Talk:Falafel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

GA review

I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. Congratulations to all users that brought this article to GA status. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right on. Thanks for the review!Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed it too - congrats on GA status! I would like to make a suggestion for the North America section/reference to vegans: The word "vegans" should be changed to "vegetarians". A recipe for falafel is found in Moosewood Cookbook, a widely circulated and mainstream vegetarian cookbook. The copyright date on my copy of Moosewood is 1977, so to say "During the 20th century, falafel was generally known only by individuals who frequented restaurants in Middle Eastern and Jewish neighborhoods and by vegans . . ." is inaccurate. Oishiisou (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Noun Form and "a unit"

The "Etymology" also discusses the etymology of the Egyptian word used for a falafel (ṭaˁamiya) and mentions the word form from which that word is formed with the phrase ' [...] the particular form indicates "a unit" of the given root [...] ' May I suggest that instead of "a unit" that "a piece" or "a portion" be used instead? The words "a unit" (especially when discussing something made up of several parts) could be misunderstood to be a 'unit' meaning "a whole thing (of united parts)" rather than a 'unit' as in "a whole portion (of a collection of things)." Any objections? — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced material

I don't think Wesam gobran's reasoning ("I deleted the line claiming that Falafel and Salad Pita sandwiches were invented in Israel as the reference cited for this piece of information is relatively weak (a journal article with no references), plus, the claim doesn't sound logical") justifies this removals ([1], [2] and [3]). Galili's article is used as a source across the article and looks quite reliable — anyway there are no high quality sources published by Falafel studies scholars. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If Wesam gobran feels the newspaper article doesn't satisfy RS, it should be brought to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Newspaper articles seldom include references, but commonly serve as acceptable relable sourcing for WP articles. "I don't like it" is insufficient justification for removal of sourced content. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I support Wesam gobran's reasoning ("I deleted the line claiming that Falafel and Salad Pita sandwiches were invented in Israel as the reference cited for this piece of information is relatively weak (a journal article with no references), plus, the claim doesn't sound logical") The citation includes no facts whatsoever and comes across to me as purely opinion. Furthermore, I lived in Alexandria, Egypt for 6 years and know with certainty that falafels are served in Pita bread and have been for at least generations born from 1900 and on. I don't have citations but equally don't believe that http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3421119,00.html Galili's article] stands up as any kind of factual support. I suggest the sentence is stricken from the article until such a time that a credible source supports such an assertion and is founded on facts rather than only a comment. Veritycheck (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To be an FA

This article needs to use better sources. It also needs to include more detailed information on the dispute over falafel, which is covered in multiple reliable sources in more depth and sensitivity than what we have presented in our article. See:

• Israeli and Palestinian postcards: presentations of national self (pages 33-36)
• The place of the Mediterranean in modern Israeli identity (pages 126-127)

There are others too, some of which are listed in this article (see the Jodi Kantor piece from the NYT). The material they contain regarding this issue is omitted or radically oversimplified. Yes, falafel is a food, but unlike other most other foods, its one that RS almost universally cover as a symbol of political and cultural contestation. This shouldn't have been whitewashed out of the article. Tiamut^talk 17:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Its also strange that we include this sentence in the introduction "Falafel is also often considered a national dish of Israel." We do this without mentioning other countries where falafel's popularity and usage is on par or outstrips and precedes that of Israel. We also do it without mentioning the controversy over Israel's claiming an Arab dish its own. How is this is any way NPOV? How did GA reviewers overlook this? Tiamut^talk 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a second reference for this point, from an international source. Alan Davidson's words are: "Some regard falafel as a national dish of Israel", which I think supports the statement in our text.

I don't see why this is NPOV. But if it's controversial and has been contradicted by other reliable sources we should cite them too. Andrew Dalby 20:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just found a statement by Claudia Roden that falafel "is one of Egypt's national dishes". She follows this up by mentioning the claim (which already appears in our next sentence) that the Christian Copts were the inventors of falafel: she thinks it "quite probably justified". I guess I could add this reference and adjust our sentence to say that falafel has been claimed both as an Egyptian and as an Israeli national dish. Would others approve of that? Andrew Dalby 20:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "claimed" is the right word. "Considered" would make more sense I think. It's an opinion after all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I'll make that change now. Andrew Dalby 08:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I made it in two steps, for easy reversion!

1. I added that it has been considered a national dish of Egypt, and cited Claudia Roden for this.
2. Then I moved both these "national dish" opinions out of the lead section, into the beginning of the history section, because they require footnoting and are said to be controversial (see above). Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby 08:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]" and citation

First of all this is my first contribution to a discussion page so please forgive me if I miss some procedure or protocol. I was lead to this page as a result of coming across an inaccuracy in this article. As a long-time Wikipedia user who appreciates the immense value of the site, I felt compelled to have it corrected. After looking in the help section on disputes and reading Wikipedia:Third opinion, I was informed that this was the first place to begin such a discussion.

The sentence in the article that is not entirely correct and in fact misleading is, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]", which can be found under the heading History and the subheading Middle-East.

I have two issues with the statement.

The first is personal. As a Canadian who grew up in the 60's & 70's I had the opportunity to eat Falafel in several cities throughout my childhood both in Canada and in The United States. On each of these occasions, the only falafel available were sold in Lebanese restaurants that were owned and operated by Lebanese immigrants and in one case, Palestinians. There were no Israeli restaurants in Vancouver, Edmonton, or Toronto (3 cities in the top 5 largest urban areas in Canada) nor Seattle, or Portland at that time.

I distinctly remember the novelty as friends, family, and neighbours were all delighted with the introduction of falefel in these cities. When I came across the aforementioned inaccuracy purporting that Israelis were solely responsible for this deed, I sought to edit the sentence to include Lebanese and Palestinians. I did this by an edit on - 19:33, 31 August 2011 2.158.148.75 (talk) (25,188 bytes) (→Middle East) (undo)

which read to include:

“Palestinian, Israeli, and Lebanese entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[21] [7]”

Israel may indeed have been responsible for participating in introducing the falafel to North America, but certainly by no means was exclusively responsible for it. Unfortunately, the edit to the page was quickly reverted.

My second reason for taking issue with the same statement came when I linked to its citation to verify it’s validity and found that it did not meet the guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia as it lacked scholarly consensus, a reference to studies, or historical data. The citation was in fact nothing more than a statement included in an “Lifestyle” opinion piece labelled, “a fact sheet”, by an author who has no experience in culinary history but is rather a Content Specialist & SEO Consultant with a background in IT and a BA, Bsc, in Political Science & Computer Science.

^ a b c d Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News. Retrieved February 6, 2011.

The cited article is found in an Israeli heavily biased website. From its homepage self-described as, “Ynetnews is the English-language sister-site to YNET. Israel's largest and most popular news and content website.”

Nowhere in the cited article does Galili, Shooky backup up his statement about Israel entrepreneurs being responsible for the introduction of the falafel to the United States with any supporting facts or background information. And as such is the case it doesn’t seem to qualify as an acceptable citation that meets with Wikipedia’s more stringent requirements.

On September 16, 2011 I decided to strike the sentence from the article with the following edit:

17:07, 16 September 2011 94.167.209.216 (talk) (24,484 bytes) (Removed: how falafel came to North America. Sentence/citation were opinion-based from an Israeli-biased “lifestyle” piece without facts/studies/or scholarly consensus to back it up, not meeting Wikipedia’s standards of credibility for citations) (undo)

Again, the Edit was promptly reverted.

Which brings me to this post. The information in the sentence is not correct. I’m not sure what is needed to rectify it and give Wikipedia readers the truth. Now that I have brought this issue to the attention of Wikipedia, I hope I have detailed the issue correctly as I should have. I would be grateful for any kind advice on what I must do next to see the sentence edited to correctly describe the accurate introduction of falafel into North America. Reading the sentence as it is today not only gives people false information but also is an affront to my childhood memories of eating delicious Lebanese falafels in the Lebanese restaurants that began to spring up in North America in the 1970’s. Thanks for your direction. Veritycheck (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What you would need to change the sentence is a reliable source per WP:RS (like Ynet, even if you think it's biased) supporting the information you'd like to add or contradicting the information already in the article. Your childhood memories can not be used as a basis for editing wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that whatever we do should be based on reliable sources. I do not believe the Ynet post qualifies as a RS, and we should be able to do better.

As to the substance, I suspect that the truth of the matter is that falafel was available in Middle Eastern restaurants for a long time (exactly as User:Veritycheck says), but only in Middle Eastern restaurants as an ethnic food. Some time in the 1970's, it seems to have been popularized as a street food for non-Middle Easterners in the US by Israelis who sold it from food trucks (there was one in front of MIT in the 1970's) and the like. Many ethnic foods "broke out" from specialized venues in this way. In London, apparently hummus was introduced by Cypriot restaurateurs (not Levantine), and is thought of as a Greek food, though it was unknown in Greece until recently. Go figure.

But we do need RS for all this. --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what happens when you ask for falafel at a Greek joint in Seattle? They look at you like you are a jerk. But that is OR. A source (Ynet is RS even if it is from a country that people don;t like) says so and that is good enough for me since sources have allowed for falsehoods before and this one at least appears more plausible than others. Sorry, WP:V is met. Go change other articles against RS when it favors you and be reverted. Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, no reason for snarky personal attacks here. My comments have nothing to do with "not liking" Israel. They have to do with the quality of the source. And "Go change other articles against RS when it favors you and be reverted." is really uncivil.

