This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
Dolma is within the scope ofWikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining toArmenia andArmenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit theproject page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
This article is within the scope of theWikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAssyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAzerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographicPalestine region, thePalestinian people and theState of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visitingthe project page, where you can add your name to thelist of members where you can contribute to thediscussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSyria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related toIran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project where you can contribute to thediscussions and help with ouropen tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTurkey andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
The content ofSogan-dolma wasmerged intoDolma on April 2018. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between15 September 2020 and10 December 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Telestudent2020.
malfoof is under 'cabbage roll' but it's also prepared through using grape leaves in Jordanian and Lebanese cuizine and possibly other Arabic speaking middle eastern countries. Mabye malfoof should also be mentioned in this article or mabye given its own article in itself? American-Jordanian and American-Lebanese peoples have used cabbage more often when in the United States, most likeley due inability to access grape leaves.
Added by Ara: Malfoof is just a variant of mahshi. Stuffed or rolled leaves are found in many cuisines. Grape, cabbage, and chard are used most commonly, but so are beet, strawberry, green bean, etc. etc. You will find this in Lebanon, Armenia, Turkey, Jordan, and probably a bunch of other countries.
I dont know how to use arabic text, so will someone do me the favor of adding waraq dawali as the arabic name of the food, and state that it is popular in Levantine Arab countries. Thank you -Niz
Sorry but this Armenian etymology addition is hilarious, who on Earth added somthing so unbelievable. Dolma is clealy a Turkic etymology meaning Dolma = To Fill, Dol = Fill, when ma is added it becomes "To Fill", from my holiday trips to Turkey picking up the little of the language I know it is a commonly used word.
Also Dolma is not generally stuffed with meat, its a vegetarian dish, some versions may have a little mincemeat but that's all.
In Greece, at least, with-meat and without-meat versions of dolma are both common, with preference depending largely on the time of year (vegetarian is more common in the summertime; meat in the wintertime). --Delirium21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The greek says "dolmadakia", but a transliteration of the greek text says "dolmadhes" ("ntolmades"). Could someone "in the know" please correct it? As yet there isn't even a gareek article for reference...Tomertalk23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're both correct; the "-akia" version is adiminutive plural ending, while the "-adhes" version is a "normal" plural ending. They have slightly different connotations, but are mostly interchangeable. --Delirium21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ntolmades are lachanontolmades (made with cabbage)while ntolmadakia(small ntolmades) usually refers to the ones made with vine leaves. They are not interchangable.— Precedingunsigned comment added by79.130.88.134 (talk)11:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In English usage as far as I'm aware, and certainly in Greek usage, "dolma" refersspecifically to the stuffed grape leaves, and does not include stuffed tomatoes, stuffed peppers, or other such dishes that go by different names, such as "yemista". The article currently says they all go under the general term "dolma"; is this a usage common in English? --Delirium21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TheOxford Companion to Food's article ondolma is primarily about stuffed vegetables, though it also mentions the rolled grape leaves (sarma). I am not sure what other generic name we could use for the Ottoman stuffed vegetables, which are found from the Balkans to Arabia. --Macrakis23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this article so that the variance of usage between British English and American English does not mislead. The same vegetable is commonly given different names in Britain and in the USA. The vegetable that in Turkish is called 'kabak' is called commonly 'zucchini' by the Americans taking its origin from Italian but generally called 'courgette' by the British taking its origin from French. Similarly, the same vegetable that is called 'patlican' in Turkish is called commonly by the Americans 'eggplant' and called generally by the British 'aubergine' which is originally French. The article before my correction gave the impression that 'zucchini' and 'courgette' were different vegetables; similarly 'eggplant' and 'aubergine'. --User:noyder 00:35, 16 March 2007
In church (a Greek church), I am used to hearing 'dolmadhes' or 'ntolmadakiagialantsi' ("dolmadakia-yaladzi") used interchangeably. I am also told that their origin is Turkish, as is that of all Greek words containing 'nts' for "dz".Class4System (talk)05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should go a step further and cut out all the grammatical details for the verbdolmak. I still think that it is an active verbal noun becausedolmak is anintransitive verb so it can't have apassive form. None of this, however, is important to this article so perhaps we could rewrite that sentence as: "Dolma is derived from the Turkish verbdolmak which means "to become stuffed" and thus roughly means "stuffed thing"."Xemxi17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty happy with the current wording, which incorporates your correction (that it is a verbal noun and not a participle), but doesn't specify whether it is active or passive. As GL Lewis points out inTurkish Grammar (p 171), in English, too, verbal nouns can be used both passively and actively, e.g. "the singing of the choir" and "the singing of the song". I think it is good to note that it is a regularly formed verbal noun, just likeezme,yazma,bekleme, etc. --Macrakis17:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a reflexive verbal noun. If the verb would have been "doldurma" it would be an active verbal noun, or else if it would have been "doldurulma" it would be a passive one. But the verb "dolmak" seems like a reflexive one.
