Talk:Hummus/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Hummus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Erasing of the Etiological connection between Hummus and the bible

The user Lockesdonkey Erased the Etimology origin of hummus in Hebrew. I reverted the change, and would like to say that this section is of high importance due to the jihad some Lebanese writers decided to take upon Israelis and Hummus.

If you think that this Etimology is in correct, consider adding it to the article, not removing it all completely.

Talgalili (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see the etymology has been discussed before and the consensus at the time was against addition. The reference in the Book of Ruth is usually taken to be to vinegar. This article is about the dish of mashed chickpeas+tahini+olive oil+lemon juice+garlic with optinal seasonings or garnishes. Our extensive searching for sources has turned up no reliable source that desribes the dish beign used any earlier than in 19th century Damascus. The earliest evidence I know of lemons in the Mediterranean area are the murals preserved by Versuvius. Tahini isn't evidenced until later. The other items were around in biblical times, but it's a leap to saying that anything around then is similar enough to count as modern hummus.

What you have inserted is also unreferenced. Due to the edit-warring that has gone on, we're quite insistent on proper referencing at this article. Due to the lack of refernce I am removing it. Also due to conventions around WP:BRD, can I suggest that you don't add this again without obtaining consensus. The likes of Gwen Gale and Makrakis have no political axes to grind and so consensus to insert is obtainable but only if reliable references that also establish relevance to the article subject ar provided.

Finally, can I suggest moving this subsection down and changing the heading to level 2? It's more likely to get noticed by more contributors if it's at the bottom of the talk page. If you don't object to this move at your next contribution, then I'll assume that you're okay with this refactoring.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter.

First - I moved the discussion to your suggestion (thanks for being so kind as to suggest).

Regarding the rest, from my perspective I reverted a change made by a contributer. I failed to note that the edit previous to it was disputed. Thank you for undoing my mistake, I accept your claim that a valid reference is needed.

At the same time (as a native Hebrew speaker) I would like to say that when you write

 The reference in the Book of Ruth is usually taken to be to vinegar.

I would like to ask you for a reference to this statement.

When I checked in the Hebrew Wikipedia:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%94#.D7.9E.D7.A7.D7.95.D7.A8_.D7.94.D7.A9.D7.9D

What I found was two explanations to way Hummus is coined CHIMTZA

When the plant is growing it is acidic (and in Hebrew CHIMTZA seems to come from the same root as CHAMUTZ sour).
After it's cooking, the dish can become sour quite fast (especially thinking about a hot climate area as in Israel/Lebanon

I am not claiming that this is the correct explanation of the word, but I AM saying it is not (by far) far fetched, and (as I wrote) would like reference for people claiming for and against the explanation, which is outside of this article.

With much (honest) respect, Talgalili (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my earlier note (dated 14:16, 10 July 2009). In brief, even if it is true (and it may well be) that Hebrew Ḥ-M-Ṣ (as found in the Book of Ruth) is cognate to Arabic حمّص, it is completely irrelevant to this article, which is not about chickpeas, vinegar, or sourness, but about a dish composed of chickpeas and tahini (among other things). --macrakis (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Macrakis,

1. Are you saying this should go under a chickpeas article or that of vinegar?
2. With all do respect for Arabic (and I have respect), the bible was written in Hebrew. Which intuitively (and without being an expert in the field of linguistic) tells me that one of the first questions should be the meaning of the word in an Hebrew context.
3. And what Ruth was offered is to dip a piece of bread in CHIMTZA, for the slight chance that it was actually Hummus (even if it was chickpeas and water without the Tahini), I think it is at least worth mentioning in the article as a possibility (the same as there is a section in the article about the dispute).

Macrakis, we both agree that this is a real possibility for interpretation. And we both agree that this is not a sure connection.

What do you think about my proposal that the article will state that there is a claim that the meaning of the word CHIMTZA in the bible is Hummus. And leave it at that?

If you think this is a part of the Israeli Labenies dispute (which I think is the place from which the importance of this dialog stems from), it might be best to put this section inside the dispute section in the article, instead of in the Etiological section.

Talgalili (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. No, I don't think any of this needs to be mentioned in this article. The consensus of scholarship as far as anyone has established here is that Ruth's Ḥ-M-Ṣ has nothing to do with hummus bi tahini. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the only source we have for that claim is by a satirist. The Hebrew word CHIMTZA would certainly be appropriate in the wiktionary entries for vinegar and chickpea, but not in the Wikipedia entries: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (By the way, please look in a dictionary for the difference between etiology and etymology... not to mention entomology :-).) --macrakis (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Macrakis, I understand and accept. Talgalili (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Geez, never realized how contentious Hummus was. Before y'all get too distracted, might I suggest replacing the first picture accompanying this article. It basically looks like puke. I understand hummus isn't the most photogenic food, but there's got to be something better looking than this one. Jmdeur (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I like that image. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The hummus war - Abu Gosh, Israel made the largest dish (08.01.2010)

Should this be reported in the article ?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/07/hummus.wars/

Talgalili (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of all these Guinness Book 'records' like the "largest Caesar salad", the "largest bowl of hummus", etc. --macrakis (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was by itself - I would agree with you. But since this is a part of a larger controversy having to do with this dish, I tend to favor elaborating on it. Talgalili (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This be addition example of "Israel"i theft of arab food, perhap it belong in section on food theft. Ani medjool (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unaware, but there are Arabs in Israel, like in Abu Gosh. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The record holder is Jawadat Ibrahim Ibrahim , an Israeli Arab. Are you claiming he is stealing Arab food? Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ani, as Nick just wrote to you - this is not about Jews vs Arabs, or Israelis VS Arabs. This is (as it seems) Lebanese vs Israelis. In this case, it is Arab Lebanese vs Arab Israelis. P.S: As shooky said well in the article I just cited:

"Trying to make a copyright claim over hummus is like claiming for the rights to bread or wine," said Shooky Galili, an Israeli whose blog, dedicated to all things hummus, bears the credo "give chickpeas a chance."

"Hummus is a centuries old Arab dish -- nobody owns it, it belongs to the region," continued Galili, who believes the rivalry is about control over the hummus market. Globally, the market is worth $1 billion, according to Abboud.