As for "sources have allowed for falsehoods before" -- you seem to be saying that we should tolerate falsehoods as long as we have some low-quality source for them? That makes no sense. WP:V does not mean we abandon judgement or tolerate low-quality sources.

Asserting "Sorry, WP:V is met." is not helpful, and not civil. Could you please support your assertion? Why do you think that the Ynet article is an RS? Is Shooky Galili some sort of expert on food history? Does he cite sources? No, in fact he is a technology journalist and SEO consultant who writes a Hummus blog with ads. That's all.

I have looked for better sources, and the best I've found is this:

Later in the 1960s, tourists visiting Israel encountered a number of Middle Eastern dishes that had been brought there by Jewish refugees [mentions hummus, tabbouleh, falafel]... Over the years, they have become standard cafeteria and fast food dishes.

-- Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink s.v. Middle Eastern Influences on American Food, p. 384

But that is rather vague. American tourists "encountered" these dishes in Israel, then they "became" standard dishes. What happened in between? --Macrakis (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am sure everyone in this discussion has actually looked for other RS. I assume everyone has done what IU already have. Other sources alluded to it. But if you want to fight RS then find RS against it. And then find RS supporting it and find reasoning to dispute that RS. I honestly can't trust any argument that isn't from someone who can say they have looked. Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have since found 2 incidences that establish Palestinian Immigrants opening falafel restaurants in 1960 and 1966 in Washington D.C. and San Jose, CA. Both of these cases predate the unsupported sentence saying that Israelis brought the falafel to the U.S.A. in the 1970's. I have an excellent citation for the former and am just getting together a citation(s) for the latter before I edit this article once again.

I do have a question first. The second case in San Jose, Ca has many citations that the falafel restaurant was established in 1966 but they do not directly state that the family was Palestinian, just Middle-Eastern. I have found subsequent citations addressing a particular member of the family in an unrelated situation with clear and numerous citations that the family were indeed Catholic Palestinians running the falafel restaurant but not going into detail about when the restaurant was established. Should I post both citations that together make the situation evident and credible? Thanks for your advice. Veritycheck (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Veritycheck, I am sure that there were Arabs in the US making falafel before the 1970s. Even non-Arab Middle Easterners, like Haig's Delicacies (Armenian), founded in 1956, supposedly "one of the only places in San Francisco to find a falafel sandwich at the time!" (but I am not sure I believe their Web site). So it will be good to have some reliable sources for that. However, my impression (which really does need reliable sources) is that it was Israelis who popularized falafel as a street food in the US starting in the 1970s. --Macrakis (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the information to the article with citations under the heading, North America. Veritycheck (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, for several reason. First, your source about Mama Ayisha doesn't say she was selling falafel in the 60s. Second, your source about Falafel's Drive-In doesn't say they are Palestinians. But most importantly, neither of your sources say "The falafel’s arrival in the United States and its introduction to mainstream America date back in part to immigrant Palestinian restaurateurs in the 1960’s". You can not advance a position not advanced by the sources. See WP:NOR. Your sources must explicitly support the statements you want to put in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted back to my edit. Concerning Falafel’s Drive in, perhaps you missed the line, “Nijmeh, 52, has spent the last 43 years in San Jose. He arrived here with his Palestinian Catholic family at the age of ten”, from the citation I gave: >. Which clearly says the family was Palestinian.

Furthermore, concerning Mama Ayesha’s Calvert Café , the citation .clearly states, “The menu, which features mostly Palestinian recipes and a few that, according to Abusheikha, are closer to Lebanese, has hardly changed since Ayesha’s opened.” And then adds, “the falafel is served alone on a leaf of lettuce. But coupled with a cucumber salad or a small spinach pie, the four crispy balls still make a meal.” There is nothing in the citation that would imply that this Middle-eastern mainstay was not on the original menu which she said had virtually not changed since the restaurant’s opening in 1960.

Moreover, your concern that the citations do not address mainstream America being introduced to the falafel. Be assured, the statement, “Nijmeh has watched as people from virtually every conceivable background have tried his family's Middle Eastern specialties. People got tired of the same old burgers and fries," said Nijmeh of the growing interest in his food. "They just fell in love" with the food at his family's eatery” – at Falafel’s Drive-in, attests to the fact that, indeed, his restaurant opened up the falafel to a wide market larger than merely other Middle Eastern immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritycheck (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree No More Mr Nice Guy, I suggest we get other people to decide the matter.

Additionally there are absolutely no facts given by the editor saying when, where, who or which Israelis introduced Falafels in the 1970's. On the contrary, the citations I have included have answered each and every one of these very same questions clearly and unequivocally. Veritycheck (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can not take an anecdote and extrapolate a general statement from it. That is WP:original research. You can not take two such anecdotes and WP:SYNTH them into a conclusion.

We do not need to "get other people to decide the matter", we can discuss it here and see what kind of WP:CONSENSUS is achieved. In the meanwhile, the WP:ONUS is on you to show it belongs in the article. Please follow the links I'm including in this post, they will take you to the relevant guidelines and policy.

I would also suggest you read WP:BRD and take note of the notice at the top of this page (It's bolded and in caps). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, to make the conversation easy to follow and keep it in chronological order, please do not add comments with the same indentation above replies to your comments. See WP:INDENT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ with your opinion. I believe the information I have added is supported by reliable citations and that I have gone to lengths to make my inclusion understandable and verifiable. There is nothing anecdotal in nature regarding the edit I made or the included citations. I suggest you make your case clearer. I also suggest we let others weigh in on the situation. I will wait 24 hours before adding the edit back if no other case is made why Wikipedia users should not have this information available to them. The restaurants cited are physical entities with addresses and are clearly documented as being owned by Palestinian immigrants and also established in the 1960's and serving falafel.

I'd also ask you to think about what in your opinion gives any credence or factual support to the sweeping statement that Israelis introduced the falafel in the 1970's cited ^ a b c d Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News. Retrieved February 6, 2011. Perhaps you could quantify exactly what in the citation leads you to believe the statement is accurate. Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down; 24 hours, and on a weekend, does not allow even nearly adequate time for other editors to notice and consider the question. Consensus-building is part of an editing process intended to be collaborative. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the policy and guidelines I pointed you to? The synthesis between the fact a restaurant was opened in 1960, the menu has "hardly changed" and that it serves falafel now to reach the conclusion that falafel was served in 1960 despite the source not saying so explicitly is exactly the sort of WP:SYNTH that is not allowed here.

I would also suggest you read WP:EW and consider if you want to keep inserting material you have yet to gain consensus for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As the spirit of Consensus Building is a two-way street, please also address my concerns over the Galili, Shooky citation. I have collected facts and would appreciate the same in return. Here is the statement taken from the citation, “In Israel, falafel has first found its way into the pita bread. Israelis were also the first to spread it to Europe and the US, somewhere around the early 1970s.” I’d appreciate to know where this happened, by whom, and specifically when. Additionally, I’m curious how you find the statement, as it is, credible to you. Thanks.

Stating that there is any doubt that the “Falafel Drive-in” which opened in 1966 by the Nijmeh Palestinian family didn’t actually sell Falafels would certainly be ridiculous. So the citation stands. I am satisfied that the Ayesha’s Calvert Café citation also satisfies with more than a reasonable doubt that Falafel has always been on the menu for the reasons stated previously and which are included in the citation itself. I will continue to dig for other citations to add so that we can rest assured eliminate any minor concern. I’ll hold you to the same standard on defending the credibility of the Galili, Shooky citation which leaves a lot to be desired in satisfying my doubts about it’s veracity as it does editors Wesam gobran and Macrakis. Veritycheck (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with NMMNG, it does appear that the edit contravenes certain policies. In that case compliance would be the issue rather than lack of consensus; either way, reinserting the edit fundamentally unchanged could be seen as edit warring and vandalistic, and lead to sanctions and restrictions. Please be prudent. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have gone into that amount of detail with a specific source, I was trying to show you an obvious case of WP:OR. Even if you had one source that said "this lady of Palestinian origin was selling falafel in 1960" and another that said "this Palestinian gentleman was selling falafel in 1962", you could not put the statement "the falafel’s arrival in the United States and its introduction to mainstream America date back in part to immigrant Palestinian restaurateurs in the 1960’s" since that is your interpretation of the sources. Neither of them makes that claim, neither talks about introduction of falafel to mainstream America or its arrival in the United States.

As for the statement currently in the article, I read it to say that Israelis were the ones to popularize it. I don't know if it's true or not, and that's not really an issue here as wikipedia deals with WP:verifiability not truth. If there was a reliable source that said someone else "introduced" or "popularized" falafel in the states, we could weigh which source is more reliable and decide by consensus what should be in the article. The sources you provided don't do that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NMMNG for bringing up the issue of WP:verifiability not truth. You gave a name to the precise issue I have with the article’s current statement,” Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.” How was this verified? Do we take it to be so because a citation that does not provide any support repeats the same premise? Is that acceptable?