For some reason there is a song beginning with the words "Dol Kara bakır dol". But regrettably WP is a place where people who do not know anything more than an informal greeting in your language are entitled to teach you grammar (in your mother tongue)... --E4024 (talk)22:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that makes sense (leaving the sentence as is). But just for the record,dolmak ("to be full") can never be made passive because the verb cannever have an object! The possibile derivatives includedoldurmak (transitive: "to fill") anddoldurulmak (intransitive: "to be filled"). It's counter-intuitive thinking about it in English terms because there is no English equivalent todolmak. I don't think it is reflexive because that would imply the subject and object are the same. Anyhow, none of this belongs on a food page, so I'll leave it at that!Xemxi17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: Turkish intransitive verbs can be passivized in what is called 'impersonal passive' constructions, i.e: 'Burada yuzulmez'. Likewise transitive sentences can be 'double passivized'.
It's also missing a brief description of how they are made -- usually (maybe always) steamed or braised. Not baked or fried. Although the article mentions other cuisines, it could note that dolmas are similar to Chinese "sticky rice" in lotus leaves and American tamales in corn husks.Wastrel Way (talk)00:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Eric[reply]
Proposal to Merge "Sarma (Food)" article with this one.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In most cases people don't make a distinction between the two. Dolma can be (and is often) used for both Dolma and Sarma dishes, but Sarma is sometimes used to dishes that are "wrapped" (i.e. leaf/cabbage dishes). Sarma(Food) need only be a section the Dolma article, not an entire one on its own. Both Dolma and Sarma dishes usually share the same filling and similar preparations etc, and are derived fromt he same concept.—Precedingunsigned comment added byAlperyasar (talk •contribs)03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldnt make sense, Dolma is general term (From huge Lamb to tiny pepper dolmas) This article needs to be refined. And Sarma (wrapping) should be imporved to include other ones. Sarma is not Dolma, it is both literally and logically wrong. While Sarma is apperative, dolma is main dish(I assume balkanian cussine has similar rituals like anatolian)
I am against this proposal. Dolmades are a specific food, and the term is widely used and recognized. Merger would cause confusion and a loss of accuracy.24.4.206.167 (talk)03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)arbales[reply]
I am renewing the proposal thatSarma be merged intoDolma. I think that the content in the Sarma article can easily be explained in the context of Dolma, and in fact Sarma is already mentioned in the Dolma article. Further, the Sarma article has multiple issues which will be solved by merging the information into Dolma, then by creating a redirect at Sarma to point to Dolma.GeoffWho, me?22:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have been involved in developing the Dolma article, in case there is a merger with Sarma, considered by some as a subgroup or category within Dolma, although I do not support the idea of merger. --E4024 (talk)10:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT MERGE SARMA WITH DOLMA. As a Serbian, I know the difference and they are NOT the same thing and it is frustrating enough to explain to foreigners what Sarma is without having to explain the difference between Sarma and Dolma. Keep it as is. It would be complicating things for everyone if you say "sarma" and then have to link to a page called "dolma" and then have to explain that it's sort of like Dolma but not. JUST LEAVE IT. 7:23, 20 May 2013.— Precedingunsigned comment added by220.215.190.204 (talk)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had no idea what the Greek word in the title of the unsigned above comment meant; so I checked it by Google Translator for curiosity. The result in English is "stuffed vine leaves" and in Turkish "Yaprak Sarma". Sharing it with other curious people like me... :-) --E4024 (talk)10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we shove in a category for every nation that has this, things will get unwieldy. Can people suggest some cath all s (suh as Balkan cuisine) that will cover everywhere relevant?