Talk:Turkish cuisine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article doesn't do Turkish cuisine justice - No historical background, very wishy-washy

Firstly the introduction is ridiculous and stinks of nationalist edits... Why is the first line of Turkish cuisine underlining 'Turkish cuisine is a fusion and refinement...' really? is that all Ottoman cuisine was? gives the impression they basically took what existed and did very little themselves...

Huge injustice to Ottoman cuisine! we are talking about one of the greatest court cuisines in the history of mankind, it's one of the joys for food historians to research the sheer level of skill and dedication the Ottomans put into their food.

Ottomans were also pioneers and creators of totally new dishes independent of any other influences. Dishes we can call 'Ottoman' no fusion, no refinement, pure and simply Ottoman culinary creations.

New dishes are always being created through human history and we really should give the Ottomans a lot more credit for what they brought to the table - literally. A few very obvious suggestions, Hunkar Begendi, Imam Bayildi, Turkish Coffee, Turkish Delight, Macun, Tavuk Gogusu etc

Secondly, the Turkic influence being put down to Yoghurt is laughable.

The Turkic influence forms the backbone of Turkish cuisine, from yoghurt, to flat pastry (yufka), to the pasta dishes (manti,eriste), to rices, to meat dishes, to bulgur, to gozleme, to borek's, to dairy products the list could go on and on.

I mean come on guys it's pretty logical, the Turks originate from Central Asia and had countless states and Empires across Eurasia and the Near East, many of the dishes above are examples of nomadic/ semi-nomadic heritage.

Thirdly there is no historical background to Turkish cuisine, to the Turkic roots, regional influences, Ottoman developments.

Fourthly there are no links to the countless cook books the Turks wrote, even Kashgarli Mahmud wrote Turkish recipes 1000 years ago in modern day Xinjiang

--Johnstevens5 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Herbs

What are choring herbs"? Do they really exist as a concept? Aren't all herbs flavouring? --snoyes 01:37, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Merging from Turkish eating habits

I guess these articles address the same issue.. Why don't we merge them? -- SoothingR 11:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think one mentions about the food and the other mentions about the change in eating habits and I believe they are different.Tuna893

November 5th, 2005.

I'm aware of that, though I'm convinced that Turkish eating habits really only tells how the cuisine of Turkey has developed throughou the 20th century, and should therefore be a section of this article. -- SoothingR^(pour) 11:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

MISKIN LISTEN

"Greek cuisine is the cuisine of Greece or perhaps of the Greeks"! This is how the Greek Cuisine page starts??!!! But such a point matches with the general attitude of extremely nationalist Greek editors who are obsessed with the Turkish Cuisine?! Is it a coincidence that those who are editing those pages are always the same?! Miskin you know nothing about the Turkish cuisine but you dare to claim the contrary and dont avoid making senseless edits! At least, take your hands off the Turkish Cuisine page. Alternatively, I have to write down the "origines" of the alleged "Greek food" on the "Greek Cuisine" page. And you will feel "disturbed and provoked" again!!! We couldnt be more tolerant with your baseless-senseless edits! Greek cuisine is the cuisine of greeks however Turkish cuisine is not the cuisine of Turks!!! oTTOMANS came and fused all the cuisines of the regions they dominated??? What the hell is that? In addition, as the information starts with the influences staff, it is just a repetition what you insist on adding!...You can not take revenge of the history through the Turkish Cuisine page! Simply you want to present the Turkish cuisine differently from WHAT IT IS. Normally I didnt feel disturbed with this entrance at the beginning. However, after having an illuminating chat with you, I got the nuance?! If you are disturbed by the origines of dolma, we are more right in being disturbed by the presentation of Turkish cuisine like American cuisine which is re-known for being just a fusion (which means there is no such a cuisine). Enough is enough!!!!'According to miskin, the Ottoman Empire and Turkey doesn't contain any Turk? That's why he even gets anxious about calling the cuisine "Turkish Cuisine"!!! Cause he doesnt accept that those who are living in Turkmenistan, Azerbaycan etc. are Turks like some (?!) :) who are living in Turkey?!. However, for us, influences are the richness of Turkish cuisine. Turkish cuisine is not only the cuisine of Turks or of Turkey. It is beyond that. On the other hand, some others feel provoked when someone says the influence of Turkish cuisine on their cuisine despite the fact that Greek cuisine is heavily influenced by Turkish cuisine! An eternal contradiction! Ahh sorry! From their point of view, there is no Turkish cuisine? There are no Turks in Turkey. There is no Turk in the world. Just a fusion??!!!

"Turkish cuisine is the cuisine of the Turkish People."

What the hell?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ar-pharazon (talk • contribs) .

