Jump to content

Talk:Pilaf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pulao in Sanskrit

[edit]

Historic pulao only had vegetables and rice, no meat. The meat (especially beef/pork) were added in as the dish traveled west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.28.110 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

On the history section, there are clear policy violations beginning on this paragraph:

"Uzbek Pilav – there are so many types, tastes and legends of this national dish. It is the king and masterpiece of Uzbek cuisine. No single fest or family event is celebrated without pilav. Each region of Uzbekistan cooks its unique type of pilav, as well as there are its own type of pilav for each event. Although it is not possible to display every single type of Uzbek pilav in a single page, we have listed here some of the famous types of pilav, with related photos and descriptions, that is worth to taste on your next trip to Uzbekistan."

  • It's clear this was taken from a webpage about uzbek food.
  • The style is not right and it doesn't even make a lot of sense in isolation.

83.165.97.105 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly biased

[edit]

The P-dish is a basic rice dish. It is over ambitious to assume that this simple rice dish would have to originate in one place and spread. People in any rice and spice producing region would have figured out how to make flavored rice in myriad variations. It does seem apparent that everywhere the same dish is adapted to what was locally grow-able. The dish would have been prepare-able long before Alexander.

The origin of the word however could have a verifiable record in literature, possibly might be greek/turkish/persian/sanskrit/any of the oldest languages etc. There are many words that span Germanic, central asian, Indic, given indo-arabic-germanic trade-routes. The use of a word might catch on. However, in this article there isn't any citation or proof of the earliest use of the word of the P-dish.

This article needs a rewrite. Just explain what the dish really is and subsections as how each region has its own adaptation alphabetically in a neutral manner. The Etymology if cite-able, could be moved into its own subsection. The history is just concocted and might as well be deleted. Hgkamath (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate plov from Pilaf

[edit]

to the poster that says Plov is not used in English, Hes obviously not from queens,which has a large (Jewish)Uzbek comunity, Plov isnt just generic, it has a special recipe and a specific taste, trust me ive eaten it at over 20 restaurants in rego park. Shwarma,Donner & Gyro all have their own article despite similarity to eachother because they all have defined "standard tastes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Method: fry spices - cardamom, cloves, cinamon - and onion; add DRY rice and fry until it becomes white, rather than pearly; then add liquid - preferably stock; cook until tender, adding more liquid as necessary. [Source: little old lady in Bombay Resaurant, Manchester ~1959] (anonymous) moved here by --Jpbrenna 19:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC) until we can move it to Wikirecipes.[reply]

Origin of the word Pilaf

[edit]

The document says the following:

The word pilau is of Persian origin. However, in modern Persian, it is pronounced polo (پلو), with the first syllabe short, and the second long. Note also the relationship to Spanish 'paella', so it covers the whole extent of the Arab empire in its prime. The pilaf was probably a standard Moorish method for cooking rice - with no wasted water, important in desert regions like North Africa. It was likely introduced to the Balkans during the Ottoman period.

Yet the page for Paella says:

The name paella is the word for "frying pan" in Valencian/Catalan (from Latin patella). However, the dish has become so popular in Spanish that the word paellera is now usually used for the pan and paella almost exclusively for the dish. Paella is pronounced IPA: /pa'eʎa/, approximately "pah-EH-yah".

What's more, I distinctly remember reading in a tour book to a Central Asian country (Uzbekistan, I believe), that the word originates from greek Poluv, meaning "mixed" and was spread during Macedonian conquests. Is there any confirmation on the pilau origins? User:Bobby Isosceles

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pilaf&searchmode=none doesn't trace pilaw to a PIE root, so it may be a loan into Persian from a non-IE language. Citing references for a definite Persian origin is the policy. I do not think it derives from a Greek word however. Alexander 007 13:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems misdirected

[edit]

The page only gives a short discription of what pilaf is and to me seems like it is pretty much just about Persian rice dishes, not really very informative if you want to learn what rice pilaf is.

Merge it with the Plov article?

[edit]

Plov is not used in English, but pilaf is a common food item in stores. -Iopq 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilaf vursus Biryani

[edit]

What's the difference between Pilaf and Biryani, since they both seem to involve the same methods of preparation/ingredients, as well as originating in the Iran-Central Asia- northern India region? Le Anh-Huy 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pulao doesnt use much spices, it is infact cooked with a soup called yakhni and i think the spices are not grounded and every spice is boiled in a pot in their original shape and made into a soup called yakhni. pulao tastes like a soup and rice is i think cooked with the meat. where as biryani meat is cooked separately from the rice, its like a thick curry and uses lots of grounded spices rice is then steamed with the meat and curry for quite some time before they are eventually mixed together. Pulao is an inferior version of biryani and here when one's biryani is not cooked well, its declared pulao.115.135.130.182 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani is par-cooked in water, then cooked in a mixture of yogurt, spices, and oil. Pilaf isn't cooked in yogurt. Biryani is much harder to make. Themissinglint (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Biryani, both the curry sauce (with meat) and the rice are cooked separately. Then layers of rice and sauce are laid in one big pot and steamed. After that it is mixed. Some rice are then white and some are colored. In Pulao, a much lighter sauce is cooked first and then rice is cooked in this sauce. yasirniazkhan (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilau

[edit]

Pilau is also a very popular dish in East Africa, though it has not been mentioned in the text. The dish has been brought there by indian settlers and arabic merchants, today it is a dish prepared and served on celebrations and other festivities by africans and Indians alike.--80.78.216.88 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a reference for this, can you find one? Kat (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pnigouri (ground wheat)?

[edit]

We have cooked from this Cypriat cook book for many years. I am now intetrested in buckwheat as an ingredient but it is not wheat at all. But pnigouri is a wheat, or is it? So could I use buckwheat in place of pnigouri is my question. 78.146.141.145 (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pilau = Paella?

[edit]

Maybe we could note the spanish paella here? The same idea, close technologies - and almost the same names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.214.145 (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polau ≠ paella, although the two dishes are very similar in cooking style and spice ingredients. Added link to "see also". Kat (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pilau = Paella. it traveled to Spain through the arab/ north African berber control of the area starting in the 7th century. Its the same thing....rice with meat (seafood). and vegetable the same dish. Jambalaya the Louisiana dish in the U.S is derived from paella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tahdigh Deserves its own page.

[edit]

Tahdigh should have a Wikipedia page. It is one of the most important pieces of Persian culture. I'm not saying I want to make the page, but, you know, make it a red link or whatnot.

origin of word pulao

[edit]

the word pulao is derived from sanskrit palanna;pal(meat)+anna(rice),not your pulaka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.66 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for this? For example, a link to the etymology of the words polow, pilaf, pilau or plov? Kat (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we have an amalgam of similar, but separate evolved, names and dishes: pulao is an Indian rice with additional vegetables and, sometimes, meat, and according to an Indian chef on BBC1 this morning, derived from the Hindi word for yellow; pilaf is of west Asian origin, has the rice cooked with spices, and according to this article is etymologically derived from "lump of boiled rice". The concepts are now (at least in UK restaurants) inextricably confused with a compositesite compromise of a name pilau, but our article is dealing with things not very closely related simply because their names get confused. I suspect what it really needs is a knowledgeable editor to separate pulao from pilaf as distinct articles, with pilau as a disambiguator and hatnotes of mutual cross-reference in both. Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite

[edit]

This article contains so much original research, so many uncited claims and so much non-encyclopedian information that I deemed it beyond repair. Consequently I initiated a complete rewrite. I suggest appropriate information (images etc) be gradually incorporated from the old article into this one. ✎ HannesP · talk 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Reference

[edit]

I would suggest that the Oxford or Penguin Companion to Food by Alan Davidson be added as a reference. I'm talking about the 2002 edition ISBN 014-200163-5 (there is a more recent edition but I don't have it). The 2002 edition has an interesting and authoritative article on Pilaf by written by Charles Perry, a leading authority on Medieval Arab Cookery. Although I have not looked at it, another possible authoritative reference is Medieval Arab Cookery by Charles Perry, A.J. Arberry and Maxine Rodinson. --Bjdoyle (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main illustration

[edit]

It may be just my personal taste, but I find that the previous illustration in the infobox had a much higher quality than the new one.