--Peter cohen (talk)10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It looks like soemone copied to the previous entry and forgot to remove the mention of leaf. Thanks for pointing this out. If in the future you see something similar, you're welcome to fix it yourself--Peter cohen (talk)22:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is not merger but a good article onDolma and another good article on "Sarma", as dishes of the Turkish cuisine. Thirty something new countries have emerged from the lands of the Ottoman Empire and they are all asking for the Turkish cultural heritage to be recorded as theirs because they added their own "plural" to the Turkish word (Dolma-Dolmades) or their language likes strong sounds (Dolma-Tolma) better... This is just a Turkish cuisine item. The reason why Dolma and Sarma are so mixed up is also -at least in great part- due to this use of Turkish words in foreign languages. Check up with Japanese or Chinese kitchens and you will see how an authentic Japanese or Chinese dish name has taken different shapes in the countries of their own cultural sphere of influence. (Look more closely into the Japanese culinary influence in Peru or Brasil, for example. What do you see?) --E4024 (talk)10:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the merger is proposed because many cultures use dolma to mean sarma, as sarma and dolma are the same food category. Western Armenians and Greeks make the distinction, but Eastern Armenians don't. And btw, It may be possible that sarma was a term used mostly in certain locations maybe by Armenians and Greeks in the Ottoman empire, which is why Turks use the term yaprak in addition to sarma. I don't know how it is today, it would be a good research project to find out why Turks used yaprak when a term like sarma existed. Also why are you so intent to make dolma Turkish? Just because Turks eat it, it does not mean it is Turkish origin. There is no evidence, and in fact there is evidence to suggest it is Armenian origin, but for now I refrained from mentioning this directly, because I know I will get into an edit war.Thinkfood (talk)02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We claim that it is Turkish because the word "dolma" or "sarma" are etymologically Turkish words. Roots and suffixes are totally Turkish. And all the other nations use this word (dolma) to describe the same kind of dishes. This is an evidence that they learned it from Turks. It is so clear. Why don't you accredit it as a Turkish word and originally as a Turkish dish? This is the only ethical way. For example I can claim that "Tiramisu is a Turkish desert because we make Tiramisu in Turkey. We don't use alcohol in it. It is a different type of tiramisu. It is a common dish where Roman Empire ruled. Every nation makes it in a different way and pronounces it in a slightly different way. We can't know its true origin. It belongs to everyone even though the word itself is Italian". But this claim would be definitely unethical. It is an Italian dish and Italian word. Be fair to Turks and accredit it as Turkish. Stop this dirty wordy plays.— Precedingunsigned comment added byYasemin83 (talk •contribs)01:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this as it is just used for culture wars[1] over the origin of the Dolma. I doubt very much that we can find an origin for stuffed wrapped in leaves - which very likely goes back to prehistoric times. Please don't replace it without reliable sources - in this case it would have to be academic sources, not popular ones.Dougweller (talk)08:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not to Ottoman Empire, but toOttoman cuisine. This article states that "the Ottoman cuisine has strongly influenced other cuisines such as Persian cuisine, Armenian cuisine, Cypriot cuisine, that of the Balkans (Greek cuisine, Bulgarian cuisine, Romanian cuisine, Macedonian cuisine, Albanian cuisine, Serbian cuisine, Bosnian cuisine), and that of the Middle East (Levantine cuisine, Lebanese cuisine, Syrian cuisine, Iraqi cuisine, Jordanian cuisine, Palestinian cuisine, and Israeli cuisine)." Thus it calls Greek cuisine an "other cuisine". Ditto Middle Eastern cuisine. I don't know the best way to fix it, but removal of "other cuisines" is probably not the best way to do this, particularly in light of the obvious nationalist arguments between Turkish and Greek nationalists, which is a concern of mine on articles like this.Dougweller (talk)09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with the terminology in this article, guys. It is some time I've read a comment by Macrakis above ("Rubbish! "Gemista" simply means "stuffed"), and, since then, I am thinking again and again about it and something just does not work properly. In the past, I had in mind my Greek experience, but now I also have my Bulgarian-tasting one, and I think I can be more concrete and accurate:
Both in Greece and in Bulgaria, when we say "dolma" we mean rice or/and mince meat wrapped with cabbage or vine leaves. So, in Turkish "dolma" may mean "stuffed", but in the Greek and the Bulgarian culinary traditions this dish is not conceived as "stuffed" but as "wrapped". "Stuffed" (γεμιστά [gemista] in Greek – I don't remember now the Bulgarian term) is a different dish, where tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables are indeed stuffed with rice or/and mince meat (in this case you don't wrap the rice, but you stuff the vegetables with it. It might me trivia for somebody not familiar with Balkan cuisine, but in the Balkans (at least in these two countries I know) these are two different, two clearly distinctive dishes.
