Talk:Falafel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

First use in English

Would it be useful to add an observation like "The word was first used in English around 1951."<ref>''Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary'' (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1985).</ref>? (Or update that reference with a later version of the dictionary.) For that matter, what does the OED say about the word? The first quotations cited there might pertain to a topic discussed above: the purveyance & date of the arrival of the food in Western Europe and North America. Jacob (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Think that is worth adding, but it would be more accurate to say something like "the first recorded use...". --FormerIP (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The next time I go the library with old fashioned paper books, I'll see what the OED says about the origins. The online Oxford dictionary giver the "pepper" explanation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED gives, as its first recorded use, the following: Commentary (N.Y.) XI. 269 Falafel: sharp peppers and fried dried pea balls sandwiched in a flat roll called a pitah. Falafel is a standard meal around some urban and most interurban bus stops, where one spends a good part of one's life. nableezy - 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No need for paper; the online OED is more up to date, and includes the 1951 quotation as earliest; I've added it. I also antedated the word to 1941 in English, and added that. I tried using Google Book Search to date the word in Arabic, but the Arabic OCR is terrible and most of the hits are bogus. (Not to mention that my Arabic is pretty weak.) It would be great if an Arabic-literate editor could find earlier uses of the word, or mentions of the thing itself under any name (falafel, ta'amiya, or whatever else). As I said above, for a food that supposedly dates back to the pharaohs, it's pretty disappointing not to have any solid history at all! --Macrakis (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

fresh (and ignorant) eyes

For what it is worth, the pepper etymology also seems suspect to me if the dish does not contain pepper. Did it ever? Would it be possible to summarize the alternate explanation with the intermediate arguments sourced with the Coptic dictionary and some other authorities? I realize that the problem revolves around the lack so far of other authorities. My reaction to this discussion is that the name probably *does* come from the word for beans but that I wish there were better sources as I can't assess the brilliance of the alternate origin hypothesis ;) However, speaking as someone who might come to the article as a reader, I would find some discussion of the question to be of interest, providing it came low on the page, as I'd more likely be looking up falafel to decide whether I wanted some for dinner ;) Elinruby (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Would it be possible to summarize the alternate explanation with the intermediate arguments sourced with the Coptic dictionary and some other authorities?" No! -- for both substantive and procedural reasons:

• Substantive reason: PHA-LA-PHEL is not a possible Coptic phrase -- as the one expert on Egyptian linguistics here says above, it would translate as something peculiar like "that which belongs to beanful"; he says it "practically screams 'Hello, I'm a folk etymology!'".

Then this linguist does not understand Coptic. "Pha" does not necessarily mean "belongs to". It can mean "endowed with" or "possessing". For example, there is a hymn in the Coptic Church for Archangel Michael that starts with: "Pha ni tenh enhat", which is translated "[He] who possesses the silver wings...". So that particular objection over technical grounds is invalid. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural reason: that would be original research, that is, us wikipedians making non-trivial inferences rather than depending on high-quality published research.

I agree that a connection with ful 'bean' sounds plausible, but lots of things sound plausible. Isn't it very plausible that 'belfry' should be related to 'bell'? and very implausible that it is related to 'afraid'? But in fact it is related to 'afraid', and not to 'bell'. --Macrakis (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a source!

Gentlemen, I have found an existing source. "The Abbreviated Coptic-English Dictionary", written by Adeeb B. Makar, ISBN No: 977-5908-10-X, first edition 2001 states on page 185: "Φαλαφελ (falafel') m. Falafel. (lit. that which has lots of beans). See Φα, Λα, Φελ". Additionally, the meaning of "λα" is resolved on page 77: "Λα (la) prefix indicating many, a lot of." There's your source. I have uploaded the scans from the dictionary here. Can someone now please update the article? Sherifhanna700 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sherifhanna, but that looks like a WP:SELFPUB source and it doesn't appear to be providing an etymology in any event.

I think, though, that if the word can be shown to be attested to at all in Coptic (i.e. if it can be found at all in a proper academic reference work), then that would go a long way towards making your case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this a self-published work? And why is not considered a proper academic reference work? The dictionary lists a long and distinguished list of sources and previous academic works - I can scan the bibliography list for you. What is the standard by which you are measuring here?Sherifhanna700 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It *looks* to me like it would come under SELFPUB because it is published by a church rather than, say, a university, an academic press or a well-known publishing house. But, more than that, it doesn't give an etymology, but a supposed literal meaning. I think it is a dictionary designed for language-teaching, rather than for scholarly study of Coptic. I don't think it provides convincing evidence that "falafel" is even an authentic Coptic word.

This would be an excellent book for settling the question. I don't have access to it, unfortunately. But if this or a similar book has an entry for falafel, then I will probably start to agree with your side of things. --FormerIP (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A favorite book of mine... these days I consult it almost daily. But trust me, phalaphel is not in there. --Iustinus (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That book is accessible at Amazon. It doesn't appear to have the word falafel in it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

By that same token, how do the sources cited for the "filfil" etymology pass this test of providing "convincing evidence" that "falafel" comes from "filfil"? Sherifhanna700 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the dictionary cited for that gives proper word-origin accounts for its entries, whereas Makar's just gives Coptic/English translations. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. It simply says "Arabic pepper is filfil, the source of FALAFEL", and that's it. In fact, this particular etymology is probably the best example of another take on "wormwood" is from "worm" and "wood". To the author of that dictionary, "filfil" just sounds like "falafel", so he put it there. The fact still remains that there is no pepper in falafel, but there are "lots of beans". "Phalaphel" is a real word, not a phrase, and I have shown it documented in a dictionary. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The entries in that dictionary deal in word-origins. That's the type of dictionary to which we need to refer. The OED has the same: "from colloquial Egyptian Arabic falāfil, plural of Arabic fulful, filfil 'pepper'". My difficulty here is that I don't think the compilers of the OED can be so ignorant as to have missed this obvious link to Coptic. I want evidence that some scholar in the field has reached this conclusion.