  • Previous
    Previous
  • New
    New

Is there a deeper reason for the change apart from the aesthetics? --Off-shell (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palaw-Turkmen pilaf section

[edit]

what about adding it? http://www.turkmenkitchen.com/en/turkmen-pilaf/ and http://around-the-world-in-eighty-dishes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/06/3-turkmen-pilaf-plov.html

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge Osh (dish)

[edit]

No reason it should be separate, nothing remarkable when all the variations are here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pilaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about Deletion of Oxford and Cambridge references that state Iranian origin

[edit]

Such deletions [1] of oxford, cambridge, etc. references can be considered as vandalism. Please do not do it. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following references state that Pilaf or Pilau originated in Iran/Persia. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
  • The following reference states that there is zero evidence that pilaf or pilau ever existed in India prior to the Muslim conquests.[12]
With such strong references, there is no basis to delete/vandalize. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Volume 1, p. 140, Pilau most likely originated in Iran, and it traveled to Europe and South Asia after the expansion of Islam. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. ^ Richard Pillsbury, No Foreign Food: The American Diet In Time And Place, Routledge, p. 69 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ Petits Propos Culinaires - Issues 82-86, Prospect Books, 2007, p. 61 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  4. ^ Bon Appétit Volume 31, Bon Appétit Publishing Corporation, 1986, p. 206 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  5. ^ Food and Environment in Early and Medieval China, University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 195 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  6. ^ National & Regional Styles of Cookery: Proceedings : Oxford Symposium 1981, Oxford Symposium, p. 78, a Persian word meaning rice boiled with meats and spices." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  7. ^ The Cambridge World History of Food, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, p. 1151, Islam gave to Indian cookery its masterpiece dishes from the Middle East. These include pilau (from Iranian pollo and Turkish pilaf), samossa (Turkish sambussak), shir kurma (dates and milk), kebabs, sherbet, stuffed vegetables, oven bread, and confections (halvah). {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  8. ^ Cooking for the Senses: Vegan Neurogastronomy, Singing Dragon, p. 65, Pilaf originated in Persia, but then rice cooked in flavoured broths is a widespread phenomenon!
  9. ^ The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink, Oxford University Press, 2007, Pilau likely originated in Iran, and it traveled to Europe and South Asia after the expansion of lslam {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  10. ^ The Food & Wine Pairing Guide, Penguin Random House South Africa, 2012, p. 249, PILAU (pullao/pulao/pilaf) Rice-based dishes have their origin in Persia, from where they spread during the time of the Persian Empire, hence the many variations in spelling. The difference between this dish and biriani is that, in a pilau, the rice is boiled along with the vegetables, poultry, meat or seafood until tender, whereas in a biriani the various ingredients are par-cooked and then assembled in layers. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  11. ^ The Atlantic, Volume 271, 1993, p. 117, The low-country rice dish par excellence is "pilau," as the dish more commonly known as pilaf is called in Persian. The technique, like the dish, originated in Persia, according to Hess {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  12. ^ The Oxford Companion to Food, Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 624, However, there is no evidence that rice was cooked by this technique in India before the Muslim invasions, and Indians themselves associate pilaf-making with Muslim cities such as Hyderabad, Lucknow, and Delhi
Please do not remove these facts. Facts should be respected as facts. Thank you so much for understanding. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to complain if there is zero respect shown to factual information and insight. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Researcherandanalyst, Thanks for coming to the talk page, and kindly keep calm. Editors will look at it and change it if you are right. Give it a week or so. Also, the word is derived from Sanskrit pulāka. So, it might need to be written like falafel, so we don’t cause future jingoistic edit war. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I don't have an issue with the sources saying that the origin of the word comes from the Indian word "Pulaka" meaning ball of rice, but as you can see from the above references, the origin of the dish is Iranian. Please see page 624 of this book [2] The Oxford Companion to Food where it clearly states this,
QUOTE: "Since the word has no credible Persian etymology, it might be Indian. However, there is no evidence that rice was cooked by this technique in India before the Muslim invasions, and Indians themselves associate pilaf-making with Muslim cities such as Hyderabad, Lucknow, and Delhi."
So we can keep the etymology as being derived from the Indian word "Pulaka" (meaning ball of rice), but in accordance with the references, the dish itself should be stated as Iranian/Persian origin. This makes sense as Basmati rice (used in Persian cooking) originates from the Indian subcontinent, but the actual technique of making Pilaf is 100% Iranian/Persian. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution: Keep the etymological origin as it is (which includes the Indian 'pulaka'), which is already in a seperate section, all while stating the Iranian/Persian origin of the dish in the history section. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Researcherandanalyst, after checking the references, I have no issues with it. However, we need a rewrite, since there is too many references now. Looks like spam, and Wiki has a policy against it. However, the lead might want to mention both theories of early Indian texts and Persian texts. I will let everyone pitch in. Again, I am not in opposition to all of it. We might want to tweak it further like it is in falafel. To mention the possibility of multiple origins with one most likely. As seen in falafel. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Also, the question is, if Iran is the sole origin of the pilaf. Are these references and statement below wrong or right? Why did Iran use basmati? Instead of a local rice? If not influenced by ancient India? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The ancient Hindu text Mahabharata from the Indian subcontinent mentions rice and meat cooked together, and the word "pulao" or "pallao" is used to refer to the dish in ancient Sanskrit works such as the Yājñavalkya Smṛti.[1][2]

Edit warring on Indian origins

Hi Highpeaks35. I have no interest in Pilaf whatsoever, and I have zero opinion about the origin of the dish, but you are clearly deleting proper referenced material here in order to push your POV. If you have clear reputable sources stating that Pilaf is of Indian origin, please provide them, with links and quotes. So far, I don't see anything like that, appart from the vague sentence on terminology and tradition above: nowhere is it stated that pilaf originated in India. Once you have this kind of reference, the best you can probably obtain is to have a balanced sentence explaining that some authors also consider that Pilaf may have been Indian in origin, but certainly not delete all the references you don't like. "Reference overkill" is not a reason to delete all references and put your POV instead. You are also making false statements and insulting edit summaries, like "Junk references; could not even find a mention. Take it to the talk page" [3], but finally recognized that the references are OK once you were challenged and you actually checked "after checking the references, I have no issues with it" [4]: this is very improper. You have to cool down, here and on several articles. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

पाटलिपुत्र please read WP:STATUSQUO. I will let other editors have their say. Neutral parties such as Lorstaking should take a lead on this. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Galobtter, can you work with on this as well? I think it will be best if I don't get involved further to maintain neutrality of this article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Some new edits have been made that might have resolved the issues raised in this thread. You, Patliputra and Researcherandanalyst can review. Lorstaking (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
पाटलिपुत्र, the new edits [5] have erased all of the sourced content. They wrongly say it is of both West Asian and South Asian origin, when in reality the sources say it is of Iranian origin and not a single one of them says it is of mixed origin. I really think this constitutes vandalism. It does not make sense removing sources and making stuff up. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite by Fowler&fowler is something we all agreed to. Researcherandanalyst need to build consensus. Which you have not. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I have now changed the article to reflect my rewrite of the lead, consented to by others above, but as amended in the India section by Highpeaks35. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what i get from the western scholars is the iranians invented this new technique of cleaning rice and then they spent one day labouring to separate the grains in their laboratory and then named this new innovative technique an indian name from sanskrit derived from dravidian, to be honest, a six years old kid with proper hygiene training would know to clean rice before cooking it, this would automatically remove the starch, indian basmati rice are known for their non stickiness and their fluffiness, the technique for basmati rice to be soaked in water for some time is more for its grains to become bigger in size and hence better cooked than anything else.

Basmati rice: Perhaps the most famous aromatic rice, basmati is grown in India and Pakistan. It has a nutlike fragrance while cooking and a delicate, almost buttery flavor. Unlike other types of rice, the grains elongate much more than they plump as they cook. Lower in starch than other long-grain types, basmati grains turn out fluffy and separate. Although it is most commonly used in Indian cooking, basmati can also be substituted for regular rice in any favorite recipe. Both brown and white basmati rice are available.

basmati rice doesnt need iranian cleaning methods to turn out fluffy and separate. 60.52.50.71 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Lead Paragraph

[edit]

I have altered the lead sentence to reflect two relatively reliable sources, the Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed, 2006, available online with subscription, and the Oxford Companion to Food, 3rd edition (OUP, 2014), both of which refer only to broad sub-regions of Asia, and both are quoted in the two footnotes in the lead. There is no reason to add anything more, especially by way of adding the contributions of present-day nations. Older editions of the OED were more geographically specific in attribution of origin, the later ones are not, as the first footnote in the lead demonstrates. I have also changed the Infobox image for reasons you will find in my edit summaries.

