Talk:Kebab

Thousands separators

Should not thousands separators be written according to ISO-Standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, they should not. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, both comma separators and narrow gap separators are acceptable optional styles.

The ISO style is possibly more suitable (though not required) in science or technical articles, but this is not one. It has the drawback that it doesn't work well with screen readers. The comma style is still more commonly used, and likely less surprising to most Wikipedia readers. It is also used for example by Encyclopedia Britannica.

While it's possible to change an article from one optional style to another, if there is good reason to do so, generally talk page consensus should be sought first, so thanks for bringing it up here. However, at the moment I don't see any compelling reason to change the existing style.

I noticed you've asked the same thing in several other articles over the past couple of years. If you feel the current general practice should be changed, the best place to address it is on the talk page of MOS:DIGITS, as was suggested to you last time in September. I hope that helps answer your question. --IamNotU (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Usage in English etc., second paragraph

Halbared, you've twice now removed "outside of North America" from the second paragraph. That leaves a statement that isn't accurate and doesn't reflect the sources or reality. In the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc., people usually call a sandwich/wrap with meat from a vertical rotisserie literally "a kebab", e.g. "I'd like a kebab please", or "we stopped for a kebab after the pub". This usage is essentially unknown in the US and Canada, where it was popularized mainly by Greek immigrants. There, the common name overwhelmingly is "a gyro", (sometimes "a donair" in Canada) not "a kebab". This is common knowledge and easily verified, I added a citation and there are many more. Please stop changing it to imply that in North America a common name for gyros/shawarma/doner is "a kebab".

The first source, "Language and Food", says:

Kabab/Kebab, most likely a word of Arabic derivation, is now ubiquitous, not only in the Middle East but worldwide, to be found on every high street in Western cities. The ‘default’ kebab is cubes of meat on a skewer, the shish kebab or shashlik of international cookery. [...discussion of its presence in West and South Asia...] The ubiquitous kebab of our time is döner, rotating vertical skewers of which are to be found in profusion in every city in the Middle East and Europe. Döner is a Turkish word indicating turning or rotation. In the Levant (and in Arab and Israeli dispensers inEurope)it is called shwarma...

First, note that Zubaida does not say that the doner is more ubiquitous than the cubes of meat on a skewer type, which in a global context it certainly is not. In the first sentence, ubiquitous refers to all types of kebab. The shish kebab type had spread worldwide much earlier, measured in centuries; it's not until "our time" (i.e. since the 1970s) that the doner has also become ubiquitous. Secondly, the sentence describing doner as ubiquitous goes on to say "in every city in the Middle East and Europe" - i.e., outside of North America. He doesn't mention the situation there, nor gyros.

In the second source, Marks says:

Kebab denotes an array of Middle Eastern grilled or broiled meat dishes; in America, it typically refers to shish kebab, while in Europe it more commonly indicates doner kebab (shawarma)...

That's a very clear statement. It also doesn't mention gyros, but that's the reason. It does support the idea that - outside of North America - these days arguably "a kebab" more often means a doner than a shish kebab. However, he refers to Europe in general, including e.g. Austria, so if we want to make a statement that In most English-speaking countries, as the paragraph begins, the sense of "a kebab" as doner is demonstrably more common than the sense as shish kebab, we would need a better source. I think it's not really worth the effort, and is not necessary to quantify which sense is more common, at least not in the lead; the current wording suffices. --IamNotU (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I may have been misunderstanding the first sentence. I was reading the anglosphere as being North America (and US centric), whereas now it scans OK to me as both versions of the kebab are in the anglophere.Halbared (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying... --IamNotU (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Grammar

I fixed a grammar error on this page citing the region of origin. The previous sentence didn’t make as much sense so I fixed it so the reader can understand it more clearly. Reinhearted (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that there was any error in the grammar. I have restored it to the previous version which I believe was better. --IamNotU (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the article should take place here, so I've copied this comment by Reinhearted from my talk page: How can something be “originating in Middle Eastern cuisines” this is not a region or state but rather a culture of food. The proper pronunciation would be “that originated in the Middle East”. As described in the History section, the basic techniques of cooking meat on a stick or skewer originated in Africa at least half a million years ago and predates the existence of modern humans. So it's not really accurate to say that it originated in the Middle East. On the other hand, the particular styles and recipes of the broader range of dishes we now call kebabs, beyond simple meat-on-a-stick, mainly arose in Persian and, later, Ottoman cuisines. I don't see that there is any grammatical problem in describing something as originating in a certain culture rather than a region or state. It's been this way for about three years, and nobody has complained. It also allows us to link to Middle Eastern cuisine, which is a more likely destination for readers of this article, who probably already know what the Middle East is. --IamNotU (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The article states that “Kebab is a style of meat with their origins in Middle Eastern Cuisines” clearly not referring to the the basic meat style that originated in Africa. That claim is misleading and irrelevant to say the least Reinhearted (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, can you indent your replies please? You've changed this again, but I still don't see a good justification for it. For the past several years, the lead sentence has been:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]], with their origins in [[Middle Eastern cuisine]].

