Talk:Hummus

Israel-Palestine Arbitration

Following a report at AN3 I have warned the parties involved in the recent edit war on this article about the origins of Hummus of the discretionary sanctions available under the Israel-Palestine Arbitration case. I'm astounded that an article about a common food stuff has become a vehicle for extending the dispute between Israel and Palestine. I'm sure that then regular editors of the article will agree with me that a consensus on the inclusion of this material is required and I'm locking down the page for 48 hours to allow discussion to take place. Once there is a consensus on this I intend to topic ban any warned editor from trying to edit the article away from the agreed consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few comments, as someone who never edited this article before:

First, I agree that Number57 should not have edit-warred. He should have pursued other methods, including perhaps locking the page, and he should have posted a message on this talk page.

Regarding the actual dispute: I think Number57 is right. This article already made it into Wikipedia's hall of lame because of a minor categorization issue. Turning it into a POV-fork really takes the cake. The article does not suggest that Hummus is an original Israeli food, so all the "controversy" stuff about the "humiliating" past and "Even in the United States, a country traditionally considered an ally of Israel" is just scandal-mongering. Perhaps some of this info can be added, if it can be inserted in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. -- Nudve (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the history Nudve. I made an edit that tried to keep some of what was added while removing the "humiliating" thing and the "Even in the United States.." text. (here it is) I thought it could be the basis for further work to improve it, but it was still reverted without discussion by Number 57.

It won't be hard to phrase the language in a more netural fashion. We have lots of sources, some of this talk page that have not yet been included. But it won't be easy to do it, if people revert one another without discussion. Shall we move forward? Tiamut^talk 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is another issue, which is the issue of Palestine vs. Palestinian territories. The source we have uses "Palestine", but there are editors who feel that terminology is somehow inexact. How to reach agreement on this issue will be more difficult. Do you have any suggestions? Tiamut^talk 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I was looking at the most recent massive revert[1]. The source regarding the issue of Palestine vs. Palestinian territories is offline, so I'm not sure exactly what it says and in what context. AFAIK, it is also consumed by Palestinians living in Israel. Since the paragraph is already dedicated to the Palestinians from the start of the first sentence, maybe we can simply trim the second sentence as "A related popular dish is laban ma' hummus..." without specifying location? -- Nudve (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand this argument. Palestine has been used as a geographical name for under 2000 years. Saying, in the article, that hummus was a food item in Palestine before 4000 BC, misses the mark by over two thousand years. That needs to be changed. As can be seen here [2] Palestine was given that name by the Roman Emperor Hadrian following 132CE, when the Bar Kokhba revolt was suppressed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

...restoring the old Greek name of Syria Palestina, yeah, but what is your point? EG, Amerigo Vespucci was born in the 15th century CE, but the first humans to cross the Bering land bridge in the 25th century BCE nonetheless came to the Americas. The Nazca Plate was the Nazca Plate 22 million years ago, even though the Nazca were only the Nazca for the last two thousand. I do not understand your objection to the use of a standard geographic name in the English language. <eleland/talkedits> 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a fine and logical suggestion, Nudve. However, eventually someone will want to indicate where and not just whom it is eaten by. Should we avoid mentioning geographical or territorial terms when discussing the consuption of Hummus by Palestinians (de-territorializing them) just because people cannot agree on the terminology that should be used?

Palestine, used by the source cited, is also often used as a geographical term for the whole area, including Israel (which would therefore also include the Palestinian citizens of Israel, like me, who love Hummus). This whole issue was a much bigger deal when there were regional or coutry sections, of which Palestine or Palestinian territories, depending on who won the edit war that day, was one.

From my point of view, I do not see the problem with using Palestine since it is y the source and is often used as a broad geographical designation. That it overlaps with Israel is also no big deal to me. This is a food article, not "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict 101". As noted in the Palestine article, the term is only controversial in that context and not others (such as archaeology, history or cuisine, where it is used quite liberally). Tiamut^talk 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring by everyone who did so was wholly unhelpful, even ghastly, given we're talking about mashed chick peas here. Meanwhile the first source cited in the paragraph calls it Palestine, likely referring to the historic, geographical region, not the political/administrative areas. I guess by now, it should be acknowledged, some editors are nettled by using anything else than the political/administrative name. Anyway, if editors can't agree on the term as a noun, I'd say don't use either, but rather keep it only as the adjective Palestinian(s), which seems to be ok with everyone. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive Gwen Gale, but should we use the term "Israeli" only too? Because about one third of the world doesn't think the term "Israel" is a legitimate one either. Tiamut^talk 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a real problem with using Palestine, but others do, and they do have a point, as Gwen Gale just said. An alternative can simply be: "Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan". That should cover it, no? -- Nudve (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think not, because the noun Israel means the widely acknowledged political/national state and I'm not aware of any meaningful controversy arising from its use in English language sources to describe that state, whatever the PoV. I think sticking to Palestinian(s) might be helpful because while there is no state of Palestine, the existence of a notable cultural-ethnic group called Palestinians is also utterly non-controversial, whatever the PoV. Please keep in mind, Palestinian territories is as controversial to some editors as Palestine is to others, which is why I think it would be more helpful to skirt both. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources that I have searched say that were hummus originated is unknown, but that it is common in all Arab countries. Is there a reliable source that says hummus originated in the area Canaan/Israel/Palestine? If not, there is no point to mentioning any of these in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry Nudve and Gwen Gale. I want to say it's fine, to both your proposals, but it's just not. If we start expunging all references to Palestine from different articles in this encyclopedia because some people just can't stand the the word, we are heading towards censorship.

This is not an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's an article on Hummus. In cuisine articles, using the term Palestine, when it is used by reliable sources, should be just fine. In archaeology, using the term Palestine is very common (See Syro-Palestinian archaeology for example). If we start making editorial decisions to avoid using the words that our sources do in articles unrelated to the terminology of political administrative districts, just because some people have a problem with the term itself, we are literally going to be rewriting history (or archaeology; I can literally envision people going through tat article and changing each mention of Palestine to Israel or the Palestinian territories or whatever, citing this discussion as a precedent). I'm afraid I cannot accept the adoption of some kind of precedent that leads in this direction because it will be cited as an example to take up elsewhere. So, it's a no go for me. Too Orwellian. And contrary to our policies and guidelines that indicate that preference should be given to a source's wording. Tiamut^talk 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that a search for "Hummus" and "Palestinian territories" in Google books get 8 hits, while a search for "Hummus" and "Palestine" gets 462 hits. I think it's clear that Hummus is rather more associated with "Palestine" in scholarly literature than it is with "Palestinian territories". Tiamut^talk 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the sources do not say humus originated in Palestinian, there is no reason to mention either Palestinian, or Palestinian Territories. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Then no countries or cultural groups could be mentioned in the article, since we don't know (and don't have any reliable sources as to) where hummus originated. I don't support your take on this in any way, Malcom and moreover, find it utterly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Gwen Gale. A little checking of sources shows that the source for the statement that The chickpea was used as a food item in Palestine before 4000 BC, does indeed say "Palestine," so that is what should be used. I think that in all cases, the source should be represented correctly. I do not have time to check other choices now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and folks have been eating beef/oxen for at least 8,000 years, however, the earliest known documentation for cheeseburgers is from only about 80 years ago. As beef is but an ingredient in an anthropologically new recipe the outcome of which is called a cheesburger, likewise chickpeas are only an ingredient in a recipe with an outcome called hummus bi tahina, which is of unknown origin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I forgot to say, merry yule and happy Chanuka to you too, Malcom! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's think a bit. A regular google search also brings up a 10:1 ratio favoring "Palestine" over "Palestinian territores" when paired with "hummus". See here for territories 3,700ish, here for Palestine 37,000ish. (I also checked "Palestinians" and "hummus" just for good measure even though I think we do have to use a geographical term here. It got 23,000 hits in regular google and 230 in google books. ) Why should Wikipedia avoid using "Palestine" in an "Hummus" article when it preferred 50:1 in google books, and 10:1 in the regular google searches over "Palestinian territories"? And when it appears more often than "Palestinians" when paired with "hummus" in google book and web searches? Because some people WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Is that a policy? Tiamut^talk 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd rather see the word Palestine and have always said so, it stirs up too much kerfluffle, flurries of edit warring and kilobytes of talk page threads. The meaningful policy here is WP:CONSENSUS, of which there is aught and likely will not be for a long time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" is the word used in Brothwell and Brothwell to describe the ancient occurrences of the chickpea etc and is the word that should be used in that context. In the more modern material the dish is associated with cultures. When we had separate sectiosn exactly the same variant of the dish was mentioned under Israel and under Palestine/Palestinian Territories (wherever the editwar had reached at that time). That is because the dish was part of the Palestinian culture, which isn't restricted by whatever the geographical borders became at a given point in history. It would also be expected to be eaten by the Palestinian diaspora whether in Beirut or Jordan or America and if it is as popular among Israelis as described, it might then also be eaten by the Israeli diaspora beause it was incorporated into the Israeli culture. As for the business about ZIonists robbing hummus from the Arabs, then a one sentence mention is plenty.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Peter. The noun Palestine is unlikely to be controversial for editors if used only in historical contexts, not modern ones. I do agree that one sentence (at the most two) would be very much enough for sourced and neutrally written mentions of the "cultural theft" controversy. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)You are right that WP:CONSENSUS is the relevant policy here. Note that in the section on WP:CONSENSUS#Participating in community discussions it says:

In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.

Has anyone who has objected to the inclusion of the word Palestine in this article put forth an argument as to why his position is valid? In this section, you, me, and Nudve, all state that we have no problem with the term. The only editor here presently who disagrees is Malcolm Schosha, who has said only that we should not mention Palestine or the Palestinian territories at all since Hummus did not originate there. To which you very aptly replied that we could mention no countries then, since we do not know where it originated.

Where are the arguments against using the word Palestine articulated on this talk page? Anticipating that people won't like it and will edit war over it is not a legitimate argument and it;s not applying WP:CONSENSUS correctly.

Consensus depends on good faith editors discussing together on how to build an article. If no one who objects to the term Palestine presents a quality argument for their position, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and continues to revert it anyway, that's disruptive editing which undermines the ability to forge consensus. So I think we should encourage the editors who are against the usage of the term Palestine to put forth the rationales for their positions and then weigh the arguments against one another to reach a consensus about how to proceed. If we just give in, we do Wikipedia no service at all. Reverting mobs will just their way to the detriment of article stability and quality. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, about the appropriation debate, I do think two sentences could cover it quite nicely, if we work on it here first, integrating some of Raviv's work above, that would be helpful I think. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my last edit, above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No sorry Malcolm, I hadn't. Now that I have, I'm glad to see that you too think it's acceptable to use Palestine when it is used by the source. Great! That means there is no one in this section so far that is personally against the use of the term when used by reliable sources. So where are the editors who disagree with the use of the term to explain to us why that is? Tiamut^talk 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How about it being referred to as the "region historically known as Palestine". That seems to cover all bases, without the POV push that it appears some editors are attempting under the guise of scholarship?

For those who argue that "that is not what the source says"...fine. But then we have to put back the sourced information about the "humiliating past", because that is what the source says -- word for word -- too, and I bet there are just as many people in the world who feel that that comment isn't POV, as there are those who feel that using the term Palestine isn't POV.

I'm tired of this argument and debate -- I have watched as myself (and other dedicated editors) have tried to add input and are then attacked and/or dismissed because other editors dont realize they are violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT when it comes to compromise. As long as people cannot even agree on even simple stuff like food -- there will never be peace in the middle east; and those who cannot compromise (on food or other things) or who only are only willing to compromise if its their version of the compromise, are the ones shouldering the majority of the blame.  :-( --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE discourages relying on Goggle hits. Anyway, in the spirit of peace and love, I'll support keeping it as "Palestine", if nobody else minds. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

keep term as Palestine because a large part of the world recognize it as palestine and not territory. Also reinsert properly sourced information published in reputable international sources like the mainstream United States-based newspaper, the Santa Fe New Mexican and the jewish magazine Present Tense Magazine. These article represent a distinct world view of the hummus situation in middle east and to keep them out is censorship. If you choose to keep mainstream newsmedia article out of article, please explain why. (This comment was added by User:Ani medjool, per the history of this talk page [3])

* My vote is to use the term Palestinians, as Gwen Gale suggested. I think everyone can agree that the generally accepted term for the current people who inhabit part of historical Palestine aka palestinian territories aka East Jerusalem aka West Bank aka Occupied Territories etc..etc....is the term Palestinian(s). Do I think this term will solve the ongoing issue?? -- no. However it allows us to reach a "stalemate", that will hopefully be resolved when the Palestinian people are able to secure an independent homeland, free of interference and/or occupation and/or control by other nations/governments etc. But right now, my vote is for the term Palestinian. That term plays favor to no one nation or government, unlike the terms Palestine and Palestinian territories.

As for the question of the other recently added material -- it doesn't matter how its sourced...if we cannot reach a consensus...then it shouldn't be included. Personally, I am inclined to not use a source if any part of it is considered disparaging, ie: "Humiliating past in Europe". --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the revert I made twice, the Salloum and Peters source says "Palestine and Jordan" for the origin of one particular recipe. Rewriting that as "the Palestinian territories and Jordan" is an unwarranted insertion of an editor's PoV. It means something different than what the source actually says. —Ashley Y 06:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

These are authors of a cookbook, and they're referring to something that doesn't currently exist, is ambiguous at best, and is political POV at worst. The term will forever remain ambiguous and useless in the article; it must be clarified, or removed, or replaced with something meaningful, such as "Palestinian". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine and Jordan" is a straightforward description of a region. No clarification is needed. —Ashley Y 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Are they referring to Mandatory Palestine? The Palestinian territories? Jund Filastin? Syria Palaestina? Do we expect these cookbook authors to be precise in their use of geo-political terminology? I'm sure they're reliable enough when it comes to how many ounces of which ingredients to use, but don't place more weight on the source than it will reasonably bear. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They are referring the Palestine and Jordan. —Ashley Y 07:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see what's so confusing. Our article on Palestine at Wikipedia explains the different applications for the term as a geographical region and as a political/administrative unit of some contention. We can use the term and the explanation about it is there. There's no need to clarify its use every time it is used by a source. That's the beauty of wikilinks. Tiamut^talk 12:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My 2p; in the specific sentence, the term "Palestine" is clearly unacceptable, as the sentence is referring to the present (in which it is a highly politicised term that refers to a largely unrecognised state, which is more commonly known by another name, i.e. the Palestinian territories), not the past. Palestinian territories is clearly the best option to go for, as it is factually the most accurate description (and common name) of the area in question. However, for some reason, this is unacceptable to some editors. Therefore, if editors are not willing to go with Palestinian territories, the best and most factually accurate compromise is to use the term "Palestinian people" or "Palestinians". пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculating as to the intentions of the cookbook author's is WP:OR. We don't know if the author of the cookbook is using "Palestine" to refer to the political/administrative unit or the geographical region. In the case of the latter, its use is wholly uncontroversial and quite common, as evidenced in google searches. WP:GOOGLE does not dismiss the results of such searches, though it does caution against portrarying those results as definitive. To review:

In google books,

• "Hummus" and "Palestinian territories" gets 8 hits
• "Hummus" and "Palestinians" gets 230 hits.
• "Hummus" and "Palestine" gets 462 hits.