Additionally, how would you be satisfied to include the pertinent information concerning the two Palestinian owned restaurants selling Falafel in the 1960’s to the general public be added to the article. The fact that these restaurants existed obviously is at odds with the current description. How can we improve the article to reflect this? How would you like to word the addition into the article yourself? This would be conducive to Consensus Building. I would welcome the input of others here if they are not happy with the wording of the edit as it stands now.

Lastly, in my research I came across several sources that indicate that Mamoun's, which is the oldest falafel restaurant in New York, opened in 1971 in Greenwich Village and that the owner was Egyptian. The web is full of articles on the restaurant but I’m not sure which one would be best to cite here. Could anyone suggest an article that they think is best for this? Veritycheck (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a little disgusted that people are chiming in on politics and don't even consider that we got this to GA without your political bias. You think that we didn't actually double check refs? You may not know it but ever line in the article has more than one ref even if it wasn't in. So go make a other GA and then come back to this article after you have proved that you actually care about Wikipedia and not politics. The amount of bickering on this article was annoying. Now that some of us have got it to GA I don;t care what others say since improvement is taking a backseat. Improve the article with refs or go away. Discount RS already in with actual RS or shut up. Your opinion means nothing so knock it off. Look at this GA and feel bad that you did not assist.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The following is a summary of the current dispute with a proposal that follows. Polite feedback and or counter-proposal welcome! Lets get this article to reflect reality.

My initial complaint was that the sentence in the article, “Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s”, was inaccurate in that it left out significant participation by other groups, namely Palestinians and Lebanese. I also objected to the citation used as it did not support its claim with any historical data, scholarly consensus nor studies. Furthermore ,the cited source says nothing about entrepreneurs but merely Israelis. The erroneous sentence must be changed to reflect this.

This wikipedia article should reflect accurately how the Falafel came to North America with non-questionable sources per WP:RS I have found 4 such citations all from news agencies that clearly state the participation of Palestinian and Lebanese in this endeavour. The citations are as follows:

Pagnoux, Estelle (July 3, 2003). " Falafel's Drive-In adds American fast food but stays true to its roots ". Rose Garden Resident

- Details the opening of a Falafel restaurant in 1966

(July 22, 2009). " San Jose Man Faces Deportation to Israel". The Santa Cruz Sentinel

- Details clearly that the family opening the restaurant were Palestinians

Anderson, Brett (May 24, 1996). " Hummus Where the Heart Is ". The Washington City Paper

- Details the opening of a restaurant serving falafel by a Palestinian in 1960

(August 29, 2006). " Summer Eats - Signature Dishes ". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

- States, “Falafel, while introduced to North America by Lebanese for the most part, is a common dish across the Middle East”

These citations go much further than the initial claim Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News in attributing the arrival of falafel in North America solely by Israelis.

Lastly, I have requested WP:RSN check on the suitability of the Galili, Shooky citation. Veritycheck (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources you provided do not dispute the current line except one. This one actually says North America while the others are considered OR since it is based on an assumption gathered by an editor and not RS. But I am OK with modifying the line due to that one source. There was more than one saying it was by Israelis (which is why I did not remove it) but I did not use it in the article and will have to see if it is out on the internet somewhere.

Point 2 is OR and " Early documented cases include Mama Ayesha who opened the Calvert Cafe in 1960 in Washington, DC. While in 1966 on the West Coast, Falafel’s Drive-in was opened by Anton and Zahie Nijmeh in San Jose, CA.”" is not needed unless you are trying to make a point.Cptnono (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I came across a few[4][5][6] that were not as clear but they at least give us some reason to assume the current source is correct. Unfortunately, I can not find the one I was looking for. At this time, I do not see how we could remove the line. You can add something about Lebanese in North America if you want with he single source you provided. I also searched for more to back up that claim but came up empty.Cptnono (talk)

First, Veritycheck, the writer's name is Shooky Galili, not Galili, Shooky. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Second, you seem to be ignoring what everybody is telling you about WP:No original research. We can't extrapolate a theory that Palestinians introduced falafel to North America from two articles that don't say that. Hell, the articles even say that the restaurants in question introduced falafel to the cities in which they're located.

The CBC article supports the assertion that it was Lebanese who introduced falafel to North America. I think we should edit the article to say that sources disagree whether it was Israelis or Lebanese who brought falafel to North America. But you haven't shown a single source that attributes it to Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't ignore anyone. I have, on the other hand, already provided reliable, published sources for the changes I propose. Scroll up for them - they are labeled and linked. Veritycheck (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With the continued desire to iron out this situation, Consensus Build and find a solution that firstly reflects verifiable facts and secondly is acceptable to all parties, I would like to add:

If it was deemed worthy enough to include the Israeli-North American falafel connection originally in this article, then there is no reason that it should not be updated to reflect that Palestinians were, in fact, selling falafels in America in the 1960’s. Again I have no qualm to state that all parties (Lebanese, Palestinian and Israeli) were selling falafels in America.

Here we have a case of three citations disputing the claims of a fourth that says this happened at a later date, namely the Galili citation. We have three sources documenting Palestinian restaurateurs selling Falafels in America in the 1960’s, which predate the current article’s statement, “Israeli's brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s”. We then even have a further citation saying it was the Lebanese! What a mess. What is the best way to handle such a situation? There is a discrepancy of citations.

Remaining solution-oriented, I reiterate that the article must contain references to all three cultures to accurately describe historical events. To state in one section (Middle East) that both Israelis and Lebanese are attributed with introducing the falafel to North America (specifically in the 1970’s on the part of Israelis) while then going on in the next section (North America) to state the Palestinian restaurateurs were selling falafel in the 1960’s seems ambiguous and confusing to say the least. I do not find it a satisfactory solution. However, I will not cede to only having one party mentioned especially as cited evidence plainly shows otherwise.

I think the way to work around this prickly impasse is to refrain from language, which attempts to rank who introduced the falafel first. After all, we now have on the board verifiable citations stating that each of 3 different cultures were first in this regard. Perhaps there is one of you who can attempt to craft a better paragraph that is inclusive rather than exclusive about these three cultures (Israeli, Palestinian, and Lebanese) and that all had a hand in the early selling of falafel in North America as shown by the citations listed so far. Or it must clearly be stated that there is great controversy over how, when and on whose part falafel came to North America. As it stands now, the article is blatantly unacceptable in its omissions. If anyone is up to the task, I would certainly welcome it. If not, I will attempt to draft a version myself and bring it here for feedback. Veritycheck (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is where the WP:IDHT is coming in. None of the sources beside the CBC says what you claim they say. Not one. I'm truly sorry that I haven't seen any support for the assertion that Palestinians helped introduce falafel to North America. It would be nice if we could just say it was Palestinians and Israelis (and Lebanese), and let's all hold hands and show our leaders how to make peace. But you haven't shown a single source that supports that assertion with respect to Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, last shot before I escalate this. I believe I have gone through the required steps thus far. Unfortunately from my perspective I also see this as WP:IDHT on your part. Let’s break it down and see where the exact problem lies.

First of all, what exactly do you believe I am claiming to say? It would be helpful for you to answer precisely. Perhaps that is where the problem lies itself. We may not be on the same page.

Next, I have provided sources that Palestinian restaurateurs on both the West and East coast of North America were in operation in the 1960’s selling falafel. Do we have consensus on this? Yes or No?

If not, what do you extrapolate from the following citations that you are comfortable including in this article?

Pagnoux, Estelle (July 3, 2003). " Falafel's Drive-In adds American fast food but stays true to its roots ". Rose Garden Resident

(July 22, 2009). " San Jose Man Faces Deportation to Israel". The Santa Cruz Sentinel

Anderson, Brett (May 24, 1996). " Hummus Where the Heart Is ". The Washington City Paper

Note: I am not hung up on the word “introduction”, if that’s where the problem lies. Please incorporate the information from the sources I have provided into the article as you see fit and I’ll be happy to give you feedback. If we don't achieve consensus, then I will ask for an outside neutral party to decide this. Veritycheck (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you bring up Peace and suggest that it is an assertion that I want to support. That came from you and has nothing to do with me. I have never brought it up, nor is it what I have been working on to achieve for this article. Let's be clear on that. I found the comment offensive and out of place in this discussion. Veritycheck (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally get what you are saying Veritycheck and think your proposals have been politely worded, and well-thought out. They do kind of venture into SYNTH and OR though (I think its arguable, but on contentious pages you need rock solid to get anything done). I found a source that might help provide more definitive information, and which show just how poorly researched (or deliberately misleading) the Galili piece is. Its the Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History, Volume 1. I will quote excerpts from pages 206-207 here that are related to this discussion:

The majority of Arabic-speaking immigrants who first came to the United States from 1880 to WORLD WAR I (1914-1918) were Syrian-Lebanese Christians. But thousands of Muslims also arrived in this cohort of immigrants. [...] Wherever Arabic-speaking persons immigrated, they brought their Middle Eastern cuisine with them. But they also quickly adjusted their recipes, incorporating ingredients that were available in the United States and adding dishes they learned from their non-Arab neighbors. [...] In 20th century Detroit, restaurants served Arabs and non-Arabs alike, helping to create a menu of items that eventually became standard in many Middle Eastern restaurants. Dishes like hummus, or chickpea dip; tabouli, or parsley salad; and falafel would become part of the American dietary lexicon more generally. At first Detroit's groceries, pastry shops, and restaurants were dominated by the Syrian-Lebanese immigrants who had settled there. But after World War II and in the wake of the IMMIGRATION ACT of 1965, a period during which many more first-generation Arab Americans came to settle in the Detroit area, the Arab American food industry there came to express many other national and ethnic cuisines, especially those of Palestinians, Yemenis, and Iraqis.