Talgalili (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is definitely an interesting and noteworthy addition to the article. Breein1007 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Breein1007. Talgalili (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is noteworthy. Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by others the trivium of the world's largest bowl of hummus is within the context of a political dispute. I can conceive of this being included in an accepable manner. Of course, if the Arab Israeli is then trumped by an American hummus manufacturer, the record ceases to be of interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies people. I added a paragraph about the matter, I hope it turned out well.Talgalili (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it. The only thing that makes it encyclopedic is that it is part of what the article title calls the hummus wars. That needs playing up while the size of the rival dishes are unimportant.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work Peter. I wonder if it is worth mentioning that it is a Guinness record... Talgalili (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Guinness records are mostly meant for the pop-culture publishing market and when strived for, are mostly marketing ploys of one kind or another. Hence, if a "marketing feud" as to hummus has indeed been widely noted and Guinness records are a slice of that, it could be encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do mention Guinness. I have now fixed my late night spelling mistake.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PeterCohen, that is your POV, and has no basis here. When someone attempts to make the largest pizza, or omelette, there is no controversy about pizza wars between the US and Italy. It's a laconic item that is legitimate in the article. If you have proof that the Abu Gosh restaurant owner Jawadat Ibrahim Ibrahim is an agent of the Israeli government, please add this info. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you had acually read the thread, you would notice that there are two views expressed here. One is that trivia about hummus records are not noteworthy in themselves. The other is that the records may be noteworthy because they occured within the context of Lebanon seeking to restrict the use of the label to exclude Israeli sources. This thread has had participants with views as diverse as Ani Medjool's and Breein1007 who both have indicated that they thought there might be grounds for including this material. (And you should know how unusual it is for them even to appear to be in agreement on anything.) However, despite the range of underlying views, no one hass said "let's place this recordon its own away from any menion of the dispute over ownership of the dish that was mentioned in the source article." It is your attempt to separate the record from the ownership issue that is clearly against consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Peter cohen, please do not misrepresent my views or put words in my mouth when I haven't declared my view on a certain issue. While I did certainly say that I found the record noteworthy for the article, I have yet to think about or make conclusions on whether or not I find its placement within the article appropriate. Also, I don't really see the duality between mine and ani medjool's opinions here. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia about "Isreal" hummus not notable and be not belong in article unless it in section about theft of arab food by "Israel". Ani medjool (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ani, so you are saying that if the record belonged to a Lebanese person, it would then be significant? You know this is called POV. --Shuki (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Other food articles have WP:RS records mentioned in them -- Pizza, Pita etc.. Perhaps it would be better if the information was worked into the "controversy" section, as it is the controversy with Lebanon which helped, in part, fuel the competition in the first place. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please find RS to support that and show that about the parties involved, not just some off-hand remark from a reporter. I don't particularly think that 'Abu Gosh restaurant owner Jawadat Ibrahim Ibrahim' thinks he is fighting a war with Lebanon. And even if it was a Israel-Lebanon rivalry, this is quite non-controversial and widespread around the world between countries, cities, organizations, companies. --Shuki (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable source. And the article put the record in the context of th ebroader dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My two pence: The marketing feud over hummus which has been going on lately "between" the Lebanon and Israel is notable to the topic and CNN is a reliable enough source for citations on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the paragraph. Shuki seems bent on his one man campaign to keep shifting it away from the controversies section. This is despite Marokwitz having initially placed it there after saying that the fact was of interest because of its being in the context of the Labanon-Israel dispute, my having replaced it there after mentioning the same context as the only grounds for inclusion, nsaum75 considering the contorversies section the appropriate place, Ani Medjool and Gwen Gale agreeing with me that the fact is only worth including in the context of the Israel-Labanon dispute, and Makrakis, the editor who has done most to maintain the quality of this article, arguing that Guinness trivia should not be included for its own sake.

There is quite clearly no consensus for Shuki's preferred position. If an admin were to clamp down on his WP:Tendentious editing, then we could restore the parapraph to the plce where Marokwitz put it. However, until someone does do so it is quite clear that Shuki will keep enforcing his one man consensus and his eccentric interpretaion of WP:BRD which claims that his positioning is somehow the default place to leave things while we argue it out.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the above. I want to reaffirm that I have no objection to something like my previous version of the paragraph being reinserted into the controversies section. The two things that have no clear consensus are a placement elsewhere or an inclusion in a manner that does not link the record to the ownership dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that the "biggest hummus" thing is part of the propaganda war, I suppose it should be mentioned. But in that case, it doesn't make sense to mention only the current record-holder, but to demonstrate the contention by mentioning more than one record holder, e.g. "The propaganda war extends to competing over 'world record hummus', with alternating Lebanese, Israeli, and Palestinian claimants.<ref>ref to recent Lebanese record-holder</ref><ref>ref to recent Israeli record-holder</ref><ref>ref to recent Palestinian record-holder</ref>" --macrakis (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to the extent that this garbage is important, yes, give the history of these sizes!!! (Dumarest (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Macrakis, would it be o.k to add the paragraph you proposed with a "add ref here" place holder? Talgalili (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --macrakis (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The CNN report does at least mention a Lebanese consortium as the previous holders. I don't know where the mention of Palestinians and Israelis as claimants comes from. My understanding is that the new holder is an Israeli of Palestinian descent. There's nothing in the article that indicates whether he identifies as Israeli, Palestinian, Israeli Arab, Israeli Palestinian or what.--Peter cohen (talk)