In google web searches,

• "Hummus" and "Palestinian territories" 3,700ish hits
• "Hummus" and "Palestinians" 23,000 hits
• "Hummus" and "Palestine" 37,000ish hits

Why we should avoid using "Palestine" when it is the most commonly used term to appear with "Hummus", is really beyond me. Ignoring the terminology used by the reliable sources who write about Hummus, to instead use a political euphemism like "Palestinian territories" or no geographical designation at all, is to ignore WP:V and WP:RS. We are supposed to write articles using the terminology provided by reliable sources, and not what terms please us personally. Tiamut^talk 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Why we should avoid using "Palestine" when it is the most commonly used term to appear with "Hummus", is really beyond me." Because as I said above, it's a highly controversial name for a controversial place, and Wikipedia sticks to NPOV - this is why we have Republic of China instead of the WP:COMMONNAME Taiwan, even though (according to Google) the former is 22 times more popular than the latter. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on that last thought? I really didn't get it. There's an article on Taiwan that discusses its status vis a vis the Republic of China. Are you saying that when people need to refer to Taiwan in an article because it is th term used by a reliable source, that they have to change it to Republic of China because it's use is controversial? Can you point me to where that is outlined? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on Taiwan is about the island, not about the country (in the same way that Ireland is not about the Republic of Ireland). Although there is no official policy anywhere specifically referring to this issue, the fact that Republic of China is the preferred term for the country in most places on Wikipedia is a hint that this is the accepted norm. Anyway, this is a complete distration from the issue. The term Palestine is not NPOV, regardless of its misuse in sources, and several other editors agree with that position. It is therefore not going to be acceptable to have it in the article, so we have to work towards finding what is acceptable to the people who currently prefer to use that term. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy is in any relevant actually, (and I also believe if you probe further, Taiwan is used liberally within Wikipedia articles, even if the article on the political administrative unit is title Republic of China (Do a search with "Taiwan a" in Wikipedia, and you'll see what I mean).

Further, your interpretation of NPOV is very odd to me. Neutrality does not mean we water text so that it is as inoffensive as possible to every single reader. WP:NPOV says quite clearly that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Are you saying that the cookbook by Habeeb Salloum and friends is a not a reliable source for this article on Hummus, or that the viewpoint expressed in his cookbook is an insignificant one?

On a personal note, please note that while many editors here were against including Hummus in the Israeli cuisine category, I supported it, because it is attested to in reliable sources. It's not something I like (an understatement to be sure, it really irks me) but what I like isn't relevant here. What is relevant are our policies. No one has pointed me to a policy that indicates that we should ignore the terms used by reliable sources. In fact, according to WP:OR, its quite simple really. In short, stick to the sources. Tiamut^talk 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right to point out that NPOV is about representing all significant views, but just as an article on Hummus is not the place to talk about the Jews "humiliation", it is also not the place to use controversial terms for contested areas, which are best left to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Proposals for a Palestinian state. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. So even if a reliable source states that Hummus is eaten in Palestine (we have at least two sources cited in this article that use that terminology), we should ignore that's what they wrote and replace the term with someting else of our own making because it's controversial?

I think what's lacking here is a worldwide perspective and a full understanding of WP:NPOV. All significant viewpoints should be represented in an article if they are put forward by reliable sources and are relevant to that article. Surely, the fact that reliable sources state that Hummus is eaten in Palestine is a significant viewpoint relevant to this article. It's not your viewpoint, or your choice of terminology to be sure, but that's rather irrelevant, isn't it?

If we let editors change terminology in reliable sources to what they think is less offensive, we are opening up a huge can of worms. If Wikipedia decided that the only place the term "Palestine" can be used is in articles devoted to the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would be taking a position on the use of the term - i.e. that it is not valid to use that term. That would be going against what NPOV is all about.

The sources we have, when wishing to indicate where hummus is eaten, use the word "Palestine". There may be some sources out there that also use the term "Palestinian territories" (but as I point out in the google searches above, it is much less common). This is a significant viewpoint relevant to this article. That some people are offended by the term is irrelevant. I'm offended by lots of things at Wikipedia (See Moses Montefiore Windmill the paragraph on Arabs licking the oil off the windmill bearings) but I cannot remove the information because I'm offended by it. That would be censorship. Tiamut^talk 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've made my point and I can't be bothered to go in circles anymore; it's a controversial term, and an article about foodstuff it not the place to use it. Look at the rest of the talk page - this issue has come up multiple times before, and every time someone adds the word Palestine to the article, it causes problems. Its clear that several editors object to including the word Palestine in the article, so it's up to the people supporting its use to come up with a compromise term. I'll leave it in your hands because the fact that we are even having this debate just shows how lame the whole thing is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Number 57, you and Jayjg are the only people who have articulated your opposition to the term "Palestine" here on the talk page (if I missed anyone else, please correct me). Other editors have been drive-by reverters, unwilling to engage in discussion. All editors opposing the inclusion of "Palestine" have been asked for the policy-based reasons underlying their objections. The only real one cited either directly or indirectly is WP:CONSENSUS. However, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are just as important as WP:CONSENSUS. In fact, they guide us to achieving consensus.

We have two sources that state that Hummus is eaten in Palestine. No one is contesting the reliability of these sources or the fact that they are relevant to this article. WP:OR states that we should stick to the sources. WP:NPOV says we should represent all significant viewpoints. Should we deny the reader the viewpoint that Hummus is eaten in Palestine simply because some people don't like the word?

I'm all for compromise to achieve consensus when it is rooted in our policies. As I said above, I supported including Hummus in the category Israeli cuisine despite my personal belief that it's not right to place Hummus in that category. Why? Because reliable sources support that designation and as a Wikipedian editing in good faith, I have to accept that while that designation is offensive to me, it's viewpoint that is significant and relevant to this article.

In this particular case however, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments you and Jayjg have put forward. I'd love to be able to say, "Fuck it, no need to mention Palestine here," and end this inanity. But I cannot. Because that would against NPOV and it would be OR, and god knows where it would end. I've seen people replace "Palestine" with "Israel" in the article on the History of Palestine saying that "Palestine does not exist". Thankfully, their edits have been reverted as WP:OR since the sources say otherwise. That's what should be happening here. If any editor ignores WP:NPOV and WP:OR to replace terminology used in WP:RS's that they don't like, with what they do, it's simply disruptive. It will lead to chaos frankly since it undermines the very policies we need to do our work. People sensitivities to things are subjective and difficult to gauge. What is written in reliable sources is not. Let's keep things objective. Tiamut^talk 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're just going in circles. You and a few others don't agree with "Palestinian territories", I and a few others don't agree with "Palestine". We're not going to suddenly accept each others arguments, so please just suggest a compromise term. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I have said that I am against the use of the term Palestine due to the continual edit wars it has created, and due to the fact that in the source, the term is being used as a cloaked POV-fork, and not just referencing the historical land of Palestine. Both Number 57 and Jayjg have some valid points, as do you; but in the end we have to find consensus. If we cannot agree on the name to be used, then maybe that source (and its associated article text) should be removed. This argument has become circular and is no longer a debate. That said, as a compromise term, what about using the "the land historically known as Palestine"? --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Nsaum75, please see my comment below, addressed to Nudve. I might also say that Ashley Y summed up what I was trying to get at much more succintly. It's not me who is imposing a cloaked POV-fork by asking that we use the term used by the source. It's those who are asking to "de-politicize" the article (i.e. change it to accomodate their POV that the term is somehow illegitimate).

And by the way, the idea that we should remove reliable sources (a cookbook on food in The Land of Figs and Olives and an article from the Institute for Middle East Understanding)) just because they use the word Palestine and some people don't like that, is really rather odd (beyond the pale actually). There is no policy that disqualifies a source from being used in a cuisine article because it doesn't use the political/administrative names for geopolitical units in the region under discussion. I'm not the one making this entire argument circular. People trying to skirt WP:OR and WP:RS to avoid using a word they don't like are. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, but you are helping to make the argument circular. Clearly there are people who object to the inclusion of the term palestine and, thereby, object to the source itself. All sourced information can be challenged, and if its challenged, then a consensus must be reached about its inclusion. I've offered up the option of referring to it as "the region historically known as Palestine" or even "the historic region of Palestine" -- which cannot be interpreted as pandering to a Israeli POV or a Palestinian POV or an Arab POV or US POV....:::BUT, If we cannot agree on the content of the source that has been added, then I move that all information relevant to the source be struck from the article. No doubt people will object to this, and that is their right. They too can then choose to object to any and all sources which mention Israel or Turkey or Egypt. We can debate it, and then reach a consensus; and move on.

HOWEVER, Continuing to rehash this over and over and over with "it has to be this way...there is no alternative or middle ground" is not the way to discuss or arbitrate a solution. You seem to have lost sight of that. You wanted to discuss the merits about inclusion of the term Palestine, to the extent of commenting about your desire for "discussion and debate" in your 3rr filing on an Admin, but all I have seen is you demand that it be listed exactly one way and in exactly one format. That, with all due respect, is not a discussion to reach a compromise...rather it comes across (to me, at least) as an ultimatum.

Now, I'm gonna go back to munching on my pita & hummus...cuz its mighty good regardless of where it comes from :-) --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Salloum and Peters is not a reliable source on hummus, simply because it uses the phrase "Palestine and Jordan"? And as for compromise, we do not compromise between reliable sources (that a recipe comes from Palestine and Jordan) and editors' points of view (that there is no such place as Palestine). —Ashley Y 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'd like to clarify my position. I agree with Number 57 and Jayjg that it would not be OR to replace "Palestine" with "Israel and the Palestinian territories". However, since the paragraph in question talk about the Palestinian people, there should be no problem with saying "Palestine", even though there's no sovereign Palestinian state. -- Nudve (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify why it is OR and very problematic in the long-term by way of analogy (using the Taiwan example given by Number 57 above)

Take the article on Ba-wan, a Taiwanese cuisine dish. Note how that the term Taiwan is used four times in the article. Should all mentions of Taiwan in that article be replaced with Republic of China (or Taiwanese people), because Taiwan is a controversial term and the proper political/administrative name for the area is Republic of China?

Now it's not a perfect analogy, for two primary reasons. One is that there has been no edit war over the use of Taiwan at Ba-wan, so it has not (yet) become an issue. Two is that Ba-wan cites no sources to support the use of that terminoloy, while this article has two sources that say Hummus is eaten in Palestine.

Now let's say that Taiwanese cuisine related articles did cite sources that used the word Taiwan, and that an editor started changing Taiwan in articles like Ba-wan to Republic of China (or Taiwanese people), using the rationale that this terminology was less controversial, and that the term Taiwan was offensive and imprecise to some editors. Would other Wikipedians accept this rationale? Who exactly would they think was politicizing the contents of a food article in that case?

Palestine is not a synonym for the Palestinian territories, the State of Palestine, or the Palestinian people, just as Taiwan is not a synonym for the Republic of China or the Taiwanese people. Chinese nationalists (or people aware of the sensitivity of Chinese nationalists to the use of the term Taiwan) have not seen fit to import the political debate over Taiwan's autonomy into Taiwan-related cuisine article by calling for the replacement of Taiwan with more neutral terminology. But perhaps they should. If we take this as a precedent on how to deal with ethnic/political disputes in food articles, a few editors could simply keep reverting out Taiwan, saying "it's controversial", and their efforts would be rewarded, as other editors cited the need to achieve WP:CONSENSUS.

In short, if we put aside WP:OR (stick to the sources) and WP:NPOV (represent all significant viewpoints recorded in WP:RS relevant to the topic), in the pursuit ofWP:CONSENSUS, we will see more edit wars in the long-term, not less. Tiamut^talk 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More going round in circles and trying to fudge the issue. When are we actually going to move forward and discuss a compromise term (as yet another editor has requested above)? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no compromise term. The source says "Palestine and Jordan". Efforts to "depoliticise" a source are no more than an imposition of PoV. —Ashley Y 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley Y. there is nothing to be compromise. source say what it say. there are no if and buts. please stop trying to censor the article because the inclusion of the name palestine is found objectional by editors who are try to push israeli and usa point of view. Ani medjool (talk)

No, a pro-Israeli POV would be that there is no such place as the Palestinian territories, merely a couple of provinces called Judea and Samaria and 'Aza. You've certainly helped everyone by exposing your POV though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

i did not state a point of view. i said since the source say palestine explicitly then there is no other option except to use what the source says. you have continually said that it pushes a point of view and have objected relentless to the use of the term Palestine. there are many editors here who have written that the use of palestine in stead of palestinian territories is a fork to deny existance of israel. but it is not a fork but a explicit term used by the reference. so why do they object to written source material unless they are siding and wanting to have adopt a different version of term not mentioned in source a different. it is because they have opposing point of view. Ani medjool (talk)

Neutrality is not achieved through balancing the points of view of editors. It is achieved through fairly reflecting the sources. Your PoV that there is no place called Palestine is not relevant here. The source clearly says "Palestine and Jordan", and there is no compromise with that. —Ashley Y 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone. This issue was brought to me through the WP Palestine discussion page. Honestly, I think its hilarious there's a war about the usage of the term Palestine in the Hummus article. I understand both Tiamut's and Number 57's argument, and I don't think that, in this context, using "Palestine" is an issue. We must remember that in this case Palestine doesn't mean just the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but includes the Galilee, Ramla-Lod, Haifa, Jaffa, etc. Now, obviously none of those places are a part of Palestine the State, but Palestine the Region. The source says Palestine, so no way we're putting Palestinian territories, because the intended "Palestine" would also include the Arab areas in Israel. I think the most suitable thing we could do is use "the regions of Palestine and Jordan". It's not ideal, but its the closest thing to it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: The term "Palestine," in the English language, has long been used to describe the relevant geographical region. It has also, of late, been used to describe a nascent nation-state in part of this region. The first meaning is basically uncontroversial, at least among people who have any idea what they're talking about. The second meaning is legitimately contested and cannot be used directly by Wikipedia. In scholarly contexts, one would write something like "chickpeas were a food source in Palestine as early as 4000 BC" without batting an eyelash. Frankly I'd prefer Wikipedia do the same. However, I do grant that this might potentially confuse people not familiar with first, established usage of the term "Palestine." So we can compromise with something like "chickpeas were a food source in the geographical region of Palestine as early as 4000 BC."