And, let's not go round in circles, but there is more often pepper in falafel than there is beans. And, finding "falafel" in a dictionary designed for teaching a dead language doesn't tell us much. Consider this, for example.--FormerIP (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How in the world is there "more often pepper in falafel than there is beans"? The main ingredient in falafel is beans - whether it is fava beans as in the original Egyptian recipe, or garbanzo beans as in the later variations. These beans are soaked and minced, and the resulting paste is mixed with flavoring agents. You saying that there is more often pepper in falafel than there is beans is like saying that wheat flour is not the main ingredient in bread. Have you ever eaten or even seen falafel? I am beginning to doubt it, based on your last statement. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the side-issue of how to make falafel... Garbanzo beans (chick peas) are not "phel" in Coptic (they are "ershish" - page 59 of Crum). So "Pha-la-phel" could only refer to falafel made from fava beans. That's less common today, but we have no way of knowing (as far as I am aware) which was used back in the day. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Pepper is an extremely common, but not essential, ingredient, whether you are using beans or chick peas. Cayenne pepper is probably most common. So, the originating falafel recipe may or may not have used beans and may or may not have used pepper. We don't know. --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add something. Here we have a food with a large consensus on its origin (Egypt), a reasonable explanation for why it was invented (by the Copts as a meat substitute during Lent), and the name of the food in the native language of said country of origin. Have we not all heard of Occam's Razor? The fact that the word "falafel" itself is a Coptic word sums up the whole story very well. And it's not a contrived explanation - we have shown it is a real word in Coptic, and even its constituent parts (pha, la, phel) are also real Coptic words. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You've shown everything other than that an expert agrees with your theory. And please understand, I'm not saying its necessarily a rotten theory, just that I want to see it confirmed in black and white, which is Wikipedia's normal standard. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, with all due respect, this is not "my theory". That's what I need you to see here. I am not the one that originated this theory. And I have in fact shown it confirmed in black and white, but you refuse to accept the source. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's not your theory. But it is clearly a folk theory - i.e. unless it can be shown otherwise, it is one of many things that are traditionally believed but may or may not be true (if we could get a source saying that it is traditionally believed, we could certainly add that to the article). Can you appreciate that we should be careful about adding such things to the encyclopaedia without being sure whether or not they are agreed upon by experts on the subject? --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. But I feel that this theory has passed this criteria with the citation in the dictionary that I provided today, and I disagree very strongly with it being a "folk theory". The vast majority of Egyptians (the "folks here") don't have the slightest clue that the word is in fact Coptic (like many other words in colloquial Egyptian Arabic are). Only Coptic scholars know, and one of them cited it directly in his book. You just refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of that book. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

By "folk theory", I do not mean to say it is something believed in only by the great unwashed. Perhaps "common misconception" would be a better term. Are you able to offer anything that demonstrates that this is not a common misconception? You say that Coptic scholars know about this. Are you able to cite one that talks about it?

I will agree that scholarly articles is a high bar. But I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a reference to any dictionary in any language, so long as comes from a publisher with some sort of reputation, that references a Coptic origin for the word. Or any similarly published book or scholarly article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sherifhanna, thanks for finding this reference. I agree with FormerIP that this is not a strong source, and the etymology still smells fishy. But it would be great if we could find Coptic attestations of the word FALAFEL from when Coptic was still a living language! Right now, we have no evidence of the word from before the 20th century in any language. --Macrakis (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Macrakis, why is the etymology fishy still? Your former objections to Pha and La are now cleared. What else remains? Sherifhanna700 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, if falafel is a Coptic word, it must date from the 18th century or before. But so far we have no attestations before the 20th century in any language. Part of the reason for this is that many contributors to the English Wikipedia don't know Arabic or Coptic, but regardless, we simply have no history for the word -- so your help here would be great. Secondly, the etymology 'of many beans' still sounds peculiar. If you look at the examples of LA in the dictionary you kindly copied for us, it looks as though it would make sense for a dish to be called LAFEL ("bean-ful" or "beany", like the examples given, which seem to be word-ful/wordy and hair-ful/hairy), but why would it be FA-LAFEL? As Iustinus says, that seems pleonastic in a peculiar way. That doesn't make it impossible, of course. Finally, the dictionary you copied for us does not look like a solid source for etymology -- but perhaps some of the sources it gives could help? It would really be great if one of the sources has some 16th text with the word FALAFEL in Coptic (whether the etymology is FA-LA-FEL or not). --Macrakis (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"("bean-ful" or "beany", like the examples given, which seem to be word-ful/wordy and hair-ful/hairy), " -exactly the point I wanted to make. Even though the dictionary says "many beans," the two examples it gives are adjectives. --Iustinus (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I unequivocally disagree with FormerIP in attributing the source, The Abbreviated Coptic-English Dictionary", written by Adeeb B. Makar, ISBN No: 977-5908-10-X, as WP:SELFPUB. There is nothing whatsoever to back this claim. The book was indeed not self-published but rather as clearly shown from the link is in fact published by The Saint Mina Monastery Press & The Saint Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church - Antonius.org

The editor, Sherifhanna700, has taken great lengths to meet Wikipedia’s requirements for WP:RS and he has done so. There is absolutely no reason the facts he has uncovered should be kept hidden from readers or kept out of this article. Visit Antonius.org to see their book catalogue which contains only one published work by Adeeb B. Makar.

WP:RS has most certainly been met.

It may “look” to FormerIP one way but fortunately WP:SELFPUB is clearly defined. The onus is on FormerIP to prove that his claim is true rather than on Sherifhanna700 to defend that it is not. Other editors can go to the link themselves and clearly see that this is not a case of WP:SELFPUB.

At the least, Sherifhanna700’s sourced information should be included in this article. If no one else wishes to make the edit, I will do so myself.

Finally, the only thing "Fishy" is the unfortunate fact that a few editors here would have others jump through hoops and when they have successfully done so they are then given the royal run around. This is not only discouraging and discourteous, but also lowers the quality of Wikipedia, which is certainly to be avoided. Editors who dig for sources that clearly meet RS should be praised as Ravpapa has rightly done so concerning Sherifhanna700’s work. I also would like to take this opportunity to add my thanks to Sherifhanna700 for improving upon this article. Good work! Veritycheck (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy that this is a properly published Coptic dictionary, but it does not appear to be suitable as an academic source for etymology (we don't know whether the author has researched etymology of the words, or if he is a linguist) and the fact that it includes 'falafel' as a Coptic word does not, I'm afraid, establish that the word originated in Coptic before entering Arabic and via Arabic English. What we would really need, since there appears to be no dispute that the word entered English from Arabic, would be some work of reference on Arabic etymology that traces it to Coptic. However, as I've said, the only candidate for such a work I've come across is Badawi's Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic, which identifies words of Coptic (and other non-Arabic) origin but simply gives 'falafel' as a plural form of 'filfil. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is (even among scholarly etymologists) occasionaly a reluctance to deal fully with issues like this. For example, English etymologists tend to dismiss Welsh origins a little more often than strict neutrality requires. See Loreto Todd, "Where have all the Celtic words gone?" in English Today no. 63 (2001), and my comment in no. 65 of the same journal. Whether that might happen in the Arabic/Coptic context I don't know. One must admit that falafel < filfil remains the obvious and probable etymology, though well worth questioning.