My text above was just a suggestion for the form of the statement. Maybe the wording should be "claimants in Lebanon and Israel", for example. --macrakis (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you guys be careful with giving WP:UNDUE to this alleged Hummus war. CNN is a reliable source, but again, it is merely one news item and there should be multiple references to back up this alleged war / controversy. Macrakis, I don't appreciate that you want to add more junk to the article unless you can find where else on WP articles tolerate having a list of world records like you suggest. Peter, please stop the disruptive editing and reinsert the paragraph you deleted entirely. There is absolutely no consensus here to remove it and is in fact your 'one man campaign' against me. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Shuki, please see this google search on "the hummus war" - many more items then just that of CNN... Talgalili (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I certainly don't want to "add more junk" to the article. Please re-read what I wrote above: I would rather we remove the silliness around "world record hummus" entirely. But if it is notable as part of some sort of (ridiculous) rivalry, then we should include evidence of the rivalry. There is no evidence of rivalry if we include only the most recent episode of one-upsmanship. What's more, by moving the evidence (as opposed to the claim of rivalry) to a footnote, we in fact make the article more concise, with the effect of removing junk. --macrakis (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Macrakis, I am asking myself under what grounds you see this rivalry not note worthy. I agree with you that this is foolish, but not worthy of mention ?! Talgalili (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, and you can quote me, I don't care who holds the record be it Israeli Arab or Lebanese Arab, a short note on the world record should be in the article and should not be in the controversy section. --Shuki (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talgalili, as I said, as far as I'm concerned, this is trivial and uninteresting. But as I also said, if we think it is noteworthy, then it is noteworthy as a rivalry and not because some particular person in some particular place currently holds the record. I say: document the rivalry, not the silly record. --macrakis (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Macrakis, I believe we are in agreement. Except that I holds that the rivalry should be of interest. So how do "we" agree if this rivalry is worth mentioning or not ? Talgalili (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear; I don't feel strongly about including this information or not; since several editors think it's worth including, let's include it. But let's make it clear why it is interesting: namely, that it is a rivalry. That's all. --macrakis (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I now get what you are saying. In which case, I believe we are in full agreement. Talgalili (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The don't put it in a 'controversy' section because there is no controversy. If you look at other pages where Guinness records are quoted, there is nothing about rivalries so refrain from making this article the exception. --Shuki (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, "controversy" is a poor title for the section: we should make it something more specific to what is actually being discussed here, say "Hummus in Israel". That section should discuss the history of the adoption by Jewish immigrants to Palestine of local foods (the Janna Gur content) as well as the reaction by Lebanese and Palestinians to their perception that the Israelis had "appropriated" hummus and the rivalry between Lebanese and Israeli claimants to Guiness records. Can we all agree on that? --macrakis (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this discussion before, but I can't see here any legitimate arguments against adding it. It has reputable sources and it was a pretty famous event. The natural place is right after the discussion about Israeli hummus, since I don't think it created any controversy in and of itself, or at all. We can always create a sub category for this, but it seems a strange reason to remove it altogether. I can't see any wikipedian theory that supports removal of this material. Amoruso (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I rv Ip [1] No source added showing the claim that it is not Arab but Israeli, no reason given for removal of etymology. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Lebanese hummus" - titles in the pictures

I see continues edits changing the names of the pictures from "hummus" to "Lebanese style hummus" and so on. I would rather take the word "Lebanese" out of them (especially due to the sensitivity of "Hummus ownership" issue).

If anyone reject the suggestion, I could just find pictures of "Israeli hummus", and will start making sure to insert them into the article. (Update: just to be clear, I was being sarcastic)

Talgalili (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you did that, you'd stray from WP:Point, which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to threat Gwen, I'll update my earlier remark so as to try and clarify myself as being sarcastic rather then threatening. Talgalili (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic edits to articles can also be pointy and highly disruptive. Wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gwen. While my remark in the talk page was Sarcastic, my edit to the article was not. I made that edit in good faith in order to reserve NPOV in the article.

Best, Talgalili (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gwen - what do you think? Talgalili (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that so far, no consensus has shown up for taking Lebanese out of captions. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the authors of both photographs described them as Lebanese style Hummus. I don't really know what non-Lebanese style Hummus is for a comparison. I don't think we should be reinterpreting what the photographer's described their pictures as being. Does Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian, or any other Hummus look particularly different, or is it served differently? Are specific styles native to specific places, even if they were later shared or traded? ← George^talk 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello George. The short answer to this is that every Hummus place will serve it differently. The longer answer is this: I will now give you 9 links to different (randomly choosen) pictures, showing the hummus from different hummus places in Israel. I personally can't say about any of them that they are any more or less "Lebanese style" then the one presented in the Article. Here are the links: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Talgalili (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How interesting! I definitely wouldn't call any of those Lebanese style. In fact, if you hadn't told me, I wouldn't have guessed that most of those were even hummus, as they look nothing like how hummus is traditionally served in Lebanon. I might have to visit Israel one of these days, because now I'm hungry to try some of these variations! If we can find something that describes (or even better, pictures) some of the more common Israeli (Arab Israeli? Palestinian?) variants on hummus, I think that would add value to the article as well. The complication will be determining which hummus comes from where, but maybe there are books or magazines describing the different serving styles of each region? ← George^talk 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You raise interesting questions George - I'll think about it more. Thank you for this input - it is very interesting! Talgalili (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The main thing I see is most of these contain pools of oil (I assume olive), not a way I have ever seren hummus before. Dumarest (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the one image, other than that of the canned hummus (ew, btw), which carries the caption Lebanese hummus... and has Lebanese in the image name, straightforwardly echoes the uploader's memory of being in the Lebanon far more than any notion of the presentation itself being Lebanese. I also see that it's the uploader's recollection of how the dish was served by a Palestinian housekeeper. Hence I see no need to keep Lebanese in that caption. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I will await more discussion to see if anyone refutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgalili (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Image

I have changed position of two pictures, so this one is in the top: [11]

It shows how traditional hummus is served, the other one with the pine nuts, I think it should be removed, I have never seen it served like that or heard anyone putting pine nuts in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