Parenthetically, the dish is of diverse origin, as such a dish necessarily has to be. As rice was domesticated in South Asia before it was in West Asia, there was, most likely, some tradition of cooking rice in stock in South Asia, which was adapted to a unique style of cooking in West Asia, in which the individual grains remain separate. The latter method was introduced back into South Asia after the Muslim conquests in the 13th century. Of course, we cannot state this in the Wikipedia article as it is speculation. The domestication of food and evolution of cuisine are complicated issues, and certainties of one age give way to uncertainties of the next, as more powerful, and more multidisciplinary, tools become available. In other words, if multiple authors with diverse expertise in DNA analyses, archaeology, paleo-meteorology, historical linguists, are writing scholarly articles on the domestication of one grain, older histories of all food, written by a single author, will be becoming less reliable. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Revised: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the book by K. T. Achya, Indian food: A Historical Companion, Oxford University Press India, 1998, may be less than reliable. The author has used a wide variety of sources, some quite old. True Achya mentions the Mahabharata, but he gives the name of the dish too, and it doesn't sound anything like "pilaf" or "pilau." He says: "The Mahabharata mentions "pishthaudana," a dish of rice cooked with mince meat. (cited to 28: Ghosh, Oroon Kumar, The Changing Face of Indian Civilization, South Asia Books - Minerva Associates (publications) Pvt Ltd, Calcutta, 1976, volume 2, p. 322) He also mentions other ancient texts, but cites very old references. For example: "About the 2nd century, meat cooked with rice is referred to in the Yāgnavalkya Smriti as pāllao-mevach (cited to 27: Majumdar, G. P., Some aspects of Indian Civilization, published by the author, Calcutta 1938, pp. 30–31) and the word palāo also occurs in early Tamil literature of a slightly later period (cited to 3: Iyengar, P. T. S, Life in Ancient India, Srinivasa Varadachari and Co, Madras, 1912, pp. 86–91) I am not saying, s/he is incorrect, but I think the full citation, not only to her/him, but also to the sources s/he is using, should be given. All three references occur on page 54 of Achya. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, "but rather the proportion of the contribution in the estimation of the OED, and the Oxford Companion to Food" - where does it state that? Rice came first from South Asia, not West Asia. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Look at the order in the quotes; OED mentions Middle East/West Asia, then South Asia; OCF mentions only Middle East. Pilaf is not about rice; otherwise, it would have China first, the region where rice was first domesticated, but about preparing rice in a manner that its individual grains don't stick. That method of cooking rice was developed in West Asia and brought to India by the Muslims, as many other sources say too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found it very odd, you don't have an issue using China in your above comment, which is very specific. But, have issues using ancient India or Iran. Even though rice was probably from the Pearl River valley, which is modern day China and smaller section of Vietnam. I know you will tell me "source x" or "source y", but earlier references were clearly more specific, which you did not want to use. Regardless, I don't have an issue with using South or West Asia here, but wanted to point out your POV pushing. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Highpeaks35 You are nitpicking in a manner that is far from constructive. I mentioned that in a talk page post, not in the article, using the language of Nature paper the Wikipedia page on the "History of domestication and cultivation of rice" cites. The Nature paper says, "In-depth analyses of the domestication sweeps and genome-wide patterns reveal that Oryza sativa japonica rice was first domesticated from a specific population of O. rufipogon around the middle area of the Pearl River in southern China, and that Oryza sativa indica rice was subsequently developed from crosses between japonica rice and local wild rice as the initial cultivars spread into South East and South Asia." The middle of the Pearl River is firmly in present-day China, nowhere near Vietnam. The paper clearly states that only subsequently were the strains of indica developed on Southeast- and South Asia (the author's words). Let me warn you again to engage only in constructive debates. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
logic of western handles here is, if the scholarship is india, it is under dispute, if scholarship is european, than its not under dispute, european scholarship has been known through out the world as inclined towards their biblical lands of west asia, so even if pulao gets its name from sanskrit pulaka, its west asian, biryani must be persian influenced because name bears the persian name even though there is no trace of dish called biryani there, chess must be also from persia despite its sanskrit name according to many western scholars, sugar must have been produced in persia, wootz steel must be from damascus, and muslin must be from mosul and indians must have learnt that from the arab traders, the indian numerals must be from arabia, indians must have learnt it from the muslim invaders, romans must have taught indians to use black pepper in their cooking and the list goes on.60.52.50.71 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

most likely, some tradition of cooking rice in stock in South Asia, which was adapted to a unique style of cooking in West Asia, in which the individual grains remain separate. The latter method was introduced back into South Asia after the Muslim conquests in the 13th century.

what european users and their scholars seem to be in total denial is that things may have travelled from india to persia, if they are so insistant on persian/west asian influence on india, for instance persians learnt the elephant warfare from the indians, imported elephants from india, but the things being suggested above is like, indians must have known something about elephants since elephants were native to india but muslims must have introduced elephant warfare in south asia after thirteenth century invasion, in some persian blog, some where i read armor plating of elephants was introduced by the persians/muslims just becaus surviving examples from mughals even though indian reliefs clearly indicate elephant armour, i read some similar stuff that chess must have originated in india in crude form, but the chess known today is persian chess which must have been reintroduced from persia by the muslim invaders. As ridiculous as it may sound, both european wikipedia users and 'reliable' scholarships they quote seem to have particular agenda to prove how everything must have moved into india by a convenient excuse of muslim invaders without having the brains to produce some concrete proofs without speculation. The common excuse for pulao being west asian is it uses meat and indians were vegetarians, this excuse is also used for biryani, korma, keema etc, even though i can quote various ancient indian texts that refer to non veg cooking from an era before muslim invasion.

References

  1. ^ K. T. Achaya (1994). Indian food: a historical companion. Oxford University Press. p. 11.
  2. ^ Priti Narain (14 October 2000). The Essential Delhi Cookbook. Penguin Books Limited. p. 116. ISBN 978-93-5118-114-9.

indian texts do mention separate grains of rice

[edit]

Food was rich and varied in south India in the first few centuries ad. As observed above, there were at least five varieties of rice. 183 Rice was of course mostly eaten boiled, but sometimes fried aromatics were sprinkled on it. 19a Dressing with tamarind gave puli-kari (puli-sadam), 203 and further with sesame seeds and sugar yielded chitrannam. 20b Rice could be cooked with a pulse (the present pongal), 21 or cooked with ‘fatted meat’, 22 or ‘well-cooked with ghee’. 233 There is a poetic description of ‘rice which looked like jasmine buds, the grains elongated like fingers, and separate from one another’.

washing rice before boiling, Parboiling rice, aging rice was also well known

Sanskrit work of the 6th century ad, the Dasaku-maracharita of Dandin, 24 relates the tale by which Gomini, a lass of the Dravidian country, found a husband by the economical way in which she dealt with a quantity of paddy. All the steps in the processing of paddy are elegantly and lovingly described: grinding, drying, removing the husk, and then polishing with a pounder (whose end is covered with iron plates), followed by winnowing the grains, and then washing them before cooking in boiling water. 24 Rice kept for three years was considered healthy. 17b Pulangalarisi was paddy parboiled by immersion in hot water, drying and pounding. Both ageing and parboiling could have been means based on experience for hardening rice, and the latter gave, on milling, a higher yield of whole grains, and of a better nutritive quality,than did raw rice.

soaking of rice was also a common method

Aval was rice that was soaked, and roasted in sand until about to puff, followed by flattening in a pounder. Soaked rice was puf¬ fed to pori by throwing it on hot sand. Both aval and pori were eaten after soaking in milk.

{{{1}}} 60.52.50.71 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are quoting selectively. Achya is very definite and blunt on page 154: "To the somewhat austere Hindu dining ambience the Muslims brought a refined and courtly etiquette of both group and individual dining, and of sharing food in fellowship. Food items native to India were enriched with nuts, raisins, spices, and ghee. These included meat and rice dishes (palao), dressed meats (kabab), stuffed items (samosas), desserts (halwa, stewed fruit) and sweetened drinks (falooda, sherbet). New dishes enriched the cuisine of the land, like those made of wheat finely ground with meat (halim, harisa), or the frozen kulfi, a rich ice-cream of khoa, or the jilebi. Muslims influenced both the style and substance of Indian food." It is pointless, in the face of such clear language, to look for instances in pre-Islamic Indian cooking of dishes that meet this or that requirement of a pilau, but not all. The words of the lead are carefully chosen. They acknowledge the Indian contribution to the preparation of rice itself, but place the West/Central Asian contribution to the making of the pilau, the more central one. See the OED text quoted in the lead. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the bone of contention here was rice cooking which enabled the rice grains to separate and method which was named pilaf and was supposedly invented by the persians, i have provided RS to that now, i think the case should be closed for good unless you provide another reference, how my RS is challenged by the western scholars. pulao according to Achaya was already mentioned in the earlier hindu texts of yajnavalkya semriti, the western asia thingy was only inserted because of the notion that indians didn't know how to cooking separate rice grains and presumeably didn't mention cleaning starches by washing them before boiling. regards 60.52.50.71 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for us to decide what the bone of contention is and then look for sources here or sources there to make our argument. Only the reliable sources which specifically discuss pilaf can make that determination. Those are pretty much unanimous in giving West/Central Asia the primacy in the origin of that dish. I suggest that you not revert a version that has been in the article for quite some time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP policy, I am adding neutrality and accuracy tags to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your reliable sources become unreliable when they claim something which is debunked by a historic reference, now, you can present reliable references which argue that historic references stated in Achaya's work are unreliable, or you can bring reliable references stating how the indian pulao got influece of the central asian/persian/middle eastern one, notion of pilaf method of cooking rice with separate grains not known in india before islamic invasion has been completely debunked according to the quoted reference. 60.52.50.71 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so list you proposal what changes you want in the article? i think the changes i made would be acceptable to you by removing the content from the intro. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what reliable sources mean on Wikipedia. I have no proposal. I already have a long standing version in place in the article.

