakis (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestors are just that: antecedents or predecessors, and not at all implicitly the same thing. E.g. monkeys are the ancestors of humans, but we're not the same animal. Or, as mentioned above, all things bready in the Mediterranean are ultimately descendants of the first bready thing cooked in Mesopotamia. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you guys got me wrong, i didn't say that monkeys are humans or baklava's ancestors are baklava (come on ! seriously ?), i just removed the place of origin of baklava from the infobox since said place of origin is not known with enough certainty. Macrakis, if it was certain that the current form of baklava originated in the sultan's palace, then where are the multiple high quality sources supporting that ? uh ? We just have two dodgy sources, the 16 and 17, the 16 that has no title, no publisher, and is not available for readers ... and the 17, written by two obscure people, Aysenur Akkaya and Banu Koc, who seem to be all but food historians ... looks pretty thin to me. It would be more correct to explain in the history section, that, as some sources from the article say, the earliest records about the modern version of baklava are related to the Topkapi palace and remove the place of origin of the food from the infobox ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with the Perry 1994 reference? The footnote was incorrectly formatted, but I've fixed that now. I don't know what you mean by "dodgy" and "not available for readers". It is a chapter in a very widely known scholarly book on Middle Eastern food. Perry also wrote the filo article in the Oxford Companion to Food, which supports this claim. I haven't read the Akkaya/Koc paper. --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that the source is not available for readers, i mean that i cannot go on and read the relevant part of it about baklava. If charles Perry, who is a food historian, supports that baklava originated in the Topkapi palace, that's fair enough for me, but i cannot verify this.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you verify it? If you're seriously interested in Middle Eastern food history, you should already have it on your bookshelf. But if you don't, it is available new and used on Amazon; it's available at hundreds of libraries; it's even available to borrow for free online at archive.org. What more do you want?
Even if it were hard to get, it could still be a reliable source -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS. There is no requirement that reliable and verifiable sources be available for free on the Web. --Macrakis (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously interested in Middle Eastern food history (that's easy to check in my editing history), but it's not a reason to own any and single book about it. None of your links are allowing me to read the specific part of the book about baklava, i.e. the page 87, but if you say that this source explicitly says that modern baklava originated in the Topkapi palace, then it's ok for me and we're done here. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? What do you mean "None of your links are allowing me to read the specific part of the book about baklava". Borrow the book online for free at Archive.org as I suggested and turn to page 87. Anyway, that isn't required for verifiability. There could be one paper copy of the book available only at a university library in Mumbai to which you do not have access, and that's still considered verifiable. --Macrakis (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account at archive.org and i am not interested in registering there, thus, as i said, i cannot turn the pages and access the page 87 of the book, just try your link and check it by yourself. I know that some sources may not be accessible, that's why i said above that if you say that this source explicitly says that modern baklava originated in the Topkapi palace, then it's ok for me, so , if you can read the page 87 of the book, please confirm that it explicitly supports what the infobox says about the place or origin of baklava, if so, then we're done here. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you refuse to use a research tool, you can hardly complain of lack of verifiability. --Macrakis (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't refuse anything, i just asked if you can confirm that the page 87 of this book supports the infobox claim, if you cannot do that for me, then i'll have to register and check it by myself.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page afther registering to the site, that's what it says "It is argued that baklava was the first layered pastry baked in an oven, but that the practice of making the layers of dough paper-thin was probably an innovation of the royal kitchens at the Topkapi Sarayi in the century or so afther the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople", thus, i don't see how this sentence supports that the modern form of baklava originated from the sultan's palace.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly saying that the modern form of baklava, with the paper-thin dough layers, was probably invented at the Topkapı Sarayı. --Macrakis (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is your interpretation of what the source says, sounds WP:OR.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you claiming that that source doesn't say? --Macrakis (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source does not say that the modern form of baklava originated in the Topkapi palace, there is nowhere any definition of what "modern baklava" might be in the source, thus this is not sufficient to support the infobox's claim.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Wikaviani, Macrakis, the OCF says it explicitly: "the paper-thin pastry we know today was probably an innovation of the Ottoman sultan's kitchens at Topkapi palace in Istanbul. There is an established connection between the Topkapi kitchens and baklava... ", and so on. The paper-thin pastry we know today is the modern baklava. I advise you also to read the article "Baklava" of the "The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets", where the history of Baklava is described in great detail. Alex2006 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, thank you very much ! that's all i wanted, a reliable source clearly stating that modern baklava is related to the Topkapi palace. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