I thus think that the article should reflect that; it should make clear that not only in Greece, but in at least two Balkan countries "gemista" and "dolma" are not only called differently, but, additionally, they are regarded as two distinctive dishes (and IMO this is completely understandable, because they are based on a completely different logic and cooking preparation). Creating another article for "gemista" could also be another thought, but this is not my main problem.--Yannismarou (talk)20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Macrakis is a wise man, if I were you I would listen to him. Other than that, just as there areDolma andSarma articles here from the Turkish/Ottoman kitchen you may also make your ownGemista article and even present it in 2 sections like Gemista 1 (Sarmales?) and Gemista 2 (Dolmades) or with whatever names you prefer; but please refrain from making manipulative or degenerating changes in the existing Dolma and Sarma articles. Simply create your own "Greek kitchen" gemista (stuffed) articles... --E4024 (talk)21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What changes? What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I don't want to create any article; I did not even try to edit this article, instead I started a new discussion in the talk page if you noticed it. What I say is that "dolma" is conceived in a different way in Turkey and in some other countries (such as Greece and Bulgaria) and this should be reflected in the article. You can give your preachings about avoiding manipulative or degenerating changes to some newbie in WP; as far as I am concerned, after 6 years in WP and 7 FA nominations I do not accept such advice (which I obviously regard it as offensive in the way it is articulated). Do you have anything to add as regards the substance of what I wrote or not?--Yannismarou (talk)21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although you are still shouting after 6 years I will answer: There are two words (in Turkish for these Turkish dishes), 1. Sarma (wrapped), 2. Dolma (stuffed). These are the two "correct" denominations for the two different preparations. (You may call whichever of them the way you wish in Greek.) On the other hand, there is the other (and more important) division: Dolmas and Sarmas made with only rice and eaten cold and the other Dolmas and Sarmas made with minced meat (and a bit of rice) and eaten hot (or warm if you wish). These latter versions are generally consumed with a garlic yoğurt sauce, while the cold dishes are consumed with lemon. So you have 4 different plate categories to name. You may call whichever of these as Gemista (1, 2, 3, 4). We make a differentiation by using the word "yalancı" in the case of cold "Dolma(s)" and "zeytinyağlı" in the case of Sarmas (like Zeytinyağlı Yaprak Sarma, Zeytinyağlı Lahana Sarma) etc. At least now you learned (maybe, if you already did not know) something about the Turkish kitchen. Sorry for the "lecturing" tone; déformations professionnelles... --E4024 (talk)21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know a lot about Turkish cuisine, but in any case thank you for the free lessons. Now, what exactly have to do these lessons with what I wrote about Greece, Bulgaria and the gemista/dolma terminology in these two countries? Obviously nothing! How can I not shout when you are so off topic?! You are analyzing me sarma and dolma in the Turkish cusine, when I am speaking about Greece and Bulgaria!--Yannismarou (talk)21:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Bulgaria, in order to be more accurate, I would like to clarify that what in Greece we call "gemista", they just call it peppers or zucchini etc. with rice and/or minced meat, and the dish is usually accompanied with kiselo mlyako (yogurt). I find many recipes in the web, but I would like to find a more reliable source concerning Bulgarian cuisine. As regards dolma, the dish is conceived in the same way both in Bulgaria and in Greece.--Yannismarou (talk)21:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive strikes, filemou; I like Dolma and Sarma as they are made in Turkey, I like a a Grilled Octopus made by a Greek cook. That is the issue. --E4024 (talk)21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the issue, my friend; so I don't see any reason continuing this discussion with you. Somebody else may have a better grasp of such culinary issues and may thus contribute some really useful feedback and not pointless jokes. In any case, do not worry; nobody questions the Turkish rights on dolma and sarma. However, I suppose you have noticed that the article is not only about Turkish dolma but about the whole culinary tradition of such dishes in the Balkans and the East.--Yannismarou (talk)21:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation fromthis article explaining the practice where vegetarian dolmades are often called 'fake.' I deleted the not in citation template from a previous sentence in that same section because the aforementioned and now cited news article explained the etymology as well.Undead q (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)The reference is fine, but editorilizing is not. It is not fake because it is meatless, regardless of how the term came about. To say what it means is enough.68.199.97.145 (talk)22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The leaves for wrapped dolmas made from "vine" leaves are not specified other than grape. Are there other kinds of vine leaves used? If not, it should be clear that "vine leaves" refers exclusively to grape vine leaves.68.199.97.145 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Let me write for you several, but inTurkish as I am not sure of their correct equivalents in English: Pazı (aka Pezik in some parts ofTurkey), Kara Lahana (aka Pancar in parts of theBlack Sea Region), Beyaz Lahana or Kelem, Kiraz (cherry). Look around "collards" to find some of these but perhaps not always the same thing. --E4024 (talk)22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the recent edits at Dolma are problematic for the following reasons:
The source used to support the Armenian origin says explicitly that Armenians have an idiosincracy in admitting that dolma is a turkish word. The chapter about Tolma is called "Linguistics and politics", so from the title itself this ethimology is relativised.
