Talk:Zhug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Skhug sure looks the same as Zhug

Untitled[edit]

They are the same. Different ways of transliterating the same thing. The two pages should be merged.

So...what would you say is the better transliteration? DonIncognito 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same, there are compaies that make and sell both Schug and Zhuk זחוק , I cant firgure out what the exact difference is but it doesn't make sense that they would sell the same product with 2 differet spellings.. this should be merged with the Schug article that I just created.. can some one explain to me why kh is used for a ח on wikipedia ? --yisraeldov 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have merged everything in this article, as I believe it conforms to the naming convension the best. Jon513 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you not see my comments ? Zchuk is not the same as Schug... also can u explain why 'KH' rather than 'CH' ? (This message was left by User:Yisraeldov)
The reason I used kh instead of ch is because in American English, ch is most frequently used for a 'ץ sound, rather than a ח sound. Therefore, for someone who is not familiar with the proper transliteration of Hebrew letters, this transliteration would best approximate the pronunciation. I also think Zhug is the same as Skhug, but the transliteration is even more confusing, since the combination Zh is most frequently used in English for a sound that is best approximated by the French j (as in jour). DonIncognito 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
They are 2 different things for sure, similar but different. one is סחוג and one is זחוק there is (at least ) one company here that makes and sells both, next time I go to the store I will attmept to look at the ingreidents, some people also thing that Charisa is the same thing when it isn't. Also people say that Matbucha and Turkish Salid are the same, they are simmalar but not the same.--yisraeldov 19:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The two products you are talking about may very well be different (and yes, I know that charissa is not the same as skhug.) However, the two ARTICLES on Wikipedia were referencing the same food, סחוג, but transliterated the name differently. That is why the articles were merged. DonIncognito 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually they weren't the same article, the ingeredents in Zchuk included cardmon and other spices that are not included in the Schug article... As I mentioned on the comments there. The Zchuk article had 2 recipies the second appeard to be Schug and I wasn't familiar with the first so I assumed it was Zhuk. I un-directed the זחוק Zhug article, you can see the differences for your selevs. ( on a personal note I think I like זחוק better ) --yisraeldov 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no significant difference between the two articles other than phrasing. I currently see no evidence to suggest that the two names are anything else but different transliterations. I'd be happy to see a description of the differences between Skhug and Zhug, but if they are only subtle, then I do not believe that the issue mertis two separate articles. Unless a significant difference between the two can be provided, I will re-merge the articles. DonIncognito 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you not see that most of the ingredients are differnt ? They are both bassed on hot pepers but the spice mixture is different... I just noticed that the recipie for Shug is not correct ... I will fix it then you can see the difference. (I'm taking the recipie from the hebrew site )

If anyone thinks that there is a problem the way the articles are currently constructed are welcome to correct it. Jon513 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the articles ? They are 2 different things...

Why did you remove cumin and cardamom from Skhug? The sauce contains these spices; maybe the recipe you used did not include the whole ingredient list. Like I said, the difference between the Skhug and Zhug is not big enough to warrant separate articles. Like all traditional sauces, exact spice mixtures may vary from place to place or even family to family. Taking your logic to its conclusion, we should now have separate articles for Skhug adom, yarok, and chum.. But that would be silly, just as having two articles for these sauces.

  • Both sauces are of Yemeni origin
  • Both have the same base ingredients and the spice mixtures—which you claim are different—are not radically different
  • Both sauces are similar in appearance
  • The names of the sauces differ only slightly; only slight differences in pronunciations of similar sounds (vocalized/not vocalized)

All of the above leads me to conclude that in essence, these are the same sauces. On the other hand, by your logic, Heinz ketchup and Hunt's ketchup are not variations on a recipe for the same sauce, ketchup, but rather two different sauces altogether. The articles need to be re-merged, in order to avoid redundancy and confusion on Wikipedia. DonIncognito 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First I changed the article to match the Hebrew article, please see there. Second I now have a container of סחוג and זחוק infront of me the ingredents in the shug (miki brand ) are the same as what I have listed with the addition of salt, water, and preservatives, no other spices. The zhuk on the other hand does have additional spices listed, and ther is no coriander.
Second, acording to my logic , Ketchup and Spagetti sauce are different, and deserve their own article. The 2 sauces ( in both cases ) are not the same. The 3 different types of Schug still go under the same name because they are different types of the same thing. סחוג and זחוק could go under the same heading of "hot sauces from the middle east" but, you can not say that they are the same, only referencing one and ignoring the other.
If any thing, having 2 articles will reduce confusion , especialy for someone trying to compare the 2 different sauces. If you must have only one article then you must actullay merge the articles, not just overwrite one or the other... And there needs to be mention of the 2 different sauces, and explain the difference in their contents and preperation.
I thin you misunderstood my point. I'm saying that the sauces aren't different ENOUGH to be anything more than variations in the same recipe and pronunciation. It's not like spaghetti sauce vs. ketchup. It's like "ketchup" vs "catsup". Different people have different recipes and different names, but in the end, it's the same basic sauce. There are maybe a dozen mass-produced variations on the ketchup recipe in the US...should each have its own article? DonIncognito 02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand what your saying ... If Ketchup and Catsup were pronouced different and had different ingredients then , yes they would need seperate articles. Also if one company produced, and sold both Catsup and Ketchup then that would be a pretty good indicator that they are differnt enough, compainies generally don't waste the energy to produce 2 producs with different ingredients if they are the same. Next time I go to the store I will try to get a pictuure for you of both.--yisraeldov 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Adjika[edit]

