Talk:Turkish cuisine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish cuisine article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Turkish cuisine:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Herbs

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awmg

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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,

[edit]

I give up.

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


[edit]

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. denizTC 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. denizTC 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External Links

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)