As for changing "geographical region of Palestine" to something like "area of modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority-administered territories," this is severely problematic. First, it's just unnecessarily wordy. Secondly, it is anachronistic, like referring to Alexander's homeland as "the area of modern-day Greek province of Macedonia and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;" ie, who gives a damn about the modern-day states, we are talking about ancient history! Finally, it is potentially inaccurate. IE, if somebody found starch-grains from chickpeas in a Gazan archaeological dig, dating to 4000 BC, this would show that chickpeas were eaten in the region of Palestine, but not that they were necessarily eaten in modern day Israel, Lebanon, or Jordan. "The region of Palestine" is not the same thing as a listing of all the modern nationstates which have territory in the region of Palestine.

So, if we can't use "Palestine" with a link to Palestine (region) we should use "the region of Palestine" with the same link. And if aggrieved nationalists change this to "Eretz Yisroel" or "historic Palestine before Zionist colonization" or whatever, we can just revert them until they go away. <eleland/talkedits> 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Does anyone have a problem with using the "region of Palestine"? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read every word of this argument, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. When you are saying "the chickpea was used as a food item in Palestine before 4000 BC, was one of the earliest crops cultivated in Mesopotamia..." or "the Bible mentions olive oil many times and it was exported from Palestine to places..." it is simply inaccurate as well as politically insensitive. There was no "Palestine" before 4000 BC... Perhaps we could use a word like The Levant which would be more realistic. As for the Bible mentioning olive oil many times, it mentions "Palestine" not at all...so both uses are anachronisms that give a wrong impression, suggest false information. In the olive oil reference I think you can easily change that reference to simply "the region" and it still makes excellent sense. As for the comments about "Palestinians," I think that is perfectly fine in talking about a contemporary people as is the use of "Israel" to discuss a contemporary country. I haven't checked the article history yet to see what the edit-warring was about. But to those references above, I would object to the use of "the region of Palestine" in place of the word "Palestine." ---

Also in regard to the sourced reference to the Hummus of Palestine & Jordan, why not simply use a direct quote from the book? That gets the responsibility for it where it belongs and is not a point of contention around hummus and among fellow wikipedians. eg "According to Joe Blow, in his book ..... '....." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not necessary to use "Palestine" to refer to the place/time before 4000 BC without a source that uses the word. —Ashley Y 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection Extended

Consensus looks miles away now. I have extended the full protection for another 3 days to ensure that we don't have any accidents in the meantime. Please nudge me on my talk or file a request at RFPP if consensus comes before then. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now extended to the 10th. Sigh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A modest suggestion

"For Palestinians hummus has long been a staple food, garnished with olive oil and mint leaves, paprika, parsley or cumin.[25] A related regional dish is laban ma' hummus ("Yogurt and chickpeas") " --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that suggestion, using those terms and format. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I am also happy with the "region of Palestine" suggestion above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Number 57, I'm getting the impression that your real objection is to the idea of a country called Palestine, rather than to a place called Palestine. I think we can all agree that it would be inappropriate to imply the existence of a country called Palestine in this article given the available sources. —Ashley Y 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the idea of a country called Palestine (indeed, I support its creation). However, I do object to the mention of it in a NPOV and factual encyclopedia, as it doesn't actually exist yet, and in modern usage (the sentence in question is in the present tense), that is what the term refers to. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Palestine article. There may not currently be a country called Palestine, but there certainly is a place called Palestine. —Ashley Y 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it's possible that I might have ever seen that article given that I've been contributing to this area of work for over two years? :) Anyway, the last part of the introduction says "Palestine can also refer to the Proposed Palestinian State. Within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the use of the term Palestine can arouse fierce controversy." пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But the first part of the introduction says "Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River." There clearly is a place called Palestine. And if a cookbook wants to indicate that a hummus recipe comes from Palestine and Jordan, that's a quite straightforward statement of origin.

It's also appropriate to have controversial viewpoints in an article, provided they are viewpoints of sources, rather than viewpoints of editors. —Ashley Y 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also says that "Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan...", so one could argue that saying "Palestine and Jordan" is nonsense, as the former includes the latter (i.e. like saying the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland). Anyway, it's clear that it is a controversial term which should be discussed in articles on the conflict, but not here. Several compromise suggestions have been made - which is your favourite? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense. If the term is indeed controversial within the context of the Israeli-Palestnian conflict (do note however, that that assertion is not accompanied by a source to support it in the Palestine article), it would be wrong to use the term Palestine without qualification in articles related that discuss that conflict. In a food article, the non-controversial, widely accepted and sourced geographical meaning of the term should be able to used without any qualification. This is in line with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Tiamut^talk 11:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Number 57, "parts of Jordan" is obviously not the same as "Jordan", so clearly "Jordan" is not redundant in the phrase "Palestine and Jordan". Let the source speak for itself, per WP:NPOV (which cannot be compromised). —Ashley Y 19:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid mention of where the source actually says the recipe comes from, Palestine and Jordan? This is not an improvement. —Ashley Y 09:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't have the source, so I don't know. It is really that specific? I mean, don't try to order hummus and laban in Baalbeck or Damascus?

Could you post here the actual quote from the source? Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The source simply lists the recipe, "Yogurt with Chickpeas / Laban ma' Hummus / Palestine and Jordan". Indeed, referring to the recipe as "popular" might be more than the source allows. —Ashley Y 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this arbitration was to open a dialog and discuss the situation, in hopes of reaching reach a consensus and compromise. However after some debate, several editors, including one who was instrumental in creating this discussion, have stated elsewhere on this TALK page, that compromise is not an option and, in effect, means that consensus will be reached only when other editors come to complete agreement with them. In light of this fact, the purpose of this arbitration is rendered moot.

Therefore, if we cannot resolve this situation soon using a mutually acceptable term, I move to strike the sentences that use the aforementioned source. Certainly it can be replaced with a source that is less controversial to all editors. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think that sources which use the word "Palestine" are too contoversial to be used in this article, then you need to remove three sources, not one. They are as follows:

• Brothwell, C. D.; Brothwell, B. (1998), Food in Antiquity: A survey of the Diet of Early Peoples, Expanded Edition, John Hopkins University, ISBN 0801857406
• Salloum, Habeeb; Peters, James (1996), From the Lands of Figs and Olives: Over 300 Delicious and Unusual Recipes, I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1860640389
• Hummus, a Palestinian staple

Please note that there were two issues under discussion here. One, coming to an agreement over how to refer to "Palestine" when it is referred to directly by reliable sources. Two, how to phrase and how much space to give to a discussion of how hummus became an Israeli dish. I have indicated that I am willing to reduce discussion of the latter to two sentences. On the former, I have yet to hear a practical, logical argument for why we should ignore what three sources say. The implications of refusing to use the terminology used in reliable sources are great. If we agree to change "Palestine" to "the region of Palestine" or "Palestinian territories" here, in order to reach a compromise, this can happen at hundreds of pages across Wikipedia. That is, people who don't like that word will start going around changing to read as they wish, rather than a the sources write. That's dangerous. If you want to accuse me of being unwilling to compromise on our policies (like WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS), guilty as charged. Tiamut^talk 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Nsaum75, we need to focus on content policies, not compromise. We cannot compromise with neutrality for the sake of editors' points of view. And deleting reliable sources is completely unacceptable. —Ashley Y 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

nsaum75 i disagree with you. i support tiamut and ashley y positions. there can not be any compromise on this. we cannot make this article neutral point of view when the source dictates it is not neutral. i review your edit history and it seem you address many israel related articles. base on your past edit history i feel you are applying a pro-israel point of view in your desire to either have palestine struck from this article or palestine replace with an alternate made up version that you pretend to say is neutral view. But like me, tiamut, and ashley y have already say, we will not compromise on the term, because if we replace with a neutral point of view term, then we deny what source says.

to further address what tiamut said about how much space to devote to israel in hummus. because hummus is not a native food to the occupants of state of israel, then it does not deserve as much focus as other states where hummus is a native food. but if we include information on hummus in israel, and because of the importance and abundance of sources that exist regarding israeli use of hummus as a national food, it would be a disservice to censor this article and not include examples of information from reliable sources from world-wide main stream media, which express various world wide viewpoints on the feelings of the adoption of the food and the history of how the state of israel came to adopt it from arab nations.Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Why not use this source which simply states that "The Palestinians eat hummus as well as their own hummus-inspired dip, laban ma' hummus. Laban ma' hummus replaces tahini with yogurt and olive oil with butter;" - no reference to any geographical area, just a people. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite getting it. We base an article on its sources. We don't remove a source just because we don't like what it happens to say or how it happens to say it. Salloum and Peters is an excellent source for this article, and we should represent them as fairly as we can. This made quite clear in WP:NPOV:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

This is why we cannot compromise on this. —Ashley Y 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestions made by Ravpapa and Number 57 are good. I don't see any neutrality or reliability issues with the source provided by Number 57. It may even be more accurate, since it's likely that Palestinians living abroad also eat hummus that way. -- Nudve (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to including that source. But we cannot exclude Salloum and Peters just because someone doesn't like their wording. —Ashley Y 08:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about exclusion. We have another source which says exactly what they say, only using less controversial wording. I don't think using the less controversial wording would violate WP:NPOV. -- Nudve (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Separating ethnicity from geography

• The issues on this page could be settled quite simply by separating ethnicity from geography.

• Ethnicity - When referring to food custons of any of the many ethnic groups of the region, such as Arabs, Maronite Christians, Samaritans, and so forth, the name of the ethnic group should be used. Post 1948, it becomes possible to refer to Israelis as an ethnic group, althouh reference can still be made to sub-groups of Isaeli Jews, such as Jews from Aleppo or Polish Jews. The date when it is possible to refer to Palestinian Arabs as an ethnic gorup is more difficult. Rashid Khalidi, the leading Palestinian nationalist writing on the subject, sees the ethnicity as developing not before the early twentieth century and possibly as late as the 1930's. I cannot imagine how anyone can defend a date earlier than Khalidi's. After that date, the use of the word Palestinian is defensible (alghough dates as late as the founding off the PLO in 1965 are also defended by highly regarded historians and ethnologists,) and, as with Israelis, such sub-groups as "Arabs in the Galilee" or "palestinians in the Hebron region" may be useful, foodways vary among these micro-regions and over very short distances in the Middle East. On the question of what to call Palestinian Arabs before the ~WWI or post-WWI period of their ethnogenesis. One solution is designate them Palestinian Arabs. The other is to call them the Arabs of the Middle East. What cannot be supported befor WWI at the earliest is the term Palestinian as an ethnicity.

• The second issue is what to call the place. One standard international style is to refer to all places by the name of the nation-state that now exists. Archaeologists will sometimes speak of the ceramic styles of neolithic Iraq, although no such entity or concept as Iraq existed in the neolithic. The problem is that when borders are contested, projecting contemporary names into the past will be contested and the argument will never end. Individuals who wish to be neutral therefore use Israel/Palestine, the Middle East or the Levant to describe the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. The term trans-Jordan has some popularity describing the area east of the Jordan. Cis-Jordan, the correspondingly neutral term for the area west of the Jordan, never really caught on. This article already refers to "ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds," an admirably neutral locution.Historicist (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Historicist

That's what I was trying to say earlier but you have just expressed very cleanly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So long as there aren't editors asking to call them Palestine Territorians I guess there is hope. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was part of the first introduction of source of hummus and its constituents, long ago. I just am glad that I am not a part of the current edit war. For me, hummus bi tahini was Lebanese, that is where I was living when I encountered it, but the picture that I took of hummus made by my wife is on a Yemini dish, giving reality to the broad reach of this food. --Dumarest (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting statistic

Did you know that our article on hummus was read 63153 times during the month of November?

How many of those 60,000 readers do you think give a rat's ass whether the article says "Palestine", "region of Palestine" or "region"?

I think we would all be better off to save our vitriol for more serious things. For example, I wrote an article some time back about Ignaz Schuppanzigh, and I would adore a bit of controversy on that talk page. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No vitriol here Ravapapa. Just a genuine concern about how I can write articles related to the topic of Palestine, if whenever I want to use the word in the article, I have to engage in endless talk page discussions.

In any case, I raised this issue at the NOR noticeboard. They told me that it is not WP:OR to change the terms we use in articles to equivalent names if they are in accord with the meaning intended by the author. However, they did suggest to try to stick to the names provided by the sources when dealing with specific items, or conversely to name no countries or use no country specific names at all. ?

It was suggested that we file an RfC or pursue some other form of dispute resolution if unable to reach an agreement here on how to proceed. Perhaps that is something we should consider. Tiamut^talk 02:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old "finger in the dike" argument. If we don't stop them here, they will be everywhere. Think of all the wonderful things that argument has brought upon us: the Vietnam war, the massacre of the American Indian nation, McCarthyism.

But the sad truth is that the language bulldogs will attack at every opportunity, regardless of what happens in this article. They are limited not by precedent, but only by their own resources. So your winning the war on "Palestine" in this article will not stop them from waging it in the next.

(Just so that everyone will be equally offended: Anti-Palestinists, the same argument applies to the pro-Pals.)

So I say, give it a rest, find a weasely compromise, and save the ammo for battles with less pilpel. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a number of reliable sources indicating a nationalist political dimension to hummus, so the whole "OMG it's just a food" approach is actually quite unhelpful. —Ashley Y 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the editing controversies are echoes of true-life disagreements about this food, which are easily sourced. Some of these disagreements are fed by the unknown origins of hummus. The article can't deal with these controversies by... not dealing with them. Meanwhile it seems clear to me that there would be an overwhelming consensus against any editor who tried to remove the adjective Palestinians from the text, but I see no end to smoldering, nationalistic/religious edit warring over the noun Palestine. I do think the article's sourced characterization of hummus as Levantine Arab is spot on, helpful and has not been controversial among editors (also noting that Levantine is an adjective). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. My only objection is to people trying to depoliticise, reword or misrepresent the sources, or trying to compromise with the WP:NPOV policy. —Ashley Y 07:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically...what is the purpose of this whole discussion? We have one side who said they wanted a discussion, only to come out and say they are unwilling to compromise on anything and that it must be their way... and then we have another side which seems to be willing to try to work out a solution, but is being met by a brick wall.

And while I won't debate the comment made about: "We have a number of reliable sources indicating a nationalist political dimension"... what I do draw issue with is that editors will use those sources to push a POV.