I don't really see how the proposed replacement improves it:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]] that originated in the [[Middle Eastern cusine|Middle East]].

I prefer the existing version, as I explained above. I don't agree that there's a grammar error in it. Kebabs only originated in the Middle East in the sense of the name and specific recipes coming from a certain cuisine, i.e. Persian/Arab/Turkish medieval cookery. See the History section. Linking directly to the desired cuisine article is clearer to the reader, avoiding the problem described in MOS:SUBMARINE. Do we need to go do dispute resolution about this? --IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis, I noticed your edit:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]] in [[Middle Eastern cuisine]].

which Reinhearted has also reverted to their version. It seems Reinhearted is concerned that we define the geographical origin of kebabs, as a region or state, in the first sentence. I prefer the stable version. Yours is pretty good, I would just say that at least some kebabs, e.g. doner kebab and shish kebab, have broken out from Middle Eastern cuisine and really have become global, so that's why I like "origins in Middle Eastern cuisine". I'm not so attached to "origins", could maybe be "stemming from" or something, if it's really necessary to change it. --IamNotU (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the stable version, so let's return to that for now. Reinhearted, you are of course free to argue for your preferred version here on the Talk page and see if you can change the consensus.

As IamNotU says, a problem with "that originated in the Middle East" is that the link is about the cuisine, while the text is about the place. --Macrakis (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Baghdadi origin?

diff A tenth-century Baghdadi cookbook mentions kebab, but that does not place its origin in Baghdad at that time. The dish had already been in existence for millennia, if the Akrotiri firedogs are credible evidence.

The page history shows my edit summary removed, as well as the previous editor's ID. I don't see anything in the logs about admin oversight. What's going on there? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, “Middle East” is not a country and it is commonly acknowledged that baghdad is where the kebab was made and was then spread to other areas of the middle east. Turkey is where doner kebab was made but not where regular kebab was made. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is commonly acknowleged that Baghdad is the origin of kebab, then it should be possible to source it with reliable sources. True, "Middle East" is not a country, but it is a geographical area that is the closest we can pin down the origin of kebab, unless sources tell us otherwise. Now stop edit warring and start providing sources. --T*U (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@IraqiEagle1001: Forgot to ping. --T*U (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The infobox presents it to readers as "place of origin", so "not a country" doesn't matter. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You haven’t responded to my statement, your revert is invaid. It used to say “Country of origin”. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@IraqiEagle1001: I have responded: 1) "not a country" is irrelevant, 2) "commonly acknowledged" needs a source. Invalid? How? Please explain (based on Wikipedia guidelines). Whatever it "used to say" is completely irrelevant. It now says "Place of origin:". --T*U (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It used to say “Country of origin”. Not in this article's infobox it didn't. The infobox template was changed thirteen years ago to show "Place of origin" explicitly to avoid difficulties with dishes whose origin is regional, not limited to a single country. That infobox appeared in this article ten years ago, showing "Place of origin".

As pointed out above, "commonly acknowledged" is not a reliable source. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/9/13/medieval-arabic-cookbooks-reviving-the-taste-of-history

This is the source.

i IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in that interesting article supports the claim that Baghdad is the place where kebab originated. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is, just read it. IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I did read it. Can you show a quote from the article that says kebab originated in Baghdad? Just plain Bill (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

“In the Sassanid Persian courts, gentlemen kept personal recipe collections, according to Perry, who is a food historian. None of these collections has made their way down to us, but the habit of recipe-writing had moved into Baghdad court culture by the 10th century.” and “Many of these cookbooks must have disappeared. Ibn Sayyar al-Warraq’s 10th-century, Kitab al-Tabikh (Book of Dishes), is the earliest known title. It was translated to English in 2007 by Nawal Nasrallah. Al-Warraq was not a celebrity chef, but rather a scribe who compiled the collection for an unnamed patron, one who apparently wanted to know how the kings and caliphs ate.” and “ The 14th-century Egyptian cookbook, Treasure Trove of Benefits and Variety at the Table, still shows the influence of 10th-century Baghdad, but also has many local modifications.” IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@IraqiEagle1001: Kebab is not even mentioned in your quotes. --T*U (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Very fair point. Nothing in the quote suggests the origin of kebabs.

Britannica says a Kebabs are thought to have originated among transhumant peoples in Central Asia, whose meat-heavy diet was transformed somewhat in an urban context where vegetables were more readily available.

Many sources mention Turkey but there are suggestions of other locations.

Akkadian (now central Iraq) and Baghdad are barely in the running so I'd say they are out of the running here as well.

Kebabs almost certainly originated in lots of places because it's a practical option for cooking things.

I'd have gone with middle east but as the best source I can find is Britannica - let's go with Central Asia,

Any objections before we change? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Central Asia seems good to me, sourced and plausible, being a dish fit for moving pastoralists. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Great. I have invited User:IraqiEagle1001 for comment. User:Reinhearted has been permanently blocked.

I'll leave for a couple of days to see if anyone else chips in then edit if no constructive well sourced alternatives. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)