While I don't personally care about the order of these two photos, I would point out that your lack of experience with chumus with pine nuts doesn't mean it doesn't exist (or isn't popular). I myself have seen it served this way many times. Breein1007 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Breein1007 point. Talgalili (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a surprise that someone who's used to eating humus from a can has never seen it served with pine nuts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say, User:Supreme Deliciousness's post sounds like original research to me. I'll undo the swap, but more input is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research covers publishing original material, not editorial decisions, such as which images to use or where to use them. And while I've eaten plenty of Hummus (never from a can, which sounds pretty disgusting), I too have never seen it served with pine nuts. That said, we should try to find out where which varieties are served (and if they're limited to specific locals), similar to the discussion above about the pictures of Lebanese style Hummus served with garbanzo beans. ← George^talk 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor was citing his own experiences with hummus, that's original research. I'm happy to say, I'm ok with the pine nuts image because it's a Levantine way of serving this Levantine dish and moreover, editorially speaking, I think it looks cool. If there's a consensus for another image in the lead, that'll show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Better to lead with the most generic image of only hummus and olive oil than a specifc regional one which has OR importance. All the pictures here show hummus served with olive oil. Some show other add-ons, these should be deprecated to the 'plain' serving. This is not OR at all. --Shuki (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think calling that image generic is not OR. I shall weep for the loss of the beloved pine nuts image from the lead. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to share with you my struggle: I restrained my POV from bumping up the chickpeas photo, and instead made a compromise with myself on the plain one. --Shuki (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My only snare with that one is not what it shows, but that it's an ugly snap (as an aside food isn't easy to photograph, there are whole businesses/studios set up to do nothing but and what they do to the food to make it look appealing is often... not). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness and George. Pine nut hummus not common presentation. It shoudl be remove, or least not belong at start of page. Ani medjool (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool, in Israel this is very common, and can be ordered in most hummus places I have visited. Talgalili (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But that make no difference. Hummus be arab food that "Israel" took and try pass off as own food. So pine nut photo not representative of Arab food but in the stead adulterated version that "Israel" use to attempt to create cuisine and history where none exist. Ani medjool (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani, all cuisines borrow from other cuisines, and make new variants. Pizza clearly comes from Italy, but it is now a very American dish, with many American variants. Even if those variants are nothing like the original (Hawaiian pizza with pineapple!, Southern pizza with barbecue!), they may well become notable variants. Our job on Wikipedia is not to judge which ones are "adulterated", but to report accurately on what exists in the world and how it got that way. We should of course separate accurate history from ridiculous stories (e.g. that hummus bi tahini is mentioned in the Old Testament). --macrakis (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Macrakis is exactly correct. Regarding the picture in the lead, I think we should go with whichever is the most common (or generic, as Skuki put it) serving style. ← George^talk 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorially, I think the more generic image now in the lead is fitting, moreover because the composition is esthetically pleasing enough and the technical quality is bright and sharp. Also, what Macrakis says about that (way mistaken) take on the Old Testament and modern hummus bears much to heed, the only way that should ever make it into the article text would be to show readers that there is no historical or linguistic support for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Radical change

like this: [12] needs consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call that a radical change. It depends on how RS refers to the food. Does it say its Levantine or specifically Levantine Arab? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the source. For what it's worth, this is how it was originally added in 2008. ← George^talk 09:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

The section included many uncontroversial things, and almost sounded like an essay with the thesis "Hummus is not Israeli; it's Arab." I responsibly moved a part of that section the Israeli cuisine article. The material had to do with such history and about what foods in general (not hummus specifically) became popular in Israel and gives an argument as to why that is so.

The other uncontroversial note is that from a random BBC interview. The interviewee is certainly not notable by any means, and there is nothing controversial about his conclusion that he considers hummus Arab food. No controversy arose from those statement. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations" states that quotes should not be used when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

It is my feeling that the section you removed existed for that purpose...ie to make a point while skirting WP regulations regarding neutral encyclopedic language. However, do not be surprised if someone tries to re-add it. Those quotes have been inserted in most articles about foods which Israel and her Arab neighbors both enjoy. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Those sections from the Janna Gur source and BBC program is will sourced, from reliable sources, and mentions important history, you did not have any consensus for its removal, I'm gonna re ad it as soon as I can. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "as soon as you can"??? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying.. But anyhow, you missed the point, SD. Its not that they're not WP:RS, its the fact that they are extensively quoted to make a WP:POINT and do not conform to WP's policy on quotes (which I stated above). If you can transcribe them into neutral dispassionate encyclopedic tone, then please do.--nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness, you are twisting some rules around. BBC is reliable, but the interviewee is hardly notable. And the encyclopedia also upholds not giving WP:undue weight. I listed reasons for its (partial) removal and for the moving of another part to the proper article-you have not actually countered my rationale for doing so. The point is that there this random chef's conclusion is not controversial. What significance does it have? --Shamir1 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Several people disagree with the removal of it, me and Macrakis:[13], I find it relevant and important info about Israeli adoption of Arab food. The part you added to the Israeli article has been removed, and even if it was there (which it isn't) it could still be in both articles. You have no consensus for its removal. I have re added a part of it (not all) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I support nsaum75 and Shamir1 position. Talgalili (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I will request again (it's silly how many times I've repeated this to you personally in the past) that you stop making controversial (note the irony) changes unilaterally in the middle of a discussion. An agreement has not been reached, and just because a few days have passed does not mean you have the right to revert again. You are perpetuating an edit war, and I suggest that you stop now. Breein1007 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest something, we hd this discussion at Falafel, and there was some agreement for paraphrasing the material in question, nd placing the quote, minus the last sentence, in a footnote. So here we could add after what is already there now that "Hovav also noted that falafel, like many dishes that are considered to be Israeli national foods, is actually Arab/Palestinian." The quote can be placed in the footnote minus the last sentence, about robbing them of everything, which seems to be a throwaway casual statement which needn't be included. I'm with SD in believing this material is well-sourced though, and relevant to this article. Its a matter solely of how to present it. Tiamut^talk 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut - thank you for the suggestion. In the danger of sounding naive, why is this quote relevant? What makes Hovev be someone to quote? Also, If I where to get another quote from him on the subject (Which I believe I can if I will try), would that be also included in the article? Talgalili (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons the quote is relevant. First, the spaker is an Israeli food editor, so he is an expert in the field under discussion here. He would be best placed to know how it is that hummus entered Israeli cuisine. Second, there is a widespread belief among Arabs that Israelis have engaged in cultural appropriation of their traditional foods; that an Israeli food editor concurs with that generl sentiment is significant. Third, the statement was made on a food program on the BBC, a reliable source for this article.