I am simply summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say. Ancient Indian sources are not secondary sources. They cannot be used on Wikipedia. Parboiling of rice is practiced all over southeast Asia and China (where rice was first domesticated), but what they make is not pilaf or pilau. The key step in the preparation of a pilaf is the last in which the half cooked rice is placed in a dish which is covered with cloth before being closed with the lid. The dish is then placed on a source of low heat for half and hour, sometimes in an oven. The reliable secondary ones are very clear. Rice and its cooking may have gone from India to the Middle East, but the pilaf or pilau is a Middle Eastern method of preparing rice that was introduced into India by the Muslims. Here are two sources:

On page 624:

"pilaf or pilau, a Middle Eastern method of cooking rice so that every grain remains separate, and the name of the resulting dish. Usually a flavouring such as meat (usually lamb) or vegetables is cooked along with it, but plain rice, known as sade pilav (Turkish), rut mufal-fal (Arabic), or chelo (Farsi), can also be cooked by this technique. The word comes from the medieval Farsi pulaw, now pronounced polo. Most European languages have borrowed the Turkish form pilav, which is clearly related to the Russian and C. Asian ploy (a term which coexists in the C. Asian Republics with palaw). Since the word has no credible Persian etymology, it might be Indian. However, there is no evidence that rice was cooked by this technique in India before the Muslim invasions, and Indians themselves associate pilaf-making with Muslim cities such as Hyderabad, Lucknow, and Delhi. .... The first descriptions of the pilaf technique appear in the 13th-century Arabic books Kitab al-Tabikh and Kitab al-Witsla ila al Habib, written in Baghdad and Syria, respectively. They show the technique in its entirety, including the cloth beneath the lid, and describe still-current flavourings such as meat, pulses, and fruit. The Arab name, ruzz mufalfal, means 'peppered rice; but not with any implication that it is flavoured with pepper. The 13th-century recipes say to cook the rice 'until it is mufalfal; showing that the word refers to the appearance of the rice, plumped up in grains as separate as peppercorns. " "

and again on page 625:

In India pulao is associated with the cookery of the Moghul courts (see MOGHUL CUISINE) and extremely elaborate recipes with flowery Persian names (such as Nazar pasand, thousand delights) are current. The flavourings are such things as whole game birds, the yogurt-and cream-enriched stews called KORMA, and many combinations of fruits and nuts. Much about the spicy and extravagant flavourings may be characteristically Indian, but the pilaf cooking method contrasts with the local traditions of S. India, where the recipes do not aim at keeping the grains of rice separate. The typical indigenous rice dishes are porridges, puddings, and cakes made from ground rice."

In response you can't throw page 54 of Achaya at me, especially when he is bluntly saying about Muslims above. I have no proposal. The lead of the article has already been carefully edited. There is nothing that you have brought to the table that I don't already know. I bought Achaya 20 years ago. I know what is in it. Please revert to the careful NPOV version that was already in the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay, let me clear my POV according to RS. your source claims that indians didn't know how to cook such that every grain remains separate, and then claims that the complete pilaf rice cooking is elaborated in the thirteenth century cook book, this for me is in contradiction to the following statement

The first known recipe for pilaf is by the tenth-century Persian scholar Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā), who in his books on medical sciences dedicated a whole section to preparing various dishes, including several types of pilaf. In doing so, he described advantages and disadvantages of every item used for preparing the dish. Accordingly, Persians consider Ibn Sina to be the "father" of modern pilaf.

so if the complete recipe for pilaf was given in an arabic book, but the dishes are given persian names under the mughals in india, and if arabs were the one to give the complete pilaf recipe, the dish should have the arabic names and not persian. The naming of the dish has nothing got to do with the pulao dish in india my friend, the dishes were given flowery persian names because obviously persian was imposed on north india at that period, its a no brainer, naming has got nothing to do with the fact that those dishes were prepared in india and not persia/arabic lands. kheer was renamed firini, even though kheer is a dish of indian origins.
now my second objection is, i do understand that complete pilaf recipe only occurs in the thirtenth century arabic texts, i understand that and its a valid argument, you can add this statement to the history of pilaf itself i have no objections, you can make a heading named modern pilaf and you can state your arguments that recipe appears in arabs texts. But the author's statement that indians didn't know how to cook rice separately is just a conjecture to be honest and i have already provided references that indians did know the method of cooking rice with separate grains since two thousand years, so i suggest that this argument must be added to the history as well.
The author argues that;

but the pilaf cooking method contrasts with the local traditions of S. India, where the recipes do not aim at keeping the grains of rice separate.

South india is not the source of pulao reference but north india, both mahabharatha and Yājñavalkya Smṛti are the north indian texts, there are no south indian references to pulao/pilaf, the reference is only north india, the author makes a conjecture that north indians cooked like south india before islamic invasion, this is simply a conjecture and not backed by reliable source, if he thinks that pulao recipes in india differed from before the islamic invasion, the guy need to prove his conjecture, clearly his statement that indians didn't know how to cook rice so that grain remain separate has no bases at all, his claim can only be reserved for pulao dish and he is making a conjecture based on pulao preparation from south india and not based on historic references.
so in the end my proposal is, that you can edit out the heading for the controversial origins but keep the content which elaborates that indians did know how to cook rice with separate grains and you add further details how the thirteenth century arab recipe is the modern day pilaf based on your source (even though i still have deep objections on that because i still think that your author is making a lot of stuff up himself to give credit to middle east but okay) and you may also add in the info box that historic pulao is from india, modern pilaf is from thirteeth century middle east, okay?. im perticulr interested in your source since, the guy uses jalebi name as an excuse that it was derived from zulabia and goes into lengths in attributing jalebi to the middle east despite the first modern day jalebi recipe is given in jain texts from india and not to mention their prior names like jalavalika, but the author attributes jalebi to middle east any how ust based on the name, in pilaf section the author doesnt make any mention of pulao recipe mentioned in yajavalkiya smriti, my conclusion is that your source is a bit biased in favour of the middle east because their sources are mentioned and all indian sources are ignored, and in my opinion the basic pulao or pilaf cooking technique is cooking rice with meat, this goes even before innovating the technique for the grain separation of the rice, so your author doesnt make sense not mentioning this very basic stuff. regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is more:
  • Roger, Delphine (2000), "The Middle East and South Asia (in Chapter: History and Culture of Food and Drink in Asia)", in Kiple, Kenneth F.; Ornelas, Kriemhild Coneè (eds) (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. Volume 2, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1140–1150, ISBN 978-0-521-40215-6 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
    • "(p1143) Under the Abbassids, for example (ninth to twelfth century), during the Golden Age of Islam, there was one single empire from Afghanistan to Spain and the North of Arabia. The size of the empire allowed many foods to spread throughout the Middle East. From India, rice went to Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and eventually, it became known and cultivated all the way to Spain. .... Many dishes of that period are still prepared today with ingredients available to the common people. Some of these are vinegar preserves, roasted meat, and cooked livers, which could be bought in the streets, eaten in the shops, or taken home. Such dishes considerably influenced medieval European and Indian cookery; for example, paella, which evolved from pulao, and pilaf and meat patties that started out as samosa or sambusak.
    • "(p1144) As noted, Iranians have a unique method of preparing rice. This method is designed to leave the grains separate and tasty, making the rice fluffy and very flavorful. After soaking, parboiling, and draining, the rice is poured into a dish smeared with melted butter. The lid is then sealed tightly with a cloth and a paste of flour and water. The last stage is to steam it on low heat for about half an hour, after which the rice is removed and fluffed. The golden crust on the bottom of the pan, or tab-dig, is crumbled on top or served separately."
    • "(p1150)In contrast to this rugged fare, a Maharashtran meal starts with a sweet, eaten with a puri or chapati. Maharashtra is rich in seafood and coconuts, and both are often blended together. Every morning the ladies of many houses begin their day by grinding coconut and spices on a grinding stone. The milk of the coconut is also present in practically every dish, even In pullao) (flavored rice, the Indian rendition of the Turkish pilaf).
    • "(p. 1151) As we have noted, Islam also strongly imposed itself on the cookery of the subcontinent for religious, as well as for purely gastronomic, reasons. Although a late cultural and religious arrival, Islam came to India via many channels. Arab traders, Afghan and Turk soldiers, along with Iranian administrators, all settled down there and made converts to their religion, as well as to portions of their culture. If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization. Islam gave to Indian cookery its masterpiece dishes from the Middle East. These include pilau (from Iranian pollo and Turkish pilaf), samossa (Turkish sambussak), shir kurma (dates and milk), kebabs, sherbet, stuffed vegetables, oven bread, and confections (halvah). Such dishes became so well acclimated in India that vegetarian versions of them were elaborated. It is this cross-cultural art that is now acclaimed all around the world."
  • Like I said, it seems that after rice was introduced from India to West- and Central Asia, it underwent transformation in its styles of cooking. The pilau/pilaf is that style, which evolved in the Middle East and then was reintroduced into India as a result of this rich interaction. I believe I can rewrite this, making the nuances more explicit. I will do this in the coming week. Thank you for your posts. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here is more for you