Good point, I have removed the line.SoothingR 13:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Awmg

Someone forgot the teeemplate!! =)))))))))) --84.249.252.211 16:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV plz?

One of the best in the world? A fusion and refinement of? I have a feeling this introduction was written by a Turkish chef.

lol, this article is very poorly written. definetaly not wiki material but arouses hunger still.

Origins of Ottoman cuisine

My source is a Turkish cookbook that was linked in the page with the ref tag, just check the edits before reverting. I don't know who added this link Encyclopedia4U.com but it says more or less the same thing:

Turkic cuisine elements brought from Central Asia were mixed with the cuisines of the previously dominant cultures of Greece, Georgia, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The anon is de-linking the Persian and Greek cuisines and adding text of OR, i.e. Turkish plates being reflected in today's other cuisines, which although true, the same can be said in reverse. Please remove the edits without sources you just restored. This is a serious encyclopedia not a Turkish nationalist playground. Miskin 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And what I wrote is the same thing, turkish cuisine is a blend of turkic, arabic, persian and greek elements, along with the others such as tatar, georgian, armenian etc. The encyclopedic source cites the same thing. So, what's the matter?

Chapultepec 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the matter with the anon was, he kept rephrasing pointlessly and changing the order of the words, keeping the word 'Greek' at the end of the sentence. My problem was with his additions of POV edits so I kept reverting all together. And you apparently were blindly giving support to your kinsman's edits. You should never support anon rv-warring, especially when they refuse to participate in discussion. Miskin 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the 'Turkic' element is mentioned right in the next sentence, and since the Ottoman cuisine had also Mongolian and even Chinese origins, 'Central Asian' is more general. What do you think I'd gain by removing a duplication? I'm trying to contribute to the article's readability. Miskin 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud can you stop making reverts and use the diff a little bit? Why on earth did you remove the elements of the Mongolian cuisine?? Miskin 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, as you can see I'm not anonymous, and I'm in the discussion. Secondly, this is the place for the Turkish cuisine, not the Greek one. And the order is in the chronological context. There's nothing wrong with it. And I think you're the one who blindly reverts without citing any references.

The Turkic element should be in the first sentence along with the others. This is the nucleus of the cuisine in question.

Mongolian cuisine is one of the agents to the Turkish cuisine along with tatar, georgian, armenian etc. Shall we add all of them? Only, four major agents are the important ones.

Chapultepec 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even reverting, I'm making edits. The first link (marked #1, I'm sure you can see it) was added by me, so anything you further say proves your chauvinist blindness. If you honestly believe that "Turkic element" is the nucleus of today's cuisine of Turkey, then I have nothing more to say to you. Go write that the cuisine has got Kemalist elements, I couldn't care less. You'd might come closer to the truth. Miskin 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you don't know much about the turkish cuisine. This is much vaster than you can think of. Of course turkic cuisine was the nucleus of the turkish cuisine, because that was the cuisine the turks brought to Anatolia along with the persian and chinese elements. Later on came the Arabic, Anatolian and Greek agents into the cuisine. And it has nothing to do with Kemalism or other chauvinistic ideas. This is the truth.

Chapultepec 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry but I know a thing or two. What I find annoying is that you commence a content-dispute as an anon and you decide to login later. That isn't very sportsmanlike. Miskin 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If I knew that this would go into an edit-war like this, be sure that I would login beforehand. This or that, here I am and I defend what I wrote. It has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

Chapultepec 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Move

Moved the page from Cuisine of Turkey to Turkish cuisine per all other similar articles: French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Armenian cuisine, Chinese cuisine, Japanese cuisine etc.. Baristarim 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Turkey it can be misleading. The article describes the cuisine of Turkey, while 'Turkish cuisine' can also refer to countries such as Turkmenistan etc. Miskin 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, then it would have been called Turkic cuisine.. EVERY single article about cuisines use adjectives.. In any case, what is the rule against talking about Turkish cuisine in general?? :)) Baristarim 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

None I guess. Miskin 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Add more photos please! Other cuisine articles are full of photos. I think there's a rule that we cannot use any image from the web, because of copyright issiues. I'll try to take pictures myself then! 88.254.178.160 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CHEESE SECTION

A cheese section should definitely be opened under Turkish cuisine page. Artun Unsal's famous book on the cheese(s) of Turkey will be a great reference... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z y (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Doldurtma

I agree completely with User:Z y that Dolma is important and it deserves to be described longly in pages and pages...., but that is why there is a full article on dolma. This is the article on Turkish cuisine, and it seems to me to be over-doldurma with comments about dolma, much of which is redundant: see Talk:Turkish cuisine/Dolma bolluğu, where I've pulled out the various comments on dolma. We should improve the dolma article itself and reduce the dolma stuff(ing) in the Turkish cuisine article. --Macrakis 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does it disturb you Macrakis? It was better for you when you were putting or removing whatever you want. The article was terribly poor at that time. This is the way in which dolma should be explained and unless you make a contribution to the article you can not remove it because you find it "redundant". I re-read that part and could not find anything redundant. Etymology was found redundant by yourself however it is quite arguable whether it is redundant or not. Indeed I think the part on dolma is even shorter than it should be. I can not make any comment about the ways of cooking "dolma" in the world whereas I can give information about "dolma" as eaten in Turkey as is in Turkish cuisine.