about finding another quote from Hovav, you are welcome to look around. But even if you did find another quote, I don't see why we should not include this one. As stated above, he is a reliable source on this subject, the publisher of his thoughts is also a reliable source, and the information is relevant to the topic at hand. My suggestion on how to include the information is designed to address Nsaum75's concerns above. I believe he agreed that such a formulation would be acceptable to him at Talk:Falafel. Don't see why it would be any less acceptable here. Tiamut^talk 11:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timaut, thanks for the detailed reply. I support your reasoning, And will support what you proposed with regards to the same solution that was found for the Falafel article. Talgalili (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering Talgalili. I will wait a bit to hear from others before proceeding so that we have consensus for this change. Tiamut^talk 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it to be removed, there suggestion for paraphrasing, but since that hasn't happened I'm re adding it as it is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because nobody has gone ahead and paraphrased it doesn't mean you have the right to put back in your contended edit. I am reverting your reinsertion of material that is under discussion here and over which several editors have expressed concerns. Breein1007 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is properly sourced, it is in violation of WP:QUOTE and will be removed if a paraphrase is not inserted. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum75, there is no need to yell. Quote is a guideline, not a policy, like WP:V. The idea that hummus was stolen by Israel from Palestinians is widespread and has some truth to it. Regardless, given your objections and those of others, I proposed alternate formulations above and was waiting for you and others to comment about what you thought before editing. You could have carried out the paraphrase yourself, as it seems to meet with your approval. I've done it now, and as stated below also changed a quote above it that seems to have escaped t notice of others. [14] I take it this issue is over here, no? Tiamut^talk 07:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't yelling, and I am the editor who created the "Hummus sandbox" in the "Paraphrasing of quotes" section, with a possible paraphrase option. I left it there, as opposed to making the change directly to the article, as the quotes in question seem to have been controversial and I didn't want editors to start warring over the actual article if the proposed content did not meet muster. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I see you did paraphrase the other quote as well. I have no objection to adding that paraphrase instead of the truncated quote I wrote up, if that's what you would like to do. Also, see my note below about moving the whole paragraph up out of the controversy section. Tiamut^talk 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrase of quotes

"Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations" states that quotes should not be used when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

Please See Talk:Hummus/sandbox for a possible paraphrase solution, and leave comments below this message. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The tone seems about right. Not sure if "respectively" was the right word; tentatively changed it to "respectfully", plus a few other, minor changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've paraphrased the quote in question in the main body and placed the quote, minus the line "So we sort of robeed them of everything" in a footnote. As I was doing that, I noticed the quote directly above it also used "rhetorical language in place of a more netural dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias." Accordingly I removed part of the quote about "Jews risking their lives" to enter the Muslim quarter. You can see the edits here. Hope that meets with everyone's approval. Tiamut^talk 07:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note ... I've moved this information out of the "Controversy" section and edited it into the section of serving methods in the paragraph on Israel. It was originally with this material before it was artificially spliced out and denoted "Controversial" in an OR fashion without discussion. You can see the change here. Tiamut^talk 08:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I added his further sentence from page 3 talking about how Jews brought Arab food from their previous countries. One other thing - he only said Arab hummus, not Palestinian. In another place, I removed the sentence "like elsewhere in the middle east" since it specifically addressed an Israeli situation in the paragraph. Amoruso (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence since it was taken out of context, he is not talking about hummus: [15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about all Arab country foods. You can't remove this while keeping "like many other dishes" and quoting the salad etc. You have to choose. I think this is more appropriate. Amoruso (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Limited Definition of Hummus

The Definition of Hummus used for this page appears to be somewhat narrow in scope. Here in Southern California Hummus is synonymous with the health food/hippie coffee shop subculture and theres literly hundreds of ways its made. Different types of beans are often substitued, different nut butters are sometimes used instead of or addition to tahini or even eliminated entirely and it can be spiced with almost anything. This article tends to come from a strong middle eastern POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is also the case in the UK where the major supermarkets sell a large variety of different types of own-brand hummus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.221.180 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to find reliable sources that talk about these variations and add them to the article in the appropriate section. The "middle eastern" chumus is certainly the main focus of the article, as that is both historically and modernly the most common version. Breein1007 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is focused on the core dish recognised as hummus internationally. We have in the past removed links to Lebanese chickpea dishes that contain hummus in their name but which aren't close enough to the spread that has acquired the name hummus outside Arabic-speaking circles. I would similarly be wary of allowing usages confined to a subculture in SoCal into this article. If the usage spread so that non-chickpea or non-tahini dishes were documented as a meaning of hummus in major international dictionaries of English or similar reference books, and they were getting bought under that name in restaurants and supermarkets in New York and Europe, then I would change my mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it a little odd to not include variations of dish in the article since they're very common. It would be like saying Cheese Pizza is the only true pizza and everything else doesn't belong in the wikipedia on pizza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.246.106 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy sandbox

/sandbox

Anachronism

"They were eaten by people in Palestine before 4000 BC", is not valid, since "Palestine" is a name given to that land at a much later date, certainly after Judea and Israel. The only way to avoid anachronisms and political sway, would be to state that "They were eaten by people in what is currently Israel and the Palestinian territories before 4000 BC". Please refrain from involving your political views, at least here. --Scias76 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, see Palestine#Origin_of_name. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, but I'm not. As you can read in Palestine#Origin_of_name, the term "Palestine" does derive from the Philistines, but it was given to the land by the Romans only in 135 AD, after the Jewish revolt. In modern times it was revived by the British, and thus became recognized world wide as "Palestine". In any case, the Philistines themselves were not present yet in the land in the year 4,000 BC - they arrived around the time of the Israelites/Jews, and they settled mostly in a relatively small strip along the coast, an area which is partly today's Gaza strip. You can read more here, if you want.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

I think that the definition I gave is very factual and clean of any political affiliation. Scias76 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

palestinefacts is not a reliable source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you're mistaken. If you like, you can read the thoroughly sourced wlink above. There is no need to also post to my talk page. Meanwhile, input from other editors is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see where and how I'm mistaken. Assuming you read my comments, you chose not to provide any contradicting arguments. I have supplied a thorough explanation, and you're welcome to check other sources as well. Though it's very clear from both my link and the Wikipedia link that you've provided, that in the year 4,000 BC there was no entity by the name of Palestine; and though it's very clear that there is no independent entity called Palestine (yet, at least), here's another link, this time from Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/439645/Palestine

Israelis would naturally substitute the term "Palestine" for "Israel", whereas the Arabs would leave the term "Palestine" (both would be historically wrong, though "Israel" would be more accepted as this territory is currently divided between Israel and a territory that it controls). Anyway, Since this is a national and political dispute, it would be best to opt for the factual definition - "Even before 4000 BC they were eaten by people in what is modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, in lieu of "They were eaten by people in Palestine before 4000 BC".