Same book also mentions Muslims running falafel street stalls in New York in the 1970s on page 433, and in Boston's Haymarket (at an undisclosed date). Clearly Arabs had a major role in disseminating falafel to North Americans. Tiamut^talk 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Another book that says the same thing in more general terms is the The Arab Americans. There is also more detail on Arab food and its transmission to America in Arab-American faces and voices: the origins of an immigrant community. Tiamut^talk 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What text do you suggest adding/changing in the article based on these sources? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article adding the citations that show that more than just one ethnic group are documented as having initially sold or introduced falefel into North America. Although I am not completely satisfied with it, I do believe that it is much better and accurate than what was previously shown. I see the entry as a first step in improving this particular part of the article, namely the origins of Falafel in North America and as a base to be further improved upon. Veritycheck (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. What is your source for there being "much controversy" over the issue? Also, as has been explained to you several times, your sources about the Palestinian restaurant owners do not say they introduced falafel to anyone. You can't use your own interpretation of sources and conclusions about what they mean as sources for editing wikipedia.

I once again recommend you read the notice at the top of this page and stop trying to force your views into the article while there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here was the text from the edit in full under North America:

"There is much controversy about how the falafel first came to be introduced to North America and which ethnic group initially made it available to the public. One source says that it was by Israelis in the 1970’s. [8] Another says that the Lebanese were responsible[25]. While other documented evidence shows that Palestinian Immigrants were selling falafels already in the 1960’s.[26] [27] [28]"

I did not state that Palestinians "Introduced the falafel". That was only attributed to Israelis and Lebanese. The sentence concerning Palestinians clearly reads, "Palestinian Immigrants were selling falafels already in the 1960’s" which is backed by the sources. Your Revert was unfounded and unjustified. The sentence does not say what you claim it does. You appear to be edit warring without justification and attributing information to the edit that does not in fact exist as grounds to delete it. Veritycheck (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has been reverted. Which brings me to this:

In my initial post to this page I laid out that a particular piece of information in the Falafel article (as defined in the heading of this section) was both incorrect and misleading. Expressing my intent to have it corrected, I asked the users here the best way to do this. I was advised to provide citations, which I have in turn done. The numerous citations I have made available, numbering four at this point, all show that cultures other than Israeli were indeed involved in the early sales of falafel to North Americans which does not reconcile with the sweeping current statement that Israelis were solely responsible for introducing the Falafel in the 1970’s. The citations I have furnished do not only show that this event actually occurred before the 1970’s, but also by cultures other than Israeli, namely Palestinian with Lebanese also staking a claim. Additional users have since climbed on board adding their own sources to support this stance.

During the process, I have been accused of being in breach of various standards. Although, after carefully verifying this, it would seem that the accusations are truer of the accusers than of me and were more of a smokescreen. The information I seek to include in this article is in no way WP:original research as the citations I have posted conform to WP:RS guidelines. I do not attempt, nor seek to add any information that is not included in the source material.

Additionally, the record shows that in the first 48 hours of posting to this discussion, one of the principle participants here told me to “go away” and “shut up” - Cptnono (the user has since apologized), while a second has attempted to slight my reasoning ability over the sequencing of 2 foreign names and then gone on to condescend that I am striving for peace in the Middle-East - Malik Shabazz. These remarks are both inflammatory and insulting and furthermore uncalled for. Nevertheless, it is clear from each and every piece I have contributed to this page that I have neither been goaded by this nor answered back in kind. I have kept civil throughout. Still, enough is enough. Such behaviour seems out of the scope of what, under my understanding, is supposed to take place on this discussion page. Perhaps this is due to the politically charged atmosphere of the topic in some respects. Whatever the case is, that is not an excuse for such conduct and is unacceptable.

I have made several serious attempts to Consensus Build, offering proposals, asking for feedback, inviting counter-proposals and demonstrating an openness to suggestions all to no avail. Consequently, at this juncture, I see no constructive point in arguing the matter further with the participants here, as we seem to be going around in circles and not moving forward. Consensus Building has failed. As a result, I will now ask for outside neutral intervention. The facts and citations are all included within the discussion page and under this heading. Outside judicators are also invited to visit the WP:RSN, ”http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Does_labeling_an_article_a_.22Fact_Sheet.22_make_it_one.3F” which pertains to this discussion. It’s a shame it has to go this way, but I guess this is exactly why such an instrument has been made available to Wikipedia and its users.

Ultimately, my hope is that we can get a better, more accurate article that includes all the facts and not just the ones that paint one side of a multifaceted story leaving it warped and distorted. At this point in time, viewers coming to Wikipedia to this article are leaving falsely informed. As such is the case, I will also seek to have the Good Article status removed and believe I am supported in this by the user Tiamut. Veritycheck (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor with 30 edits who knows how to open an RfC and GAR. That's interesting. So much for good faith discussions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I come to this fresh, and I'm surprised that the statement "Israelis brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s", cited to an undocumented article by a non-historian in a recent newspaper, still survives despite the endless debate above. Newspapers are highly unreliable sources for earlier history (food history even worse than most other fields). In what is obviously an area of political debate we shouldn't dream of making such a one-sided claim unless it can be documented from a proper historical source. Andrew Dalby 09:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't immediately realised that the discussion above only began three days ago! So, it's normal that the sentence is still in the text: hardly time yet for any consensus, and I mean no criticism of other editors. However, I still say this source shouldn't be treated as adequate and reliable for this information. Andrew Dalby 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion in the ynet article that falafel was unknown in Europe or North America before the 1970s is at best dubious. It is a standard part of Middle Eastern cuisine and is likely to have been known about in some form before then. There seems to be overreliance on this source, so the sourcing could be broadened. I tagged this statement in the article, because it appears to meet the criteria for WP:DUBIOUS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

this and this might be useful in this discussion. this might be useful in general for this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, and I really don't want to read through all of the above. So forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said. But this relates to something currently in the news in London -- the attempt to close down a very long-standing falafel restaurant in the West End. I first ate falafel in Gaby's Deli in 1968 or 1969; it was founded by Gaby Elyahou in 1965. The story has been covered in the Evening Standard[7][8] and Time Out[9]. I can find no information on whether Gaby is Israeli; the name suggests that he is Middle Eastern Jewish, but he could be from Iraq, Lebanon or elsewhere. In any case, these are reliable sources that falafel has been available in London since at least 1965. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Falafel was also available in Arto Der Haroutunian's Armenian restaurant in Manchester from the early 1970s. He certainly wasn't an Israeli. RolandR (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ianmacm's comments above. But also think there's a problem with the wording, apart from the reliability of the source. Obviously, there has been Middle Eastern immigration to Europe and North America since well before the 70s, including the establishment of ethnic communities in various cities. Whatever did or didn't happen in the 70s (eg maybe the falafel was popularised amongst people of European ancestry at that time), it seems obvious that it can't be the case that the introduction of the falafel can be dated to that period. Even if, before that, it was primarily eaten by immigrants and served in establishments frequented by immigrants, that still counts as it having been introduced to the country. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly enough evidence has been presented here that the statement as it stands is incorrect. Moreover, something no one has pointed out, the sentence appears in a section on the history of falafel in the Middle East, but has to do with history of falafel in America.

I am removing the sentence. If someone wants to add it back in, at least do so in the section where it is relevant. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was reinserted by Cptnono. I have since moved the sentence to its correct heading under North America and added citations stating that Palestinians were selling falafel in the 1960’s to illustrate the contentiousness of claims that Israelis brought falefel to America in the 1970’s. Veritycheck (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Edit reads: "As is shown by the following incongruous claims, the issue of how the falafel became known to North Americans and on whose part is fiercely disputed. Some have it that Israelis brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in early the 1970s.[6][dubious – discuss] While others say that the Lebanese brought the dish to North America.[26] Still other documented sources show that Palestinian immigrant restaurateurs were selling falafel in North America in the 1960's.[27][28][29]" as per 11:53, 25 September 2011 Veritycheck (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting more and more confusing. I just found a mediation request somewhere - did anyone actually request mediation? Anyway, regarding your edit, Veritycheck, we collided while editing the same section. I saved my version (which says pretty much the same as yours), but you are welcome to revert if you prefer yours. In any case, I suggest we continue the discussion at the bottom of the talk page, where I commented last. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I requested mediation to resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Falafel and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falafel. Veritycheck (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ynet article again

The ynet article has found its way back in to the article as a source, this time with the wording "Israelis made falafel to popular in Europe and the United States sometime in early the 1970s". There is an element of WP:OR here, because it is not what the source says, which is "Israelis were also the first to spread it to Europe and the US, somewhere around the early 1970s". The consensus of the previous discussion was that the early 1970s issue raised by the ynet article is a red herring, as falafel would have been known about in ethnic restaurants before then. The ynet article is a newspaper lifestyle article, not a piece of academic research, and it makes a claim which requires stronger sourcing than a quick assertion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops - I crashed into Veritycheck on my way to repairing the history section. I saved my version, but Veritycheck, you are welcome to revert if you like yours better. In any case, the section is now ridiculous - there is no fierce debate about the origins of falafel in the US outside of this talk page. Nor is there any justification for including an unsupported claim on Ynet which has been definitively disproven, only because Ynet is a reliable source. It is simply absurd. Anyway, these are the mysterious ways of writing Wikipedia articles. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, your edit is fine by me as it is inclusive of all the facts and does not seek to exclude one or other cited parties as was the case before these edits. Veritycheck (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The ynet article has caused a carousel of edits because it makes an implausible claim. Mainstream food historians are reluctant to make firm statements about who invented or introduced a particular form of food, because claims of this kind are so easy to challenge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A more precise description is that a user who tried to edit war a version he likes caused a "carousel of edits". Said user then opened an RfC, GAR and mediation and promptly disappeared. Then another user who didn't even participate in the discussion made a change. Now the edit warrior is back editing the article despite his own RfC and mediation request.