Pilaf-Pilav

For example what is that "pilaf"??? Pilav keeps being replaced by "pilaf"..Is it indian cuisine page or something? You can give the equivalents in brackets but why to be so insistent on not using "pilav" in the main text of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z y (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we use the English term as the primary name for things when there is an English term. The local name for things is also interesting information, but WP is not a dictionary; the primary purpose is to discuss the thing, not the word. "Pilaf" is an English word (borrowed from Turkish); "pilâv" is not an English word (though "pilau" is more common in some parts of the English-speaking world). --Macrakis 23:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Claimed English terms are based on the original pronounciation, in other words, "phonetic". Pilaf does not become an English term because it is wronglly written in English. On the Turkish cuisine page we have to give what is original and correct together with English equivalents which in our case can be just "rice". At least we have to put both pilav and pilaf.

I think pilaf is the right pronunciation in English, vide infra please:

Etymonline.com - Pilaf

Meanwhile, your new edits in the article seem marvellous. Keep on good job. Teşekkürler, kolay gelsin.

Chapultepec 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

English usage

It is wonderful to see editors with strong knowledge of Turkish cuisine contributing here. Sometimes their English is not perfect, but that is OK: Wikipedia encourages collaborations among people with varied strengths. Though I surely know much less about Turkish cuisine than many of the expert contributors here, I'm confident that I'm a good editor of English prose. But unfortunately, whenever I try to improve the style, my edits are quickly reverted. This leaves us with frankly atrocious English such as:

• Breakfast in Turkish culture is a rich one due to the fact that a range of products are consumed together.
• Aside from traditional eating habits and common Turkish specialities which can be found throughout the country, there are also region-specific specialities depending on climate and geography.
• The dishes made with dry beans (nohut, mercimek, kuru fasulye, börülce combined with onion, minced meat and tomato paste and rice have always been the most commonplace preference of Turkish people, due to being economical and nutritious.
• It is named after the name of its inventor, "Iskender".

It is embarrassing both to Wikipedia and to Turkish cuisine to have such poor prose in the article. But I am tired of trying to improve it when my edits are reverted by others who don't seem to understand basic English style. Therefore,

I give up.

I will no longer contribute to this article. Sincerely, --Macrakis 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't give up :)

Thanks for your contributions so far, please contribute more. Since the article is currently being developed greatly, people might not care about copyediting atm, but it should be done, right now. Thanks a lot, again. deniz^T_C 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

I am offended :) I feel like clarifying some points. First of all, Macrakis, I do not know why but whenever you "improve" the English of the article, the meaning changes. For example; "depending on climate and geography" is different in meaning from "due to cultural differences" if I am not misunderstanding it because of my poor English. What I am thinking is that some awkward phrases in the article are resulting/remaining from some awkward edits made by "some" people who for example may require "citation" for the food widely consumed for breakfast in Turkey??. After a number of edits/reversions/edits etc. we may end up by this kind of phrases. For some other phrases given as example of "disturbing English", I can not say anything. Sorry for the inconvenience but they seem to be better than the proposed ones! I have not reverted any edit of yours for no reason. Sincerely!--Z y 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Z y, Wikipedia policy (and common sense) say that if there is *part* of an edit you disagree with, you edit that part; you do not revert the whole thing. Perhaps adding "cultural differences" is a good idea, perhaps not (obviously I think it is and you don't), but the way to disagree is (a) to change only that, not the rest of the sentence; and (b) to discuss it on the Talk page.

As for whether your versions are "better", I'm sorry, but I was born and raised in the US, and I can assure you that much of your phrasing simply isn't good English. That's OK -- you have added lots of good content, but you need to accept that others may write better English than you. --Macrakis 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the older version of this "Breakfast in Turkish culture is a rich one due to the fact that a range of products are consumed together" was far better. However someone suggested that a citation was needed?! The description of Turkish breakfast as being "rich" disturbed some people. It is ridiculous but unfortunately true! me again. (unsigned comment)

Richness is not the problem. I'm not here to be an English tutor, but let's use that sentence about Turkish breakfast as an example. Perhaps that will make things clearer to you.