But I don't even know why I bother arguing this. There is a faction of editors here who feel their interpretation regarding Wiki rules is absolutely correct and not open to a compromise or constructive discussion; unless that "constructive discussion" is 100% in agreement with their position. Therefore, there is nothing here to discuss anymore. This article has been hijacked by editors who fail to realize they are exhibiting the same POV-pushing agenda as the editors they accuse of pushing a "neutrality" POV. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That brick wall is WP:NPOV. Those running into it have made no reference to Wikipedia content policies; instead their attitude appears to be "we disagree and now you must compromise with us". But that's not how Wikipedia works. —Ashley Y 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it they've more or less said that, even if it's used in sources, Palestine isn't a political state (and besides, the sources may be muddled/fuzzy) so the term shouldn't be used. I and many other editors don't agree with this, but the edit warring over it by a few is bound to carry forth so I see no pith to going on about keeping it in the text and that's indeed how Wikipedia sometimes works. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Unless someone comes up with a policy-based argument as to why we must reword a source, I expect they'll give up soon. —Ashley Y 08:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know they won't stop anytime soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any arguments based in policy for taking Salloum and Peters wording "Palestine and Jordan" and rewriting it? Here's the opening sentences of WP:NPOV again, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

Read it carefully and then tell me it lets us fiddle with someone's wording just because we don't happen to like it. Otherwise, we must say "Palestine and Jordan", just like the source does. —Ashley Y 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, editors PoV warring from a narrow nationalistic/religious outlook (which they may truly think they're doing in good faith) often get sources thrown out or at least their citation thwarted by calling them unreliable, which is what has happened here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I never said the source was unreliable.  :-) I objected to how, in this specific instance, it is being used in the article; and I suggested if we, as a group, cannot agree on it, maybe it should be removed...but I never said it was unreliable.

Anyhow moving right along -- In this case the use of the term Palestine, as its mentioned in the source, is interpreted by some as being used as a WP fork. We must also not forget that part of this debate (as Tiamut reminded us earlier) is about what Israeli related content belongs in the article. If we are to say its ok to use allow once source which is interpreted by a group of editors as a POV fork, then we must allow the sourced, and quoted, content about jews "humiliating past in europe" to be used in the article.

Everything is relative...My opinion that the sky is blue, is just that...an opinion...to someone else, they might argue that its not blue, but baby blue....So...one person's opinion about what is WP:NPOV may be different from someone elses and vice versa. This is why we have to find a common ground.

Ironically, my objection isn't to the term Palestine. If you check the logs, I have never changed the term Palestine to Palestinian Territory or vice versa. My objection is the way it has been used, in this specific instance, to drive a fork into the article (no matter which side you are on...editors have used it to drive a fork into the article)....anyhow, it has festered and smoldered and lead to all sorts of endless nationalistic drivel.

Now...I wonder if I heated some hummus up, if it could be used as a psuedo-middle eastern-esque, fondue-of-sorts (I hope, Gwen, you're smiling) :-) --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ew, I hope not :) Meanwhile, I came here months back as an uninvolved admin trying to mediate and all I'm saying is, if the noun Palestine isn't kept out of the article, edit warring will carry on. It's not worth it, moreover since the adjective Palestinians has never been warred over and is in the text to stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nsaum75, you misunderstand WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter what your or my opinion is. We don't find common ground: we find reliable sources as to what colour the sky is. If the sources all say it's blue, that's what we put in the article. If some say it's baby blue, we fairly reflect that weight in the article. It matters not at all what colour you or I think the sky is. This is all in the policies: people need to start editing from sources, and not from what they know and believe. —Ashley Y 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

and so any published book, a cookbook or a manual on plumbing, is a RS in relation to the current geography of the middle east? All one needs then is to churn out endless propaganda, get it in books and and magazines, and you can say virtually anything. This article is an classic example of the I/P "conflict." It is sad that the I-side is willing to say "Palestinian" but not "Palestine," to say "Levant" and "middle east" and "Arab" that this cannot be appreciated as a "compromise." "Palestine" may be a popularization of a term, but it is not a clearly described entity as of yet. Israel does not wish to have its country subsumed under the name of "Palestine." And that is exactly what happens when we use that word. Are we talking about the Palestine of the Mandate period? Anything that is not Israel? Are we talking about West Bank and Gaza /or Judea and Samaria? Israel is there to stay. When and if there is a recognized state we can talk about a "State of Palestine." Please don't try to brush off our concerns as if they were nothing but wrong-headed stubbornness; do try to understand them. I don't think insisting on using a cookbook as an authority on this contentious issue is a good faith attempt to reach consensus . Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The cookbook is a reliable source as to the origin of the recipe. You don't need to be an expert in Middle-Eastern geography to point to "Palestine and Jordan" on a map. It's true that the boundaries of Palestine are not perfectly determined, but so what? We use the word "Levantine" elsewhere.

Everyone knows where Palestine and Jordan are, and no one is doubting the simple factual accuracy of the cookbook. The word "Palestine" (like the word "Levant") isn't perfectly defined, but it isn't ambiguous either. See the Palestine article. The only objection people have is that they don't like the word. We do understand your concerns, but they are based on editors' point of view, not policy (which always favours sources over editors). —Ashley Y 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions so far

• It is not original research to change the terms used by an author if it is not a direct quote.
• We have another source that only uses the term "Palestinians"
• Seven editors have offered or supported compromises, but three editors are unwilling to move.
• No-one seems to object to just using the phrase Palestinians (although the three editors strongly supporting the inclusion of "Palestine" have still not commented on what else would be acceptable to them).

Can we actually move on and perhaps agree that the phrase "Palestinians" is the way forward? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC) пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV we must represent sources as fairly as we can, and the source we have says "Palestine and Jordan".
• The only arguments offered against it are based editors' points of view, and don't refer to policy.
• WP:NPOV is, in its own words, a fundamental Wikimedia principle, a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and non-negotiable. It's not open to compromise.

Can we actually move on and perhaps agree that following Wikipedia policy is the way forward? —Ashley Y 12:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another completely unhelpful comment. As has been pointed out, using Palestine is not NPOV because it is a controversial term, regardless of the fact that the source uses it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please just read WP:NPOV. Neutrality has nothing to do with whether something is controversial. Neutrality is purely about fairly representing the sources. —Ashley Y 12:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what NPOV is. You are just wikilawyering and wasting everyone's time by refusing to budge on an issue in which you are in a minority. The article will not be unprotected until an agreement is reached, and it is clearly not going to be reached to use the phrase Palestine, so just get off your high horse, and try and play a productive role in deciding what phrasing we should use. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you do know. Here, I'm going to quote WP:NPOV for you, again, sentences separated with appropriate terms bolded:

• "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.
• "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
• "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

That is exactly what NPOV is. You are just imposing your "no Palestine" point of view and wasting everyone's time by refusing to allow a source to be represented fairly. The article will not be unprotected until an agreement is reached, and it is clearly not going to be reached by imposing editors' bias, so just get off your high horse, and try to follow non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. —Ashley Y 12:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, First off, let me say I appreciate your input here, and the furvent nature with which you defend your reasoning. It is truely an asset to Wikipedia, as opposed to people who mindlessly edit without giving much thought to what they are doing.

That said, here's some food for thought, which I haven't seen addressed on this TALK page yet. -- According to WP:IAR:

• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)
• Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors. (See also Wikipedia:Consensus.)
• Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)
• WikiLawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; not moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but considering the ongoing POV/NPOV policy debate we have been having, I thought it would be relevant to throw it out there. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nsaum75, this is really basic stuff. When a policy describes itself as fundamental, cornerstone, and non-negotiable, don't you think you ought to pay attention to it? —Ashley Y 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] ...And what part of "there is no Palestinian state today" is so difficult to understand? There is not even a "Palestinian region" in a real sense. There is land that Palestinians are living on. Much of that land is controlled by Israel. What is in "Palestinian Authority" hands is being torn apart through internal as well as external forces. The Palestinian people are not yet in control of their own destiny. It is doubtful that they could survive at all without the help of Israel, and certainly without the help of the rest of the world. The number one employer there is the United Nations. They are refugees, living as refugees. If they were in Palestine, they would not be refugees anymore. Point? Saying "Palestine" is totally unclear whether you can find a jillion sources for it or not. The Palestinian Mandate is now gone. Palestinians may identify with that region, but it no longer exists as such. Thus to try and insert it as if there is such a place is inserting POV into the article and not doing the encyclopedia any good. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's no Palestinian state today. So what? We're talking about Palestine. There's no "Levantine state" either, but we can talk about the Levant. And we're not "inserting it", we're writing exactly what the source says. The region is still there, it hasn't disappeared beneath the sea. —Ashley Y 02:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel does not identify as "Palestine." Thus there is no longer a "Palestine" where a "Palestine" or Palestinian Mandate used to be. It is an archaic or politically motivated reference. To be neutral it would require disclaimers... such as "Palestine in this case is taken to mean....." blah blah. Therefore it is clearer and more accurate not to use the expression at all if you can, unless you are talking about a time in history when it was actually called that. When there is a Palestinian state, we can refer to it as Palestine again. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Israel identifies as. To be neutral is no more than to represent the sources fairly. —Ashley Y 02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prognosis and aspirin

It looks pretty clear that this article is going to be locked forever. The sides have dug in their heels and no one is prepared to give an inch.

That would be fine, except that the disputed sentence as it stands is inaccurate. I know this from personal experience: I recently ate Laban ma' hummus at the Arazim restaurant near Shlomi by the Lebanese border. It was delicious. Nobody said, "You can't have that here, only in Jordan or in the Palestinian territories."

So I suggest that Spartaz change it, in any way that he sees fit (regional dish, or "Palestine and Jordan" or "Levant" or "Middle East" or whatever), so that the article is at least accurate, if not politically acceptable. Then let the argument rage on indefinitely. No harm done - at least no one is getting shot at. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That won't help anything. Meanwhile I don't think the article will be locked much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a clear majority of users (I count seven or eight) who are willing to compromise, whilst only three are not. As we have made no progress in tens of kilobytes of discussion, it sadly appears that perhaps the solution to moving forward is to effectively sideline the three in question, and that the rest of us choose what is the most acceptable solution. I don't see the problem with using the alternative source which doesn't use any controversial terminology. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Number57, Wikipedia works through policy and consensus, not majority. You cannot sideline those trying to enforce WP:NPOV in favour of those trying to push their "no Palestine" point of view. —Ashley Y 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm most certainly not going to be a determiner in this matter, I'm supposed to stay impartial if I am exercising administrator functions here but I do think the idea of using an external editor to gauge the consensus looks like a good one. Why don't the editors interested in compromise come up with one, then have those editors opposed put their views forward and then ask a 'crat to determine whether there is consensus on the compromise? In the meantime Gwen is right that we can't lock the article forever over this so I have a number of options:

1. Let the semi-prot expire and I can page ban anyone who tries to change the current wrong version around Palestine( territories) until a compromise emerges
2. Page ban all the new editors who have imported the Israel-Palestine dispute and leave the established article editors to work out a solution on their own
3. Remove all reference to Palestine (territories) from the article until a consensus appears.

• Any views on what best to do here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

very sad you will punish group of editors by block them just because they have different opinionAni medjool (talk)

• I'm not blocking anyone yet, I'm trying my best to avoid it but we can't keep it locked forever and we need a solution to avoid disruption when its no longer locked down, so what's your suggestion for preventing that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The solution is following policy. If you don't start from policy, you're not being helpful. —Ashley Y 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, so what do you suggest we do with the protection if we can't find a consensus? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you do when editors refuse to acknowledge or apply our policies? Tiamut^talk 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on Tiamut, you have been round long enough to know that admins don't impose content decisions. Resolving the problem has to be down to the editors working on the article. I will not tolerate further disruption here and there needs to be a solution so the page can be unlocked. Everyone is concentrating on the page ban suggestion but how about the ones about leaving the content or removing until consensus emerges. You guys need to give me something to work with here if I am to unlock the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No fair banning new editors. We were invited at I/P collab page and other places. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See my post immediately above this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa seems to me like the most sane editor here, so I'll support what he proposes. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz, regarding your question about needing something to work with to unlock the article, please see the new section on "A working proposal" below. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy, please

All arguments for article content must be based in the content policies. If you're saying no more than "we have a majority", or "we disagree so now we must find a compromise", you simply don't have an argument. So please stop.

Equally, if you're coming here to mediate, start with policy.

The relevant content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. WP:NPOV in particular repeatedly stresses how important. non-ignorable, and non-negotiable it is. It spells it out quite clearly: "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." So if you're ignoring the policy, you simply shouldn't bother. Nor is it particularly helpful to claim that defending a policy that stresses its importance and non-negotiability so much is "wikilawyering". This is really basic stuff, folks.

Those favouring rewriting what the source has to say because they consider the term "Palestine" to be controversial are simply misinformed as to what neutrality on Wikipedia is all about. It's an unfortunately common and even understandable misunderstanding, so to speak. They are under the impression that neutrality is all about avoiding controversy and balancing editors' points of view.

A quick read of WP:NPOV actually reveals something quite different. It turns out neutrality is, instead, all about representing sources fairly, whatever they have to say. The points of view of sources count for everything. The points of view of editors count for nothing. Here's a direct quote:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

This is so important (as the page itself points out), that I'm going to repeat it, so you have no excuse not to read it:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

So we can't rewrite what the sources have to offer. Doing so introduces a bias. Neutrality is achieved through letting the sources speak for themselves.

Now what we have here is the imposition of a point of view. That point of view is "there is no such place as Palestine" (see for instance this edit summary). The trouble is is that it's an editor's point of view. It's not found in the sources on hummus. One would have thought that a quick look at the Palestine article would be enough to disabuse folks of this notion, but apparently not... —Ashley Y 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

but there is no such state. And it is so totally unclear what is meant by it. What is it? What are the geographical boundaries of it? Is it a totally Arab place? Is a cookbook a legitimate source for answering these questions? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such state. So what? The source says Palestine, not "State of Palestine". Go look at the Palestine article. —Ashley Y 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is wrong. I wouldn't even trust her Hummus recipe. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible the source is wrong, but so what? Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." —Ashley Y 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Truth" is one thing, "accuracy" and "clarity" quite another. What happens when you get verifiably different facts? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that laban ma' hummus comes from some other place, we'll represent both sources fairly in the article. But "Palestine and Jordan" is quite clear as a rough indication of origin. —Ashley Y 02:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember, "neutral" is a subjective term. The majority of the editors here do not see the source in question by Salloum as POV, so you must refer to it properly. Being a "controversial" term does not mean its exclusion should be endorsed. Controversy is a part of life, even when eating hummus. By analogy, using the term "Palestinian Territories can suggest they are part of Israel, which is even more controversial to many.71-abe (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

So far, on the Laban ma' hummus recipe, two sources have been offered.