The other source (Russian) is assertive: in other words, it does not present any documentation, fact or reference to support the Armenian origins of the dish. It should be noticed that this article has no history section, since the dish is present everywhere in the Middle East and surrounding areas (from Central Asia to the Balkans), and finding its origin is very difficult. Additions clarifying the origin of the dish are welcome, but should bring references (i.e., the presence of tolma in an Armenian cookbook prior to the Turkish migration) and not generic - patrioctic sentences. It should not be difficult to find in the works of the referred Russian historian the demonstration of his thesis about the Armenian origin of this dish. About these two points, please see the comment ofMacrakis below;
As a result, all these edits (included the alternate name "Tolma" in bold) giveundue weight to the Armenian origin;
The locution Armenian Plateau, should be removed from the introduction, since it is redundant. This plateau belongs to Turkey (Middle East) and Armenia (Middle East or Caucasus), so there is no reason to have it there. By the way, the geographic belonging of theArmenian Highlands to the Middle East is referenced in the wikipedia article.
The name of a food can be a useful hint about the food's origin, but it is just one piece of evidence among others. And of course the word history has to be studied just as critically as anything else. The sources given in thedolma article for a supposed origin as Armeniantoli 'leaf' are not very strong, and not very convincing. Where is the documentation? Why wouldtoli becometolma? For another example of a dubious and forced food etymology, see the supposed Coptic etymology forfalafel (and the corresponding discussion on the Talk page). For that matter, there are Greeks who refuse to believe that γύρος is acalque of Turkish döner -- but it used to be called ντονέρ in Greek! --Macrakis (talk)02:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't read Armenian. Perhaps an editor who does can check the source (an Armenian dictionary) in thewiktionary article, which apparently gives Turkish as the origin of the Armenian word dolma/tolma. --Macrakis (talk)20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Toli had evolved from Tolimis to Tolim to Tolima and to Tolma (Dolma). The evolution goes back to theUrartu kingdom, which would confirm its Armenian origins. --Steverci (talk)18:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can usefully read this thread, in order to understand why there is no consensus for this insertion. Please answer (with sources) to the questions above, and afterwards we can reopen this discussion about this alternate hypothesis of the word`s origin.Alex2006 (talk)06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just like this edit:[2]A Middle Eastern food article with only an Israeli sub-section? lol whata joke
"It'll be super difficult to find English language sources for those different cultures, but let's maintain a slanted article for nowand, let's be honest, the forseeable future. I get off on seeing my edit count rise." - wikipedian logic
This issue is also mentioned above. The images in the page, none of of them are dolma. They are sarma. They are different. Therefore I will update the pictures and put dolma pictures instead of sarma. I strongly believe that to avoid this confusion, we should not put any picture of sarma.Avonrepus (talk)05:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of those items directly addresses the issue in a dispositive manner. The second one is essentially fluff. Let's wait a while, to give others a chance to respond. The topic is a contentious one and needs careful treatment. With that said, I do not object to adding a sourced etymology oftolma as long as it does not involve removing mention of Turkish or Azeri usage, to pick two not-so-random examples.Just plain Bill (talk)06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to add different names of this dish in intro. Obviously,Dolma in turkish andTolma in armenian have different etymology. Hence, one cannot refer to the other and both should be mention with native pronunciation in intro section.Hayordi (talk)21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheEnglish name of this dish is "Dolma" or "Stuffed vegetables". "Tolma" is not a common name in English, and is discussed fully in the Names section.