In the edition that I have of Hans Wehr's A dictionary of modern written Arabic (1964), which is certainly scholarly and gives some brief etymologies, falafel is not even mentioned. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, Sherifhanna700. This seems like a better source than the learn coptic document previously posted. Whether or not it counts as a self-publication, I cannot really judge, but I do want to point out that its etymologies are not particularly impressive: for instance it says ⲫⲁⲣⲁⲱ pharaō originally meant "great sun" or "great door," which is an old folk etymology popular among scholars before Egyptian was deciphered. But in fact ⲫⲁⲣⲁⲱ is not even Coptic, really, but a Greek spelling of the Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian expression Pr-ˁɜ "Pharaoh," literally "The Great House (i.e. the royal palace)." Pr-ˁɜ survived in Coptic as ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ prro "the king." So I would not say this is a great source to prove that this etymology is valid. I would however consider it an excellent source that the etymology is current in certain circles, which certainly is relevant. --Iustinus (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Sherifhanna

for finding this source. I suspect he will now bring us a fourth-century falafel recipe from a cookbook in some dusty Sinai monastery. Keep up the great work! --Ravpapa (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sherifhanna. Veritycheck (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Sherifhanna. Your etymology is no longer OR. I agree with those above who doubt whether a general dictionary is reliable for etymology (in fact it simply depends what this dictionary's source was, and it isn't telling us) but, since the etymology is in print, I am now keen to submit a brief article on the subject to Petits Propos Culinaires -- whose readers will be interested to know how searchingly these things are discussed on Wikipedia.

What I would do at this stage, if we were on the Latin Vicipaedia where I'm at home, would be to put this etymology wholly in a footnote (including a reference to the dictionary). I wouldn't put this proposed etymology in the text of the article, even as an alternative, until some definitely scholarly publication has mentioned it. Goodness knows what the disputants above will think of that: this is not Vicipaedia, after all :) Andrew Dalby 14:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, um, Sherifhanna, if you DO find a fourth-century falafel recipe from a cookbook in some dusty Sinai monastery, please please please let us know! Especially Andrew and myself. We will go ape@*#& ;) Second of all, Andrew, please keep me abreast on this PPC article! --Iustinus (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Potius mori quam vivere in nota. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Very neat! Still, Vicipaedia and Wikipedia are works in progress, and promotion from note to text can happen. Andrew Dalby 15:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, thank YOU everyone for your support, and for pushing me to find a credible source. I do agree that we should maintain a high level of scrutiny on information added to Wikipedia - this is why I didn't just push ahead with adding the Coptic etymology myself, but wanted instead to get consensus from other editors here. By the way, I will continue in my quest to find additional sources that reference φαλαφελ, though it will take some more time. I imagine it will be challenging to find it in lexicons, given that there is no equivalent word in Latin, French, or English (I have searched through several but didn't find it). The search continues! Sherifhanna700 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest replacement of image

I suggest we replace this image:[1] with this one:[2]

The reason for this is because the Golden falafel image looks more professionally made in the way that the focus is on the sandwich and the background is a bit unfocused, the choice of background and plate is also better and the sandwich also looks more appealing to the eye.

Another important factor is that the Golden falafel image looks more like a mainstream falafel sandwich while the current image has french fries in it which is not that common. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the current image is fine. We are supposed to show variations of ways which falafel is served, of which this is one variation. In actuality, there are several places (France, for instance) I know of where fries and other garnishments are sometimes used in the sandwich. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the Golden falafel image you proposed and agree with your reasons for using it. However, that particular image does not depict any houmous/tahini which is almost always present in falafel sandwiches. Perhaps we can do even better by using one that does. Veritycheck (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus to replace it, I can take several photos of falafel pita sandwiches with hummus and tahina (I'm actually shooting some stuff to support a food magazine article IRL right now). I'm still not convinced of the need to replace it, however. Plus it looks like the current image has tahina or hummus mixed into the filling. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Arab food

The current lead doesn't indicate a particular geographical region or a culture the food belongs to, unlike most food articles (like Dango and Sushi, for example). Falafel is a traditional food throughout most Arab world, including Egypt, levant and Arab peninsula. Its name itself is of an Arabic origin. So I suggest describing it in the lead as an "Arabic food", as it is part of the Arabic culture and cuisine --aad_Dira (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

Maybe it should be called a Middle Eastern food? 96.251.19.59 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The name is taken from the Arabic language and the food is native for the Arab people, per WP:SPADE there is no need for change --aad_Dira (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC).

The name is not taken from Arabic, it is Ancient Egyptian as discussed in the article. It is in fact a genuinely Egyptian food that spread to the rest of the region. --192.35.156.11 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Yes there is two theories, but the most common is that it is taken from the Arabic word "Filfil". The other, newer theory says it is of an Coptic origin. Even though, the Egyptian local "ṭaʿmiyya" (Which is also its local name of the food in large parts of the Arab world, including the gulf states) is driven from Arabic --aad_Dira (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Except that the food itself and the ingredients used to make it have absolutely nothing to do with filfil. The problem is the broad ignorance in the Arab world of the Egyptian language and its impact. I bet you most Egyptians also don't know that "footah" is a Coptic word even though it is the local word for the proper Arabic "manshafah". --192.35.156.11 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think rather the problem is the high value Egyptians give to the coptic words. Having a local words from old language native to the region is very common: Levant (shami) dialects have many words taken from Aramic, and Maghreb dialects similarly have many Berberic words. It is a natural process that languages quote the terms used by neighborhood people, every language have too many words taken from other close languages, English itself have a very high percentage of German and Italian words. Anyway, this is not our subject, and it is not our job to discuss how trustworthy is the etymology of a word or another. An example of Arab food articles is Shawarma, it is of an levant origin, but it is described as Arab, because it is now traditional and cultural for the whole Arab world --aad_Dira (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC).