• Salloum, Habeeb; Peters, James (1996), From the Lands of Figs and Olives: Over 300 Delicious and Unusual Recipes, I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1860640389
• Beery, Karin, "History and Use of Hummus", Valley Scene Magazine

The first is a published cookbook on Middle-Eastern recipes. The second is an article in a non-notable magazine. I say we go with the first.

In fact, if you look closely, you'll notice that Beery's article is structured suspiciously similarly to the Wikipedia article... —Ashley Y 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at it, I was pretty sure they took the info from here (they cite no sources for that information in their article). Perhaps the relevant guideline here would be WP:RS? Tiamut^talk 00:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would guess a cookbook would not be a very good source for answering politico/geographical questions. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One hardly needs to be an expert in politico/geographical questions to know where Palestine is. A curious paradox: people claim it doesn't exist, but still know where it is! —Ashley Y 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes some know vaguely where it is. Most people don't even have a clue. Palestinians exist, "Palestine" is a state of mind. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point of view. But let's stick to the source instead. —Ashley Y 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See my response in the para below. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

A related dish from Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("yogurt and chickpeas") which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil.

I've got rid of "popular", because that's not in the source. —Ashley Y 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An utterly pointless proposal, as it does nothing to solve the main issue at hand. How about, given the fact that the paragraph already starts with the use of the phrase "Palestinians", just leaving out the reference to places, and leave it as:

For Palestinians hummus has long been a staple food, garnished with olive oil and mint leaves, paprika, parsley or cumin. A related dish is laban ma' hummus ("Yogurt and chickpeas") which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This exactly solves the main issue at hand, which is representing sources fairly per the WP:NPOV policy. Please try to focus on the content policies, rather than just imposing your own point of view on the article. —Ashley Y 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Number 57's solution. The solution concedes the Palestinian population. What do you gain by insisting on "Palestine"? "Palestinians" gets the meaning across just as well, and the other side is accepting of it. By insisting on using "Palestine" (a very vague term) instead, you generate ill-will and continue warring. The Israeli side will not/can not accept "Palestine" until there is a clearly named place with boundaries and understood as not subsuming Israel in its definition. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We must represent the source as it is written, per WP:NPOV. To be clear, I am not "insisting on Palestine" per se, I am insisting on using what is written in the source. It's perfectly acceptable for a source to use a vague term, such as "Palestine" or "Levant". Nor can we give any credit to your demands, as they are based in your point of view, not in policy. —Ashley Y 02:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate that it is a WP:reliable source for what you are attempting to include, since it is being challenged. I would say that a cookbook is a reliable source for hummus, but not geo-political boundaries. If you insist on putting it in, then it should be quoted verbatim. eg "Bill Jones, in the book Palestinians and hummus says "Hummus is popular in Palestine." It might not be arguable that way, I am not sure. There is a case to be made that to insist on putting it in is every bit as WP:NPOV as to insist on keeping it out. More so, in fact, because no new meaning or clarity is achieved by putting it in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is not saying anything about geo-political boundaries. It's just indicating that the recipe comes from the rough area of Palestine and Jordan. It's quite plain and unambiguous. I know where that region is and so do you, even if you don't happen to like the term. —Ashley Y 03:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shame shame shame on you Number 57. A less shrewd editor would have managed to be immediately banned from further editing based on such POV pushing and masked racial bias. You try to portray an intelligent argument but it is fundamentally flawed. You cannot hide or cover this by long diatribes or feel that a history of editing on Wikipedia entitles you to hijack an article. You have fooled many people here into listening to your illogical and circular arguments. This belligerent assault on this article must be stopped. PALESTINE EXISTS PERIOD. No one is saying it is a country (yet), but it exists. The majority of the world's inhabitants recognize this (will be happy to provide supporting info). Since such insanity is allowed on Wikipedia, please see the section below on "Israel" 71-abe (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to support Number 57's solution...not because I am pro-Israel or anti-Palestine, but because it replaces a term that has been the source of numerous edit wars (Palestine vs. Palestinian Territories). In addition, since we have conflicting sources in regard to the terminology for the land, I feel that using a term that everyone agrees is not objectionable (ie: Palestinians) would be best suited at this point. Regardless, this will not solve the issue, but perhaps create a stalemate. The only way this situation will be solved, in everyones minds, is when the Geo-Political area known as Palestine to establishes its own independent government and state. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear here ... your position is that because people edit-war to remove the word "Palestine" because they believe it does not exist, we should ignore WP:NPOV and stop using the word Palestine at Wikipedia? Tiamut^talk 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

• Gur, Jana (Oct 21, 2008). "Hummus History: Tales of a Wandering Chickpea". The Santa Fe New Mexican.

This is an article in the cooking section of a newspaper. I think it's reliable enough for claims relating to hummus today (such as the popularity of hummus in Israel), but probably not for historical claims such as the "eager, almost childish, embrace of the Levant" etc. I'd want to know where Gur is getting that from.

• Volcot-Freeman, Eythan-David "Culinary Zionism: an ingathering of edibles", Present Tense Magazine, retrieved 1 December 2008

Does anyone know anything about Volcot-Freeman or Present Tense Magazine? —Ashley Y 03:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Israel" not a real place

Israel does not exist! Since this so called "state" is not recognized by countries which are populated by over 200 million inhabitants of the surrounding area of the Middle East and several regions of the world, I object to inclusion of this term in any part of this article. I propose "Occupied Palestine" as a more appropriate term. 71-abe (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I too object to the word "Israel". Until there is a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps we should not use the word at all, since it is offensive to so many people.

Not. Per WP:NPOV, we should represent all significant viewpoints documented in WP:RS's in an article, that are relevant to the topic. So even if we think "Occupied Palestine" is a more accurate name than "Israel", we have to allow the use of the term, if it is used in reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a violation of WP:Wikilawyering --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Essays cannot really be violated.

WP:NPOV, however, is a fundamental policy here at Wikipedia.

To censor out words because people edit disruptively to keep them out, rewards WP:DE and violates NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering

I'm sorry Tiamut, but after the days and days of debate on this subject, the arguements have boiled down to WP:Wikilawyering. When one argument fails to convince the majority of the editors of why certain controversial content should be added, then the opposing editors introduce another WP policy interpretation to try to make their case. And then when that fails to win over a majority, then yet another WP policy interpretation is introduced...creating a circular argument.

*To use an english-language euphamism, "If it looks like a duck..and quacks like a duck.." --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't take you seriously if you're going to completely ignore all the content policies, and then accuse us of "wikilawyering" when we point out that WP:NPOV doesn't allow misrepresenting a source. Try arguing from policy. —Ashley Y 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not ignoring content policies. I cannot help it if my interpretations of policies do not match your interpretations, but please don't label my differing opinions as "completely ignoring" aforementioned policies. Secondly, I'm not the only one who feels that "wikilawyering" is going on here. The majority of editors here have come up with various solutions to this situation, but three editors seem to only want things their way and have repeatedly said they are not open to finding a common ground or compromise....Anytime an alternative is brought up, another aspect of WP policy is brought up to either try to deflate the alternative, or prove why their position is the only answer.

You can keep quoting different WP policies, but it should be pretty obvious by now that the majority is not going to change their mind or give in to what has boiled down to "wikilawyering" or whatever you choose to call it. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What interpretations of policies have you made? I'm all for finding common ground, but not at the expense of WP:NPOV, which, as it points out, is non-negotiable. If you have a solution that doesn't misrepresent the source (which clearly and straightforwardly says "Palestine and Jordan"), I'd be happy to hear it. —Ashley Y 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I and others have repeated before, some editors feel that it (the term and/or source) is violating WP:NPOV. They've tried to reach a consensus to establish a term (or replace the source with a NPOV source/term), yet a group of editors do not seem interested in having constructive conversations about a resolution, and then use various WP policy interpretations (ie: wikilawyering) to try to change the mind of the majority.

Sadly, I feel this debate is rapidly becoming moot. Eventually the article will be unlocked, and if "editing issues" continue, then an Admin will probably have to put in effect draconian editing restrictions that nobody will like -- and may, unfortunately, deprive some editors from contributing. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A working proposal

Okay Spataz, you want a working proposal on how to unlock the page? Here you go:

• Remind everyone of our fundamental content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. The need to use WP:RS's, and that in I-P articles all of our core policies, which always apply, should be stringently adhered to.
• Remind everyone that per WP:NCON, self-identifying titles should be respected (and note that this applies to geographical place names as well).
• Tell everyone that in order to reflect the diversity of viewpoints here, when a reliable source says "Israel", we should use "Israel, when it says "Palestine", we should use "Palestine", when it says "Jordan", we should use "Jordan", etc, etc.
• Notify everyone that any editor who attempts to replace the word used by the reliable source attached at the end of the sentence with another word that better accords with their personal POV, will be banned from further editing at this page.
• Notify everyone that if there are concerns regarding the reliability of a source, to raise them on the talk page first, and gain consensus for removal, before deleting the source and the information cited to it.
• Then, unlock the page. Tiamut^talk 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or how about just "Do not use controversial terms in an article about foodstuffs to try and prove a point"? I think its clear that the vast majority of editors here (more than two thirds) are willing to try and work towards the introduction of a neutral, uncontroversial phrasing for the article, and that three are desperately wikilawyering, blustering and deliberately creating circular debates in the hope that the other editors will give up and go away and that they can get their way and deliberately use a provocative term. This is a classic technique used by POV-pushers on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and has unfortunately succeeded in the past in driving away all but the most tenditious editors from certain articles.

At the base of all this, we need to ask why are these three editors so desperate to include such a provocative and vague term in this article? Are they really committed to NPOV as they claim, or is it possibly because they see it as some small victory in the ongoing PR between Israel and the Palestinians to get the name of as unyet non-existent country into a widely read encyclopedia? пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And to reply to the inevitable "why are you so keen to eliminate the term Palestine" retort, the reason I do not want this term in the article is that I am committed to building a factually accurate encyclopedia. We must refer to places and people as they exist/existed, not how we wish they existed (I went through a long-winded and similarly circular debate with one editor who insisted that we should not use "Soviet Union" as place of birth for people born in Ukraine between 1920 and 1991, even though those people were very clearly born in the USSR (the editor in question even tried to claim that the USSR was similar to the EU and that any country within it was free to leave without retribution at any time)). Ergo, for me Palestine is not an acceptable term for modern-day use, because its major use nowadays is to refer to the future Palestinian state. However, currently "Palestine" is meaningless (except in footballing terms), and, regardless of its (mis)use in sources, its use in a Wikipedia article to refer to something current is simply not factually accurate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Only in footballing terms, eh? Read Palestine again. Then also take a look at Cinema of Palestine, Palestine at the Olympics, and Palestine at the Paralympics. Note that there have not been any serious edit wars at these articles over the use of the term. Why? Because the term is the one used by the reliable sources that discuss these topics. Reliable food sources do not have a problem with using the term. Why do you? Its your POV that "Palestine" is "meaningless". We don't write according to your POV (and thank god), but rather according to the views expressed in reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia is all about. To quote WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You need to commit to the content policies, not to your own point of view on what is "factual". —Ashley Y 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is one faulty premise in your argument Tiamut. What happens to the article when I unlock it? Will the edit warring resume? I expect it will unless we first have a consensus on what the article is going to say on this point and, to repeat what I said earlier, I'm not going to impose any content solutions because that's not admins do when exercising admin functions. Realistically, the choices we have are: keep the article locked forever; develop a consensus quickly; agree a state to leave the article in while consensus is discussed; or, (my least favoured option), article ban all the new editors who imported this dispute and leave the historical article editors to solve the matter. I know what the policies but interpreting them requires editors to reach a consensus on how they apply here so help me out by telling me which of the options you will go for? Frankly if there isn't progress on the first three options I'm going to have to consider the last before too long because I'm not prepared to keep this locked up much longer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can pre-emptively page-ban the new editors, even with the RFA discretionary powers. I don't think they've actually done anything wrong. —Ashley Y 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree but I'm including the option to show that I'm not actually getting much help to choose one of the less unfair options and I cannot and will not unlock the article for us to go back to previous state of edit warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Spartaz, from my perspective, the sum of your actions is to impose a content solution. You protected the page with "Palestinian territories" instead of "Palestine" after Number 57 made 6 reverts in 28 hours to get this change into the article, refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page. Prior to that, Palestine had been mentioned in the article for the better part of the last year. Yes, there were problems from time to time, but they never resulted in page protection for this issue. The only other issue to result in page protection here was referring to Hummus as part of Israeli cuisine. (See Talk:Hummus#RfC and the Proposed solution section that follows it) It is instructive that the discussion there focused on the need to include all significant POVs and not deny the reader information, simply because some thought it controversial.) In that case, good faith efforts were made by editors to compromise on their personal POVs.
• Second, by threatening to page ban "new" editors to the page if no consensus can be reached, you are issuing an ultimatum. Either they (quickly) agree to drop their position on WP:NPOV constituting a cornerstone policy and agree to change "Palestine" to some mutually agreeable compromise word (which by the way, goes against the advice of WP:NCON) or they will not be able to edit this article. Though if you are serious about banning people who imported this problem to the article, you would have to go back to 2005, and none of us would be able to edit this article.
• Then, the article had no references and on June 25 2005 [4], User:Ramallite, an admin who has since left us (because of things like this no doubt) adds content to the article, including adding "Palestine" to a list of places in the Middle East where Hummus is popular. For two weeks, everything was quiet and then on July 7, the following occurs:
  • [5], Guy Montag edits to remove “Palestine”. Edit summary: “doesnt exist”.
  • [6] Ramallite restores the term, but writes “Israel/Palestine” as a compromise. Edit summary “Enough people in that same land call it Palestine - this is a wiki about FOOD - don't make a big deal”
  • An hour later, MrFixter [7] edits to change it to “Israel, Palestinian territories”. Edit summary: “Palestinian territories”.
  • About an hour later, Heraclius [8] pipes it read Palestine. No edit summary.
  • An hour and a half later [[9] Guy Montag changes it to “the West Bank Gaza”. Edit summary:” wb + gaza”
  • Five minutes later, [10] Ramallite compromises by reverting to Mrfixter (Palestinian territories). Edit summary:”rv Palestinian territories is the Wikipedia name and mainstream western journalist name- but I'm left humiliated anyway”
  • Ten minutes later, Guy Montag [11] reverts to himself “West Bank, Gaza”. Edit summary: “the term is contentious, and Palestinian territories are a pov term pressuposing ownership. It is also ambiguous since there are palestinian self governing areas, but this doesnt cover everyone in T”
  • One minute later, Mustafaa [12] replaces it with “the Palestinian territories”. Edit summary: "enough offensiveness. The term is not ambiguous, and does not refer to the PNA"
• Note that the discussion section for this day Talk:Hummus#Palestine is participated in largely by Ramallite alone with some anon IPs. Those removing Palestine do not make a policy-based argument as to why. Those supporting its use simply give up.
• Thankfully, today, we rely much more upon reliable sources to write our articles, and particularly in contentious areas. Which brings me to the fourth option that you dismissed: my proposal at the top of this section. There are reliable sources that describe the consumption of Hummus in Palestine, just as there are reliable sources that say that Hummus is a part of Israeli cuisine, and because these viewpoints are significant, we should describe them, per WP:NPOV. Our job is to describe, not prescribe. If edit-warring breaks out because people refuse to make good faith efforts to respect that there are multiple viewpoints expressed in reliable sources on this issue, you page ban and then block as necessary. Disruptive editing behaviours should not be rewarded by locking everyone down in the "wrong version" and then threatening to pre-emptively ban people - not for their behaviours, but because they disagreed with the admin who reverted six times in 28 hours to uphold their POV. I realize this may not be what you intended, but that's the sum of your proposals/actions as I see it.[User:Tiamut|Tiamut]]^talk 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm astonished after all this time that you have not grasped a fundamental part of the protection policy - that administrators must protect whatever version of the article they find irrespective of the merits of the content unless there is offensive or vandalous material in the article. I have done nothing more then that. Now in all your words I'm not seeing any commitment to helping me choose one of the less extreme options to avoid page bans. I'd unlock the article right now if there was any prospect of the edit war not being repeated. Is there? I have repeatedly made proposals and asked questions about that specific point. I couldn't care less about the rights and wrongs of the words if there would be clear assurances that the edit warring will not resume. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Spartaz, I am very familiar with our protection policy. I know that your actions to protect the page in the "wrong version" can be defended. I think if you re-read my comment, what I am trying to communicate is that the sum of a series of good faith actions on your part have introduced a bias that is perpetuating this dispute, rather than leading us to the way out.
• Perhaps you should direct your question to to the admin who reverted 6 times in 28 hours to change what the source said to accord with his POV, instead of retaining what is written in the reliable source cited, and who also refused to discuss the matter until after the page was protected? If the page had been locked in what a number of editors here think is the "right version" (i.e. with "Palestine" per the WP:RS), the onus would on him to get support for the change he wanted to make, instead of the other way around.
• On my part, I have no intention of edit-warring should the protection be lifted, even if this very second. I plan to continue discussing until agreement can be reached before making any changes to the contested text. Indeed, I made one edit during the whole sorry episode that led up to this page protection move, as did most other editors sharing my position.
• Finally, you did not respond to my request on your talk page [13], regarding whether or not you will be warning all the editors involved in this discussion of the I-P discretionary sanctions on their talk pages, as you did for the editors who were unreverting Number 57. It's only fair. You said yourself the warnings were simply to even the playing field and diffuse the tension, since you did not feel handing out a block to Number 57 alone would solve the problem. Warning everyone involved here before unlocking the page, will make it clear that no edit-warring of any kind will be tolerated. Tiamut^talk 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of warning users who are not edit warring of the IP discretionary sanction. Do you think there is a risk of their edit warring? I don't think. Likewise, although you only reverted once you are well aware of the case as is Number 57 who reverts unnecessarily. What I'm concerned about is that if I unlock the article before consensus emerges then there will be further disruption. We do, very slowly seem to be moving towards a compromise - given the number of words taken I'm glad we are not a paper project. There is not question about locking at the wrong version being defensible its actually obligatory. Now, if the other parties to the edit war agreed to leave it alone I'd unlock the article immediately. I think your point about warning and unlocking has more merit the more I look at it so I have decided that I will not extend the protection once it expires and anyone edit warring on the point will be blocked for the first offense and then page banned for the second. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors have the point of view that "there is no such place as Palestine". Per WP:NPOV, editors' points of view count for nothing at all. Only sources matter.