• "Breakfast in Turkish culture"
  • We don't say "Breakfast in Turkish/French/English/Japanese culture"; we say something like "Turkish breakfasts" or "Breakfast in Turkey" or "Among Turks, breakfast..." or "In Turkey, breakfast" or "Typical Turkish breakfast".
• "Breakfast... is a rich one..."
  • This is not good English. Better would be "Breakfast... is rich", but even that isn't great.
• "...is rich due to..."
  • Bad English. "Due to" isn't the right connective here. Perhaps just a semicolon, e.g. "Turkish breakfasts are rich; they ..."
• "due to the fact"
  • Clumsy. How about "because"? But even that is unnecessary (see below).
• "range of products"
  • "range" is not used to describe a variety of foods, say "variety"
• "range of products"
  • "Products" is not used for foods at table, say "foods"
• "a range of products are consumed together"
  • Very vague. Good style is more specific than this
• "consumed together"
  • strange phrasing

All in all, this is a very poor piece of English writing. The current phrasing:

A typical Turkish breakfast consists of cheese ("beyaz peynir"/feta, "kaşar" etc.), butter, olives, eggs, tomatoes, green peppers, reçel (a preserve of whole fruits) and honey.

is much much better. It shows how rich Turkish breakfasts are by naming the wide range of foods they include.

Do you now see the problem? I am happy to work on improving the article cooperatively, but the cooperation has to be mutual. Your expertise is apparently in Turkish cuisine; I no doubt know much less about Turkish cuisine than you do, but I know much more about writing good English. --Macrakis 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming that the WHOLE ARTICLE is not understandable and it is poorly written, which, simply, is NOT TRUE.

As if you were trying to improve the grammar (!) but prevented by ME from doing so!!! That “depending on climate” or “rich due to the fact that” is a product of your work. Not mine?? Turkish breakfast was just rich once upon a time…A better description was not proposed as far as I remember. It was simply DELETED.

“Due to the fact that” can be used interchangeably with “because”? “Clumsy”..maybe? “Because”, “because”, “because” every time may be boring as well? Are we in TOEFL or in English Class?

When you “improve” my phrasing, do you have to change the EMPHASIS or the MEANING? That's my question. I feel obliged to repeat: I have not reverted any edit of yours for no reason! As if I was obsessed with the expression of “due to the fact that”??? I will not become crazy if I don’t see it there?!

On the ground of 2-3 phrases, you despise the entire article. This is not only unjust but also unfair! Ops sorry. “Much of your phrasing simply isn't good English”. NO COMMENT. Since you are the only one who knows English, since you were born and raised in the US, I have to shut my mouth up and respect… What does that famous Wikipedia Policy say? I am required to have your approval of my level of English to edit the article. Ok. I will try to keep it in my mind.--Z y 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zy, you might be needing to take a short breather from Wikipedia. The article is not owned by anyone, all of us are trying to improve it. When one tries to edit it with good faith and the edits are immediately reverted to a version that the person thinks is worse, then it is to be expected that that person gets frustrated. Anyway, please do not attack people. deniz^T_C 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

) I am afraid I am the one who was attacked.

Some of your edits may have been reverted too. Sorry, if you get frustrated. I can recommend you to contribute to the article. Not just by rephrasing some phrases but by adding info etc. In addition, before criticising people, bother checking what the one who attacked me proposed in the past, which edits of him/her were reverted etc.

Frankly, it took so much time to frustrate people who were trying to present Turkish cuisine as a mere fusion, who were discussing the Turkishness of our cuisine and even questionning whether it can be called Turkish (see above) I do not have a negative image of frustration :)

By the way, while recommending me to take a breathe, you seem to be needing to check the older versions of the article. Full point. --Z y 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine Turque

French version of Turkish cuisine needs to be taken care of. Although having studied French for 12 years, I am not comfortable with it anymore as I am with English. Those who know French should help improve the article at "fr.wikipedia.org" - cuisine Turque. --Z yTalk 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

What is the problem of compliance with wiki's content policies? --Z yTalk 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Last changes by LAZturk

1. Words from foreign languages are generaly italicized or quoted.
2. Even a person who speak Turkish as a foreign language would know that the related words are peynir and kaşar, not peyni and kaşcar.
3. There is already a link to Greek cuisine in the related cuisines section of the article.
4. There was a reference link that you removed without any explanation.