Whether the name tolma comes from dolma or not is irrelevant. Greekgemista clearly doesn't come from Turkish (except perhaps as a calque...) and is not mentioned in the lead, either. --Macrakis (talk)22:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irecently edited the etymology section to better reflect the cited sources.User:Hayordireverted with the comment "Reverting disruptive and insulting editing. The etymology has been discussed and agreed upon. Throwing insults by claiming that the Armenian etymology is mocked on...".
The Armenian etymology paragraph has five sources:
a Soviet Armenian dictionary, in particular the entry[8]. I'm afraid I don't know Armenian, but at the bottom of the middle column of the page, there appears a very short entry for դօլմա which mentions "dolma", and doesn't seem to show any sort of compound. Is there perhaps some sort of cross-reference? Can someone who reads Armenian translate the relevant entries in this dictionary?
Petrosian and Underwood, areliable source, that makes fun of the Armenian etymology. I invite other editors to read the relevant section, "Linguistics and Politics", of the cited source to see for themselves.
a [report from "ArmeniaNow" on a tolma festival whose organizer says "The goal is to popularize traditional Armenian dishes and to assert Armenian cuisine, which is considered to be one of intangible cultural values. Also, it is to present tolma as an Armenian dish, disproving the wrong opinions that tolma has Turkish roots". That is, it is an advocacy organization. The source for the Armenian etymology is a quote by a chef, who says "Tolma is a word that consists of two Urartu language roots, ‘toli’ and ‘ma’, which mean ‘grape leave’ and ‘wrapped’". This is certainly not anindependent, third-party source.
a group-blog article entitled "Cooking with Grandma (Armenia): Tolma" which repeats the story that "tolma" comes from Urartian roots. The article is by an author who has no apparent expertise in linguistics. This source should be removed, as it is not areliable source.
an article inPublic Diplomacy magazine which clearly states that the word "tolma" comes from "dolma": "The difference between the spelling of “dolma” and “tolma” can be attributed to the phonological change as a result of the influence of the Russian language...". It also speaks of "an attempt to reconceptualize the etymology of the name".
So, of these five sources: one (the dictionary) seems to be a RS, but does not seem to support what the paragraph says; one (Petrosian) makes fun of the tolma claims; one is a biased and unreliable source; another is a blog post repeating the usual Urartian claim; and the last actuallyrefutes the claim that the paragraph is making.
That is, we don't have a single serious source for the toli+ma claim, and we have a couple of sources directly contradicting it. --Macrakis (talk)18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Macrakis, the Petrosian/Underwood source does not "make fun" of the Armenian etymology at all. That appears to beWP:POV. The book is simply noting that tolma and dolma are still the same food, and the same page talks about food nationalism of both Armenians and Turks. Petrosian and Underwood also 'mock' Turks for denying any Armenian background of tolma, which is what's being said here. If this source is reliable as you admit, then there is nothing wrong with citing it for what Armenian linguist researchers agree on. Also, it is interesting that you completely ignore what the Public Diplomacy Magazine had to say about Azeri and Turkish gastronomic nationalism for food and wrote only about the Armenian part. Regardless, PDM is not a reliable source anyway.Étienne Dolet (talk)02:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From PDM's web site: "Public Diplomacy Magazine is a publication of the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS) at the University of Southern California". Articles are reviewed by an editorial board of graduate students in diplomacy (a bit like most law reviews). So what makes you say it is notWP:RS?
Could we please have a translation of the entry in the Armenian dictionary? To a non-Armenian reader, it appears to say that 'tolma' is a borrowing from 'dolma', but maybe there's something I'm missing.
Perhaps "mocking" is too strong a word, but to me at least, the following passage is pretty obviously sarcastic:
"To back up their claims oftolma ownership, Armenian linguists approached this challenge to national gastronomy with great seriousness. They take us far back to the time of the ancient kingdom of Urartu. According to [unnamed] Armenian scholars, the ancient Armenians borrowed the name for grape vine,toli, from the Urartians. Fromtoli, cametolma, and fromtolma camedolma."
Hints that this is sarcastic: (1) talking about "ownership" of dishes; (2) "approached with great seriousness"; (3) the unmotivated development oftoli totolma.