This is not pro-Palestine vs. pro-Israel. This is point-of-view vs. WP:NPOV. And the latter is simply non-negotiable, as it itself repeatedly stresses. —Ashley Y 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this or this as a source to state that there is no such place as Palestine. Surely if there was, it would be included in the lists? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, those sources list countries. Everyone already agrees there's currently no such country as Palestine. Those sources don't list the Levant either, yet no-one has any problem with that term (AFAIK). —Ashley Y 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone ever hear of censorship? If the word Palestine is not allowed in this article, than Wikipedia administrators have succumbed to attempts at censorship not unlike what is seen in many countries with government controlled media: removing references to certain concepts based on the "perceived" offensiveness or controversial natures of the aforementioned concept (despite factual sources and evidence for otherwise). In short, if you do not allow "Palestine" to be mentioned as a place, then you are CENSORING OUT not only sources, but truth. This counters the whole philosophy of Wikipedia. It scares me to think what the United States would be like if a president had the power to censor media like some of the Wikipedia editors are attempting to do. In addition, just because some perceive the word "Palestine" as controversial, many do not. Many Palestinians in diaspora freely use the term to refer to the home of their parents and ancestors. They are not trying to be controversial. Most Arab-speaking people refer to the areas inhabited by Palestians in the middle east as Palestine. Are all Arabs trying to be controversial every time they say this? 71-abe (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

A related dish from the region of Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("yogurt and chickpeas") which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil.

This doesn't misrepresent the source, and clarifies that Palestine is not a country. —Ashley Y 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Would changing "the region of Palestine..." to "the historical region of Palestine..." be agreeable to other editors? The source may not explicitly say "historical" but it also doesnt explicitly say "region" either.. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. There's no sense of "historical" in the source, and it doesn't really make sense. Countries are human constructions, so they can end, and be historical. But regions are descriptions of geography, so they can only end and become historical through some geological process. The region is still there, it's not historical. —Ashley Y 01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe the "region historically known as Palestine"?? Hummus isnt a modern invention, and historically speaking, Palestine was a larger area than what many people consider it to be today. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the source says, though. They're simply referring to "Palestine and Jordan", in its modern, straightforward meaning. They're not referring to "historical" anything. —Ashley Y 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were simply up to me, I wouldn't bother with "region of". It's redundant. Since Palestine is not a country, the word must refer to a region, so there's no need to say "region". But this is just a style issue: I don't think it actually misrepresents the source to say "region of Palestine and Jordan". Style issues are negotiable; neutrality issues are not. —Ashley Y 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not that anyone is censoring or offended by the term "Palestine". It is an issue of accuracy. What do the dictionaries say about Palestine? Here's Merriam-Webster [14] 1.ancient region SW Asia bordering on E coast of the Mediterranean & extending E of Jordan River 2. region bordering on the Mediterranean on W & Dead Sea on E; a part of the Ottoman Empire 1516–1917, a British mandate 1923–48; now approx. coextensive with Israel and the West Bank

This source says, the "Fact Archive" [15] notes:

• As even the term "Palestine" is open to many interpretations and has political connotations, its meaning varies tremendously across differing points of view on the political situation in the area.

This source:[16] the Online Dictionary, quotes Wordnet:

n 1: a former British mandate on the east coast of the Mediterranean; divided between Jordan and Israel in 1948 2: an ancient country in southwestern Asia on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea; a place of pilgrimage for Christianity and Islam and Judaism [syn: Palestine, Canaan, Holy Land, Promised Land] Perhaps we should just call it the Promised Land? ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just a rough indication of origin, similar to "Levant", which has similarly undefined boundaries. Look at Palestine. Palestine is the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Trying to introduce irrelevant concepts such as the British Mandate of Palestine, or whatever, isn't going to help you. —Ashley Y 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you left out something: It says the "ancient region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River." We are not talking about the ancient regions of the middle east here. We are talking about recipes popular with various peoples in the region today, such as the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's meaning varies tremendously across differing points of views. That is really the point here. It is a vague, loaded term. No one is denying the existence of Palestinians, we are just trying to keep it neutral by not referring to Palestine in this article since it is completely unnecessary to do so. Generally when Palestinians refer to "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestine" (as above) they are talking about all of Israel (See: #Israel does not Exist). Apparently it is quite alright with some of you that that implication resides in this cooking article, as POV and ideology is more important than collaboration and consensus. That's how it looks to me, anyway. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of Palestine does not have the word "ancient" in it. Go look. I can't even find a past version that has "ancient" in it. And removing the sourced word "Palestine" just because you don't like it is forbidden by the WP:NPOV policy, which insists that sources are represented fairly. —Ashley Y 06:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And wiki policy disallows using wiki as a reference. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent compromise. It doesn't damage neutrality by misrepresenting the source (which is firmly non-negotiable). But it addresses concerns that some people raised that the word "Palestine" might somehow be referring to a non-existent country. I don't really get those concerns, but I don't mind using "region" to address them anyway. —Ashley Y 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, its OK for the text to include a word not written in the source if you agree with it, as in "region", but you immediately nix any and every other suggestion that someone adds? This, and your previous comments give that appearance.

Secondly, Tundrabuggy is reiterating what the majority of the editors here keep saying:

Apparently it is quite alright with some of you that that implication resides in this cooking article, as POV and ideology is more important than collaboration and consensus.

The longer and longer this conversation goes on, the more and more evident it becomes to me that this debate is not about solving the situation, its more about a small group of editors trying to gnaw on an issue for a long enough time (either through wikilawyering or circular arguments) as to drive off all the opposition, so that they can then edit the article without having to address the differing opinions. It may not be the direct intent, but it will be the de facto result. This, above all, is very sad. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The longer and longer this conversation goes on, the more and more evident it becomes to me that this debate is not about solving the situation, its more about a small group of editors trying to push their "no Palestine" point of view for a long enough time (either through accusations of "wikilawyering" or bogus claims about the word) as to drive off all the opposition, so that they can then edit the article without having to follow non-negotiable content policies. It may not be the direct intent, but it will be the de facto result. This, above all, is very sad.

Let me say this as clearly as I can. Your "no Palestine" point of view will not be respected in the article. It cannot be, because pushing editors' points of view (as opposed to sources' points of view) violates WP:NPOV, which is utterly non-negotiable. This is not a matter of your opinion vs. my opinion. It is a matter of you pushing a point of view vs. WP:NPOV. And please stop claim this is "wikilawyering" just because the policy disagrees with you. This is basic, fundamental Wikipedia policy and there's no compromise on it.

Now, the source says "Palestine and Jordan", so we should put that. It's clear to me they mean the region of Palestine and Jordan, because they couldn't possibly mean anything else. But if there were any dispute over whether they meant region, then we'd have to leave it out and just say "Palestine and Jordan". But I'm open on this point. —Ashley Y 08:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough wikilawyering and putting things in bold text. The use of the phrase "Palestine" cannot by definition be NPOV, because it is a controversial terms with different meanings to different people, and thus will always be interpreted depending on that person's POV. Thus we need to find a phrasing which has a clear, unambiguous meaning, and will always be NPOV. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough pushing your "no Palestine" point of view. Go read WP:NPOV. Neutrality is not about particular words, it's about representing sources fairly. Thus we use the phrasing found in the source, which already has a clear unambiguous meaning. —Ashley Y 09:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask the Palestine-injectors this question. What if we were to say that "Hummus is popular in Kurdistan." Where exactly would we be talking about? How would the meaning be changed (or weakened) if we were to say "Hummus is popular with the Kurdish" ? That compromise would prevent edit warring among Kurds, Turks, Iranians, and Syrians -- as well as being more accurate. Why don't you add a direct quote from the cookbook in a footnote? And certainly neutrality is about particular words, for example think: "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", "disputed" or "occupied", "refugee camps" "settlements" "villages" "fence" "murdered" "promised land" ....when it comes to the conflict areas, the list is endless. Certainly not as cut-and-dried as you would have us think! Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that says Hummus is popular in Kurdistan, I would have no problem adding it to that article. And if a Turkish, Iranian or Syrian nationalist came by to edit out Kurdistan, I would revert them and point them to the source. This is a food article, not the CIA factbook, and not the United Nations. (Though if it were the UN, there would be no such issue against using "Palestine", which has enjoyed observer-member status there since 1974.)

We have three reliable sources which indicate that Hummus is eaten in Palestine, and others that reference the use of Hummus in other places/countries. When a source says Hummus is popular in Israel, we write that Hummus is popular in Israel. When a source writes Hummus is popular in Palestine, we write Hummus is popular in Palestine. Changing names because some people claim they are controversial goes against WP:NCON which frowns upon inventing compromise terms. It also wastes everybody's time.

With the strong feelings on all sides, the only right thing to do is use the terminology provided by reliable sources, and represent all significant viewpoitns related to this article per NPOV. To do otherwise opens up a Pandora's box of problems. People who claim to be offended by the term "Israel", will start arguing that it should be changed to to "Zionist entity" or "Israeli state" and start rallying troops to challenge the inclusion of terms they don't like across multiple articles. Would you like to set that kind of precedent? Tiamut^talk 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I've been asked by Tiamut to give my opinion. I don't want to hear anyone call it "canvassing"; though Tiamut and I have agreed much more than we've disagreed, she contacted me about this specifically in light of remarks I made on Talk:Israeli settlement, where my position is precisely opposed to the one she's articulated on this page. That is, on Israeli settlement (and a number of related pages), secondary sources have been added which use the term "Samaria" instead of "West Bank," and the editors adding those sources are arguing that the term is therefore appropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice. I disagree with this reasoning.

Regarding this page, I want to first address what I think are the weak arguments on both sides. On Tiamut and Ashley's side, I don't think it's logical to argue that because a source uses a term, we must use exactly the same one. This is true when quoting a source, of course, but paraphrase is paraphrase, and we substitute consensus terms for questionable ones all the time. The article on African-Americans is free to use that term throughout; its neutral voice doesn't jump around between "negro" and "colored" and "black" and "Afro-American" and "African-American" at the mercy of the sources it paraphrases.

The weak argument on the other side is that we shouldn't use the term because "Palestine doesn't exist." This is nonsense. It's not a state, but that's not the same as not existing. (As far as category mistakes go, this is on a par with saying a novel "doesn't exist" if it's out of print, a film doesn't exist if it has yet to find a distributor, "the South" doesn't exist because it lost the civil war and has no status as a separate state, etc.). In my experience it is quite common to use the term "Palestine" not only for (a) the historical region; (b) the territories likely to constitute the future Palestinian state; and in connection with (c) various proto-state entities like soccer teams, UN General Assembly seats, and stamps; but also for (d) the arabophone culture (past and present) of the region between Jordan and the sea. Just as it is common to use the term "Basque country" for the culture of a region that has no official political status, and comprises parts of Spain and France.