The third marriage feast comes from Naishadha Charita (dated to the 12th century AD) , and is written by a poet who was clearly also a gourmet. There was boiled rice served hot, unbroken, fragrant and well-cooked, with each grain separate.

same book of K.T. Achaya, what you are quoting me are plain books, which contain zero historic references, you need to provide that, you have not bothered to answer my arguments instead tried to bring more references, i can do that as well. your own references are contradicting each other, was pilaf recipe first given by avicenna in the tenth or arabs in the thirteenth century? 175.137.72.188 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization.

your source is openly admitting biased views mate, its infact borderline sactarian. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

paella, which evolved from pulao, and pilaf and meat patties that started out as samosa or sambusak.

these views of paella evolving from pulao has, the paella article doesnt mention these views there been already debunked paella doesnt derive from word pulao or pilaf, paella derives from the spanish word for their pan and pulao a sanskrit word for rice. The biased source you are quoting is just towing middle eastern/persian agenda and nothing else. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fowler&fowler's sources

[edit]

Please expand the collapsed box below to view details of eight high quality sources which together make a clear case that the style of cooking rice, that we call pilaf, or pilau, or pulao, originated in West- or Central Asia, not in India. Rice and its cultivation did spread from India to Iran many millenniums ago, but this unique form of cooking rice was brought back to India by the Muslims. Sources 1 and 8, in particular, make explicit mention of the book of KT Achaya, Indian Food: A Historical Companion, whose every obscure footnote is being milked by nationalist India-POV editors on this page to claim an Indian origin for pilaf.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: There are eight high quality sources which together make a clear case that the style of cooking rice, that we call pilaf, or pilau, or pulao, originated in West- or Central Asia, not in India. Rice and its cultivation did spread from India to Iran many millenniums ago, but this unique form of cooking rice was brought back to India by the Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case that pilau/pilaf originated in India turns on a footnote to a footnote in KT Achaya's book. The footnote is to a 1926 book about Ancient Jaffna (in Sri Lanka) and the footnote's footnote is to a Sangam literature poem in classical Tamil, almost 2,000 years ago. No WP forum will consider this fluke form of causality to form a reliable argument, let alone one which uses old if not ancient sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The third marriage feast comes from Naishadha Charita (dated to the 12th century AD) , and is written by a poet who was clearly also a gourmet. There was boiled rice served hot, unbroken, fragrant and well-cooked, with each grain separate.

[1] fluke as well? you are not answering my questions/objections/arguments you just want to impose your POV, i have already commented on your sources, please read them and answer my objections. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the specific technique in Achaya for achieving a final cooked product in which the grains don't stick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you do not need to achieve grain separation using complicated apparatus if you are using basmati rice, as i have already argued, you just need a patila/sauce pan and basmati rice, salt and water, here in this video, an indian chef cooks separate grains of rice without using any perticular method, How to Boil the rice - #Tips&Tricks | ChefHarpalSingh, in this technique, the lady cooks separate grains of rice only using few drops of lemon does not even use the lid to give it a steam, in this video, lady purely boils the rice. the separation of rice has nothing to do with arab technique of cooking rice, it has everything to do with quality of rice being used/basmati rice. If you are using japanese rice, dispite your cloth method, you wont achieve that as proven in this video 175.137.72.188 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any scholarly sources that describe a technique of cooking rice in meat stock in ancient, pre-Islamic, India in which the grains remained separated in the cooked product? I have produced seven books specifically on the history of food published by academic publishers that state unequivocally that the technique of pilaf/pilau/pullao is not Indian, but was introduced into India by Muslims. Again, do you have any scholarly sources? If you don't please with respect, do not waste my time. I have limited patience of unfocused roundabout posts that do not respect Wikipedia policy. Best regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you are only ranting here, my time is being wasted arguing with you. you need to make more valid arguments with intelligence, producing a million source will not give any credibility to your BS, and i will not accept any of your BS edits without credible reasons, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Achaya, K. T. Indian Food Tradition A Historical Companion. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 0195644166.

be careful of this article/ it is manufactured for european/western readers

[edit]

this article is manufactured for european/western readers, any non european reader must avoid this topic, i have already highlighted how european sources presented here are biased/sectarian, this article is no less biased in favour of really pathetic european scholarship.

the gest of this article is summarised below;

If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization. Roger, Delphine (2000), "The Middle East and South Asia (in Chapter: History and Culture of Food and Drink in Asia)", in Kiple, Kenneth F.; Ornelas, Kriemhild Coneè (eds) (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. Volume 2, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1140–1150, ISBN 978-0-521-40215-6 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

regards 

175.137.72.188 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilau

[edit]

Has anyone considered a separate article on pilau which is a type of pilav, not another word for pilav? There is a huge amount of content just on this talk page that could be used to create a new article.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The literature, most of which has been compile by me above, does not support another article. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food is not a reliable reference. The author is using Achaya without attribution. The author does not cite sources it is using. It is full of errors. There was no Hindi in 300 BCE. The Mughals did not make Urdu the official language. Pilau is not another name for a random dish of rice and meat cooked together; otherwise, the Pearl River valley in China, where rice was first domesticated would have several varieties of pilafs or pullaos. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has some well-worn indices for reliability of a source. One such is citation index in Google Scholar. The Oxford Companion to Food has citation index 777. That means it has been cited by 777 other published sources. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food has been cited by 66 other sources. We cannot by our line of reasoning decide that the Oxford Companion to Food is unreliable and substitute the lead with a unreliable, partisan, interpretation of what pilaf is. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is incomprehensible. I have added a dubious tag to it. The use of the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food to so define pilaf is incorrect. For one the citation is incomplete. It is cited to the eBook verision (Marks, Gil (2010), Encyclopedia of Jewish Food, HMH, pp. 1422–, ISBN 978-0-544-18631-6, to page 1422, which does not exist in the paper version, in which it is page 462. For another, the reference is to the evolution of the pilaf/pilau in Turkey. Here is what EJF really says:

Persians had developed a more refined form of the dish, called polow, in which meats and/or vegetables were mixed into the rice, or more frequently, layered with the rice and then steamed. Polow is an art form in Iran—cooks strive to produce light, fluffy grains while retaining the natural flavor. .... The Ottoman Turks, at some point during their passage through central Asia, probably encountered the rice and meat dish there, which they pronounced pilay. In any case, pilav subsequently became a basic of the Turkish kitchen, part of everyday cooking as well as a ubiquitous dish at special occasions. ... The predominant varieties of rice in Turkey are medium-grain and short-grain. For pilav, Turks prefer medium-grain rice varieties, notably Baldo (longer and flatter than most medium-grain varieties, and originally from Italy) and the native Osmancik. They also import a rice from Egypt called "pilav rice" or "Egyptian rice." Because of the extra starch in medium-grain rice, the grains normally stick together when cooked, a state undesirable for pilaus. Consequently, a slightly different cooking technique evolved—no one knows who developed it—of first briefly sautéing (kavurma "roasted") the grain in hot fat before adding the liquid, a process that helps to keep the kernels separate and also gives them more flavor. Frying the rice in oil is a Jewish practice, as it allows the dish to be served at a meat meal; the Turks and Arabs typically use clarified butter (suzme yag). After cooking, pilau is always left to steam (dein-lemek), covered, for at least ten minutes—some cooks steam it for up to one hour—to achieve the desired.