I think this should be merged with Adjika, it's the same spice with different names from different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.9.67 (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

title[edit]

The article should be renamed to Sahawiq and the correct Arabic spelling is سحاوق. It is clear that the current title of this Yemeni condiment reflects the Israeli mispronunciation.--158.222.143.146 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well we now have the header saying "Sahawiq (Yemeni Arabic: سحوق saḥawiq) or Skhug (Hebrew: סחוגS'ḥug)", and the article still under Zhug. Oh well, I guess no one can figure out how the hell to spell this word either in English or in Hebrew (note that the Hebrew version of this article is under he:זחוק!). Seems like the standard transliteration of the Arabic, at any rate, is pretty clear, so that would be an advantage to switching (not that I necessarily think we should go this way.)
Anonymous, you call the Israeli form(s) a "mispronunciation." Can you, or anyone reading this with knowledge of Yemeni Arabic, give me the IPA for the proper Yemeni pronunciation?
Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Zhug. The consensus is that this is the most common name. Other variants created as redirects. Old page history at Zhug moved to Zhoug to preserve attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)



SkhugSahawiq – Sahawiq is a Yemeni condiment and this is the correct spelling of the Arabic name. The article is heavily influenced by an Israeli point of view, as this condiment was popularized in Israel by its Yemeni minority, and this gave rise to the Israeli mispronunciation "s'hug", probably due to the fact that Hebrew is usually written without vowels. Either way, the origin is Yemeni and there's no reason to give undue weight to a borrowed version of this name. Google confirms that Sahawiq is more common than "skhug", despite the difference in between Israel and Yemen in terms of presence across the web ([1] vs [2]). 158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, by Google search criteria it should probably be moved to zhug, which is the way I usually spell it and see it spelt.[3] This spelling has several times more Google entries than the other two combined. RolandR (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to understand Google hit counts. Despite hundreds of thousands of hits I can't go beyond the sixth page of search results. I have a feeling that the four letter combination zhug doesn't always refer to the subject of this article. Anyway, after doing a variety of searches with different combinations it seems that there are two schools -- those that refer to it as an Israeli condiment and spell it something like skhug, shug, zhug etc, and those that refer to it as a Yemeni condiment and spell it sahawiq, sahawig, etc. It is clear that the differences between the different spellings within each group are a matter of transliteration, so the first thing that needs to be determined is which pronunciation ought to be preferred -- Israeli or Yemeni.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

But it looks to me as though many, if not most, of the articles which spell it as zhug explicitly state that it is a Yemeni recipe. On my search, about half of the top hundred results use the word "Yemeni" in the title, and most of the others do so in the text. And in any case, our task here is not to adjudicate on the provenance of this recipe, but to reflect what our sources say. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Roland that "zhug" is probably the better option – plus "zhoug" is another alternative that gets more hits than either skhug or sahawiq (and certainly doesn't seem to be confused with anything else). Also, the last thing we need here is yet another lame ethnowar over Middle Eastern cuisine... Number 57 23:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "zhug" per above noms. ONR (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 April 2017[edit]

The proper name is the original name, which is Sahawiq, and not some name that comes according to google hit count. Is this a common sense to call a food item according to google hit count? If so, I might as well start a wiki entry about an Ugandan food item, give it a name in my local dialect, and stamp it with my nationality, and get many google hit counts (just to be discovered years later, and infuriates people up, and start the move/google hit count illogical discussion). This does not make sense, and obviously google hit counts is not a meter. The original name is Sahawiq, and not some broken name ChuChu (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME: The criterion is not the original name, but the name commonly used in English-language sources. In many cases Google hit count may be a good estimate for the most common usage. One can also check Google books: Zhug (at least 15 books in English describing the Zhug sauce) vs. Sahawiq (only 3 entries in English). --Off-shell (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This still does not make sense, and should not be used as a criterion. The criterion should be the country/region of origin, and not some broken mis-pronounced name. 109.65.85.201 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the current Wikipedia policy applied to all articles. There are many other examples, e.g. borscht and not borshch, pajamas and not pāy-jāmeh etc. If you'd like to modify the policy, then you need to start a global discussion, see WP:PROPOSAL. --Off-shell (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
As for requested move, I oppose the move, since the common-name, indeed, applies in this case, and in the Middle Eastern countries this culinary spice is commonly called by its Arabic transliteration, "zhug". --Davidbena (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you are coming with this utterly incorrect information... in the middle eastern countries it is known by it's proper name, which is either Sahawiq (سحاوق) or Daqqus (دقوس). zhug is a broken mis-pronounciation of the name of this food, and NOT what it's called in Middle Eastern countries, unless you think that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country ChuChu (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Black cumin"[edit]

Which species of "black cumin"? Please be specific. Bunium bulbocastanum and Nigella sativa are nothing like one another. 173.88.243.210 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The reference in this article to "black cumin" refers specifically to Nigella sativa.--Davidbena (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)