I find this a difficult case, much more so than the one regarding "Samaria." In a political context, I think it would be inappropriate to use the term "Palestine" simply because some RSs use it. As I explained on the Israeli settlement talk page, there are easily as many reliable sources describing settlements "in Palestine" as "in Samaria," but both are unacceptable for WP's neutral voice, because both terms are seen as politically loaded by many, and in political contexts the vast majority of RSs refer to the territory in question as "the West Bank."

In a cultural context however the situation is rather different. It seems to me quite usual for RSs to discuss the food, dance, local customs, vernacular traditions, etc. of "Palestine," that this usage is in fact normative and quite uncontroversial. It would seem equally acceptable to me to talk about Jewish customs in "Samaria" if we're talking about cultural traditions rather than political conditions. I.e. such-and-such style of headdress is traditional among the women of Samaria but not The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon unilaterally and forcibly dismantled Jewish settlements in Samaria.

In short, I don't see a problem with the term "Palestine" when the subject is food, dance, etc. And "Palestinian territories" is an unacceptable substitute because (a) it isn't synonymous, and (b) it imports a political-administrative context that doesn't reflect the sources and isn't appropriate to the subject matter. But in light of the fact that I don't agree with Ashley and Tiamut that we are duty-bound to use exactly the same terms as a source we're paraphrasing, I think that compromise solutions are worth looking into.--G-Dett (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of just using "Palestinians" as a compromise? It seems to have the support of the largest number of editors (Gwen Gale, Nsaum75, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg, Nudve and myself (apologies to anyone whose views I have misrepresented - I am going on previous statements in the above discussion)). The main other compromise suggested is region of Palestine (Eleland, Al Ameer Son and Ashley Y). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I suggested this only in trying to mediate, as a way to end the edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Region of Palestine" could work. "The Palestinians" suggests the Palestinian diaspora, and that is not what's suggested by the source here.--G-Dett (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another reason for "region of Palestine" is to encompass the the Arab Galilee, the Tayibe and Kafr Qasim triangles and the Wadi Ara. Also it wouldn't make so much sense to say "...the Palestinians and Jordan", whereas "...the regions of Palestine and Jordan" reads more appropriate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - at least we are making progress now. So what do others think about

A related dish popular in the region of Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("Yogurt and chickpeas") which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil.

пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The style's a bit odd (since "region of Palestine" can only mean Palestine), but I think this is OK per WP:NPOV. I think we might have a solution. —Ashley Y 05:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Israeli Settlement seems to have gone for "Samaria". Given the number of sources provided, I'm not convinced that's wrong (though if additional sources saying "West Bank" were provided, that might be different).

But that aside, if we go for the "cultural context" approach, then we have to ask, what and how is the term used in that context? And it's pretty clear that it's "Palestine" and not "region of Palestine" in the cultural context of the source. —Ashley Y 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still siding with finding a better source that is neutral to all, however "region of Palestine" is heading, if albeit inching, towards a possible consensus, although I would still prefer it to say "region historically known as Palestine"...since it is a clarification of an undisputable fact... Anyhow nothing is set in stone and I'm open to additional constructive suggestions.

In regards to Ashley Y's comment immediately before mine, are you opposed to using the term "region of Palestine"? Its hard to acertain a position from your most recent comment, except that you are basically saying it misrepresents the source because its not following the "cultural context of the source"?? Where as previously you had said:

A related dish from the region of Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("yogurt and chickpeas") which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil.

This doesn't misrepresent the source, and clarifies that Palestine is not a country. —Ashley Y 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to figure out where everyone stands. The various comments on this page have gotten so long and often circular, that its hard to keep everything straight. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with "region of Palestine and Jordan" as one big region. But is the intent to use wikilinking to separate that into "region of Palestine" and "Jordan"? It's not my preference if so, but I believe it's OK for WP:NPOV. "Historically called" is inappropriate, since it's still called that, albeit not by everyone. Most importantly, the source is calling it that. —Ashley Y 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Popping in with some suggestions: "Eastern Mediterranean" or "Transjordan" (is that too archaic?). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The ref is talking about the provenance of a specific dish Laban ma Hummus and referencing a cultural region/group. It says "Palestine and Jordan". "Eastern Mediterranean" is far too broad (includes Lebanon, Syria, Israel), and "Transjordan" is far too limited (only refers to Jordan). Tiamut^talk 14:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regions

How do people feel about these?

• region of Palestine and Jordan
• region of Palestine and Jordan
• regions of Palestine and Jordan

I'm OK with all three, but I don't think there's consensus for the first. In my opinion, the third reads better than the second, and doesn't depend on wikilinking for grammar. —Ashley Y 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer number two, as it makes clear that the region bit refers to Palestine rather than Jordan (which is a country rather than a region). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On the condition that we can write State of Israel or state of Israel, to be clear its referencing a government and not the land. It's a joke. But I think you get my WP:POINT.

I think G-Dett raised an important point in her "Outside comment" above. The use of Palestine in the context of an article on culture, should not be problematic. However, given that at this article, some editors are unwilling to concede that point and are limited to perceiving the term only in its political context, I'm wiling to accept "the region of Palestine" so as to put an end to this debacle. I still think it's redundant and a little misleading (We don't know for sure that the author is referencing the region of Palestine, he may in fact mean the country, which is recognized by over half the world.) No matter though. I'm willing to sacrifice accuracy and the strong conviction that my position is the right one, for the sake of compromise here.

For the record though, this dispute should not be artificially imported into other articles using the term. If I see editors coming along trying to change Palestine to "the region of" in other articles, or trying to change the article name itself, I can't promise what my reaction will be, and I will not be impressed if anyone references this conversation as a way of pressuring me to accept a similar compromise elsewhere. If the use of Palestine is opposed elsewhere, it needs to be discussed on a case by case basis, looking at the sources, the context, etc. In articles related to Palestinian culture, there should be no problem whatsoever with using "Palestine" just as there is no problem whatsoever in those contexts with using the term "Samaria" (Which while a loaded political term when used in I-P articles, in culture articles is just fine. Check out Palestinian costumes to see what I mean.)

So there it is. Thanks to G-Dett for your insight and ability to make me see things from another perspective. Others may feel free to chime in now. Tiamut^talk 14:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Palestinians" or the "Palestinian region(s)" if you want to make a distinction between the Israeli areas but I still think the "region of Palestine" is vague and NPOV. That way there is no confusion with the Mandate area or Israel. Everyone knows what is meant by the Palestinian region, not so with Palestine.

• The Palestinian regions and Jordan-- Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not following you at all. We have an article about Palestine where the term is defined. We do not have one that defines Palestinian regions and I have no idea what that means. Tiamut^talk 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I just made an error I corrected it above. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the article defines Palestine : Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria. In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River. Palestine can also refer to the Proposed Palestinian State. Within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the use of the term Palestine can arouse fierce controversy.

Which meaning are you referring to? If you mean the first, then you are including Israel and Jordan and the statement becomes redundant as well as not reflecting the meaning of quote. If you mean the "narrow" definition, that still includes Israel, and if you mean the "proposed Palestinian state" perhaps that is what should be said. ie "Hummus is popular in Jordan and in the proposed Palestinian state." Or in the "Palestinian regions." Tundrabuggy (talk)

Look Tundrabuggy, I don't like the suggested compromise versions above, any more than you do. But I'm putting aside my personal opinion on the matter to achieve consensus here. If you want to keep arguing about the different meanings of Palestine, you are free to do so. But it's a side issue, since Palestine is defined in the article on that subject and the controversy and scope of the concept is covered there, for those who may be confused.

This is a food article, and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 101. When an author writes that Hummus ma Laban is from "Palestine and Jordan", that's what we should write too. It's really straightforward. But since some people can't understand that, we have to find a compromise. There are three listed above. I picked number 1, Number 57 picked number #2. Which one do you like? Tiamut^talk 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the three options, I would choose option #2. I'm sure this will ignite a firestorm, but it seems to be the best, although imperfect, solution of the three. --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with choice #3, but could live with choice 2. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As the article has come off protection, I have changed it to "region of Palestine" per the above. I hope that this effectively closes the warring. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's not my first, or even second choice, you won't see me touching those words with a ten-foot pole. I hope that others can respect the need for quiet around it in particular and I hope that we can get back to discussing the other ways this article needs to be improved as well. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I support Number 57's edits. I've added some info on the Zionist settlers's adoption of hummus. Oddly, the owrd Palestine is now in the article after all... -- Nudve (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing odd about that. It had been in the article for the better part of a year, before Number 57 reverted it out, leading the page protection. What is odd is that this is the only article to use the word Palestine but link it as region of Palestine. But hey, no biggie. Just this once. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial items

To those brave and courageous defenders of truth, I commend you for your successful attempts to bring to light the horrific incorporatation of the highly controversial term "Palestine" in this article. I shudder to think what the world would be like without your staunch defense of right over wrong, and your uncompromising defense of NPOV. Hmm, perhaps with your torch of bravery you can direct all the other editors' attention to the other conversial terms in this seemingly simple article about food:

1. Refering to "Israel" instead of "state of Israel". Tiamut, you may be joking, but I'm serious, this is NOT NPOV

2. Referring to hummus as "Israeli cuisine". Hence suggesting ownership/origin of this food to "Israelis" despite obvious cultural incorporation. By similar logic, Sushi should be refered to as "British cuisine" since I know many places where it is served in London.

3. and adding insult to injury, the removal of the statement on cultural incoropation of hummus in Israel and its adaptation as a Jewish dish.

Sarcasm aside, all these recent edits strongly suggest as pattern of POV pushing, but every time, their defenders argue NPOV and everyone believes them. What a bunch of crybabies. I've watched and read fro quite a while and this forum has become a joke. If you are truly concerned about removing "controversial" words or statements, than I expect some serious efforts to also address the above 3 issues. Otherwise, the objections over "Palestine" are nothing other than a insincere rant of people with a anti-Arab POV agenda: so vigilant that not even an article about food gets by their watch. Truth-mn (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth-mn, I agree, it's not a joke. My comment was designed to point out the obvious unfairness. "Israel" is a deeply offensive word to hundreds of millions of people in the world. So is "Palestine". If we're going to accomodate the sensitivities of some people by appending "region of" to "Palestine", we should consider adding "state of" to Israel. That is why I was against a compromise on this point, because it leads to neverending debates about what to call things, instead of just using what's written in the source.

BUT I've seen this kind of debate before (at Palestinian people we once argued for weeks about whether or not we could describe them as a nation (as in a group of people who identify together on national grounds. We had to settle for "a people" in the end, because some individuals simply refused to scknowledge what the RS's said, and then claimed it was "confusing" terminology, because its meaning was close to nation-state.) That experience left me deeply unsatisfied yes, but it put an end to the edit warring and debate over the whole issue there, which was a total waste of time.

About 2 and 3 ... again I fully share your perspective. I agreed to including this article in the category of Israeli cuisine on the understanding that we would discuss the process by which it became a part of Israeli cuisine, because it's documented in RS's and is a relevant controversy to this article. Some people have since tried to claim that including this information is unnecessary "politicization", but why we should ignore things because they are controversial is just beyond me. These issues can still be discussed of course and I won't give up trying to include some of that information.

Anyway, that's my fifty cents. Tiamut^talk 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel and Israel cuisine should be remove because none countries in which hummus is native to recognize legitimacy of israel state and because it not israel food, but food israel have adopted; this like america adopt Spring roll as common food on appeteazer menu or many countries that use British Worcestershire sauce in food. Even though those food item used in many country, only origin countries be listed. Same should be for hummus.

For more example to why hummus should not include israel references: most jewish citizen of israeli state only reside in middle east since 1948. Before land was the home to Palestinians and other arabs. Most jew who come to Israeli state in 1948 formerly reside in former USSR, Europe, and United States. Therefore it can not be food of citizen of Israeli state and therefore not Israeli cusine or cuisine attribute to Israeli state.

The sentence in question should say "Palestine and Jordan" because palestine exist in past and palestine exist in present and palestine will continue to exist. It is forever because you cannot change name of region that have been known as name for thousands of year just because recent settler decide they want to name land after country that not exist since ancient time. Furthermore source is not bias because of this reason and source explcitly say "Palestine and Jordan". Sorry for poor english. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

Not to start a culture war, but if what you are saying is correct, that "most jews in Israel came to the country after 1948 from Europe, the USSR and the US"...well how do you explain Mizrahi Jews, who account for nearly half (3-3.5 million) of the Jewish population of Israel and have lived in the middle east since antiquity?? --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming that all Mizrahim are from the ME (many from North Africa) 3 million Mizrahim would be 55% of the Jewish population, 3.5 million would be 65% of the Jewish population a better way of expressing it would have been 45% of the total population of Israel also 22% of the total population of Israel is Palestinian....Besides it comes down to the Fava bean/chickpea split...Most of the Mizrahim coming from ME countries would have been Fava bean Hummus eaters, Israel Mizrahim use which sort of Hummus Fava bean or chickpea? If the Israeli dish is Fava bean hummus then it was imported if it's chickpea then it is an adopted dish...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nsaum75 it do not matter where jews come from, whether Mizrahi or Ashkenazi, the land that make up Israeli state is Islamic territory that was taken away from Islamic palestinian by British and given to jews. Many argue that british had no right to give away that which not theirs. No matter, whatever middle eastern food mizrahim or ashkenazi jews in Israel state eat and claim is theres, it cannot be because the food was developed by arabs in islamic lands and israel exist on land that be eternal islamic territory.Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

Ani medjool, please read WP:SOAP. The above comment has nothing to with improving this article. Let's try to focus on that, rather than making religious or national claims here, okay? Tiamut^talk 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion from SilkTork

A) I like the way the article is building. This promises to develop into a worthy article.

B) Greece needs to be mentioned. For many Europeans the main association with hummus would be Greece. There would be more scholarly references and Ghits for "Greece hummus" and "Greek hummus" than for "Palestine hummus".

C) This source is useful. [Hummus] lay, he said, with the whole of "Bilad al Sham" – the old Arabic term for the Levant, or Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and historic Palestine combined. "Then hummus was spread by the Turkish occupation," he added. The phrase "historic Palestine" would be accurate as part of a discussion of the potential origin of hummus.

D) Where there is a conflict we look to solutions. We discuss ways forward to give least offense, while keeping an eye on accuracy and truth. We don't skirt issues or censor just to appease people, but neither do we cause offense where there is no rational need.

E) The dish in question (laban ma' hummus) can be sourced to Palestine and Jordan. However, people have pointed out that the wording can be put in a less contentious manner while still keeping the accuracy and truth.

F) The dish in question is not central to the article. Indeed, most mentions of the dish are on Wikipedia mirror sites. The contentious sentence could be removed.