The lead of the article as edited at this time has used only partial information from this long quote to define pilaf to be the last form of cooking after arrival in Turkey, whereas the reference mentions the Persian method of steaming already. I am therefore removing this selective use of a source, which is unreliable to begin with, and has low citation index, with more reliable sources. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FF guy should be really banned, the guy has reverted atleast three edits made by other users, uses proxies to revert the edits he dislikes, imposes his POV, picks and choose his references and imposes his will, the guy only survives because he has a good anglophone back up. i really liked the neutral edit by Shofet tsaddiq before it was reverted, should be reinstated. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed reverts also of content I added about Caribbean rice per STATUSQUO? I have restored this content that was removed for no reason and have made more changes to the lead to make it more accurate based on all the discussion I have reviewed here and sources that were added. Pilav does not have to be cooked in stock, and it is true that only certain types of grains with special properties can be cooked in stock. This is trivial to source, not only to Gil. I have tried to make this more clear in my last changes and restored the sourced information. Please consider the readers.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shofet tsaddiq (talk · contribs), you might not be aware of the Wikipedi ainjunction to shun original research and synthesis. Already in your hurried edits you have done both and done so prolifically. Please read those Wikipedia guideline pages and please remove the flawed text; otherwise, I will, for now, be forced to add two more tags to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

Thank you for telling me, but can you be more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shofet tsaddiq (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed Gil Marks with hopes that it will end this dispute. I have cited to the Guardian that pilav can be cooked in either water or stock. The Guardian article gives multiple references for this.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shofet tsaddiq: It is not a question of adding this or removing that. You are not able to write in an encyclopedic fashion. It takes time to do that. You have jumped into a food history article, with fraught history, and are attempting to write the very first sentences in the "one the one hand," and "on the other." You are talking about a dispute in the first few sentences, when in fact there is no dispute, just a occasional Indian-nationalist claim that the pilaf, like everything else, was accomplished first in India. There is no undisputed textual evidence that what we call pilaf, i.e. a method of cooking it existed in ancient India. To give it equal billing is OR. I am sorry, I understand you are here in good faith, but you have to understand also that I can't spend all my time explaining this. I will fix this at a future point of time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read: WP:WEIGHT. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice but I learned to write long before I started editing Wikipedia. Your comments on this talk page are very difficult to follow and you seem very emotional about this topic. What you are saying here is different from what you are adding to the article. Please explain yourself coherently here on the talk page.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it isn't Fowler who is difficult to understand here. I've just reverted your most recent bunch of edits because (a) your accusations of nationalist pov pushing seem likely to be absurd; (b) one of the very first sources you quoted (the OED) didn't agree with the statement for which you used it; (c) you introduced an oddly inconsistent spelling - pilav - into the lead section where we would usually stick to the spelling in the article title and note alternates. I think you should propose all of your changes here and get consensus for them prior to inserting them into the article because I don't think you have the experience yet to make such drastic changes without prior discussion. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on your talk page to apologize for comment about nationalism about which I think I was mistaken. I have fixed the OED statement. I will review my work for inconsistent spelling and I apologize for this, I will fix it. But I disagree, I do not think you reviewed the changes before taking them back. I am sorry I misspoke but I made many good changes that are supported by reliable sources like adding more about Caribbean pelau and this should not be deleted for no reason.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether everything was wrong or not. What I do know is there were glaring problems even at the top of the article. There is no rush about this: suggest your changes and see what people think about them. It might well be that your suggestions are better than what already exists or that they can be merged into the existing content. As it stands, you're trying to rewrite significant chunks of the article and I don't think you've yet mastered the skills to take on such a big task. Have you ever heard of the phrase "make haste slowly"? It may not exist in your part of the world but basically means that ultimately more progress is made if things are done in a considered manner rather than in a rush. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am sorry if I rush. I come to edit this article after I tried to make a bulgur pilaf with stock based on what I read here and I had to turn it into vegetarian meatballs. I don't understand what is dispute about pilaf can be made with stock or water, and it can be made plain or with different combinations of ingredients. They are all pilaf so why would there be a huge problem to make this change? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whatever your compulsions and immediate history for alighting on this page, you don't have the skills, nor the experience yet, for writing such an article. You are juggling bits of undigested information. Such editing pushed beyond a point becomes disruptive. Your lead sentence, "Pilaf is term used for rice dishes where the desired consistency of the grain is separated, individal grains, without clumping." has errors of syntax, style, and coherence. Sorry to be blunt, but you don't seem to be listening. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address your concerns and I will try again to fix the first sentence so it is less awkward but I am not going to stop editing the article. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Achaya

[edit]

K. T. Achaya is an unreliable source, full of errors, written by a retired researcher in oil kernels with no experience of history, one who is wildly misinterpreting the sources, who has no publication history in Food History. One such doozy is the fantasy that the method of cooking rice in stock in which the grains separate, and to which meat and other ingredients are added later, as in Pilaf, was present in ancient India 2000 years go. In fact, he cites a book published in 1926 on Ancient Jaffna (Jaffna is the northern part of Sri Lanka), which itself is footnoting a poem from the Sangam Literature, ca 100 BCE to 100 CE, but which was lost to human history until it was rediscovered by Tamil scholars in the 19th century. It matters little to Mr Achaya that the reference to meat is an entirely other one, which merely mentions eating meat with rice. This is the shabby state of scholarship that is being proposed as an alternative. In contrast, Alan Davidson was a prolific food historian, the founder editor in 1979 of Petits Propos Culinaires, the journal of food history, and the convenor of Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, the author of many books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have used high quality sources for the lead. The Google Scholar citation index for Oxford Companion to Food is 777 citations, and the Cambridge World History of Food is 558 citations. In contrast, the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food being used in the previous lead has 66 citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me who thinks Achaya's book is problematic. Here is the review of the book in the L. A. Times, which specifically addresses pilaf: Perry, Charles (December 15, 1994), "Annual Cookbook Issue : BOOK REVIEW : An Armchair Guide to the Indian Table : INDIAN FOOD: A Historical Companion By K. T. Achaya (Oxford University Press: 1994; $35; 290 pp.)", L A Times

The other flaw is more serious. Achaya has clearly read a lot about Indian food, but it was in what historians call secondary sources. In other words, he's mostly reporting what other people have concluded from the primary evidence. Rarely, if ever, does he go to the original data to verify their conclusions.

This is a dangerous practice, particularly in India, because certain Indian scholars like to claim that everything in the world originated in India a long time ago. Unfortunately, Achaya makes no attempt to winnow the wheat from the chaff. He'll quote from a serious scholarly work such as Om Prakash's "Food and Drinks in Ancient India," and then a few pages away he'll blithely repeat daydreams like: The Latin word for olive oil comes from the Tamil word for sesame, there was a direct land connection between India and Africa 250,000 years ago, the Aztecs and Mayas worshiped Indian gods, and the inhabitants of Easter Island used a script that resembles that of the ancient Indian city of Harappa.

Achaya even invents one or two myths of his own. He says there is evidence that south Indians were making pilaf 2,000 years ago, but if you look up the book he footnotes, you find that the Old Tamil word pulavu had nothing to do with pilaf. It meant raw meat or fish.

Fortunately, there's not much of this sort of dubious information, and it's concentrated in the two chapters on prehistoric India (there are also some wild tales in the chapters on Indian medicine and New World ingredients). It's a shame that there's any, though, because when you talk about Indian food--or India itself--there's so much gee-whiz stuff that's really true."

Please note that this is consistent with my post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this changes. I am only now becoming aware of all this background. My interest is to primarily expand the content about regional varieties, which does not seem to be the subject of any disputes. I am sorry if I made some mistakes because I did not fully understand these issues you have explained. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this dispute should now be resolved by admins, the assertions of achaya is not what i have posted, i have posted achaya's reference to the ancient indian sources/texts, which your secondary european sources have not bothered to consider, one of your source doesnt dispute with pulao appearing in yajnavalkiya simriti as well, if your secondary sources had talked about indian sources, there would have been no issue as they have done for arabic/persian manuscripts, i have already stated my objections on Alan Davidson, i have also remarked on my objections on a deliberate sectarian bias being propagated in two of your sources as well, which you have considered as reliable, your secondary sources also dont reference their assertations and deliberately trying to generate a perseptions based on their ideas, you are also trying to push your POV here and nothing else, you also reverted my edits in tandoori bread which cited monier willians who is an emminent sanskritist and nothing to do with achaya, so issue is not achaya here, but your bias against indian information which you assume to be less credible than others, one of your citation is about a book review, which tbh is not very credible and you have manipulated your way through your POV and mindset, i tried to reason with you and wanted to accommodate your assertions, but you have only tried to play how you wanted, i guess now ill take this issue with the admins soon. regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander pilaf

[edit]