Chapultepec (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Coffee

In the article there is the following text: "This was a popular drink in western Europe before coffee was brought from America and came to be known." which refers to some drink made from orchid roots. I'm wondering, however, where the author got the idea that coffee was brought from America. As should be well known, coffee originated in Ethiopia, and was used in the middle east and Europe before being introduced to the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.170.191 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Insufficiency

This article is clearly insufficient in reflecting the incredible diversity of Turkish Cuisine, that has 660 dishes out of just the Eggplant. Also One must stress the two different cuisines of Turkey, the Home one and the Street one, since both are very large. I would gladly do all of these but I have a college to follow, so this is why I am asking your help, fellow wikipedians.! Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: When one rolls down from the start of the article, I'd say the döner kebab comes "too early", way before plate dishes. Also, a Baba Ğannuş or Ebu Ğannuş is NOT an Aubergine Salad, those two are different things!

Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the difference between street food and home-made food is a decisive one in Turkey. Especially for a country that has "esnaf lokantasi" tradition. As for babagannus, I agree with you totally. But it is not possible to control everything here. And sometimes, we should admit that it helps making reference to analogies. Incredible diversity of Turkish cuisine should be reflected no doubt. BUT for this, everybody should contribute...No book that lists all has been written yet, if it can be. --Z yTalk 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions - Borek and Manti (Pasta) sections should be added

There are literally hundreds of types of Borek and Chorek, yes there is a pastry section however, this type of cuisine is so diverse it requires its own category. Boreks and Coreks have a special place in not just Turkish but all Turkic cusines, from Turkmenistan to Tataristan, Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan.

Also Manti is a not just a dish from the Kayseri region, its shared across the Turkic world and there are hundreds of variations, this may also need its own section.

--Torke (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kayseri is not the only city where manti is eaten..sure..but in Turkey, Kayseri is famous for its manti and it is worth mentioning it I suppose. Borek/Corek needs a separate page maybe I agree...Especially special emphasis on the layered dough style developed in Turkic regions, is needed --Z yTalk 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

boynuzlu

i is enjoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boynuzlu (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Biryam

Is there a Turkish dish called "biryam"? There is a Greek dish called briami, which Greek dictionaries say comes from Turkish biryam, but I haven't been able to find any modern references to biryam; my Ottoman dictionary has بریان biryan meaning 'roast' or 'roast meat with rice'. But the Greek dish is meatless, consisting of zucchini, potatoes, etc. roasted in the oven with oil, like türlü. (The word is of course related to the Persian بریان beryān and the Indian biryani.) Please answer on my user page. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found this TDK link, but the name is biryan instead of biryam. If you will need some translation help, please let me know...

TDK Online Dictionary - Biryan

Happy edits, --Chapultepec (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor Quality

For an article with a "top" class importance on Wikiproject Turkey, that ones fails awfully. I mean even the Döner and the Ayran pics are taken outside of Turkey, and are "delocalized" versions... Doesn't anyone have something better? --85.99.77.96 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Qualified Conclusions of Reference

There are a couple assertions made sourced from material written by Perry Charles that warrant being qualified with the supporting material:

• 1) The use of flattened dough is rooted in the early nomadic character of Central Asian Turks.

• 2) The combination of domed metal sac and oklava account for the invention of the layered dough style used in börek.

To qualify number 1, we would need sources demonstrating the earlist appearance of the dough style AND that the contemporary use came from this source. How were Wester/Central/Western Asian Turks differentiated? How is the development of use attributed to a nomadic lifestyle as apposed to a semi-sedentary or sedentary life style?

The the 2nd point is one of cause and effect- not co-development. Essentially the assertion is that the product was developed because of the tool- not that the tool was produced for the purpose producing the product, or that the tool usage and product form evolved in an inextricable fashion. The conclusion is remarkable, and warrants production of the supporting material.Mavigogun (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an error in the first sentence, it should be layered, not flattened, I have corrected it. I have also changed the clause account for the invention into enabled the invention not to cause any misunderstanding. As per Charles Perry, he is an authoritative source in culinary issues. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I favor the new wording. As to the attributions of the contributions of a nomadic life-style and geographic/cultural origin, what supporting work does Perry cite? Is it anecdotal? The work of Perry needn't be accepted as axiomatic without qualification. My reading of the "Charles Perry:Baklava Türk tatlısıdır" article does not distinguish clearly between the prose of the writer of that article and the opinion of Perry- which (as I read it) is that '...it is logical to assume that Turks invented Baklava, but unlikely that they invented layered breads' and does not support the conclusion of origin, here. Does the other reference (Perry's writing) actually support the assertion? The "Arab Studies Journal" references an article by Perry using the word "suggest" regarding origin. Rather than using interpretations of his work, I suggest we cite the work directly- perhaps with a block quote. Does he offer more than conjecture? If not, I question if the assertion should be included unqualified. I will endeavor to find a copy.(Mavigogun (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC

If you look at Charles Perry's own comments at the bottom of NTV MSNBC's reference, you can see that he clearly states the early Turks' invention of layered breads. As for the "Arab Studies Journal", since it is an indirect source, it is quite normal that it uses the word "suggest". I have also added the reference details for Charles Perry's own source. --Chapultepec (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that we had to verify the conclusions of reputable and generally accepted sources! It is not possible that Wikipedia requires or rather "allows" such a practice! As if we had jumped on a purely stupid, baseless suggestion, we are being accused of blindly repeating or of reproducing or of having misunderstood what the writers referred to in the article did say or write. The way Mavigogun challenges the findings of Charles Perry + Sami & Tapper etc. requires him to write an article on its own to counter the claims of those writers. Otherwise his questioning does not concern neither third parties nor the Turkish cuisine page. Even if Mavigogun had the right to contest the conclusions of those people and to do so here on the Turkish cuisine page...

Your hostility is unproductive. Your presumption of intent is incorrect: what I am asking for is clarification of whether Perry is making these statements as reasoned supposition or well substantiated conclusions; the difference between those two do not speak to the qualifications of the author, but to the accurate representation of those ideas here (as validated by research, or as conjecture).Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"To qualify number 1, we would need sources demonstrating the earlist appearance of the dough style". The earliest appearance of the dough style was a matter of debate of course and people worked on that. From the conclusions they have reached we LEARN that it made its earliest appearance among nomadic people in central Asia and continued to do so on their migration way.

Again, not having the source material, I was asking for a qualification of the assertion by one who does.Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"AND that the contemporary use came from this source" Well, I have doubts whether Mavigogun has a clue about the Turkish cuisine. Sac, oklava are being used here. And almost all those dishes are still being prepared in the same way. As the ways are still the SAME you do not need to prove that the contemporary use came from this source. Because there are no differences between the two.

Again, combative, defensive. Your speculation regarding my character is unproductive, off topic, derisive. This isn't about a battle over words, but understanding and education. The similarity of method argument is specious, but not terribly important to my concern. Not unlike the parallel artistic development in geographically separate cultures (the Swastika in Native American, Japanese, and Indian art, for example), the question naturally arises whether or not there is a connection or if the development was independent. The question- which inexplicably has elicited such ire -is if the direct connection is a mater of supposition or results from a continuity of knowledge. My underlying question is: was there parallel development anywhere else, was there exchange between those regions/cultures, and is there reason to favor one source over the other.Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"How were Wester/Central/Western Asian Turks differentiated?" Well, obviously according to the places they lived or live!

Within context, what was the character unique to Central Asian Turks that generated the development? This article does not state 'The use of flatted dough originates in the early nomadic culture of Central Asian Turks' but 'The use of flattened dough is rooted in the early nomadic character of Central Asian Turks.' An interesting assertion, subjectively worthy of exploration. One says 'it came from here', the other, 'it came from here because of some facet unique to the NOMADIC character of the people.'Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"How is the development of use attributed to a nomadic lifestyle as apposed to a semi-sedentary or sedentary life style"? Well a simple short sentence touching on that has been written in the article. Read it again.

If it is indeed short and simple, do be kind enough to present it here- as I was unable to find it. Doing so will be appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"the assertion is that the product was developed because of the tool- not that the tool was produced for the purpose producing the product". Well, what is Mavigogun saying? That a product (sac), once was produced, can not cause a particular style to develop. Sac is produced to cook bread. And layered dough is simply cooked better when it is rolled out? What is your problem with that? Co-development would be another assertion which is to be rest on something. In the sources I have used I did not find such a claim. It can be claimed of course. If you have a foundation for that let us know. Otherwise, it does not warrant supporting material. The page does not have to provide you with the answers to your personal questions unless they make sense. --Z yTalk 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The question, restated, is whether the wording in this article reflected accurately the position of the source- that is, was the wording and depending meaning intended, or a mater of imprecise wording? That question was addressed in Chapultepec's reworking of the sentence in question. To answer your question: what I was asking is did the source intend to say that character of the dough co-developed with the tool, or resulted from a tool that was already employed for another or similar purpose. I was not making either assertion- only asking for clarification. The page necessarily can't supply anything- users do; you are quite right to say that you do not have to participate.Mavigogun (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether I want to or have to participate but it is rather whether we have to change the article on the basis of your comments.

With regard to "co-development", I understood what you asked and answered the question above. Actually it is not me who is answering but the relevant sources. "Which one comes first question (sac or layered dough)" is partly answered in the article. You were the one who seemed to be contesting the given account. And what I said was that we did no more than to pass on the info. gathered from the sources. That's what users do in wikipedia if I am not wrong.

