Talk:Baklava

I want my changes to stay

The reason @TU-nor gave is that its far too detailed, but he could just have reformulated the sentence instead of teverting it as a whole and the Azerbaijani Baklava side is far more detailed than what I wrote, there is a whole cooking recipe with temperatures and all in the Azerbaijani Baklava part, while mine are way more simplistic and shorter formulated. So there is too detailed content in this page, but it are not my additions, I can reword my edits If you want. 93.200.105.234 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@93.200.105.234: When I said 'far too detailed', I was specifically talking about the lede (the introduction before the first subtitle). The lede of a Wikipedia article is supposed to present – in a succint form – the most important main points about the topic. Detailed discussions should be made further down in the body of the article. In this case the lede just mentions that the origin is 'unknown' (perhaps 'unclear' would be a better choice), and more details are given in the section 'History'. Your suggested addition actually says the same thing three times: 'the pre-Ottoman origin of the dish has many proposals', 'there are a few dishes that could be called the pre-Ottoman origin' and 'there is no consensus on which ... is the pre-Ottoman origin'. That is far too detailed.

As for your other changes, my comment was that the additions in several cases was redundant, that is repeating things that already are in the text. In the introduction to the section 'Regional variations', you added and expanded on some items from the text just below, so that the same thing is said in the introducion and in a slightly different way in the 'national' subsection. I have to admit that there already was some unnecessary repetitions of the same kind in that section, but it does certainly not help to add more redundancy. My suggestion would be to reduce the introduction to just mentioning a couple of regional variations and instead expand the subsections.

Since your edits contained so many changes at the same time, I may have been a bit rash with my wholesale revert. Some of your suggestions are certainly well worth considering. I will have a stab at it, but I will not reinsert your changes to the lede or expand the introduction to the section 'Regional variations'. If you want to go forward with them, I suggest that you make your specific proposals in new (separate) sections here in the talk page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Regional Variations part

Why do we need a introduction about what regional variations exist If we can get the exact same info by reading the section of each of these regional variations? I think there shouldnt be a introduction, It is just repeating some info that is already stated in the individual sections of the countrys. Also, the Azerbaijani style baklava section is far too detailedx it should be as simplistic as the other ones. Its kinda Peacock.. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFC7:DA1:BDD5:6C9D:3113 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the intro (and have already reduced it somewhat). I will try to find time later today to make a simplification. As for the Azerbaijan section, it really is very detailed, but I am not so sure I am the right person for that task, since I am unfamiliar with the Azeri baklava. I will take a look, though. --T*U (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Faas in Placenta Part

Patrick Faas part claims placenta is of Latin origin, I know that we are just quoting him, but it doesnt fit in with any other information presented in this part. Everything else explains how Its of Greek origin and its warliest mention in greek. Cato named them recipes in Greek tradtion accprding to this article, so how can someone claim it being of Latin origin If cato himself names the recipes „Greek Tradition“ and If we got eatlier mentions of placenta? 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