Petrosian and Underwood mention unnamed "Armenian scholars". Perhaps we could actually find those scholars and cite them directly rather than getting a second-hand report.
As for the actual scholarly literature on Urartian borrowings in Armenian, the only relevant material I've found so far is I. M. Diakonoff, "Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian",Journal of the American Oriental Society105:4:597-603 (Oct./Dec. 1985)JSTOR602722. The only vaguely relevant etymon there is Armenianxałoł 'vine' "Possibly < Hurr. / *ḫall-o-lə/, ḫa-lu-le in the Nuzi spelling...", which (a) I suppose could be related totoli, but we'd need a reliable source for it; (b) is Hurrian, not Urartian, so apparently not what is being mentioned.
I agree completely thattolma/dolma (and many other dishes, e.g.baklava) are subject to gastronomic nationalism by many groups. It just happens that we were discussing the Armenian case specifically. --Macrakis (talk)21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: Arecent edit removes the Armenian claims for the origin of the word. Though I agree that this is a weak and tendentious claim, my experience on WP is that if there is adubious theory that is widely known and repeated, it is best to include it in the article, along with sources which show that it is dubious or incorrect. Otherwise, various editors try to add it back in because they read it somewhere or because they perceive its absence as an affront to national pride. --Macrakis (talk)21:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be disruptive editing. There are multiple sources from OUP that say definitively that the word dolma is of Turkish origins. If there was a serious dispute about the linguistic origins of the word one of the multiple sources at oxford reference would have mentioned it. This is one thing that tertiary sources are very good at. The Petrosian source is a lulu.com SPS.Seraphim System(talk)22:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I would agree that there is value in addressing notable misconceptions that persist through the rumor mill or internet hoaxes - we have selectively chosen to do this in other articles. But only where the sourcing exists, which it doesn't here. The claim by the OP does not really make sense either, as OUP attests that some variation of the the worddolma is present in the Tatar and Turkmen languages. Additionally, it seems to have been added by ablocked sockpuppet ofUser:Steverci with a false edit summary. One year prior added entirely unsourced by an ip here[9]. I would say that any editor adding unpublished theories about the ancientUrartian etymology of words cited to SPS should really be seriously disciplined. (And this stuff aboutTurks deny any Armenian contribution to their culinary heritage isn't true either but it's the same language as the SPS that is added as a source in later edits, and which is being discussed ere).Seraphim System(talk)22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In "Variants" section it says: "Stuffed vine leaves without meat are sometimes called yalancı dolma, which means "liar's dolma" in Turkish.[24]" I have doubts about this translation. Because it is more correct to translate yalancı dolma as "fake dolma" in English. The author of the source might have misunderstood the meaning as he/she was probably not a native Turkish speaker. I would suggest to replace "liar's dolma" with "fake dolma" and remove the source or to keep the source and translation but also add the "fake dolma" as a translation option, which I believe most native speakers would agree is a better one. --89MsHm(talk)10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Entire Article is Extremely Biased with Fake "Turkish" History
It is pretty amazing, and I give them an A+ for both effort and audacity. But as of this writing the Turkocentric frauds of wikipedia have managed to render one of the main pillars of traditional Armenian cuisine as pretty much completely irrelevant as being part of Armenian heritage and culture. (This is in fact not limited to Dolma, but pretty much all other Armenian food items that are 'shared' between the two in wikipedia articles). The number one weapon of choice: "it is named in Turkish! How could it not be Turkish!". Of course only a child, or ignoramus would state this who is uneducated in the history of Asia Minor. (A large number if not the majority of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire spoke Turkish as their native tongue for centuries, and as such, "Turkish" became unintelligible with all other Turkic languages of Central Asia, and over time Armenian foods in turn became 'Turkified'). For context imagine that the Poles and Germans started both claiming that theBagel (and many other such foods etymologically German) are Polish or German because, well, it was made in Poland and is from a German word! There would be mass outrage and quite laughable. This is EXACTLY the argument Turks and Azeris are making in this article with their very calculated deletion of anything relating to 'Armenian': "The word is Turkish, also UNESCO says Dolmas were made in Azerbaijan!". This article essentially weasels itself into making a reader believe that grape leaves - completely absent from any traditional culinary cultures of Turkic tribes of Central Asia - is somehow "Turkic", meaning, it was therefore only consumed AFTER the arrival of Turks, nomadic tribes who magically showed the ignorant settled Armenians how to make use of all aspects of the grape, and all while we need to conveniently ignore several thousand years of Armenian history, grape cultivation and wine making in the region.