I'm troubled by this addition to the article. The cited text doesn't seem particularly reliable (a recipe book duly embellished) and if Alexander's troops actually brought back the recipe of pilaf, then there must be more to it than this "reportedly" throwaway line. Did Plutarch, for example, mention pilaf in his histories? Did Arrian say something about the troops being enamored with pilaf? Is there some Greek dish that can be traced back to this much traveled pilaf? There are, after all, limited extant accounts of Alexander's conquests so we should be able to attribute it better. If not, we should just chuck it out. --regentspark (comment) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This was in the article before I started editing it without any source. This was the only book I was able to find on Google Books that was even close to reliable. If there is such an early literary mention it should be in the article and absolutely it would be preferable to know which primary source it comes from. I thought about removing it but did not know if that was preferred.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark:@Shofet tsaddiq: Yes Nabhan is not a reliable history. I have for now put "similarly" as a comment adverb, casting it to the class of reported, or infirm, accounts in the paragraph that precedes it. Will look at the history of Alexander's meals. Since the cultivation of rice had spread from India to Persia and beyond much earlier, it is entirely possible that there were unwritten grandmother recipes in the region much earlier than the first documented one (by a literate male) in the 10th century CE, but we can only go by what's written down. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following sources for the apocryphal tales about Alexander's pilafs: "tutmac a Turkish word meaning NOODLES which in one form or another is found in the remotest corners of the Turkish-speaking world, from the Tatars on the middle Volga to the Salars in Gansu province, China, and the isolated pagan Turkish nationalities of the Altai mountains. In his I I th-century dictionary of Turkish dialects, Mahmud al-Kashghari recorded a pleasant and quite unbelievable folk-tale about how tutmach was invented at the behest of Alexander the Great, whom he refers to by his Koranic name, Dhu al-Qarnain:

When Dhu al-Qarnain emerged from Zulumat [the Land of Darkness where the sun disappears when it sets, and the Fountain of Youth is to be found], his people had little food and complained to him of hun-ger, and said to him, 'Bizni tutma ach; that is 'Do not keep us here hungry, let us go so that we can return to our homes: He consulted the wise men on that subject so that this food might be produced, tutmach. It strengthens the body, reddens the cheeks and is quickly digested, and after the tutmach is eaten, the broth is drunk several-fold. When the Turks saw that, tutmach was named, its root being tutma ach, that is to not cause hunger.

In Xinjiang the modern Uyghurs tell the exact same story about PILAF (specifying that the wise men were Aristotle, Socrates, Hippocrates, and Plato). This reflects the fact that pilaf has assumed the role of the grand dish of hospitality, which tutmach had enjoyed in the Middle Ages. cited to Davidson, Alan (2014), The Oxford Companion to Food, Oxford University Press, pp. 840–, ISBN 978-0-19-967733-7

"It was inevitable that the British conquest of India and creation of such a massive addition to her empire should invite comparison with Alexander, much encouraged by rich local legend about kinship to Alexander and the Greeks by local tribes and leaders, and indeed the blue-eyed, fair-haired appearance of the Kalash (in the Chitral valley of Pakistan), a trait often observed and similarly interpreted by earlier travellers!' India was the first producer of rice, so we need not dwell on the claim that it was Alexander who in-troduced it (pilaf=plov) to Samarkand." cited to Boardman, John (2019), Alexander the Great: From His Death to the Present Day, Princeton University Press, pp. 102–, ISBN 978-0-691-18175-2 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's self contradicting dubious sources and edits

[edit]

just to exhibit how dubious this guy's edits are lets take an example

Descriptions of the basic technique appear in thirteenth-century Arab cookbooks, although the name pulao is not used. The word itself is medieval Farsi, and the dish may have been created in the early sixteenth century at the Safavid court in Persia. ... Although dishes combining rice, meat and spices were prepared in ancient times, the technique of first sautéing the rice in ghee and then cooking it slowly to keep the grains separate probably came later with the Mughals." Sen, Colleen Taylor (2014), Feasts and Fasts: A History of Food in India, Reaktion Books, pp. 164–5, ISBN 978-1-78023-391-8

i just came across this dubious sources he listed in the article and to be honest, his own sources are enough to expose this biased man, atleast should have the guts to mention these facts in the article . i always thought FF's sources are too dubious to even waste a breath, but this is just shocking to say the least.

the whole debate started from thirteenth-century Arab cookbooks mentioned by a british/western author Alan Davidson, dubious source doesnt mention this very crucial fact.

I don't have an issue with the sources saying that the origin of the word comes from the Indian word "Pulaka" meaning ball of rice, but as you can see from the above references, the origin of the dish is Iranian. Please see page 624 of this book [2] The Oxford Companion to Food where it clearly states this,

QUOTE: "Since the word has no credible Persian etymology, it might be Indian. However, there is no evidence that rice was cooked by this technique in India before the Muslim invasions, and Indians themselves associate pilaf-making with Muslim cities such as Hyderabad, Lucknow, and Delhi."

So we can keep the etymology as being derived from the Indian word "Pulaka" (meaning ball of rice), but in accordance with the references, the dish itself should be stated as Iranian/Persian origin. This makes sense as Basmati rice (used in Persian cooking) originates from the Indian subcontinent, but the actual technique of making Pilaf is 100% Iranian/Persian. Researcherandanalyst (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

and this is guy's own comments above, self contradicting himself

Please note that the book by K. T. Achya, Indian food: A Historical Companion, Oxford University Press India, 1998, may be less than reliable. The author has used a wide variety of sources, some quite old. True Achya mentions the Mahabharata, but he gives the name of the dish too, and it doesn't sound anything like "pilaf" or "pilau." He says: "The Mahabharata mentions "pishthaudana," a dish of rice cooked with mince meat.

this guy is getting badly exposed through his own dubious sources and his own biased arguments.

regards

175.137.72.188 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is covered by what is already in the article. Achya and Davidson are both discussed. What is the issue with using Colleen Taylor Sen as a source?Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

There are some reoccuring issues with the lead section. First, I do not know why it continues to be erased that pilaf can be cooked in water, and may be served plain. There is not only one correct recipe for pilaf. Broth is less common then it was historically and many people cook in water now when broth is not available. The omission of broth does not make the dish not a pilaf. Recipes change over time and this article covers past and present. In present, making pilaf with water is very common. Second, I am sorry for removing pilau. I did not know this was a synonym in British English. I have made changes to make this clear that it is a synonym. Pilau in the United States is used often for pilafs from Afghanistan or made by Bukharian cuisine, though in regional cuisines it overlaps sometimes with plovs. However, it is never used for a Turkish pilau and this meaning is not known to readers who were not familiar with details of British English. Please make a note about any problems and we can try to make a compromise version.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler You keep repeating that " You don't understand encyclopedic writing, but you are insisting on writing your home made ad hoc version". Respectfully, everything I am adding is supported by citations. You can't use ad hoc correctly in a sentence but you want to give advice about encyclopedic writing to others, ok, please explain here what you mean by "encyclopedic writing".Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make compromises between individuals, or their personal opinions, on Wikipedia. We present only what the predominance of sources state, and in case of a substantial dispute between the source, present what the dispute is. There is no dispute here. The majority of the scholarly sources state that pilaf refers to a dish to which things are added: they can be spices, meat, vegetables, dried fruit, and so forth. All are a form of stock. Plain rice cooked in water is not pilaf. The OED says that very clearly, "A dish, partly of Middle Eastern, partly and ultimately of South Asian origin, consisting of rice (or, in certain areas, wheat) cooked in stock with spices, usually mixed with meat and various other ingredients. The contents and method of preparing the dish vary widely according to region." This is the 2019 OED on line to which I have a subscription. The Oxford Companion says that. The Cambridge World History says that. All are referred to in the article. The rest of your post is your own opinion. If it is not there in scholarly sources, it is useless for Wikipedia. Those are the limits of Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shofet tsaddiq:, Really, I can't use ad hoc correctly in a sentence? Please point out the error. Please do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OED is an important source but that does not make it a "predominance of sources". There are other sources that say pilaf can be cooked in water. Some of the sources like Cambrdige World History are historical and support what I am trying to explain to you. It is true that historically stock was used, many sources support this. But pilaf does not have to made with stock, and with certain types of rice it can't be made with stock. Gil Marks supported this also, but someone on this page insisted that source be removed also (I do not remember if it was you). I do not think what is meant by "enyclopedic writing" is to delete all sources that do not support what you want. Ad hoc, if this is necessary, means "for this purpose", mostly commonly usage is ad hoc committee to describe a committee formed for a particular purpose. I do not know what you were trying to say when you wrote "home made ad hoc version".Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that you not take me on when it comes to the English language. You don't know enough. OED ad hoc B. adj. Created or done for a particular purpose; that answers a specific need or demand, rather than in accordance with a general policy, rule, etc. Examples:

[1853 C. C. F. Greville Mem. (1887) I. iii. ii. 51 There are already symptoms of a possible combination ad hoc.] 1879 Time Apr. 3 The special matter that brought about the ad hoc departure from the Lawrentian policy. 1904 Fabian News Aug. 29/1 A report..on the total abolition of ad hoc bodies was read. 1948 ‘N. Shute’ No Highway 2 Short-term ad hoc experiments to solve a particular problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find me the scholarly sources, which like mine are published by academic publishers, that state pilaf can mean plain rice cooked in water with no additions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OED is the best source about English language etymology but based on above comment I do not think you understand what you read. Gil Marks was already given as a source for this, and so is The Guardian. What is wrong with these sources, they are not accepted on Wikipedia? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources: Joy of Cooking, Francis Farmer Cookbook, 19th century Good Housekeeping for bulgur pilau, Margaret Fulton, The American Heart Association. This article is not only about historical recipes discussed by Davidson in theory of origins. It is ok to make this mistake, but I find you are very rude and very aggressive by saying "Let me suggest that you not take me on when it comes to the English language. You don't know enough." You are not making here any reasonable argument to remove this supported content.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Marks begins with: "Pilaf: a dish of rice and meat cooked together." not "plain rice boiled in water." Besides, Gil Mark is not a scholarly book. We have already seen the nonsensical story of Alexander for which I have given the scholarly refutation in two sources above. The Cambridge World History of Food says, "Turkey is well known for its pilafs, or rice dishes, made from long-grain rice, pounded ripe wheat (dogme), toasted unripe wheat Ora), and bulgur, or couscous. They are enriched with meat, dried fruit, vegetables, spices, and yoghurt. (p. 1147)" It is not plain rice boiled in water. I don't know what The Guardian Source is. Please give me the URL. (You tell me, " You can't use ad hoc correctly in a sentence but you want to give advice about encyclopedic writing to others, ..." and you are accusing me of being rude.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we first agree that it can be made in stock or water? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not an personal compact between you and me. It is what the scholarly sources say. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES. It says clearly: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Cooks books or recipes in the Guardian are not scholarly sources. If the scholarly sources favor one definition, i.e. with stock, then stock it is. Period. Again, we have to follow WP guidelines and recommendations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me what unencylopedic is. Well here is an example: Pilaf is a rice dish or, in some regions, a wheat dish, whose recipe strives for cooked grains that do not adhere." This is an unencylopedic sentence, written in inflated, meaningless, language. That is because you have mangled my longer sentence, which was: "Pilaf (common North American English spelling), or pilau (common British and Commonwealth English spelling) is rice dish or, in some regions, a wheat dish, whose recipe involves cooking in stock, adding spices, and other ingredients such as meat,[1][note 1] and striving for cooked grains that do not adhere.[2][note 2][3][note 3] It takes time to be able to write in an encyclopedic fashion. I have already told you on your user talk page that you are a beginner, unable to do so. You are attempting to argue with me, someone who is experienced, had been doing this on Wikipedia for 12 years. I can only humor you so much. If you want to insist on arguing with me in a knee jerk fashion, without knowledge of the topic, without knowledge of WP rules and guidelines, then there's only so long that I will engage you. I will bide my time and return after you've stopped whatever it is you are attempting to do here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is in Davidson that pilaf can be plain, but you deleted that too. You say above "The Oxford Companion says that", but it doesn't say that at all. And you are blaming me for content that other editors added to the article. The sentence you are complaining about as being unencyclopedic was added by another editor and anyone can see that proof in the article history.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added the sentence you are calling unencyclopedic here yourself [6]. I think you have been here for 12 years then you should have been stopped by now for scaring away new editors. Please do not delete my content, I have checked references before I added it.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, pilau is not a synonym of pilaf, as you state above; rather, it is the spelling of the same word in British English. Just as pajamas (AmE) is spelled paijama (BrE). The best compromise consistent with the sources I can come up with: Pilaf (US spelling), or pilau (UK spelling) is rice dish or, in some regions, a wheat dish, whose recipe usually involves cooking in stock, adding spices, and other ingredients such as meat,[1][note 4] and employing some technique for achieving cooked grains that do not adhere." This is as far as I will go in engaging a tendentious new editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson says, "A Middle-Eastern method of cooking rice so that every grain remains separate. Usually a flavouring such as meat (usually lamb) or vegetables is cooked along with it, but plain rice, known as sade pilav (Turkish), rut mufal-fal (Arabic), or chelo (Farsi), can also be cooked by this technique." What is that but, "usually involves cooking in stock, adding spices, and other ingredients such as meat." Where does Davidson use the awkward "cooking in water?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My version was a WP:SS distillation of the the OED, Oxford Companion (Davidson) and Cambridge World History of Food (which says, "Turkey is well known for its pilafs, or rice dishes, made from long-grain rice, pounded ripe wheat (dogme), toasted unripe wheat Ora), and bulgur, or couscous. They are enriched with meat, dried fruit, vegetables, spices, and yoghurt. (p. 1147)" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter some particular variation. Historically, pilaf is made with rendered animal fat similar to lard and other things that are not recommended anymore for health reasons. Some people think it is not pilaf, most important ingredient is butter. I don't care, as long as the lead is accurate based on academic sources I have no problem.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit. The adverb "usually" is used as well in the premier dictionary of American English. Webster's Unabridged (subscription required) says: pi·laf noun : rice usually combined with meat and vegetables, fried in oil, steamed in stock, and seasoned with any of numerous herbs (as saffron or curry) <chicken pilaf> <Turkish pilaf> Origin of PILAF Persian & Turkish pilāu, palāu, First Known Use: 1609." The OED already uses usually: "A dish, partly of Middle Eastern, partly and ultimately of South Asian origin, consisting of rice (or, in certain areas, wheat) cooked in stock with spices, usually mixed with meat and various other ingredients. The contents and method of preparing the dish vary widely according to region." We could add the last sentence of the OED (duly paraphrased to this article's lead as well.) That usually deters people from directly editing the lead when they consider the lead sentence not measuring up to their grandmother's recipe. As for the matter of citing (or not citing elaborately) in the lead, my principle is the following: in start class article, which this article is (see top of page), or even in B or C class articles, I tend to include the citations in the lead, as, like I just said, it deters people from continually editing the lead, and preventing the article from becoming stable, which is essential for promotion to higher classes. Once an article reaches A class, and most certainly if and when it becomes a Good article or a {{WP:FA|featured article]], the lead is usually not cited, as they the article has many watchers and they intervene. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea to promote stability of the lead section. I see still some things missing from the article text. I would like to add Hoppin' John. Do you think this source is enough for the citation? [7]? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Gastronomica article you reference say? It is not used in the Hoppin' John page, and it doesn't seem to be primarily about the pilaf. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Oxford Companion to Food 3rd Edition

[edit]

The pilaf entry in the Oxford Companion to Food has been cited in this article and this talk page as having being written by Alan Davidson. In fact, the 3rd edition has been published after Davidson's death, and is edited by Tom Jaine. The pilaf entry is authored by food historian Charles Perry, who has also made contributions to Alan Davidson’s Petits Propos Culinaires and to The Oxford Companion to Food. The writes a food history column for the LA Times. The pilaf entry should be cited as: Perry, Charles (2014), "Pilaf", in Jaine, Tom (editor) (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Food by Alan Davidson, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, pp. 624–625, ISBN 978-0-19-967733-7 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly dickering or nickel and diming in the lead

[edit]

@Highpeaks35: It is best that you not dicker with words or nickel and dime lists in the lead. The lead has taken a long time to get right. You might be attempting to change things here and there in good faith, but your edits are not helpful. I request that you ask here rather than increasing the work of those who maintain the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"adhere"

[edit]

The article includes this line: "employing some technique for achieving cooked grains that do not adhere"

I believe, based on the linked source/comment, that "adhere" is referring to keeping the rice from sticking together. But the word "adhere" is commonly used in other senses - such as, to adhere to a set of rules. I actually don't think the meaning of "adhere" in this sentence is totally obvious. As someone who is not a cooking or rice expert, at first I thought it was referring to some set of rules for what pilaf is/how it should be cooked, instead of about the physical sticking together of grains of rice.

Perhaps we could consider using a different word or way of phrasing this, if anyone has any ideas.

-KaJunl (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors

[edit]

I just realized that IP editors, among which are notably @2A00:23C4:7889:4001:CD56:74B1:CCCE:62FF: have been removing sourced content and changing the preferred spelling (which is pilaf (the US spelling), followed by pilau (the UK and Commonwealth). The main caretaker of this page user:IamNotU has not been active since last October. But there are others: user:RegentsPark, user:Gotitbro, and user:Serols who are around. Please continue to keep an eye on the page. (We went through much heartache to get it right once.) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler&fowler. I saved the article under favorites. Regards --Serols (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can not perform any reverts on this page

[edit]

This page has been recently edited by a disruptive editor, but I can not perform any revert on this page as all revisions of this page purportedly contain "a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." I am not trying to introduce any new external link, so I don't know what any of this is about. Uness232 (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Oxford English Dictionary 2006b.
  2. ^ Davidson 2014, p. 624. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFDavidson2014 (help)
  3. ^ a b Roger 2000, p. 1144. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFRoger2000 (help)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pilaf&oldid=1226259346"