@Wikaviani why dont u accept my edits? They are all sourced and the structure parts are logical. I also formulated the Placenta part way better and added new sources and context. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly is Caroline Meyer E. ? a food historian ? the Washington post is a newspaper, not an expert source about history. Not to mention, a random website (Jungle Jim's) which is all but what we would call a reliable source.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I didnt add the Caroline Meyer E. source, It existed before my edits and removing the junge jims source which I just added to show other sources saying the same which I wont do again you didnt name any other point for reverting my edits. Like one source that has nothing to do with all other edits I added doenst justify the reverting of all of my edits. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You added a Greek origin for the placenta cake, that's not covered by any reliable source in the article as far as i can see.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No I didnt. The Homers odyssey part isnt my work. The Greek poem part aboit plakous also isnt my work, I just formulated it differently so things are more clear and more source orientated. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Greek poem stated originally comes from Antiphanes as stated in the reverted and unreverted version of this page and existed before I touched this page. Antiphanes lived in the 5-4th century BC, I put it at nearly the top, because in this article it is the second oldest mention/recipe of placenta/plakous. Its for structure. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "Most claim" a Greek origin, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, I don't get well how your version improved this article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Then leave th most out and let that part be reverted to the original part or reformulate, but why u revert the parts even though they give a better structure(from oldest to most recent) and have sources(like the edit on the beginning part of this page) 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Because some edits cannot be undone due to intermediate edits.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Change lost to many If u want, but there are literially sources stating what I said and why this structure is better, like one of the sources which are also in the unreverted version of this edit: Goldstein 2015, "ancient world": "The next cake of note, first mentioned about 350 B.C.E. by two Greek poets, is plakous. [...] At last, we have recipes and a context to go with the name. Plakous is listed as a delicacy for second tables, alongside dried fruits and nuts, by the gastronomic poet Archestratos. He praises the plakous made in Athens because it was soaked in Attic honey from the thyme-covered slopes of Mount Hymettos. His contemporary, the comic poet Antiphanes, tells us the other main ingredients, goat’s cheese and wheat flour. Two centuries later, in Italy, Cato gives an elaborate recipe for placenta (the same name transcribed into Latin), redolent of honey and cheese. The modern Romanian plăcintă and the Viennese Palatschinke, though now quite different from their ancient Greek and Roman ancestor, still bear the same name." 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reinstall the parts of your edits that are well-covered by reliable sources, but please, do not add "sources" like Jungle Jim's.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This means that my structure makes sense and calling catos recipe the earliest detailed recipe make more sense than calling Catos recipe which are in a Greek tradtion according to Cato himself(also literially stated in the part right after catos recipe) than calling it the earliest recipe in general 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

In Turkish, the translation of "look at that word" is "Bak lafa". Many Turkish dishes are called as if there are stories behind them. "imam fainted", and "woman's tight" are a couple of examples. Baklava was likely developed in the Ottoman kitchen and the name was distorted by time, turning into baklava. 73.223.0.150 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the last couple of years, this article has been heavily vandalised (partly by a currently blocked ip). Important sourced information has been removed, and what is worse, sourced information has been changed. Of the three theories about its development, one has been removed. About the place of origin (which means the place where the dish in the current form has been first attested), there has been a discussion here in archive 4, and consensus is that the place of birth of Baklava are the Topkapi kitchens during the Ottoman Empire. This means that the origin of baklava in the current form is the Ottoman Empire (not unknown, not Turkey, not Greece, not Iran, and so on). If someone has other sourced reliable information which contradict it, the talk page (after having read the discussions in the archive) is the place to bring it. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The origin is not the Republic of Turkey, but Ottoman Empire was also called Turkey. Also what's up with this order: " In modern times, it is common in Greek, Iranian, Arab, Turkish, Levantine, and Maghrebi cuisine, as well as in the cuisines of South Caucasus, Balkans, and Central Asia."? This doesn't seem to be alphabetic. Why is Turkish coming after Greek, Iranian, and Arab? Bogazicili (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course is not alphabetic, why do you think the article was protected? The primary name for the state created by the Ottomans here on wikipedia is Ottoman Empire, so the problem does not arise. Returning to the alphabetical order, since baklava is made from Casablanca to Almaty, I would remove single nations from the lead as far as possible, and mention only the main geographical areas: Middle East, Balkans, Maghreb, Levant, Central Asia. Any addition of specific countries is undue weight, and national variants of the dish can be put in the article body. Alex2006 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: just to be clear, that was a rhetorical question, I was actually criticizing the biased ordering. I agree with your suggestion of just mentioning regions. I'd prefer proper geographic regions though, like West Asia, Southeast Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa. Btw, the article was protected after my request [1] Bogazicili (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"mention only the main geographical areas: Middle East, Balkans, Maghreb, Levant" The Levant is typically considered part of the Middle East. Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: thanks for protecting the article! @Dimadick: I know, I think the proposed introduction was just a way of introducing cultural regions into the definition and not purely geographical ones: there is a Levantine cuisine and a Middle Eastern cuisine, the Balkans are the cultural analogue of south-eastern Europe, and so on. The main question is: do we want to use geographical regions or not? for me we can use them, but however we decide, I think individual countries should disappear from the introduction, because there are too many of them, and they are a constant source of edit warring. There is room to mention them in the body of the article. Alex2006 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes we should use geographical regions, but I don't want editors interpretations of "cultural regions". Please stick to proper geographic terms like West Asia. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think that you are right. This is the new lead, which restores the stable version, with the geographic regions:

Baklava (/bɑːkləˈvɑː, ˈbɑːkləvɑː/[1] or /bəˈklɑːvə/[2]) is a layered dessert made of filo pastry sheets, filled with chopped nuts, and sweetened with syrup or honey.

It was one of the most popular sweet pastries of Ottoman cuisine.[3]

The pre-Ottoman origin of the dish is unknown, but, in modern times, it is a common dessert in many countries of Western Asia, Southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa.

Let's see if it is ok for everyone. Alex2006 (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this but the last sentence is too fragmented with too many commas. Also it can be more accurate. I'd suggest:

"There are several theories for the pre-Ottoman origin of the dish. In modern times, it is a common dessert among cuisines of countries in West Asia, Southeast Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa." Bogazicili (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, your version is better. Let's wait another day or so to allow other opinions, if there is none I will change the lead accordingly. Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, a slight change, the pre-Ottoman version are different than modern version I believe: "There are several theories for the origin of pre-Ottoman version of the dish. In modern times, it is a common dessert among cuisines of countries in West Asia, Southeast Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa." Bogazicili (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course: this is what many people don't understand. As origin, one means the first attestation of the dish as we know it now (in case of Baklava, it is Ottoman). Then, we have the pre-dish (modern) history, and this is always nebulous at best. So we have:

Baklava (/bɑːkləˈvɑː, ˈbɑːkləvɑː/[1] or /bəˈklɑːvə/[2]) is a layered dessert made of filo pastry sheets, filled with chopped nuts, and sweetened with syrup or honey.

It was one of the most popular sweet pastries of Ottoman cuisine.[3]

There are several theories for the origin of the pre-Ottoman version of the dish. In modern times, it is a common dessert among cuisines of countries in West Asia, Southeast Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa.

Alex2006 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Balaklava

The article has this note at the top:

Not to be confused with Balaclava.

I find it hard to believe that there is really any genuine confusion between the two terms. This seems like some sort of joke. I see no discussion in Talk archives. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen restaurant menus make this mistake, but I'm not sure that counts. They are spelled similarly enough in English that someone might mix them up. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman name

you said that I should bring my issue to the talk page, so what is your problem with removing ottoman language translation? Also, the newly made edit by someone whos name i dont remmeber added origin cathegory, which doesnt at all make sense, since Its origin is debated and no consencus has been reached. 93.199.244.40 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sumanuil what would you say? 93.199.244.40 (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Origin" in a food article denote the first mention of the dish in the known form, not the place where the earliest first ancestor of the dish is attested. For example, origin of pizza is not Middle East, but Naples. Origin of Carbonara, which is also a dish with several theories about its origin, is Rome, since it was first mentioned there. Back to baklava, none of the three main theories about the origin of the dish (Rome/Greece, Central Asia and Iran) mentions the Ottoman Empire, but none of these proposed 'ancestors' resemble modern baklava. They are different dishes, which haven't much to do with today's sweet. What we know for sure, is that the first documented mention of Baklava as we know it is ottoman, as a sweet prepared in Topkapi. So, this is its "origin". If one day researchers will find an earlier mention (for example, in a byzantine cookbook) of baklava in today's form, we will change the "origin" field accordingly, but this would most probably not solve the problem of its ancestor. About the ottoman name, since the dish is ottoman, and the etymology is ottoman, it belongs to the lead. Removing it is disruptive editing. Alex2006 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Carbonara and Pizza can definetly be located to Italy, dates on flatbread isnt at all something like pizza. Carbonara also has a Italic origin. Baklava tho, is contested and has many theories on Its origin, the topkapi palace isnt that often seen as its origin. Unlike the examples you brought up, the Ancient Greek and Byzantine Placenta was much like Baklava, as was the older plakous version, Imma cite to you from the text of this article so u can understand:

Many claim that the placenta, and therefore likely baklava derived from a recipe from Ancient Greece. Homer's Odyssey, written around 800 BC, mentions thin breads sweetened with walnuts and honey. In the fifth century BC, Philoxenos states in his poem "Dinner" that, in the final drinking course of a meal, hosts would prepare and serve cheesecake made with milk and honey that was baked into a pie.

The word "placenta" originally comes from the Greek language plakous (πλακοῦς), which means something "flat and broad". An early Greek language mention of plakous as a dessert (or second table delicacy) comes from the poems of Archestratos. He describes plakous as served with nuts or dried fruits and commends the honey-drenched Athenian version of plakous.Antiphanes, a contemporary of Archestratos, provided an ornate description of plakous:

The streams of the tawny bee, mixed with the curdled river of bleating she-goats, placed upon a flat receptacle of the virgin daughter of Demeter [honey, cheese, flour], delighting in ten thousand delicate toppings – or shall I simply say plakous?

I'm for plakous.

— In the Byzantine Empire, the traditional placenta cake (known as "koptoplakous", κοπτοπλακοῦς), a dish similar to baklava, was consumed. The earliest known detailed recipe for placenta, from the 2nd century BC, is a honey-covered baked layered-dough dessert which food historian Patrick Faas identifies as the origin of baklava.

Historian Andrew Dalby speculates as to why Cato's section on bread and cakes, which he describes as "recipes in a Greek tradition", are included in De Agricultura: "Possibly Cato included them so that the owner and guests might be entertained when visiting the farm; possibly so that proper offerings might be made to the gods; more likely, I believe, so that profitable sales might be made at a neighbouring market."

Cato's original recipe for placenta follows:

Shape the placenta as follows: place a single row of tracta along the whole length of the base dough. This is then covered with the mixture [cheese and honey] from the mortar. Place another row of tracta on top and go on doing so until all the cheese and honey have been used up. Finish with a layer of tracta. ... place the placenta in the oven and put a preheated lid on top of it ... When ready, honey is poured over the placenta.

— According to a number of scholars, koptoplakous(κοπτοπλακοῦς) was a precursor to the modern baklava. Historian Speros Vryonisdescribes koptoplakous as a "Byzantine favorite" and "the same as the Turkish baklava", as do other writers. The name (Greek: πλατσέντα) is used today on the island of Lesbos for thin layered pastry leaves with crushed nuts, baked, and covered in syrup.

Now as you can see, many food historians identify it as the origin of baklava and as you also cans ee, the recipes are similar, especially the first one of the 8th century before christ.

This means that there is no consensus that baklava was founded in the topkapi palace. Therefore the Ottoman origin should be removed from infobox.

The ottoman translation is useless as well. The transltion already is written in etymology part and has therefore no reason to be in the beginning too, also the etymology part explains that Its origin is contested, as It could be of mongolian, turkic persian or a mixed origin. So the etymology part also doesnt say that the word originates from ottoman turkish and even if there are other names for the dessert and It already is mentioned in etynology part. Also, why was my reply deleted? I just answered him and try to discuss with him on how to better this page…..

2A02:8071:5860:2A0:1035:788D:D020:A589 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Turkey Soguk Baklava is a modern variation of traditional baklava, served chilled and topped with milk and cocoa powder. This refreshing version is especially popular in Turkey during the summer months. Cajuntavuk (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Add to Albanian cuisine 2600:6C50:7E00:316:C169:F0B4:EC7A:CFBD (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024 (2)

Add to Kosovan cuisine 2600:6C50:7E00:316:C169:F0B4:EC7A:CFBD (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)