Unless we quote directly (which is often not appropriate) we necessarily interpolate/summarize the work of sources- which, of course, allows for the introduction of error... which is one of the reasons why we vet contributions, field questions on our thinking and sources- a natural part of this endeavor.Mavigogun (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the compliance of the given account with the sources referred to, I do not know what makes you feel that the article does not reflect "accurately" the sources' position. If you have doubts, then have a look at the given sources and the biblography.

Where I could do so, I have. Where I couldn't, I posed the question here- as is appropriate.Mavigogun (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The way you initially put your case above gives the impression that the problem goes beyond the issue of "imprecise wording". However, this turns out to be a false impression. As Chapultepec solved your problem, then there is no need for further discussion I suppose. --Z yTalk 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this, Perry, Charles. "The Taste for Layered Bread among the Nomadic Turks and the Central Asian Origins of Baklava", in A Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East (ed. Sami Zubaida, Richard Tapper), 1994. p. 89. Together with Roden if you want. --Z yTalk 11:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional reference. Of related interest is "Food culture in Russia and Central Asia", By Glenn Randall Mack, Asele Surina, page 75, paragraph 3, which states ,'The Central Asian Turks had numerous grain-based foods, a reflection of their sedentary life style, including the flatbreads yufka...' (actually, I think I may have got this reference from Z_y) This assessment stands at odds with attribution of Nomadic Culture as an integral contributer to the development of C -a position attributed to Perry by way of the 'rooted in the nomadic character of early Central Asian Turks' wording. Really, there is nothing inexplicable about questioning such an abstract claim (rooted in Nomadic Culture), particularly with conflicting reference. Which do we lend more credence? I presume the better sourced/supported/more reputable- which, again, is why I asked what I did.Mavigogun (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the reference you have given is so conflicting. In the 11th century a part of the Central Asian Turks were sedentary or semi-sedentary (while bulk of them were still nomadic). Of course there would be new items in their cuisine due to their new sedentary life. But naturally they transferred their culinary culture of their nomadic past as well. Here are some extra sources stating about the invention and usage of layered dough by the early nomadic Turks.[1][2] --Chapultepec (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly continuity of culture isn't the point in question; it would be bizarre to presume a lack. Thank you for the additional references; the first cites the same Perry reference, so does not contribute further; the second is not an academic work, cites no reference, plainly presents itself as conjecture, and, most importantly here, doesn't speak to the question. I have yet to see any support for the contention that it was their 'nomadic character' that was a formative contributer to the development of yufka- which is what the current wording of this article contends. TO BE CLEAR: I am not contesting the origination of yufka as evolved from the flat breads of early Nomadic/Semi-sedentary/Sedentary Asiatic Turks- rather, the attribution of this development to a particular aspect of their culture (nomadic nature) has not been substantiated.

This tempest-in-a-teapot could -if appropriate- be resolved with a very minor rewording, such as:

*The use of layered dough originates with the early nomadic Central Asian Turks.

The caveat 'if appropriate' is included in consideration of the very real possibility that there IS compelling citeable material that has yet to be produced to support the wording as-is. While I appreciate the poetry of the current wording, the accuracy of the prose is of primary consideration. Mavigogun (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I strongly recommend you to read the article of Perry from the book titled "A Taste of Thyme". On the other hand, I do not think that your making mention of that alternative thesis would weaken the plausibility of the article. To the contrary this may contribute to the article. We are not well placed to assess which of these theses are accurate. And we do not have to pick one among all these theses unless they contest the very foundation of the main conclusion, which is, the Central Asian-Turkic origin of Yufka. The aim is to give a fair account of the generally accepted and recognised theses lets say. --Z yTalk 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the references state that due to lack of oven in the impoverished nomadic culture of early Central Asian Turks, they developed the layered dough style with sac and oklava, in order to make something like the thicker breads of their sedentary contemporaries. (You can find it in the sources we have already cited) Therefore, we preferred the clause "is rooted in the nomadic character of...". But, your re-wording suggestion is also suitable for me, although it hides the original reason of the invention of layered dough style. If the user Z y is also OK with the suggestion, we can make the modification. So, are there any other modifications which you would like to suggest? --Chapultepec (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. --Z yTalk 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From what you have written, it seems clear that the current characterization is appropriate (attribution to nomadic character); would you expound the passage to include mention of the adaptation to the cooking facilities at their disposal by the use of layered doughs (the lack of ovens employed to bake thicker breads)? It would add substance to the passage, pairing cause to conclusion- significant to this reader; perhaps it could be done with minimal wordage in the interest of weight? Thanx for taking the time to provide the detail.Mavigogun (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The detail I have given above was from Charles Perry. "The Taste for Layered Bread among the Nomadic Turks and the Central Asian Origins of Baklava", in A Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East (ed. Sami Zubaida, Richard Tapper), 1994. page 89. I do not want to give any citations here due to copyright issues. Instead, I have sent you a small citation via e-mail, so you can check your mailbox. Having read the e-mail, we can decide here together with Z y how we can make the wordage. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Kebaps