It was just a suggestion, as it sounded like you were unhappy with the name "Arab food". 96.251.19.59 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate your will of help. Both of us are free to show their views and opinions anyway :) --aad_Dira (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

We should Call it "Middle Eastern food," that would be more broad. Turkey, for example, is not an "Arab Country."

And have Turkey, "for example", been an origin country of the falafel? Or was its name, for example, driven from the Turkish language? --aad_Dira (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Just a note about my edit summary, I meant 3 days ago, not 3 years ago. nableezy - 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Question: why is falafel considered part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? That seems to be stretching things a bit. --1ST7 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You'd think it wouldn't, but it did. See here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Weird, huh? Almost like how I feel after demolishing a massive pita full of falafel on a Saturday night.

The subject has been an issue because Arabs accuse Israel of stealing food as much as land. They probably have a point but you can't really expect a neighbor to not smell your BBQ and decide to not make their own. I have not put any effort into this since GA since it was getting kind of shitty but that as a few years ago. I would love to help someone out if they want to go to FAC with this.

The lead needs expansion, the North American/potential Western Europe subsection seems too short, etymology is too fragmented, a section about the I-P real world dispute could be added, the record section should be consolidated into another section, the picture with the blue spatula isn't that good, and other things could be improved. If someone wants to go for it I'll help you out.

Are you down, Nishidani? I would love the credit for the WikiCup but not enough to tackle it on my on. It has also been kind of cool lording the fact that we somehow got a GA out of an article in this topic area. It also doesn't meet my standards in hindsight. If anyone wants to go for it you have my full backing and assistance.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly stupid. The food isn't Palestinian or Israeli, it's Egyptian and eaten in the entire Middle East. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Middle East section

I have gone back to the original cited source to check the accuracy of material found in the Middle East section concerning Palestinian resentment. The source states, “Following independence in 1948, and the influx of European Jews escaping from the Holocaust, falafel was embraced as a unifying icon that appealed to both Ashkenazi newcomers and long-established Sephardic Jews, without being the exclusive cultural property of either group.” There is no correlation made in the cited material between the iconic status of Falafel in Israel and the cause for Palestinian resentment. However, the same source goes on to state, “By the 1970’s, Jewish cookbooks included falafel recipes that made no mention of their Arab origins, which led many Palestinians to resent the appropriation of their dish.” The latter situation and not the former is defined as the cause for the resentment. I have been bold and edited the section to more accurately reflect this. Veritycheck (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

References

• Denomination of origin (covering a single word like 'Champagne') is entirely separate from copyright (covering extended creative works). One of the cited articles treats them as identical, but we shouldn't repeat the error here. Any legal complaints about use of the single word 'falafel' would be D.O., not copyright.

• This paragraph refers to "the relationship between Arabs and Israelis", but a sizeable portion of the Israeli population is Arab. Perhaps this is referring to "Israeli Jews" or even "Ashkenazic Israeli jews"? B k (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falafel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718075130/http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=43&SubSectionID=200&ArticleID=172473 to http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=43&SubSectionID=200&ArticleID=172473
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/restaurants/article-1256574-falling-for-fine-falafel.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

About the IPA

Regarding the dialectal pronunciation IPA in the beginning of the article, which dialect(s) are being referred to? This should be added to the article, as different Arabic varieties have different pronunciations. --KoveytBud (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pita

Falafel balls are commonly served in a pita, which acts as a pocket, or wrapped in a flatbread known as taboon.

In my own opinion, the word "pita" is thoroughly anglicized, and does not warrant italic presentation. I can't think of an alternate word in the whole of the (Canadian) English language for what we commonly call "pita bread". OTOH, this is my all-time first encounter with "taboon". — MaxEnt 21:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

must fava beans be cooked first?

The article suggests that dried fava beans must be cooked because of health reasons. The falafel will of course be cooked anyway, so I'm assuming that the author meant pre-cooked. But, well, does anyone really do this? And must they? The fava bean falafel recipes I find on the web make no mention of cooking them first, and in truth I imagine it would make for disastrously crumbly falafel if this were attempted. Furthermore the two references given are hardly persuasive. Thoughts anyone? 81.156.189.88 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) the beans should NOT be cooked - merely soaked for several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.187.146 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The origin of the Egyptian word

The origin of the variant Egyptian word طعمية ṭaʿmiyya is likely to be derived from [ˈtˤeʕem] ṭeʿem طعم "delicious/nice" (not to be confused with [tˤɑʕm] طعم "flavor"), rather than طعام which is not used in Egyptian Arabic. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuing falafel war: Arab vs. Middle Eastern

Discuss. Iran is not an Arab country, yet falafel is eaten there. I'm not convinced it's an exclusively "Arab" food. It started somewhere in the Middle East and spread. Enigma^msg 16:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Seems to me it’s like arguing that potatoes are exclusively a Peruvian food Andyjsmith (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You would have to give a reliable source for where it is eaten in Iran.76.187.211.251 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's eaten in the US, too, at this point. I don't think it is historic in Iran. It was brought there by Arab immigration.2605:6000:F510:8F00:8D74:4AD:286:D7BE (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlock this page

I need toy to unlock this page as I try has inaccurate and bias information Reinhearted (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Reinhearted: If there's specific information you'd like changed, you can explain it here; and if your request is reasonable, then I or another editor can make the change you desire. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 07:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the "inaccurate and bias information"? It would need a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The history says the origins are “unknown” which can be debunked as multiple sources admit the origins of the dish, it also says that the “origins of the dish has lead to fights been Arabs and Jews” which is not necessary to put Reinhearted (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it says "sometimes devolved into political discussions about the relationship between Arabs and Israelis". Which seems accurate if organisations are claiming copyright infringement over a food. But, what are these multiple sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversial change to origin

I have reverted these edits by Reinhearted. They deleted the statement "The origin of falafel is unknown and controversial" and its reliable source Carlo Petrini's "Slow Food", which is followed by "A common theory is that the dish originated in Egypt". They left the unequivocal statement "The dish originated in Egypt".