G) Continued insistence on using a contentious word in a dubious sentence when satisfactory alternatives have been offered might be seen as potentially disruptive. We need to be working together to reduce drama. There are places to make a stand, this very clearly is not one of them. The entire sentence regarding laban ma' hummus is minor and even questionable to the value of the article. Arguing over the use of a political term within this sentence is not helpful.

H) Solutions:

1. Remove the entire contentious sentence(s).
2. Rewrite avoiding words that are known to create drama (Palestine).

I wish people luck in sorting this issue. I have archived earlier talk to make this page easier to navigate. SilkTork *^YES! 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with your argument. One is that there are three sources that use the word "Palestine" and "Hummus" which we cite in this article. One notes Hummus is popular in Palestine, one discusses the development of the chickpea in history, and one references the dish Laban ma Hummus. So you are suggesting we ignore the terminology and facts presented in three sources, not one. Are to disqualify the use of sources or exclude information simply because of the "P-word"?

The second, is that you ignore that people have problems with the word "Israel" as well, and the inclusion of Hummus into the category of "Israeli cuisine". However, it was decided to enorce NPOV when dealing with those issues and include all relevant information, even if it offended some people. To now suggest that we omit "Palestine" cause it offends people comes off as simply unfair, biased, and a total double-standard. Tiamut^talk 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Hummus Greek..Israeli...Palestinian or Lebanese..[17] looks like it's not Greek or Israeli...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Palestinian but I do know enough to say that Hummus is a traditional ME dish, trying to insert Greek or Israel in is like a modern tradition made up yesterday. Please try not to get wiki headlines like these..[18]

The Lebanese case is likely to meet resistance from other Middle Eastern cooks, for whom hummus is as pan-Arab as Marmite is English.

"No one has the right to call hummus and falafel his national dish," said Siham Baghdadi Zurub, a Ramallah-based chef and author of the Arabic-language cookbook The Palestinian Cuisine. She argued that in fact Palestinians were the first to make hummus of chickpeas, since the crop was plentiful, rather than from fava beans as done in Egypt and Syria. "Putting copyright on certain dishes is a selfish trend that reflects insecurity and lack of common sense."

[19]....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

She just contradicted herself she said no1 has the right to call hummus their own yet she is saying it is for Palestinians...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.70 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We haven't even touched some major points in the article such as the proper amount of lemon juice in hummus varying by ethnicity. All this warring is about a few words that won't make a bit of difference re the hummus itself. It is about the middle east conflict.
I propose that the article be unprotected, that the combatants be given free rein to war about about anything they want that has nothing to do about hummus, and that the page remain unprotected until even the combatants are tired of the fighting. When they stop fighting on the talk page, they might start talking about consensus. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection Expired

The article is now free to edit. Please don't edit war or be disruptive about the correct description for Palestine, The Palestinian territories or anywhere else connected to the Isreal-Palestine arbitration. This does not mean 3rr, it means edit warring period. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

sticking to the sources

So that no one will miss it, I've matched some of the new text much more closely to the cited sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this earlier (up the page), but it got kind of lost amid the "Palestine and Jordan" issue.

• Gur, Jana (Oct 21, 2008). "Hummus History: Tales of a Wandering Chickpea". The Santa Fe New Mexican.

This is an article in the cooking section of a newspaper. I think it's reliable enough for claims relating to hummus today (such as the popularity of hummus in Israel), but probably not for historical claims such as the "eager, almost childish, embrace of the Levant" etc. I'd want to know where Gur is getting that from.

• Volcot-Freeman, Eythan-David "Culinary Zionism: an ingathering of edibles", Present Tense Magazine, retrieved 1 December 2008

Does anyone know anything about Volcot-Freeman or Present Tense Magazine? —Ashley Y 09:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a new opinion to WP:NORN

Added a new opinion to WP:NORN on the "region of Palestine" debate. I didn't notice that the debate had cooled off by the time I added more. Anyway, after looking closely at the cited source and finding an additional source, we can expand the wording w.r.t the yogurt version of hummus as "Israel, the Palestinian Territories, and Jordan". More info at NORN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hummus in America

Just can't pass this up. Re the Arab/Israel conflict. A few days ago, I noted that the most common hummus [of many kinds] in my local markets was from a company whose name is "Sabra". Just a note.

And interesting re America, all hummus in the stores contains tahini, yet the name is "hummus". Not just chickpeas, it is hummus bi tahini, forget the tahini in the name. --Dumarest (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In everyday speech, hummus bi tahini is called hummus by almost everyone, everywhere, even the sources echo this usage. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LEBANON

Why is there no mention of Lebanon and hummus since the Lebanese form of hummus is the most famously known today?The origins of the Olive is Syria, Lebanon, Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.70 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Lebanese bebe (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the origins of the olive is concerned, this is a similar issue to the Israel v Palestine one above. Both "Palestine" and "Syria" are used in archeological texts (specifically the one used as a referenced source in the article) to refer to regions. These regions do not correspond to modern national boundaries. Modern day politics may mean that some people may be keen to replace "Palestine" with "Israel" or "Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories" and Syria with "Lebanon and Syria", but that is not what the source says and interpretation of it can constitute WP:Original Research.

As for where hummus is most famously knowm today. Famously known by whom? Here in Britain, it's generally thought of as a Greek dish. This may be incorrect but it is what is "famously known". A WP:Reliable source would be needed to decide where people generally think the dish comes form. As it is, the earliest definite siting of the dish that we have been able to identify in sources is the one that palces it in the Damascus area. Any other mentions of places in the article should be if there is a particularly distinctive way of serving it associated with a place. I'm not convinced that serving it with bread, easpecially pita bread is at all distinctive.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the dish is certainly known as "Lebanon dish", not a Greek food. Sources are abundant to back it up.-Caspian blue 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the article clearly says it is a Levantine Arab dish. The Levant includes Lebanon along with Syria, Palestine, and part of Iraq. Hummus is clearly not a Greek dish, and the article already mentions this. --macrakis (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so clearly "not a Greek dish." Chickpeas, sesame, and olive oil are long established in Greece as well as the Eastern Mediterranean countries known as the Levant. I've added a citation; see References. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. Beef, cheese, and bread have been around for millennia, but that doesn't show that cheeseburgers were part of (say) ancient Egyptian cuisine. It is good to have sources, but the sources have to be good. Cookbooks are generally poor sources for culinary history, and in this case, I can assure you that the cookbook is way off base. --macrakis (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that cookbooks are not the best references. For that reason I would be inclined to remove both the recent references to Lebanon and to Greece. In fact, looking at the recipe at the Lebanese links, it has a lot of yoghurt and no tahini or lemon juice. Rather than being what Westerners understand as hummus, it is another dish that happens to contain a lot of chickpeas and therefore gets a name that includes "hummus" in it in Arabic.

Be careful about saying "clearly" however when saying it is not Greek. Googling "hummus Greek" gets approximate twice as many hits as "hummus Lebanese. This shows that an argumentum ad Google is not a reliable way of reaching the truth, but it demonstrates that "clearly" is not the best description. What you should say is that reliable sources on food history say that the dish is Levantine. An unreliable source that half-supports this point is the Greek Wikipedia article in hummus which describes it as Anatolian. They may have got the place wrong, but at least they know it isn't Greek.

Anyway, I've now convinced myself that both the Lebanese and Greek edits are a) factually incorrect and b) not reliably sourced. SO I'm off to edit the article page.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. About the Greek wikipedia article on hummus (really just a stub), it actually says it is from the "Μέση Ανατολή" i.e. the Middle East. The usual Greek term for Anatolia is Μικρά Ασία ('Asia Minor'). --macrakis (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Stavros. Shows the problems in scanning articles in languages that aren't ones I've studied significantly for words I think I recognise. Interesting that the Turks use a Greek-derived name that the Greeks themselves don't use. Anyway it does demonstrate that the Greeks don't regard the dish as one of their own.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hummus in Greece????

It is not part of any type of greek cuisine!It must be understood at last that tahini and tahini related foods are not part of gr cuisine(Only Halwa is consumed).This fact is so well known that I didn't feel any obligation to explain the obvious, it sounds so silly!Is tandoori food traditional english food because we find it in every take away corner in the UK? Of course not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.89.74 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See article on Turkish coffee [[20]] also known as Armenian coffee, Cypriot coffee, Palestinian coffee etc. In Greece they do call it Greek coffee. RPSM (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation from The Complete Book of Greek Cooking; see References. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Hummus is GREEK! I'm surprised to see people say it isn't. True its Middle Eastern but it is also Mediterranean and known as Hommus in Greece too. You guys are saying its arab but other groups in the middle east like syriacs(assyrian aramaic) and kurds eat it as well. Can't you just say Middle Eastern and Greek or Mediterranean and explain this? Come on--all the Hummus i see in stores says athenos or greece on it. One resteraunt even has a Greek Pizza with a swirl of hummus! Trust me it's either Middle Eastern and Greek or Mediterranean. I am part Greek for once-take it from me.SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also Athenos-brand Gorgonzola cheese (well, imitation, made-in-USA Gorgonzola).

Can you find a cookbook published in Greece from before, say, 1980, that mentions hummus as anything but a Middle Eastern dish? I don't think so. --macrakis (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes-as a matter of fact--I CAN!! Why are you harming Greece's claim to Hummus. It is true. Are you one of those Arab nationals that believes all the Middle East is arab?--SchnitzelMannGreek. 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Plus the article doesn't say Middle Eastern-it says Arab. There are many people in the mid east that eat hummus and aren't arab like jews, kurds and syriacs. Why not put middle eastern -forget the term arab!SchnitzelMannGreek. 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume good faith and abide by WP:No personal attacks. If you can find such a cookbook then please let us know what it is. Wikipedia's editorial policy is not to include what everybody thinks they know but to WP:Verify facts in WP:Reliable sources. It most certainly is not to take any particular set of nationalistic claims on face value but rather to follow a WP:Neutral point of view which reflects the reliable literature--Peter cohen (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Without a verifiable source there is nothing to talk about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying to put Middle Eastern instead of "Levantine Arab" Groups like Jews Kurds and the Aramaic Assyrians(syriacs) eat it as well.SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Levantine Arab has to do with the origins of this dish, not who eats it today. You would need to give a reliable source to even talk further about putting a wider origin for this food into the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Syriacs were in the Middle East and history before the Arabs arrived in the 600 AD. Hummus was eaten and developed there by those groups like the Jews and Syriacs!!!SchnitzelMannGreek. 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But, as I said above, that still needs to be reliably sourced. All our efforts so far, have been unable to identify the dish any earlier than 18th century Damascus. If you could find an academic study that places it earlier we would be most grateful. Also the Arabs did not displace the Syriacs. If you look at places such as Syria#Ethnic_groups, you'll see that the majority of people in the Levant are largely the descendants of older peoples of the neighbourhood who have adopted an Arab culture.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The three most common spellings for the word as transliterated into English are hummus, hommos and hoummos

Can someone substantiate this? The last isn't even listed as an option at the head of the article. Is it a typo for hoummous, which is, and has a lot more Google hits?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Only saying this first bit for outlook, the first time I ever saw the word (when I first ate the stuff, as a teen), I recall it was spelled hummous but this was in a linguistically French context. These days I do mostly see it spelled hummus. As you know, Google searches for spellings are handy for quick takes and keen guesses but not at all scientific or reliable as to usage (since spellings might be copied across the web owing to the appeal of the source or text in which they're found, rather than by overall usage and so on). This said, your Google search may be a hint that this at least needs looking into along with some sourcing so I've tweaked the text for now, taking out the word most. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorizations

I recently removed the category tag Category:Mediterranean cuisine from this article, but another editor re-added it. I still think it is an inappropriate and incorrect tag. There are two possible justifications for this tag: one, that the Levant is part of the Mediterreanean, and therefore that hummus should be categorized as Mediterranean. But the duplicate categorization rule rejects this. The other possible justification is that hummus is somehow a pan-Mediterranean dish that deserves to be treated as such. I see no evidence for this -- for that matter, the whole concept of "Mediterreanean cuisine" as a concept is questionable (see quotes in Mediterranean cuisine). Sure, you can get hummus in Athens, Rome, and Marseille the same way you can get pizza and hamburgers in Oslo, Peking, and Capetown, but I don't think hummus is even considered part of North African cuisine, let alone Spanish, Provencal, Italian, or Greek cuisine. So in what sense is it "Mediterreanean"? Perhaps in the Mediterranean diet sense? But that is an American invention with not much to do with the actual cuisine of the Mediterranean (see quotes in Mediterranean diet). --macrakis (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If we had a generic "cuisine of the lands of the former Ottoman Empire", that would be more precise. Yes the food is of Levantine origin, but having visited Turkey and eaten in Greek, Cypriot and Moroccan restaurants, it is an item that is now firmly established as part of those cuisines.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

to Guy0307

Because after the Israelis stole the Arabs lands, they started stealing the Arabs foods, that's why. Here in Sweden you can eat kebab at every single restaurant. This does not mean that kebab is Swedish cuisine.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that would probably include every single Israeli food. And the fact that you think the Israelis stole the land is purely your opinion. Waiting for more comments, I'll probably ask for RfC. Guy0307 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Matzah balls and gefilte fish is still yours. The majority of the rest is Arab food that Israel stole. Food that has nothing to do with israel in any way and is not israeli cuisine but that israelis like to claim as israeli cuisine, as you have just done in this article about an arabic dish: Hummus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Supreme Deliciousness, comments such as "stealing land" or "stealing culture" are not WP:NPOV and therefore, when you edit an article, please refrain from using this POV as means of motivation for your edits. And regardless, Jews have been in the middle east just as long as Arabs, so who is to say Jews (some of the Israeli) didn't have a hand in developing Arab cuisine?

Guy0307: If you read this talk page, it has been agreed upon several times that no national cuisine categories should be included in this article. The origins of hummus are not clear, and therefore we can only agree that it is a food common to the Arab culture as a whole and is a food historically and traditionally found in Levantine and Mediterranean countries.

I hope this helps in clearing up this situation. Of course, being wikipedia, we are always open to re-visiting past opinions and discussions. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

-Nsaum75, So you will revert what Guy0307 posted in the article? Actually saying stealing land and stealing culture in this situation is a neutral point of viem, it is the opposite that is not neutral beacuase it is undermining Arab history and falsly implementing that foreign invading forces has claims to our Arab culture and Arab foods. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I would revert it based on the reasons I gave based on not having any national categories. However, saying "stealing land" and "stealing culture" is not a neutral point of view; Some could argue that that by saying so, you are denying the development of Jewish and Israeli culture.

Please try to refrain from using these WP:POV arguments in your editing. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not denying anything. A neutral point of view is the truth. I am helping the Jews to get rid of Arab foods and culture that has been falsly incorporated with them in this article and many others on wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)