I apologize if I seem a little aggressive, but It's important for me to make a point. Many are still having trouble accepting the existence of Israel or the right of its people to love there, and you certainly have every right to hold that view. However there is no room for political persuasion or historical narrative in a definition of a food item. We should stick to the cold scientific and indisputable facts, and refrain from involving politics. This should be expected from everyone in our community, and certainly from an administrator.

(Scias76 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Gwen Gale, while I won't vouch for everything that Scias76 is saying here, there is one thing I must agree with. I don't see your comment of "You're mistaken, see Palestine" as helpful in the least. I have just read that section twice, and fail to see what it is you are cryptically hinting at. That article makes it very clear that the region in question was not referred to as "Palestine" in 4000 BCE. Breein1007 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But source say Palestine so must use what source say. Ani medjool (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sources would state "coloured" for African Americans, would you still use that term to describe them in a Wikipedia definition? (Scias76 (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

In any case, no one knows what that region was called in 4000 BCE. --macrakis (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the only encyclopedic thing to do is to say "modern region of...", not use WP:OR to label what we assume it was called in 4000BCE (or more accurately, use a term that we know for sure was NOT used). Breein1007 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the right thing to do is use the terminology used by the reliable source we are citing. Not substitute these classical, scholarly terms for modern euphemisms simply because some people have a political problem with the term Palestine. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the right thing to do is to recognize that sources can have mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to represent a territory in 4000 BCE by a name invented millennia later. We should be intelligent enough to understand that the author of the source made a mistake (or was quoted out of context), and we should not taint the encyclopedia by keeping his error in our article simply because some people have a political fetish with the term Palestine. Breein1007 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The source uses Palestine the way most other scholarly sources do. You might review the article on Syro-Palestinian archaeology for an explanation on terminology in this regard. It is neither quoted out of context or mistaken. This is not an error. Please review the archives. We have had this discussion before. Projecting your political issue with the word Palestine into this article on a foodstuff is inappropriate. Tiamut^talk 20:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian and some British sources from the late 19th and early 20th centuries used the spelling "Rumania" (with a "u") to describe "Romania". The purpose of this spelling was to erase the linkage that the Romanian national movement was trying to install with the Daco-Romans, the ancient people who came to be after the Roman invasion to modern Romania. No one, except perhaps to Hungarian nationalists, uses it today, but it still remains in some important and reliable history books. So would you use that spelling just because it existed in many books during the early 20th century?

Likewise, the term "Palestine" for the "holyland" was used by Romans after the Jewish revolt and their explosion, and much later, it was adopted by the British and consequentially, by the Arab national movement in Palestine/Eretz Israel. As stated above by Breein1007, the use of the term in old books (when there was no political entity there yet, and when there was no one to fix the mistake) doesn't justify using it today. It's no justified because it's an historical distortion, and it's not justified because it's a distortion used to manipulate people into accepting an Arab-Palastinian narrative. Well, feel free to project your political stances, but not in a definition of Hummus. If I were to replace "Israel" with "Palestine" that would have not only been an anachronism (for 4,000 years ago it was not known as Israel), but it would also be a politically inclined decision (although in even more ancient history books, like, say, the bible, the term "Israel" is widely used to describe parts of modern Israel and the Palestinian Authority). You're hiding behind a supposable academic and scientific argument to instill your narrative, which I have no doubt seems very academic and scientific to you. Whereas I was merely suggesting to use a very dry and neutral definition - The area which is currently known as Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Please refrain from projecting your political views with the word "Palestine" into this article on a foodstuff. It's highly inappropriate. Thank you. (Scias76 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Just a little note - go with Palestinian territories instead of Palestinian Authority. Breein1007 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you has consensus to change what the source says. I have restored the word Palestine, which according to our article on the subject, is a valid contemporary term used to refer to geographical region. Please stop using your biases against the term to change text to read as you wish it to. Tiamut^talk 07:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, you refuse to accept a neutral term and insist upon having an obvious biased term, under the wrongful premise of "a valid contemporary term". It is not valid, and I regret to say that you do not have nor the consensus nor any valid arguments to alter the neutral definition. It would have been one thing had I written "Israel" in lieu of "Palestine", but I wrote a neutral definition which only a rabid nationalist would not be able to accept. I will not let anyone jeopardize the integrity of Wikipedia, even if I have to log in on a daily basis and correct sabotages. (Scias76 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

As I have said before, the history of the ingredients of hummus bi tahini does not belong in this article, but in the appropriate individual articles, namely chickpea and tahini. Even if the history of the chickpea had any relevance to modern claims of "national dishes" (which it does not), when we go back to the time of the domestication of the chickpea in the 4th millennium BC, the modern nations and ethnic groups did not exist. So let's just cut this section entirely and get rid of this unnecessary debate. --macrakis (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the accepted modern term used when describing the region as it existed in 4000 BC? ← George^talk 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Palestine (see the citations carried in the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the root of the entire discussion, and once again, Gwen, you are mistaken. If you're an Arab, or pro-Arab, you would indeed use "Palestine", if you're an Israeli or pro-Israeli, you would use "Eretẓ Yisra'el" (the land of Israel). Both are anachronisms, while "Eretz Yisra'el" pre-dates "Palestine". True, it was used for years by Western authors, but is it accurate? no. should it be accepted, when it's obviously a historical mistake? no. If you insist on using anachronisms, it would at least we more fair to write "the Land of Israel/Palestine". (Scias76 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure if Gwen Gale is purposely refusing to address the fact that the article she linked refuted her point, or if she has simply failed to reread it since I pointed that out to her. In any case, the term Palestine was certainly not in use in 4000 BCE. It would be closer to correct to call it Canaan than to call it Palestine. If we are going to jeopardize the integrity of the encyclopedia by keeping the term Palestine there when referring to a region in 4000 BCE, then maybe we need to put in quotation marks or a (sic) to show that we are giving exact wording from the source. It is definitely unacceptable to keep Palestine in the encyclopedia's voice, because it is clearly factually incorrect to do so. The argument that we go by the sources doesn't trump the fact that we aren't all idiots who simply take one source for absolute truth. The source made a mistake. We need to get past that and be encyclopedic. If some people can't accept that because they are caught up in nationalistic bias, maybe they should stop editing this article about FOOD. Breein1007 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither Israel nor Palestine existed in the area in 4000 BC - or even for several thousand years afterwards. Why not just refer to the area by the term used to describe it as it existed 4000 years ago? That is, as Breein1007 suggests, Canaan. I agree that the other option would be to explicitly quote the source that used the term Palestine, though I think it would be cleaner (and more neutral) to use the term Canaan. ← George^talk 08:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside Macrakis' suggestion for a moment, the source cited uses "Palestine" so there is no reason we shouldn't as well. Tiamut^talk 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Macrakis' suggestion, I do think we should move this information out of this article and into the articles on chickpeas and sesame seeds respectively (if not already there). Some of it is seems a bit WP:SYNTH like and there's just a tad of WP:OR there (like the line about not knowing if anyone mashed chickpeas early on - we do know that hummus kasa was a mashed chickpea dish documented as early as the 13th century from Clifford Wright). Anyway, what do others think? Tiamut^talk 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As the initiator of the 'history of ingredients' I do not agree with that section's removal. The question at hand was on the origin of hummus bi tahini, and since there is/was no real source, I went with the origin of the ingredients to give some idea of when hummus, as a combination of ingredients, might have originated. Dumarest (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a specific dish of mashed chickpeas with tahini, not about the constituent ingredients. Though of course the dish must have been invented after the ingredients were available, that doesn't narrow things down much, does it? Along the same lines, beef, cheese, and bread have been known for millennia, but that is hardly relevant to the history of the cheeseburger, which is apparently not much more than a century old.