This edit seems to be a continuation of the recent edit war that led to the page being protected, by IP 24.189.29.164 (talk) ([3], [4], etc.), user Factchecker1995, and several other IPs. That edit has been reverted about ten times already by other editors including Donner60, Supreme Deliciousness, LuK3, and Macrakis, so it seems there has not been a consensus to delete this. Reinharted has this time added another citation of "History Today" [5] (which I've restored) in support of an origin in Egypt, in addition to the existing one of Shooky Galili in Ynet News, which says that "falafel was almost certainly developed in Egypt", though it also leads with a detailed description of the controversy surrounding the origins. The edit also made small changes related to the Copts, which are actually contradicted by the new source.

Other reliable sources indicate Egypt as a likely though not definitively known origin, for example Gil Marks says "Origin: Probably Egypt", but gives India or Yemen as other possibilities. The Oxford Companion to Food says "Their origin cannot be traced and is probably extremely ancient. It is, however, generally accepted that falafel originated in Egypt". The "extremely ancient" origin disagrees with the History Today source. Given that there is no general agreement among sources, the past history of edit-warring over origin in this article and a corresponding controversy in general, I think that WP:NPOV precludes making such an unequivocal statement in Wikipedia's voice about the origin. --IamNotU (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Re-pinging Reinhearted, didn't go through the first time --IamNotU (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous consensus is that it is hard to say with 100% certainty where it originated, as is true with many recipes. Egypt is considered to be one of the most likely locations, but the basic idea is a standard one in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cookery. I don't think that the article should say that it is certain that it originated in Egypt. Where sources disagree, Wikipedia should not prefer one over another and should reflect the fact that the sources disagree.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

the claim “the origins are unknown and controversial” indicates that the origins are completely unknown, even though most reliable articles indicate that it most likely originated in Egypt. The book that was used as a reference to that claim was hinting a political bias and didn’t specifically state what was written in the article. I used history today, which is known as a reliable source to indicate that the dish did indeed originate in Egypt, even though the time of origin is disputed. Also, many of the sources that dispute these claims such as “origins that trace back to India and Yemen” are haaretz and Jerusalem Post which are known to be politically bias and not entirely accurate. Reinhearted (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Political debate over origin of food

There was a claim that stated the origin of the dish resulted in ethnic disputes which was backed up by a faulty site(the link redirected me to an empty page) so I removed the citation and the statement overall. Reinhearted (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do that, a dead link is not a valid reason to delete sourced content. See WP:DEADREF. I have restored the content and fixed the link. --IamNotU (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The history today page stated that the dish originated in Egypt but the time of origin is disputed while Oxford says the similar notion but argues it could have been invented in ancient times. Both articles indicate Egypt, if most reliable sources say that it most likely comes from Egypt, then why is the first sentence “the origins are unknown and controversial” ? Reinhearted (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The text I restored was: Debates over the origin of falafel have sometimes devolved into political discussions about the relationship between Arabs and Israelis. Not seeing how the fact that there are debates is debatable. The reason given for deleting it was that the link was dead. Now it's not. If there's another reason, like "not necessary to put" or "I don't like it", that's a different discussion, see the section above. --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, we’ve stated this before on multiple discussion boards. Also, the link you’ve used as citation redirects to a blog that’s very opinionated rather than factual and doesn’t actually specifically state that the origins of falafel have lead to debates of the relationship between Arabs and Jews. It talks about how many Palestinians feel that the Israelis appropriated their food including falafel. Reinhearted (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is there still a gallery section?

There is a perfectly fine link to commons. Figure it out all ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CE7F:E270:20FD:CEF1:AA3A:3CE8 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Wikipedia articles generally should not have repetitive image galleries as this is what Commons is for. See also WP:GALLERY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Does the picture of giant fritters truly convey the dish?

That image is more of a spectacle than showing the dish. Googling "aleb falafel" of "falafel press" shows nothig of this size, while the article and every recipe discusses "balls" or small "fritters". This image is larger than chicken wings being fried.[6] Having it for the sake of novelty is annoying... at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CE7F:E270:7CDD:990F:348E:47C1 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about a source

This is my first time ever contributing to wikipedia, even as a talk page, so excuse me for any mistake I might do (although I've read a lot to try and minimize any mistakes). In the final words of the "Preparation and variations" section, it states: "Yemeni Jews are the first to introduce the concept of falafel served in a pita", looking at the source (Israeli Soul: Easy, Essential, Delicious. Michael Solomonov, Steven Cook. Page 23), it says: "Jewish food historian Gil Marks credits Yemenite Jewish immigrants with putting it all together in a pita sandwich around 1948", however, the next line clearly states: "An October 19, 1939 Palestine Post article is the first mention of the concept of falafels served in a pita bread", and indeed checking the source, published in October 19 1939, the description of Falafel being sold in Pita bread is accurate, and predates the 1948 claim, shouldn't the 1948 claim be dismissed then? --5.102.195.118 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Staple?

@Spudlace: falafel is certainly a common food in Egypt, but I'm pretty sure it's not a "staple food" by that article's definition, "a dominant portion of a standard diet", even though the History Today article says it is. That article is surely using the term in a broad sense to mean "a common food", the way you might say that hot dogs are a staple of the US diet. The staple foods of Egypt are more likely bread (khubz), beans (ful medames), and maybe koshary in the cities. --Macrakis (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections to removal. The source (which I forgot to add) was Anat Helman (OUP) quoting Clifford Wright: "The Egyptian version of the falafel is so much a staple food in Egypt that the word ta'miyya derives, in fact, from the Arabic word for nourishment". Spudlace (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alas. It would be really amusing if it somehow was the staple food of an area. 2603:8081:2603:E100:753B:6E8C:537B:AFD4 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Flatbread sentance

“Nowadays, falafel is often served in a pita, which acts as a pocket, samoon, or wrapped in a flatbread known as taboon;”

Sentence should be changed to something like “falafel is often served in flatbreads such as pita” in America at least I have never seen falafel served in the pocket of pita, I see it wrapped in breads that we call pita (What we call pita is a pretty broad category of bread) I’m not saying people don’t eat out of the pocket but I think that wrapping is more common, so I think the language should be neutral on pockets. Also that sentence was poorly written. 75.172.112.177 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

appropriation in the lead

WP:LEAD says we are supposed to summarize the body and that notable controversies belong in the lead. Why exactly should cultural appropriation by Israelis not be in the lead? nableezy - 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Images

Synotia, we dont need that many photos of falafel stands, it isnt an article on falafel stands. Beyond that, please see here where since then we settled on not overloading images and not specifying the locations. Im going to restore the prior image set up now. nableezy - 02:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Umm... what the hell? Why do people argue for so long about falafel?