I'm going to revert the edit since it contains some pretty obvious OR and SYNTH. The dispute has been on this talk page, not among reliable sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Seems like the bit about a "fierce debate" has been removed and we now just have some well poisoning and card stacking. Apparently Ynet is an "Israeli news web site" that "contends", while whoever makes a a different claim is a "reliable source" that "says". Lovely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m not at all sure why you deemed it appropriate to change “contends” concerning Israelis, yet didn’t find fault with “claims” for the Lebanese involvement. Was it oversight or intention? Applying your standards to all parties equally would certainly cause less contention here. I will again add the involvement of Palestinians selling falafels in the 1960’s in tomorrow’s edit as you unfailingly remove every mention of it in all your Edits/Reverts. It directly calls into question the leading sentence in the paragraph and its citation. This is precisely one of the main reasons why I have asked for outside moderation and intervention. Shortly we should have a decision from the Mediation Committee that decides the issue. Veritycheck (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice of you to announce your intention to edit war. You opened an RfC and mediation request and now you're just ignoring them in order to force a version you know has no consensus. FYI, this kind of behavior might get you blocked from editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance at this long page will show numerous other editors who share the same view point as me. We have been working constructively to make the article as accurate as possible. I do not stand alone. Personally, I find your continued reverts unhelpful and see them as edit warring. I only wish you could participate more in the discussion to improve the article and make it satisfactory to everyone. What's your opinion on the topic heading "Why we should say nothing about who introduced falafel to the US" below started by Macrakis? Feedback and suggestions will help things move ahead more than endless reverts will. Veritycheck (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from an WP:SPA. Not to mention the multiple reverts you did as an IP. A quick glance at this page shows that every single editor who commented told you that your edits were OR and SYNTH, yet you continue inserting the same non policy compliant material. You do that after you opened both an RfC and a mediation request. 1RR is not an entitlement and if you continue edit warring you will be reported. I suggest you seek advice from an experienced editor you trust before you find yourself blocked from editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, no, I have commented and I didn't say anything resembling that. The point VerityCheck raised is important and has proved difficult to resolve. Wikipedia's rules are not ideally framed for dealing with this issue. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the edits he actually made, which I don't think you commented on. He reinserted the problematic text today and says he'll do the same tomorrow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I have commented below on the desirability of not making any claim till there are better sources. Andrew Dalby 09:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The problematic text was the inclusion of a single citation at the expense of all others that refuted it, attributing Israelis as the only party responsible for the falafel's introduction into North America. I certainly did not revert back to it as I am completely against it. I am content with the article's content as per the last edit 07:18, 26 September 2011 Ianmacm which I have also stated and given my reasons for in the following topic. I myself will not seek to revert it. Veritycheck (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why we should say nothing about who introduced falafel to the US

Several serious editors with an interest in food history and no particular "stance" on Israeli/Arab issues (AndrewDalby, ianmacm, myself) agree that the Ynet article is a poor source:

• It is a minor aside in a newspaper lifestyle article.
• It was written in 2007 about events of the 1970's.
• It doesn't give any evidence or sources for the assertion (especially important since it was written 35 years later)
• It was written by someone with no particular reputation as a food historian.

Finally, it is objectively incorrect. Besides Veritycheck's sources (which are not contemporary and therefore less reliable), we do have contemporary documentation: in 1964, Cue magazine [10] mentions a New York restaurant (run by a certain Tony Simrany) serving falafel.

Following WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, we shouldn't assert things we don't have good documentation for. I think the most we can say is "Falafel has been known in the United States and Europe at least since the 1960's." Demonstrating that it was introduced by any particular national, ethnic, or religious group is pretty much impossible -- it was probably introduced multiple times in multiple places by multiple people.

Now, it may well be true that Israeli immigrants popularized falafel in many places (including New York City), and there may be some way to document that (e.g. by studying food vendor licenses), but we can't do the original research ourselves; and we haven't found a reliable source for it yet. It also seems clear that falafel is often served as an Israeli dish (e.g. it was served at the Israel pavilion of the 1964 World's Fair in New York [11]), but that doesn't tell us the actual history of its introduction to the US. --Macrakis (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if the ynet article said "Israelis helped to popularize falafel in the 1970s" there would be few arguments. Instead, it makes a sweeping and highly implausible suggestion, which is that falafel was unknown in Europe and the USA before the 1970s. Please can we stop insisting on having this statement from the ynet article. It is nothing to do with the Arab/Israeli dispute and needs better sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this option. Either all parties who played a role are mentioned (creating an ambiguous, confusing article at best), or none of them are. However, I will not settle for a partial list based on an editor's bias. Veritycheck (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Positively. Right on! --Ravpapa (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment from someone who isn't American, Jewish, Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Sudanese, or Middle Eastern in any way, and who lives a long way from all of those places - just drop it. It's not the Six-Day War. You will never find a final solution to this. Apart from the Middle East, only North America, particularly the USA, is mentioned. Guess what? Falafel exists elsewhere too. If we can't get it all right, for the whole world, stop haggling over this trivial detail. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

macrakis - well said. and hilo - is there such a creature as "someone who isn't American, Jewish, Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Sudanese, or Middle Eastern?" gosh.... Soosim (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Macrakis. We have found various anecdotal sources, but none of them is sufficient to answer this particular question. There may be no one answer: at any rate, even if there is, we have no way as yet of finding it.

To give an example that is (almost) beyond food nationalism: in pre-modern times, only in very rare cases is it known who introduced a particular herb, vegetable or fruit from one region to another. Why? Because lots of people did it -- people migrating, people giving plants or seeds to their friends, travellers -- and none of the individual events was notable. It's only the result that's notable: rather suddenly, oranges (let's say) become a Mediterranean fruit.

Thus, rather suddenly, falafel becomes a European, North American and worldwide snack. Who did it? The real sources, when a food historian gets down to this, might be local newspapers, food trade magazines, memoirs and oral history of migrants; primary sources that we had better leave someone else to evaluate. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Key players in falafel's arrival in North America disputed

In my initial post to this page I laid out that a particular piece of information in the Falafel article ("Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]" and citation) was both incorrect and misleading. Expressing my intent to have it corrected, I asked the users here the best way to do this. I was advised to provide citations, which I have in turn done. The numerous citations I have made available, numbering four at this point, all show that cultures other than Israeli were indeed involved in the early sales of falafel to North Americans which does not reconcile with the sweeping current statement that Israelis were solely responsible for introducing the Falafel in the 1970’s. The citations I have furnished do not only show that this event actually occurred before the 1970’s, but also by cultures other than Israeli, namely Palestinian with Lebanese also staking a claim. Additional users have since climbed on board adding their own sources to support this stance. We are still unable to come to a Consensus. Veritycheck (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be "a brief, neutral statement of the issue"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Question I've come here via this rfc: Could you clarify the dispute because it seems that claims that either Israelis have brought falafel to Europe or United states or other cultures brought it have been entirely removed.Curb Chain (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I removed it per the discussion at Talk:Falafel#Why_we_should_say_nothing_about_who_introduced_falafel_to_the_US The suggestion in the ynet article that Israelis introduced falafel to Europe and the USA in the 1970s has been shown to be wrong by other sources and was always implausible. I would be disappointed to see this statement from the ynet article return, as it has been overtaken by events.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So has this rfc been resolved? If so, I kindly ask for it to be removed, just to help out the rfc boards.Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If it sticks, it would appear to be resolved. It's been only about 24 hours. Let's wait and see. Veritycheck (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Falafel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article no longer meets GA Criteria concerning points 4 and 5 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria There is edit waring going on and Neutrality no longer seems to be present in particular to the subheading of the Falafal article titled North America. The specific problems have been detailed in the Talk page under the heading "Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]" and citation" The current article is continually being reverted to suppress new information which reflects doubts about the credibility of statements shown in the article and neutrality. Veritycheck (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)— Veritycheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is rich. You are the one edit warring, and you say the article should be delisted because of edit-warring? Ha ha. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is procedural abuse. Normal editing and discussion are the best options here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the particular issue raised by Veritycheck is important, and I'm about to comment on it at the article talk page, but I don't think the problem over this one sentence is sufficient to demote the article from GA status. Andrew Dalby 08:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Dalby.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The two major editors involved with "promoting" this article to GA appear to be pro Israeli; at leasted from my quick review of the edit history tabs on their wikipedia websites. Also when I looked at cached wikipedia userpages on Google (which is how I came to here) Nsaum75 is a self declared Jew on old versions of his wikipedia homepage. Expedcting two pro israeli editors, one of whom is a jew, to write a neutral aticle about a 100% arrrab food is like asking Stalin to write a neutral history of Democracy. Its impossible. This article uses questionable sources to falsely credit Israelis/Jews with events in falafels history; when in fact there should probably be no mention in this article of Israelis/Jews because its not their food or their history. Its a product they stole from their arab neighbors and the occupiedc palestinians. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faqtchequer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Faqtchequer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't like Jews much, do you? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This GA review has a clear likelihood of SPA and sockpuppeteering being involved. Proposals from accounts that lack a significant track record should be taken with a pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the allegation that I am not a new user based on the fact that I act with “experience”. Well I believe that can be attested to one of two reasons if not more. I’m a professor and was on my holiday break when I initially devoted literally 72 hours of my time to this article other than sleeping. I will admit that wading through all the jargon that was thrown at me, a hand full to say the least, and understanding the best recourse available to have the article changed to reflect reality was daunting at first. For every sentence I wanted to include, only 2 or 3, I had to visit at least 20 Wiki pages to sort through and learn terms & procedures.