•The dessert "Baklavas" has it's origins from the Mediterranean ,where it was firstly made.In the now time baklava is a greek traditional dessert , that's widely spread across the Balcans (Turkey , Albania etc.) 2A02:587:7615:B000:AD7F:46EC:E49B:8D96 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace "The pre-Ottoman origin of the dish is unknown, but, in modern times, it is a common dessert of Turkish, Iranian and Arab cuisines, and other countries of the Levant and Maghreb, along with the South Caucasus, Balkans, Somalia and Central Asia." with the text that I have submitted above
. And replace "Place of origin:O
Ottoman Emp" with "Place of Origin: Mediterranean"ire
Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Empi" re 2A02:587:7615:B000:AD7F:46EC:E49B:8D96 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want my changes to stay

The reason @TU-nor gave is that its far too detailed, but he could just have reformulated the sentence instead of teverting it as a whole and the Azerbaijani Baklava side is far more detailed than what I wrote, there is a whole cooking recipe with temperatures and all in the Azerbaijani Baklava part, while mine are way more simplistic and shorter formulated. So there is too detailed content in this page, but it are not my additions, I can reword my edits If you want. 93.200.105.234 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@93.200.105.234: When I said 'far too detailed', I was specifically talking about the lede (the introduction before the first subtitle). The lede of a Wikipedia article is supposed to present – in a succint form – the most important main points about the topic. Detailed discussions should be made further down in the body of the article. In this case the lede just mentions that the origin is 'unknown' (perhaps 'unclear' would be a better choice), and more details are given in the section 'History'. Your suggested addition actually says the same thing three times: 'the pre-Ottoman origin of the dish has many proposals', 'there are a few dishes that could be called the pre-Ottoman origin' and 'there is no consensus on which ... is the pre-Ottoman origin'. That is far too detailed.
As for your other changes, my comment was that the additions in several cases was redundant, that is repeating things that already are in the text. In the introduction to the section 'Regional variations', you added and expanded on some items from the text just below, so that the same thing is said in the introducion and in a slightly different way in the 'national' subsection. I have to admit that there already was some unnecessary repetitions of the same kind in that section, but it does certainly not help to add more redundancy. My suggestion would be to reduce the introduction to just mentioning a couple of regional variations and instead expand the subsections.
Since your edits contained so many changes at the same time, I may have been a bit rash with my wholesale revert. Some of your suggestions are certainly well worth considering. I will have a stab at it, but I will not reinsert your changes to the lede or expand the introduction to the section 'Regional variations'. If you want to go forward with them, I suggest that you make your specific proposals in new (separate) sections here in the talk page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Variations part

Why do we need a introduction about what regional variations exist If we can get the exact same info by reading the section of each of these regional variations? I think there shouldnt be a introduction, It is just repeating some info that is already stated in the individual sections of the countrys. Also, the Azerbaijani style baklava section is far too detailedx it should be as simplistic as the other ones. Its kinda Peacock.. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFC7:DA1:BDD5:6C9D:3113 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you about the intro (and have already reduced it somewhat). I will try to find time later today to make a simplification. As for the Azerbaijan section, it really is very detailed, but I am not so sure I am the right person for that task, since I am unfamiliar with the Azeri baklava. I will take a look, though. --T*U (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Faas in Placenta Part

Patrick Faas part claims placenta is of Latin origin, I know that we are just quoting him, but it doesnt fit in with any other information presented in this part. Everything else explains how Its of Greek origin and its warliest mention in greek. Cato named them recipes in Greek tradtion accprding to this article, so how can someone claim it being of Latin origin If cato himself names the recipes „Greek Tradition“ and If we got eatlier mentions of placenta? 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits reverted?

@Wikaviani why dont u accept my edits? They are all sourced and the structure parts are logical. I also formulated the Placenta part way better and added new sources and context. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is Caroline Meyer E. ? a food historian ? the Washington post is a newspaper, not an expert source about history. Not to mention, a random website (Jungle Jim's) which is all but what we would call a reliable source.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt add the Caroline Meyer E. source, It existed before my edits and removing the junge jims source which I just added to show other sources saying the same which I wont do again you didnt name any other point for reverting my edits. Like one source that has nothing to do with all other edits I added doenst justify the reverting of all of my edits. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added a Greek origin for the placenta cake, that's not covered by any reliable source in the article as far as i can see.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I didnt. The Homers odyssey part isnt my work. The Greek poem part aboit plakous also isnt my work, I just formulated it differently so things are more clear and more source orientated. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek poem stated originally comes from Antiphanes as stated in the teverted and unreverted version of this page and existed before I touched this page. Antiphanes lived in the 3rd century BC, I put it at nearly the top, because in this article it is the second oldest mentipn/recipe of placenta/plakous. Its for structure. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baklava&oldid=1197260710"