Sorry but I'm not reading that whole discussion. I wanted to add a picture of Israel, and on top of that illustrate the the reach of falafel in recent decades, by adding Europe and allmighty Alaska of all places...

And may I ask, why you removed the Hebrew spelling of falafel? It's not like I added it in Papuan. You might over time have noticed the amount of people at work or elsewhere who browse the Wikipedia page of what they're eating – if they're in Israel, their stomach might thank their brain for recognizing the Hebrew word for falafel. :^) Synotia (moan) 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And sure, if you want less falafel stands, we can search for other pictures... Synotia (moan) 07:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also – asking out of ignorance – is this cultural appropriation controversy notable enough to be in the lead? Is there even an Arabic term for cultural appropriation? Synotia (moan) 08:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are various Arabic terms for cultural appropriation. Arabic Wikipedia has a few. In general, it's no minor theme in Israel-Palestine scholarship, and food is one specific angle to it. Here's the broader scope of the subject. Other Arabic terms also exist, such as that used in this paper, which reflects a meaning more along the lines of 'cultural plagiarism'. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering it's no minor theme in IP scholarship, and the fact that it has been covered by one sentence in cultural appropriation article, I think it deserves it own standalone article and would be willing to start working on that if anyone would like to join. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly enough material to boot up a page. No idea what one would call it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is there even a parallel? One thing I can think of is the Nikola Tesla Croatian vs Serbian thing, but even that doesn't have its own article. Synotia (moan) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Hebrew because it is not relevant to the etymology or history of the dish. The Greeks eat falafel too, and the Greek is not included. Arabic is included because of the etymology and place of origin of the dish. That has also been discussed previously (eg here). I cant make you read the past discussions, but all the same if we have a consensus on a topic then you should be trying to establish a new one to change it. As far as cultural appropriation, the lead is meant to summarize the article, and notable controversies likewise are supposed to be in the lead. So yes, it should be in the lead. nableezy - 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was this page protected under a "sanctions enforcement"?

How does a meatball dish have to do with a military conflict? Why protect a page to extended-confirmed status because of a block-evading user who wasn't even at extended-confirmed status? Semi-protection is what is desired here, there is no good reason to overreach when extended-confirmed disruption hasn't even happened. 2400:ADCC:15D:3F00:F4B5:F862:5B03:7DE5 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is extended confirmed because of disruptive editing lasting over a decade revolving around the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 18:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this page is about meatballs also probably shouldn't be editing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

accurate lol nableezy - 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to politicize meatballs? 95.80.223.90 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no politicization of meatballs here, or rather no meatballs to be politicized. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Etymology Falafel-

Change the romanisation of فلفل to felfel instead of pilpil as this is incorrect. 80.4.8.147 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! checked against wiktionary:فلفل#Noun_2 and it looks like you're spot on. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Falafel can't be "self-proclaimed" anything

The current text describes falafel as the "self-proclaimed" national food of Israel. Falafel can't be self-proclaimed as anything, because falafel is inanimate and can't proclaim things; rather, it's been proclaimed as the national food, presumably by Israelis. We don't need the prefix "self" anyway, since the sentence already says "in Israel"; but even if some clarifying language is needed, it can't be "self", because what that means is not correct.

After a reversion, I'm taking this to Talk, because this is a contentious page, although the contention in this edit is grammar rather than the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. (Unless someone is such an extreme partisan that they think that a food item has declared its allegiance to the state of Israel, which seems a little much even for an issue that generates such heartfelt opinions as this one does.)

—Toby Bartels (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly correct in grammatical terms, even if most people would know what is meant. I don't see any real need for the 'self' at all. Why not just say

".........has also been adopted into Israeli cuisine,[1] where it now features prominently and is seen by some Israelis as the country's national dish – a situation which has been...."Sbishop (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. In the meantime, someone else has restored my edit, and the person who reverted it seems to have tacitly accepted that, which is (of course) also fine with me. ―Toby Bartels (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

McDonald's Egypt

McDonald's Egypt still serves a 'McFalafel' sandwich in its breakfast menu, it was never removed off the menu. It's available separately or part of a combo meal that includes an egg muffin and a beverage, either orange juice or American coffee. 197.46.40.208 (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mcdonalds.eg/eat/menu/page/breakfast-sandwiches-meals 197.46.40.208 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Falafel in Alexandria

In Egypt, falafel are commonly known as tam'ia except at the port city of Alexandria, where they are known as falafel. Alexandria also has its own variation of falafel, where a generous amount of chili pepper is added to the mixture making them quite spicy. Alexandrian variation are also available in other parts of the country known as 'tam'ia Iskandarany' meaning Alexandrian tamia. 41.37.22.209 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Impact of Syrian immigrants on falafel in Egypt

Since the Arab Spring of 2011 and the influx of Syrian refugees to the country, Chickpeas falafel are becoming more popular in Egypt, mostly sold at Syrian take outs. Egyptians refer to it as 'tamia soory' (Syrian Tamia) or 'falafel hummus'(chickpeas falafel). They still can't compete with the traditional beans falafel but it's adding more variations to the street food.

Before the arrival of Syrian refugees, chickpeas falafel were almost unheard of and available only at a few traditional Levantine take outs. 41.37.22.209 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Falafel in Gaza

In the Palestinian Gaza strip, falafels are made solely with fava beans a la Egyptian style and unlike other regions in Palestine, chickpeas are not added to the mixture. 197.46.40.208 (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

would Palestinian style therefore be Egyptian style? 64.121.35.108 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

False information

It comes from Palestine!🇵🇸 2001:4DD2:591C:0:E4AE:51D:B117:75E8 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have some sources to cite. Palestine is a very broad term as it spans from the Roman era and had massive movements of peoples :) Chavmen (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Article disagrees with itself

The article says in the beginning that Falafel is Palestinian and was adopted into Israeli cuisine. Later in the article, it says Falafel is from Egypt and is found in all Middle Eastern cuisines. Israel is middle eastern, so it has falafel the same way as every other culture. 64.121.35.108 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article also says: "The origin of falafel is controversial. The dish most likely originated in Egypt." I think there needs to be more clarification by some senior editors please. Chavmen (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

False information

"The Palestinian chickpea-only version of the falafel has also been adopted into Israeli cuisine, where it now features prominently and is proclaimed as the country's national dish" no source provided. Please provide historical evidence and prove this. Outside sources show the chickpea only version originates from Egyptian Copts. AnthroChola (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I also could not find a source for this. I will go ahead and remove unless there is someone else who has comments? 120.22.70.89 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There is only one source cited by Raviv 2003. More sources needed to back the claim. Chavmen (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Provide these sources please. Mistamystery (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

COATRACK and UNDUE?