What's more, we have had a reliable source for two years (Grehan, footnote 9); it says that hummus bi tahini is probably no older than the 19th century:

Damascenes were especially fond of chickpeas.... a variation of musabbaha: mashed chickpeas and sesame paste (tahina) sprinkled with lemon or pomegranate juice, melted butter, and pistachios or pine nuts. But were all these dishes, however cherished and celebrated in various incarnations today, actually eaten by eigthteenth-century Damascenes? Contemporary sources make no mention of them. Equally interesting is a comment by al-Qasimi, who claimed that, in his lifetime (1843-1900), they were virtually unknown outside of Damascus, whether among the towns of the Syrian coast or those of the Hijaz. It seems likely, therefore, that these recipes not only originated in Damascus, but were relative latecomers to local kitchens. (James Grehan, Everyday Life and Consumer Culture in Eighteenth-century Damascus, p. 107)

Making an argument about the antiquity of the dish ("to give some idea of when hummus, as a combination of ingredients, might have iriginated") based on the antiquity of the ingredients is original research, and does not belong in WP. --macrakis (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not original research - just a bit of information, referenced, as to the possible age of hummus bi tahini. Dumarest (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the history of the ingredients itself is not original research (and is well referenced). However, as part of a discussion of the history of hummus bi tahini, it is "synthesis", which WP policy defines as a kind of original research. And we have a fine reliable source which addresses the question directly, so why make a weak indirect argument? --macrakis (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Macrakis that drawing any assertion or strong hint about the age of this dish from a history of the ingredients would be synthesis. However, carrying a heedfully worded, sourced history of the ingredients is in itself not synthesis, I see no need to strip out that kind of background, which is helpful to readers and moreover, some overlap in articles is not harmful, but often helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A brief reference to the long history of the ingredients makes perfect sense -- something along the lines of "Chickpeas and sesame have been cultivated in the Middle East for millennia". But this is the hummus bi tahini article, not the article on chickpeas, so I don't see the relevance of their consumption in ancient Rome; I don't see why the Cicero anecdote is useful; I don't see why dishes of meat and pulses are relevant. Similarly for mentions of olive oil in the Bible, etc. etc.

If you really feel these things are so relevant to the history of hummus, I'd like to see you add similar background to the cheeseburger article, along the lines of

Cattle has been raised for meat for millennia, and the bull and cow have been important symbols in many cultures. Cheese predates recorded history, and General de Gaulle famously said "how can you govern a country in which there are 246 kinds of cheese?"...

Let's see how long that lasts.... --macrakis (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Only since you brought it up, Hamburger carries a history of minced meat from livestock going back 800 years. However, I don't think citing the content of other en.WP articles is helpful (citing policy is helpful), nor am I at all keen on how that background is handled there, now that I've seen it. However, this talk page is not an Internet forum for pointy, taunting sarcasm, mixed or not with original outlooks on cattle, hamburgers, cheese and de Gaulle, much less hummus. Please stick to citing and talking about sources and policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Minced meat is fairly relevant to hamburger, as are mashed chickpeas to hummus bi tahini. The history of the cow, and the history of chickpeas, are very distantly connected. I was not citing the content of other articles, I was asking the editors on this article to think a little bit about how silly a similar thing would be in other contexts. --macrakis (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if I read the "point" policy correctly, it would have been pointy if I'd actually gone through with the thought experiment I proposed, which of course I did not. --macrakis (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources used here say Palestine: [25], the change was made without any new sources. We should follow the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

World record

What an illustration of the stupidity of the human race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.247.200 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought not using more spices foolish too. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Viwoinc, 16 May 2010

Please add a section for hummus video recipes this would be a great service to those who look to see more about hummus. I have some videos in mind. Thanks.

Viwoinc (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Not added, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Recipes are possible to add to the cookbook at b:en:Cookbook:Recipes, but I'm not certain external videos are accepted. jonkerz ♠ 01:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'Stuff White People Like'

The book of a website poking fun at white middle-class American cliches is not a good source on the tastes of the British middle class. Anarchangel23 (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

True, it's a silly snarky site that has some subtle but very convoluted commentary on American culture...

Hummus without the garbanzos?