I think the list of Turkish kebaps should be reintroduced to the main page. --Z yTalk 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a terrible idea for several reasons. First of all, it makes the Turkish cuisine page long and hard to read. Secondly, it means that the same information is presented in two places, which means that inevitably the two places will get out of sync (as they were before I merged them). Third, it doesn't take advantage of Wikipedia's organizational structure, which allows the reader to choose where to go into detail and where not. Fourth, an extensive list of dishes (delicious as they all may be) really doesn't belong in a main article. Think of the Wikipedia coverage of Turkish cuisine as a book -- you need to make an editorial decision about what belongs in the Introduction, what belongs in Chapter 1, what belongs in Chapter 2, etc. It doesn't make sense to cram all the chapters into the Introduction, which is supposed to serve as an overview. --Macrakis (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

that would be nice...

This wasnt much help! Got anh HELPFUL web links? I COULD USE IT!! THANX  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.92.21 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) 

Great Article

Just wanted to say what an informative, helpful article this was to me! My compliments to everyone who contributed =) Vought109 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Importance of Bread (Ekmek) and improvement of bread section

There's a lack of information on the bread section and it is missing the most important type of bread (http://www.iyiekmek.com/ekmekbey.jpg) which is simply called Ekmek (bread) in Turkish. Bread is eaten with almost every meal, and it significantly contributes to the way people eat, and the variety of dishes. Most dishes are in Turkey have a soup (watery) base this is because ekmek is usually used to eat a dish where one would dip the bread in the juices and take the parts of the food with the bread, almost using it like a spoon. This is so common in Turkey that I would guess that almost all of the meals are eaten with bread (from breakfast to dinner). I really think this should be indicated in the Turkish cuisine.

Tolgaek (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fahris real Experiens.

McDonald's and Burger King, Starbucks in Istanbul are more expensve than the ones in NY, and star cheats forex; carrot cakes without cheesecream topping with no admit, No natural juice or seldom above %50 without sugar despite the brands carry stamp of "Katkısız" Reality to me very Arh+ and expensive and beans mixed with rice cost 4Usd. Meat is luxury as usually chicken converted ther döner as its unique sample So be careful to ask if its real meat before consumption. Since im allergic to fish, daily cheapest suggest you is popular anchovy which ought to be raw, 3 fried mussells starts 2.8Usd (3.5Tl) if not not want to look a beggar. Pork...unquestionable import goods, 6-7slices 10Usd (19Tl) in malls ie. Carrefour. Same rank with the ones next level to the wiev of golden gate. For cheese try to naturel ones, A little rushy jam, square typed pale buildings, tea with sesamed simits.. and the Ankara where after the un blended food may begins. But wait there is a no overweight women there but osteo loss maynot be, humble and fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.47.190.24 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

refinement of Central Asian, Middle ...

No its not, since turks kept desert sodas in refrigerator and seldom organic juices on the shelves, since they intake vitamin C from tomatopaste or lettuce with appetizers and bread which daily nutrition mostly consisting of, contrary to mussels getting pricely, alien protein are the porg, camel, stag, oyster, shark or kımız some goods ie possible in the franchised malls.

Jewish Influece

I am removing this. I asked on the Jewish food page if anyone could be specific or provide reference of specific influence of Jewish cuisine on Turkish cuisine but they could not. None of the dishes I would think of as classically Jewish such as latke, matzoh, challah, bagels, etc. are featured in Turkish cuisine. Burek, dolma, etc are regional, they don't belong to any ethnic group. For example, burek comes to Turkish cuisine from the balkans region. Christians, Jews and Muslims in the balkans all make this dish. Deleted. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman heritage

The introductory presentation of Turkish cuisine as a heritage from the Ottoman cuisine was fairly stable for many years, describing the Ottoman kitchen as a "fusion and refinement of Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Balkan cuisines". At one point, however, it turned into a kind of competition about what kitchens to mention specifically. Almost needless to say, nobody has bothered to come up with references that put emphasis to specific cuisines; mainly it has been POV edits in order to mention, or not mention, Greek, Albanian, Circassian, Arab, Jewish, Kurdish etc. I will now put the text back to its original, neutral and sourced version. Any changes should be discussed in the talk page before implementation. Please behave. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Istanbulda-nerede-yenir.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)