SPECIFICO would you care to justify your removal of material that has existed in this article for literally years? How is it COATRACK when the material is sourced to sources discussing the topic of this article? The cultural appropriation is something discussed in a number of sources, expunging it completely is a straightforward POV violation. Please justify your edit, as it will be reverted as completely unjustified and against prior consensus on this article. nableezy - 17:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring is never justified, as you know. I removed it today because I never noticed it before. If you have talk page consensus for it, please link it. Lacking that, the ONUS is on those who wish to include. Maybe try NPOVN or an RfC? SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it is never justified, you just removed material that has been in the article for years, and apparently have done so without even perusing the sources or the prior discussions. It has already met ONUS. I will be returning the well sourced material removed without even the semblance of an argument for that action. And yes, edit warring is not justified, so dont do that. nableezy - 18:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No support to demonstrate? As I said, if you can point to consensus then ONUS is satisfied. Otherwise it should be easy to establish one way or the other by seeking more community input. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The onus is demonstrated by the fact that this material has been in the article for something like a decade now. You don’t get to come in and chop out material you dislike without reason, claiming what has sources specifically about the topic of the article is somehow coatracking, and then demand it stay that way. Read the archives yourself, it isn’t my job to educate you on the history of this article. nableezy - 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy the question is not whether it "has sources". And on a rather thinly watched page, the claim of implicit consensus is weak. If should be easy to demonstrate current consensus, if such exists. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a thinly watched page, this is material that has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page. Including here and if you look at the GA review and reassessment you will see that this material has been covered without dispute in this article for over a dozen years. nableezy - 21:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If there's a noteworthy controversy about the origin, appropriation, and who can take credit for fried beanballs, then it should be covered in the article explicitly as a controversy with due weight to various research and interpretations. I'm surprised to find that yes there is some acknowledgement - possibly tongue-in-cheek - of the issue in RS, e.g. here SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is noteworthy controversy, and yes sources discuss the cultural appropriation of Falafel and other Arab cuisine by Israel. Washington Post, or or academic texts or entire works on the "social and political aspects of Palestinian food in Israel". There is zero basis for claiming this topic does not have weight to be included, or for claiming it was COATRACKed. nableezy - 21:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it. It seems self-evidently noteworthy given the intersection with a globally significant conflict. The sourcing in the article and in this thread makes it clear the "controversy" exists. unclear why this is even a point of discussion. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise unclear to me, as SPECIFICO has never actually said why she made the edit besides the vague wave to policies that clearly do not apply. nableezy - 23:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Still missing is the summarization of this in the lede; as ledes summarize the body, including any prominent controversies, which clearly this is one. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed. nableezy - 10:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be even more UNDUE than the article text on this content. The lead does not repeat or summarize everything in the article. Only what's core and significant. The fact that a few people have attached this food to vastly larger issues concerning history, culture, and politics does not make it lead-worthy. If advocates for this content could demonstrate that it meets WEIGHT - that it is a widely published narrative of independent RS narratives about the food - that would cure the problem. But such references are notably absent. There are absurd published complaints - one claiming that Israeli falafel is a patent violation or something - but overall the sourcing for mainstream coverage of the falafel appropriation complaint or that it's taken seriously or has empirical historical basis - that has not been shown here. It's the rule rather than the exception that food and other aspects of culture propagate, develop, and install themselves across borders to diverse venues. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Leads are supposed to include prominent controversies. The sources show this is one. nableezy - 15:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Two things have not been demonstrated:

1. That this is a controversy rather than a one-sided complaint
2. That this issue, whichever it may be, is "prominent".

That's what NPOV requires, and the ONUS is on those wishing to include this. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already provided sources, I can’t make you read them. You are not the arbiter of this or any other page. nableezy - 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I provided one of the sources. It treats the matter more or less as a joke. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

See the comment at 21:27 with multiple academic works on the Israeli cultural appropriation of falafel. And no your NYT piece does not treat it as a joke. That you treat it as a joke is a personal problem, one that I decline to engage in further. nableezy - 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest creating a separate article on which this content would not be COATRACK. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense, and it isnt a coatrack if sources specific to this article discuss the topic. Ill be expanding this topic further here though. And restoring it to the lead. nableezy - 16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversy: prolonged public disagreement; which this clearly is. The fact it has been reported on by many reliable sources is WP:Notability, aka "prominent". Considering that SPECIFICO hasn't given any WP-based counterarguments to why this should not be included, other than suggesting creating a new article (which still does not negate that this can and should be mentioned in this article), the content will be restored to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Pizza was appropriated, tofu was appropriated, soba -- appropriated, the potato is appropriated, etc. etc. Plenty of published speculation about the origins of all kinds of foods, machines, clothing, make-up, painting, music, and colognes. We see virtually none of that similarly insinuated into articles about the things themselves. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool story. As far as I am aware Italy has not been invaded, colonized, and its history, culture, and cuisine appropriated by its colonial invaders. If it were I would imagine sources might have something to say about that cultural appropriation. If you think you can be published in a reliable source with your interesting theories you may be cited in an article. Ill keep citing actual reliable sources instead of engaging with Wikipedia users who think their judgment is what matters for our article content instead of what the sources say. nableezy - 17:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