I'm unaware of the extent, longevity, or significance of this, but lately I've noticed a trend in some circles of west coast American cuisine (specifically, gourmet groceries and trendy ingredient focused midlevel restaurants) to make hummus with prime ingredients other than chickpeas. White beans, lentils, fava beans, and some other starchy bean-like things are often substituted, and the results are very characteristic of hummus. This is probably encyclopedic and of due weight to mention in passing, but before I do that I'm curious to know if anyone knows the wider context. Also, though not a "food white people like" thing as such (see above), there's a growing mass market of hummus in America... Trader Joe's, for instance, sells hummus in many oddball flavors: chipotle, roasted garlic, white bean and basil, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in current article in the "World record" section

"According to local media, the recipe included 8 tons of boiled hummus, 2 tons of tahini, 2 tons of lemon juice and 70 kg (154 lbs) of olive oil." It would only make sense if it were 8 tons of boiled chickpeas. And yes the mistake is in the CNN source as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User: 88.184.41.8 (talk • contribs)

Corrected. Thanks!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

latest edits

this edit, while an improvement over this one in that it no longer removes sourced text and replaces it with unsourced text, still adds material that is unsourced and presents material which is sourced as simply "speculation". Also, the edit replaces "Palestine" with "K'nan". The sources use "Palestine" in this context and this has been dealt with in the past. If the editor wishes to introduce the text from the etymology section he or she needs to provide reliable sources which back the edits. nableezy - 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"In the US Market"

Can we fix the capitalization here? It's not a proper title. Wiki style would be simply In the U.S. market of just U.S. market.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

{{edit protected}} "In popular culture" section should be removed, we don't have a "In popular culture" section at the hamburger or sausage articles, mentioning all movies that have hamburgers and sausages in them, so its not needed here either. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The information is reliably sourced to another encyclopedia , the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food, why shouldn't we include it? Marokwitz (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Your link here above is also to an essay. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Its trivial to have a section like that, imagine if we had a section in the hamburger article mentioning all movies that have hamburgers in them, would that be appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong about such sections. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content: "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines." ... "When such sections grow too long, they may be split into subarticles, but this should be done with caution." Marokwitz (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You link to an essay which can be written by anyone, everything you said and your argument is from this essay, its not any kind of wikipedia rule, wikipedia policy or wikipedia guideline. And how would it be facts of genuine interest to the reader if we mentioned in the Hamburger article what movies have hamburgers in them? Which is the exact same thing as has been done in this article about hummus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the criteria suggested by Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, as long as the content is properly sourced, contain facts of genuine interest to the reader, and does not grow too long, I see no problem here. If you want to debate the question of genuine interest to the reader, why not debate it directly instead of making theoretical questions about other articles. Marokwitz (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are pointing to a made up essay and say that we should follow this made up essay. Why would we do that? How is the content in question of genuine interest to the reader? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, read carefully, I never said "we should follow this made up essay", I said "Based on the criteria suggested by [the essay]....I see no problem here". Marokwitz (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz, since you support its inclusion, can you please explain how the section contains facts of genuine interest to the reader? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. I can say, it's ok to cite an essay as support for one's editorial outlook or thoughts on something, that's what they're for. I think input from more editors will easily show where the consensus on this is, for now anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 action comedy film You Don't Mess with the Zohan, starring Adam Sandler, poked fun of the Israeli passion for hummus. It is a major theme in the comedy, and not a mere passing mention. This is a verifiable and reliably sourced fact. I think it is worth inclusion for a few reasons. For one, it was deemed suitable for inclusion by another encyclopedia in the Hummus article, the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food. Second, it received significant press coverage. I assume that press coverage is an indicator of interest. And it highlights the passion of Israelis for this food. It is also short and this article is not too long. So, in the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content I suggest to keep it. Marokwitz (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider these types of sections to be terrible 98% of the time. 1 of the 6 main characters got hummus on her dress in 1 of 236 episodes of Friends? Can you get any more trivia than that? Now we have some Egyptian musical, which doesn't have a Wikipedia article as far as I can tell, that has a character named Hummus, who sings a song about Hummus. How or why would that be of interest? Is the actor named after Hummus the food, or is Hummus a name in the Arab world? Is their name ironic in some fashion, and a big part of the story of that musical? Or is it just more trivia?

Now, in the case of You Don't Mess With The Zohan, it's clear that hummus plays a larger role in the film. That is probably worth mentioning, though the sentence as it stands should be re-written. It's almost a word-for-word copyright violation of the source it cites. Additionally, it could be expanded with movie reviews that discuss the hummus-laden humor in the context of the broader I-P conflict, or in the context of the contest to break the world's record. I'm not sure that this wouldn't be better in the article on that film, though. ← George^talk 17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it is probably worth expanding with movie reviews that discuss the hummus-laden humor in the context of the broader I-P conflict. Will look for such material. I also changed the wording in order to avoid word by word copyvio. By the way, the Egyptian movie starring "Hummus and Halawa" doesn't actually feature Hummus in any significant way, don't you think this fact is a bit too trivial? It feels a bit as if this contribution is an attempt to prove a WP:POINT by Supreme Deliciousness, but maybe I'm wrong?Marokwitz (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What POINT exactly? I don't think that any movie or tv show or other part within popular culture that mention this food should be here, but if the "in popular culture" section is staying, then why only have one movie? Why not expand it as I did? Ill try too look for more information related to hummus and popular culture later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What point? The point that (a) popular culture sections are trivial and unnecessary (a point with which I agree, by the way) and (b) if Israel is mentioned, Arabs must be mentioned as well. The last point is getting tiresome. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Phoebe Buffay Arab? Are the Egyptian people Arabs? Neither of these are Arabs and I added them. They don't have to be in the article if other people don't feel they belong, Hertz removed the Friends information and I didn't object to its removal, and people here feel that the Egyptian musical is trivial and now I have removed it. I just felt that if we should have a popular culture section, why only mention one movie? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, and certainly don't object for some Arabic speaking movies to be mentioned in addition to the american one. But I do think that we should mention pop culture icons with significant and non trivial use of Hummus. An Arab movie featuring some character called "Hummus" is not really a significant pop culture reference to Hummus. I thought that it was added just to prove the wp:point that "pop culture sections in general are silly" , but if you say it wasn't your intention, then of course I believe you. Personally I agree with the essay that says that discriminate and short pop culture sections are sometimes a nice addition that differentiates Wikipedia from traditional encyclopedias. Just out of curiosity, did you just say that the Arab Republic of Egypt is not an arab country? Marokwitz (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical origin: The real and true origin of the Hummus dish

In the academic world - departments of the middle east and acient history, it is well known that the real source of the Hummus is not Arab nor Hebrew. the real inventors and first consumers of the dish came from the Roman empire from the area of today southern Italy. I highly recommend that you will fix it. It will also finally put an end to the false and stupid dipute around the "true" origin of the dish. Please talk with some people who are experts for this matter and you will find the truth. thank for your attention, I was happy to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.27.61 (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing without citations to meaningful sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, then where is the "academic" sources for your claims? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)