Additionally, I would say that my ability to learn quickly can be derived from either a sound intellect or as a testament to how well the Wiki help pages are written. In all honesty, I believe it’s a combination of the two. I will say however that other people facing the same situation might be put off, and as a result, simply abandon their contribution of what may well be important and valuable pieces. I do believe that perhaps that was even the intention in the way some of the editors tried to derail my postings. Luckily, I tend to rise to the occasion when confronted in such situations by such people.

Moreover, from my initial post, it’s quite clear that I came here not knowing the best way to proceed and that I, in fact, asked for advice, which I then followed. There’s nothing miraculous here. The adage ”ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find” is an old and worthy saying. Finally, drawing the conclusion that I must be some sort of insidious ghost writer (WP:SOCK) based solely on the fact that I show some aptitude really is weak and is probably in breach of some other Wikipedia procedural jargon that surely must exist– said tongue in cheek and with a modicum of earned pride!

In closing, I came to Wikipedia thinking, perhaps naively, that it was based on truth and facts alone. In this short journey of trying to rectify the inaccuracies of the falafel article, I have come to realize that unfortunately it is more about what is cited and what is not with the former taking precedence, no matter how flimsy it may be, over what is true but undocumented, or has yet to rise to the surface. Nonetheless, I have adapted myself and followed procedure citing everything I wish to amend. The experience has opened my eyes and I will have to look at each Wikipedia article I read in the future under a new light; one that might not be so favourable or convincing. I only hope that other Wiki readers are more sceptical than I was. Wikipedea is now shaping the minds of the masses and has become a cited source in itself. What a huge responsibility to live up to! GA status must be earned and continually evaluated. You can take that with a grain of salt if it makes you feel any better. Vigilance is paramount.Veritycheck (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has now been achieved with minor, yet important, edits bringing this article in-line with GA criteria. The reassessment is over and the GA status is kept. Veritycheck (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A note to Malik Shabazz explaining my revert of his revert. You were mistaken. Concerning Individual Reassessments of GA - "An editor has initiated an individual reassessment to determine if this article meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment." This was the case when I initiated the Individual Reassessment. It was my obligation to close it. Veritycheck (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly's Favorite

Relevant: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/oreilly-hit-sex-harass-suit?page=15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.45.110 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This fails WP:TOPIC and WP:POPCULTURE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ynet article

It's quite absurd that an article from Ynet, an Israeli newspaper, is used to 'source' claims such as "The custom of eating falafel in a pita stuffed with salads began in Israel." As Israel itself is one of the participants in the controversy over who 'invented' falafel, Israeli media cannot be used as objective sources. Nor can Lebanese media, for that matter. Therefore I'm removing the claim again. If someone can cite a truly objective source (i.e. non-Israeli, non-Arab) for the claim that falafel salad pitas originated in Israel, feel free to reinsert the claim. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your distrust of this Ynet article is correct, but your reasons are wrong. There is no controversy over who invented falafel, and the article does not claim that Israelis did so. The only controversy was over who introduced it to the United States, and the only place that controversy appeared was on this talk page - the rest of the world was totally uninterested, and rightly so.

However, on that particular point, this particular Ynet article was definitively proven to be wrong, and the article's claim that Israelis were first to introduce falafel to the US was stricken from the article. I would therefore be very wary of relying on this article for the additional contention that Israelis were the first to put falafel in a pita.

I hope that everyone here is impressed by the absurdity and irrelevance of these arguments. I am, and I enjoy them thoroughly. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a controversy over who invented falafel. However, the article is fairly NPOV on that matter, describing falafel as a 'Middle Eastern' dish (rather than e.g. an Israeli dish or a Lebanese one). Nevertheless, the article does claim that "the custom of eating falafel in a pita stuffed with salads began in Israel", and references it with an Ynet article which does not cite any sources. Now, the notion that the custom of putting falafel balls in a pita started in one particular nation seems quite implausible to me. Stuffing pita bread with meat and other foodstuffs has been a practice in Mediterranean countries for a long time and I think it's perfectly feasible that multiple people in several countries came to that idea at the same time. Therefore, I all the more feel that a claim that this practice originated in Israel, sourced by a dubious article, has no place in this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in your pointing me to any source, reliable or no, that suggests that Israelis invented falafel. I have never seen such a claim, and would be genuinely surprised if anyone made such a claim. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another useful article

I've just found this article: Israel's food fight on the Al-Jazeera site. It discusses a film by Palestinian Larissa Sansour and Israeli Oreet Ashery, about the politics of the origins of felafel, and the spread of felafel restaurants in London. I'm going to see if I can get hold of the film; meanwhile, this article may be a useful source. RolandR (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"unleavened bread (known generally as khubz throughout the Arab world)" - query re reference?

I have deleted the parenthetical phrase suggesting that unleavened bread is "known generally as khubz throughout the Arab world" as this is quite incorrect - 'khubz' is the principal Arabic word for bread, of any kind, and does not specifically refer to unleavened bread. See, for example, the entries for 'khubz' in the Hans Wehr and Mawrid dictionaries. Neither, for that matter, is the word generally used throughout the Arab world - the usual term in Egypt is '`aish'. However, I don't know whether the reference that came after the parenthesis referred to the incorrect material in the parenthesis or to the use of unleavened bread, so I have left it in - but perhaps whoever inserted the reference can resolve this. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ta'amiya (Arabic: طعمية)

While synonyms might be generally interesting, usually etymology discussions revolve around linguistic roots. ta'amiya (Arabic: طعمية) word does not share such a bond with falafel, being derived from ṭaʻām ط ع م "food/taste" root instead of "pepper", so I am removing it from the etymology section but would not object reintegration of this interesting information in some other parts of this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring it, as the etymology for the word used in the place of origin belongs in the article. nableezy - 12:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The etymology is actually strictly ancient Egyptian - not Arabic, and not Hindi. It's actually a composite word: "Pha", "La", "Phel" - this means "Of", "Many", "Beans" (i.e Falafel means "made with lots of beans"). Refer to Walter E Crum Coptic Dictionary, page 259 for "Pha", page 135 for "La", and page 514 for "Phel". Given that there is strong consensus that the dish originated in Egypt, this etymology is the only logical explanation - especially because pepper does not feature prominently in the list of ingredients that make up falafel (which eliminate the Arabic etymology from "filfil"), but beans certainly do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherifhanna700 (talk • contribs) 4:01 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Combining roots like this to create an etymology is what we call original research on Wikipedia. Without a reliable source for this etymology for 'falafel', I'm afraid we can't use it. --Macrakis (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My Friends: I feel this is the time to invoke that much ignored fifth pillar of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. Sherifhanna's note here is so obviously correct, and so brilliant, and so well sourced (each word extracted from a Coptic dictionary), that, in this case, Ignore all rules trumps No original research. We should definitely include it in the article. And I am going to be bold and do that. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If the etymology really hasn't been published as yet, I know just where to publish it, as a brief note in Petits Propos Culinaires. How about it, Sherifhanna: may I do that? Andrew Dalby 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, I am actually supportive of getting Coptic scholars to comment on this first before we go ahead and publish anything. I have contacted some, and let's see where it gets us. As a Coptic person myself, it's a little discouraging to see my heritage robbed from me like this and credited to someone else. I can only restore my honor through scholarship. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sherifhanna. It's an interesting idea, and I haven't seen a convincing explanation of the "filfil" etymology: why pepper? Well, we'll see what results we get. Andrew Dalby 20:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The meaning and etymology proposed by Sherifhanna does seem to be correct and I hope it does check out and get published by an RS so we can add it to the article. the preservation of ancient words in modern Arabic is an understudied area. Too many scholars, Arabs included, limit their discussions to the Arabic meaning of a given word and ignore possible antecedents. O a personal note, I can sympathize with Sherifhanna's feeling of being robbed ... but my conception of Arab does include Copts, while acknowledging their own pre-Arab identity and existence, and the inclination of some to define themselves as separate from us. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there still a fifth pillar of Wikipedia?