From our Kebab article: "Although gyros is unquestionably of Middle Eastern origin, the issue of whether modern-day souvlaki came to Greece via Turkish cuisine, and should be considered a Greek styling of shish kebab, or is a contemporary revival of Greek tradition dating as far back as 17th century BC Minoan civilization, is a topic of sometimes heated debate, at least between Greeks and Turks." Quite a few of the Turkish and Greek cuisine articles make similar points. Like this article, its noteworthiness comes not just from the food itself but because it's in the midst of a wider political contention. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting observations, looking forward to reading them in a reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that no counterarguments have been given to why the fact that Israel has tried to promote the dish as Israeli in the lede has been removed; it will be restored. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Plesse curtail the sarcasm and rebut the reason that's been clearly and repeatedly stated. It is not of central significance. It is about a political objection. Please review WP:ONUS and work more patiently, discussing, not declaiming,on talk. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry but this already had consensus and there appears to be an obvious one here in this section (again). nableezy - 21:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no sarcasm. Wikipedia works by usage of reliable sources, not personal observations of editors. If there are counterarguments based on WP guidelines I would gladly discuss them, but there are none other than claims that no one can fathom, including that Lebanon, an Arab League member, is not an Arab country. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Since this is again being edit-warred out, what is the basis for removal of what is widely covered as a noteworthy controversy from the lead? nableezy - 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just showed up to the and saw the page and made an edit based on what is (to neutral eyes) should be a clear edit. I didn’t see this talk item until now.

Everyone here is pretty heated and needs to cool down a little. The page is about a food item, not origination and cultural appropriation. If anything, start a page all about claims and arguments about cultural appropriation, but no, it doesn’t matter how well researched or discussed a political controversy is around an item of food, it is not appropriate for the lede. Mistamystery (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and that food item has featured prominently in material on the cultural appropriation of Palestinian culture by Israel. Leads are supposed to summarize articles and on top of that they are supposed to include noteworthy controversies. You just making this blanket statement that no matter how much weight sources give something it is not appropriate for the lead is directly refuted by our WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD policies/style guides. That is entirely personal opinion, and your personal opinion carries no weight here. nableezy - 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The source is weak (solitary, no page number, no quote, apparently there are other conflicting sources saying the chickpea version also came from Egypt), and the body of the article contradicts it (Egyptian Jews who were from where falafel was invented, were already eating it, and then ate another kind of falafel that was made of chckpeas is more than bit of stretch to call cultural appropriation). Just because a lot of people say something doesn’t make it so. (Especially when there is such politicized denialism in this conflict). Israel is a country whose largest group of Jews are of North African and Middle Eastern extraction. This is not the hill to wage upon. Mistamystery (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are several sources for this material, such as Washington Post, or or academic texts or entire works. If you had even looked at this talk page prior to imposing your view on this long-standing material, literally decade+, you would have seen that. Your personal views on if Egyptian Jews were eating falafel (which in Egypt is made with fava beans not chickpeas) makes it so this is invalid is not a valid objection as the reliable sources disagree with you and you are not a reliable source. And yes, on Wikipedia when expert sources say something that makes it true. nableezy - 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please observe the distiction between V and NPOV, per ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And NPOV demands that we include things according to the weight given in sources. I have provided entire academic texts focused on this issue, it definitionally has WEIGHT to be included. You are just asserting such and such policy applies to its removal while refusing to explain how. Refusing to explain your edits despite repeated requests is tendentious editing per WP:IGNOREYOU which is prohibited, especially in a CT designated topic. nableezy - 15:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a handful of sources that mention this falafel complaint, some of the mockingly. This is negligible compared to the thousands of publications on the subject of this food. There are far more falafel RS that concern parsley, pita, and plating, but we do not call them DUE for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That isnt true, it is considerably more than a handful. But I can flesh it out more in the body. nableezy - 17:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the number of such publications, it's still negligible relative to the weight of published RS. If you have a proposal. please seek consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Bald assertions with no evidence are not things I take seriously. nableezy - 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that all material, for whose preservation formal consensus does not exist, ought to be removed from Wikipedia. If that was true then any AfD resulting in "No consensus" would be automatically result in deletion of said article. Instead "No consensus" results in status quo being maintained. Also please see WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. VR _talk 21:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying that this content is better located in some other page. Very likely we could establish notability for a separate article about Falafel cultural appropriation complaint. It just doesn't have much to do with falafel. It's about a political narrative and unsubstantiated, dubious pseudo-foodhistory. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources say it has to do with falafel, and the idea that cultural appropriation of falafel has nothing to do with falafel is a curiosity best left explained by the claim it is unsubstantiated, dubious pseudo-history. To be clear, it is explained by the dismissal of sources one doesn’t like, which as always remains a complaint without substance. nableezy - 00:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I am among several editors who have addressed that objection. Please refrain from personal attacks in article space. That's what user space is for. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Unaware of any personal attack. You need to justify your position with something other than personal opinion. nableezy - 01:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Have to disagree, it has everything to do with falafel because of the cultural symbolism, whether developed organically or synthetically, inherent in almost every aspect. The food itself has been politicized in Israel, so that should be addressed in the article, as well as the fact that even some Jewish Israelis, such as Dafna Hirsch, an authority on Israeli food culture and food history, calls its cultural appropriation from Palestinians just that. Her writing is not a complaint from Palestinians, it's a description of reality from an Israeli Jew. Carlstak (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say she is writing about a complaint. And being an academic thinker and a curious openminded one, she explores what point of view might support such complaint. Very interesting, but not about falafel, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read the source? nableezy - 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpreting what she says, it's her point of view, and she develops the idea with a direct reference to falafel, which you apparently didn't read, Hirsch, p. 621:

Despite Khan Bar-Adons lament, several ingredients from the Palestinian repertoire did penetrate many Jewish kitchens by the early 1940s, mostly vegetables like olives,tomatoes, eggplants, and squashes (Helman 2003:78; Ra-viv 2002:59). Prepared dishes, however, were rarely adopted, except for falafel, which became a popular street food in Tel Aviv by the late 1930s (Cornfeld 1939a). Excluding consumption by immigrants from Arab countries, both falafel and, later, hummus seem to have been adopted mainly by the first generation of Jews born in the country (Cornfeld1958; Raviv 2002:60).

Carlstak (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a sub-article of this page, but that would still require we leave a summary of it here (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). As for competing national claims on falafel, remember that "Food history is replete with honored legends, creative stories, slightly twisted truths, unsupported claims, leaps of faith, and outright lies" (from Daily JSTOR). As long we attribute various claims and opinion, we've done our job. VR _talk 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)