There is an argument over the inclusion of the etymology of the word Falafel, a food of Egyptian origin made of fava beans. The etymology cited in some sources - that the word derives from the Arabic "Filfel" meaning pepper - is highly suspect, in view of the fact that pepper is not one of the ingredients. A new user, who, among his other virtues, speaks ancient Egyptian, tells us that "Fa La Fel" in that language means "of many beans". He points us to an online dictionary of the Coptic language (yes, there is such a thing) for confirmation.

This suggested etymology is so obviously correct and so brilliant, that I felt it should certainly be included in the article. However, one of our more authoritarian, stick-to-the-rules editors felt this was original research, and therefore not acceptable. You can see the diff here.

This seems to me a clear case where the fifth pillar of Wikipedia - Ignore all rules - trumps the no original research policy. After all, the suggested etymology is not unsourced; and, what is more important, it is indubitably right. Ravpapa (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me that you are pulling our leg here. cf. folk etymology. --Macrakis (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it may turn on whether this information is "likely to be challenged". Also, although the meaning of "pha la phel" might be clear, what is not clear is the etymological connection. It could just be a tidy coincidence. Since other reliable sources say different things, I'd say we are still stuck with the OR problem. The Greek "φασόλιφαλλ" (fasolifal) or "φάβαφαλλ" (favafal) could both mean "penis made of beans". Maybe that's the true origin? --FormerIP (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Macrakis, your response suggests to me that you think Sherifhanna's post is a hoax. I urge you to go to the Coptic dictionary and confirm that what he says is true. Moreover, the Arabic word for fava bean is "fool", which sounds suspiciously like "fel", the ancient Egyptian word for the same stuff. Also, I read the article and I don't see the connection with folk etymology. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sherifhanna may be right, but I dont think IAR allows to substitute that for what other sources do say. If we were in the position of having no sources discussing the etymology of the word then I could see IAR being invoked to allow for a bit of OR. But here we are saying that even though there are reliable sources that give a different etymology we should still use that same OR. I dont think that is wise. But on the substance, I would not be surprised if Sherif is correct. It would not surprise me if the Arabic for fava bean (فول) is from the Egyptian word as well. But I dont think we can use OR to overrule a reliable source. nableezy - 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Sherifhanna would have to be more-or-less incontestably correct. A high benchmark, which isn't met in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at the way I wrote it (before Macrakis reverted). I presented Sherifhanna's explanation as a second, alternate possibility. I certainly did not remove the sourced explanations. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have worded my initial comment poorly, so Ill try again. What I meant to say is that if there were no sources on the etymology of the word then I think we could invoke IAR and include OR, though even then I might have some objections. But we have sources, several of them. And they all give the same etymology, Arabic filfil -> Arabic falafel -> English falafel. I dont think we can insert OR as even an alternative theory to what reliable sources give. Not just that we cannot substitute one for the other, but that if we have published sources saying one thing we cannot contrast that with unpublished OR. nableezy - 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough, the Coptic dictionary gives phel 'bean', and it's a good guess that phel is related to Arabic fuul 'fava bean'; pa- (not pha) is indeed listed as a possessive prefix; I couldn't find la 'many' on p. 135. But let's say it were there. So what? Do we have any evidence that the phrase pa la phel is used in Coptic (or that it is even grammatical)? Do we have any evidence that pa la phel in Coptic corresponds to falaafil in modern Arabic? It is easy to invent pseudo-etymologies based on superficial resemblances -- some classic false etymologies in English include acorn < oak + corn, belfry < bell, wormwood < worm + wood. For that matter, is there any reason to believe that User:Sherifhanna700 "speaks ancient Egyptian"?

The WP policy on original research is there for a good reason. --Macrakis (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked an expert on ancient Egptian to comment (I gather the same invitation has gone to others too). The etymology would be OR, and therefore shouldn't go on the page, until published. As to my suggestion above, I would only publish it if at least one established expert on ancient Egyptian/Coptic sees good sense in it. There is a lot of non-etymology in the world, and we mustn't add to it! Andrew Dalby 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be me. First of all, PHA-LA-PHEL is not really grammatical... it would mean something like "That which belongs to beanful." The PHA- and LA- in question both come from ancient Egyptian elements meaning roughly "of or pertaining to...," so it seems a bit perverse to stack them. As phrased, this etymology is not really viable (and in fact practically screams "Hello, I'm a folk etymology!")

But I wouldn't call the theory a total loss. PEL or PHEL "fava bean" is quite right (from ancient egyptian PUR, from Northwestern Semitic pūl, cognate with Arabic fūl—the Arabic term therefore does not come from Egyptian, but nearly vice versa!). A reduplicated form like *PLPEL (literally "beanbean"), while not attested, strikes me as an eminently plausible Egyptian word.

But that's idle speculation, and proves nothing. And in fact there is at least one major problem that would need to be addressed before I would commit to such a theory: since Etymologers would be likely to assume the word was of Arabic origin, and the word fūl does exist in Arabic, why do the serious etymological sources not suggest it comes from a reduplication of the Arabic word? In other words, if the professionals have overlooked *fūlfūl ("beanbean") as the etymology, in favor of filfil ("pepper"), there is probably a good reason. Can we get a trained semitist here please? ;)

--Iustinus (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look, Macrakis is right, I think: no la- "many" on page 135. My other problem is the possessive. The examples in Crum's dictionary show this pa- being used as a possessive in the precise sense of the word. Well, like it or not, falafel doesn't belong to beans. I'm afraid this will be one of those etymologies that rolls over and dies ... Andrew Dalby 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I will note that El-Said Badawi's Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic, which identifies the language of origin for words not of Arabic origin wherever this was known to the author (the dictionary was published in 1986) simply lists 'falafil' under 'filfil' (of which it is a standard Arabic plural form), and gives no Coptic origin for the later. The proposed Coptic origin is pure speculation supported by nothing more than a coincidence that that someone noticed in a dictionary. Macrakis is right to point out the dangers of folk etymology. Even well-establised folk etymologies can be completely wrong, so we shouldn't go making new ones up here. An expert on Ancient Egyptian wouldn't necessarily be able to clear up the matter either - it would be necessary to consult an expert on modern colloquial Egyptian Arabic. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the inevitable controversies over this subject, it is best to keep the statements as uncontentious as possible. The material that was reverted had clear WP:OR issues, as it was not specifically supported by the source. The urban legend about sirloin illustrates the risks in this approach.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more than just folk etymology. The word is a true Coptic word. Look at this: http://www.suscopts.org/deacons/coptic/lesson3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherifhanna700 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The page you point to has a word ΦΑΛΑΦΕΛ, you were proposing ΠΑΛΑΦΕΛ. Anyway, grammars often have fun words as examples, for example ΧΑΜΠΟΥΡΓΚΕΡ (hamburger written in Greek). Even if ΦΑΛΑΦΕΛ is a real modern Coptic word, that doesn't mean that its origin is Coptic ΠΑ + ΛΑ + ΦΕΛ. After all, wormwood is a real English word; that doesn't mean it comes from worm + wood (it doesn't). --Macrakis (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You will notice on page 259 that on the very first line of the entry for ΠΑ in the Walter Crum dictionary, he also mentions ΦΑ, ΤΑ and ΘΑ under the same entry. This is because they are all possessive, and in Coptic, Π and Φ are interchangeable in many instances (for example, the definite article in Coptic for single masculine words could be ΠΙ, `Π, or `Φ. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the PA- vs. PHA- is a dialect thing (PHA- in Bohairic, PA- in all the other dialects). And it's irrelevant anyway: an antiquity PH was not pronounced [f], and since Arabic has no [p] it would be quite likely to change the sound to [f] anyway. But I have no idea whatsoever on what authority the author of that guide cites that word. It does not seem to occur in ancient sources, so I'm guessing it's just a term Copts use for convenience. I'm inclined to agree with Macrakis on this point. --Iustinus (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it *is* interesting, though, that he spells it Ⲫⲁⲗⲁⲫⲉⲗ with ph rather than *ϥⲁⲗⲁϥⲉⲗ with f. This suggests that they've already made the connection with ⲫⲉⲗ "fava bean." This being the case, again, you'd think we could find a published source mentioning this etymology. --Iustinus (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

After having spent 6 years in Alexandria myself amongst many Coptic friends with whom I have discussed this point, I believe Sherifhanna is on track. I suggest you continue to look for sources to support your facts which is essential to making any edits to this particular topic. The current attempted connection to filfil (فلفل) meaning "hot pepper" is weak at best and is merely speculation. I have eaten "fool" for years and just finished a home made falafel sandwich this moment without a pepper in sight! Keep digging and don't give up. Wikipedia is riddled with inaccuracies. It's the passion of people like yourself which raises the bar ultimately resulting in more precise articles. Veritycheck (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I will add that Egyptian Muslims generally have no idea just how much of colloquial Egyptian Arabic is in fact Coptic. The say "foota" instead of the proper Arabic "manshafa" for towel, "oota" instead of proper Arabic "tamatem" for tomatoes, and use "kani we mani" (equivalent to "yada yada") without knowing that it's Coptic for "cream and honey". Somebody with no knowledge of Coptic looked at "falafel" and saw that it sounded like "filfil", and made the connection between the two - even though, once again, there is no freaking pepper in the recipe for falafel. And here we have a food invented in Egypt, pre-dating the introduction of Arabic to the country, made from beans which are called "phel" in the native language. What more proof do you want? Sherifhanna700 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sherifhanna700, it is perfectly possible that the word 'falafel' comes from Coptic. I have no opinion one way or the other, and I am certainly no expert on Coptic etymology. But an important Wikipedia policy says that we seek "verifiability, not truth". I see that you are a new editor, and this may sound bizarre to you, but it is an important principle both procedurally and substantively. --Macrakis (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sherifhanna, how do we that the published source have it wrong? Could it not be you that has looked at "falafel", saw that it sounded like "pha la phel" and just reached an unwarranted conclusion. You might think it seems obvious, but that doesn't make it correct. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, respectfully, the dish itself is literally "made with lots of beans" and has absolutely no "filfil" (hot pepper) in it. The etymology currently presented makes no sense. Additionally, there is a sharp disconnect between the "filfil" etymology and the blatant fact that the dish itself predates the introduction of Arabic to Egypt in the 7th century. How is it that the Copts in Egypt called a dish after an Arabic word even before they knew the Arabic language? It makes no sense. Sherifhanna700 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This brings up a good point -- we have been trying hard for several years to find good scholarly sources for the history of falafel. Unfortunately, like many foods, falafel is not well documented. If you have good sources (not cookbooks or guidebooks!) proving that falafel was known in Egypt before the 7th century, that would be a very useful addition to the article. Right now, we don't even have a solid source documenting it in the 19th century, let alone the 7th! --Macrakis (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sherif Hanna, if you have evidence that the Copts in Egypt called falafel falafel before the Arab presence, you will have proved your point and nobody will argue with you any more, because then it obviously would be a Coptic word. But I don't think that so far you have shown that to have been the case. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me turn that around for a second. What evidence do the sources cited for the "filfil" etymology have to make that connection? The Coptic etymology is not something that I arrived at by chance - seeing the three components in a dictionary and making the link. On the contrary, this is passed down in the culture and history of my people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherifhanna700 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the culture of your people, Sherifhanna, it is probably not a reliable guide either. Many things are traditionally believed in many countries without being true. If you can find a source about this aspect of your national culture, then maybe that could be included in the article.

I think it should be pointed out the pepper probably is a more common ingredient of falafel than beans. Not that it really matters, because critiquing a standard view should not lead to the conclusion that an alternative view must be correct.

I also think it is unlikely that the word falafel, as in your theory, has been transmitted across centuries or, as you would have it, millennia, and between languages without leaving a written trace and without undergoing any phonemic alteration (i.e. it is a word that you think still sounds exactly the same as it did over 1300 years ago) and, at the same time, without any phonemic alteration in the constituent parts in the source language. Not impossible, but I think it is a reason to be highly sceptical.

I also reckon etymologies are best worked out by academics pouring over manuscripts, rather than by the guesses of amateurs, even though it is not for me to say that those guesses must be wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Summing up the discussion so far

It seems that there is pretty clear agreement that the currently cited etymology, though supported by reliable sources, is implausible. There is no pepper in falafel, so the idea that the word derives from pilpel seems mighty unlikely.

On the other hand, three participants in the discussion with specific linguistic knowledge (Sherifhanna, Iustinus, and Veritycheck) consider alternative etymologies plausible. These alternatives include: a reduplication of the Arabic word "fuul" meaning fava bean (the main ingredient of falafel), or the construct in ancient Egyptian "Fa La Fel", meaning "lots of beans".

The options we have are:

• Leave the section as it is, with one etymology, well sourced, but probably wrong.
• Remove the etymology section altogether, until we have an etymology from sources that seems reasonable.
• Offer the sourced etymology, along with the alternatives, noting in a footnote or in text that the alternatives are not supported by external sources.

Of these three alternatives, my preference is, of course, the third. The first - leaving the dubious but sourced etymology (which is most probably one of those horrid folk etymologies that somehow sneaked its way into a dictionary) - seems to me the worst of the options. It is doing a clear disservice to our readers, because of blind adherence to rules that in this case harm rather than help the encyclopedia.

As an aside, it warms my heart to be part of discussion on this page with three speakers of ancient Egyptian, in which the Middle East conflict has played no part whatsoever.

Yours in controversy, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify my point about reduplication: a reduplicated Coptic/Egyptian form is at least as likely as a reduplicated Arabic form, it's just that I have to wonder why no one has suggested a reduplication before, given that the word exists in Arabic as well. And I'd say I currently prefer the first option—Etymological OR can be very dangerous, and I'd hate to set a precident! Hey, did you know that the Coptic word for "no"is NNO? Suggestive, eh? ;) --Iustinus (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And let's not forget the unacknowledged debt that English has to Arabic/Coptic: after you eat a meal of beans, don't you feel FUL? --Macrakis (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! That's Coptic for "under a winnowing fan, a mast." This affects not only etymology, but also interpreting the Odyssey. --Iustinus (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

fully agree with rav papa. Soosim (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would go along with saying that the origin of the word falafel is obscure, but the explanation that was removed has too many WP:OR issues. The Oxford online definition gives the "pepper" explanation, which seems to be the most common.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Ravpapa, that a discussion on this purely etymological topic makes a pleasant change! Thanks to Iustinus for his comments. I was afraid (and Iustinus's reaction confirms my fears) that the suggested Egyptian/Coptic etymology isn't convincing grammatically: the proposed phrase wouldn't have the required meaning.

Etymologies, even the best-accepted ones, very often lack proof: the required documents very often don't exist. That's why Wikipedians, and all others who are not themselves historical linguistics specialists, have to rely on such experts. In their almost unreadable academic papers they are in fact typically weighing up possibe etymologies and coming down on one side or the other, and we take what they eventually say as reliable. There's no other way -- till one of them disagrees with the others, and then we can report the controversy!

In this case, the problem with the accepted etymology for falafel is not in the form of the word (I understand it's a perfectly normal plural form from filfil) but the sense. Why pepper? Such questions arise quite often with names of foods; sometimes a good, reassuring answer is found; sometimes it turns out that the word has this form because of folk etymology, and its real origin is different.

"No OR" is a good rule: we can't put a new etymology on the page until it's reliably published. Andrew Dalby 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, as far as I can tell, we only have one participant in this discussion with specific linguistic knowledge, namely Iustinus, who has mentioned various interesting ideas, but remember that on WP, we are looking for verifiable information, not original research -- even if it is the original research of an expert. --Macrakis (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, there is not "pretty clear agreement that the currently cited etymology, though supported by reliable sources, is implausible". It's completely plausible. All we have is an bogus argument about peppers. In time-honoured fashion, we should just go with what the experts say. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion... I was randomly solicited to comment here, and I've read this entire section.

I think Ravpapa makes about as strong an argument as I can imagine for invoking WP:IAR to ignore WP:NOR. In particular, he advocates merely suggesting a plausible etymology - that is at best so indirectly and loosely supported by RS that including it would clearly violate WP:NOR - as an alternative to the implausible ones found in WP:RS. The argument seems to be that there is no harm in making such a suggestion, and it arguably improves the article in that it helps highlight how implausible the sourced etymology is, and that there is this plausible alternative.

The problem is that NOR is not just a rule, but a fundamental policy of WP. The intent of IAR is not to ignore something so fundamental to building an encyclopedia.

This is a good idea for the content of someone's blog entry, but not for a Wikipedia article.

That said, if this alternative etymology is actually sourced somewhere, by all means, let's include it. --Born2cycle 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Coptic etymology FA-LA-FEL is also implausible, because, according to our only linguistic specialist here, it is grammatically mal-formed. However, we do now have good sources for its being a folk etymology, and so that has been incorporated into the article. As I've said several times before, we have a bigger problem in this article for both the food and the word -- namely that we have NO sources for their existence before the 20th century. Gil Marks' Encyclopedia of Jewish Food claims that fava bean fritters were made in medieval Egypt (under the name ta'amiya) but gives no source for this. Then again, chick-pea fritters were known in Renaissance Italy.[12]

As for the implausibility of filfil 'pepper', a 1951 publication describes falafel as "sharp peppers and fried dried pea balls sandwiched in a flat roll"[13]. Perhaps falafel originally referred specifically to a sandwich of ta'amiya served with peppers, and was later generalized to all ta'amiya? I'm not suggesting we include this theory in the article, but you can see that it is not all that implausible after all. --Macrakis (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to remove the words "folk etymology". Folk etymology is something quite different: it's not the proposing of an etymology, it's the reshaping of a word. There's no evidence (yet) that folk etymology has played any part in the history of this word. Andrew Dalby 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, sorry about that. What I intended was something like "a popularly-believed etymology" (without taking an editorial position on whether it is correct or not as opposed to terminology like False etymology). Then again, the Coptic dictionary doesn't explicitly say that (though Sherifhanna700 does), so I guess even that is OR. --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a confusing term ... Yes, I agree with what you say here; all we can do is to cite the source. As yet we know of no article in which the two etymologies have been compared and evaluated. Andrew Dalby 12:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)