And hey, for good measure, let's throw in "Azerbaijan"! After all if UNESCO says something it must be true, right? Never mind that Azerbaijan has to always *purchase* history and culture with oil revenues. Well, it obviously worked since Azerbaijan was only created for the first time in history in the 1920s in the region, and before that it was part of the Russian Empire, and before that Persian Empire, and before that part ofGreater Armenia 2,000 years ago, and yet stuffed grape leaves must still be a 20th century phenomenon in order to conform with "Azeri history". After all, Azerbaijan says it and therefore it must be true. Well, actually, we must be grateful for the efforts of Azerbaijan, because it shows the completely fraudulent nature of both Turkish and Azeri claims since these two claims contradict one another, thus revealing the fraud at play. The entire history of Turkic 'nationhood' is not more than about 500 years old in Asia Minor, and three or four centuries more with nomadic tribal incursions. No one ever even heard of a "Turk" in Asia Minor before about 1000AD. Thus in so many words this article is making the bold claim that the ancient practice of Armenians eating grape leaves is in fact not ancient, but relatively new, and introduced by "Turkic culture" upon their arrival.
And of course, this entire article has no relevant sources for making such claims, I would in fact argue almost every "source" is dubious and unusable. Next even the dubious sources are bypassed. Example: "dolma itself most likely has its roots in the cuisine of the Ottoman Topkapı Palace". Yeah, OK, phrases like "most likely" are definitely credible sources. And oh let's not forget the biased and unreliable fraud of a "scholar" aka "friend of the Turks" Charles Perry, a journalist turned paid propagandist for Turkey, and supposedly a "historian" working for Turkish "Cornucopia magazine" - yeah, surely not biased at all when your "research" is tied to your income, after all he is sporting an Anglo name, what's more credible than that?. I have checked some of the history including some page edits here, and sure enough all the sources citing Armenian heritage and/or sources have been deleted as "unreliable". Considering the ridiculous and poor quality of this pathetic current article, that is quite laughable actually. And the reason always cited is, because we want to "prevent nationalism".
Oh cool, yeah let's prevent the "nationalism" of the nation under appropriation, but completely allow the nationalism of the newer nation trying to do the appropriating, merely for what, succeeding in "making Turkey for the Turks" in the early 20th century? What a brilliant plan. Preventing a nationalist conflict is one thing and I'm all for it if reason and logic is used, but you blow the entire plot when you take the other side which is a worse form of that nationalism, and needless to say based on false history and unproven half-truths. Yeah, Armenia is a little country now with 3 million population, and Turkey is a large country with 80 million, with a gigantic army of "wikipedia historians" and their associated supporters everywhere. That still does not change true historical facts, and this article is one giant ball of bias and dishonesty dedicated to pushing the Turkish and Azeri pseudo-nationalistic narrative. For now I am not rewriting the article yet but leaving this information here as information for future editors who are not working for Turkish interests to not fall into this trap and who wish to rewrite this article in a balanced way that conforms to sanity and reason - or - I am all in favor for presenting the history as disputed between the different parties. Also, for a more credible Armenian-culture-sided source I recallGeorge Mardikian writing about historicity of Dolma/Tolma/Sarma in Armenian folklore in one of his books which most definitely needs to be in this article That source is more credible that all the "sources" in this article combined.Sure Editor (talk)10:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added Italy in the list of countries where dolma are present. Actually, in the central and Italian cuisine there are many stuffed vegetables dishes, prepared with onions, peperoni, aubergines, zucchini, etc., named collectively asripieni. Many among them are quite similar to the Turkish ones. The only dolma type which is not present in the Italian cuisine is that wrapped in cabbage rolls or vine leaves. Due to that, one should decide how to organize this subject: we could either leave this article as it is, expanding the part about Italy, or create another article about theripieni. Actually I prefer the first option, because Italian and middle-eastdolma dishes are basically (with the above exception) variations of the same dish.Alex2006 (talk)06:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spudlace: I'm a bit confused by your edits to the etymology section. Inthis edit, you say:
The section is about etymology recent edits have removed the etymology related content cited to oxford reference and replaced it with grammatical content from grammar books about the parts of speech WP:NOTDICTIONARY, please explain the reason for these changes and the removal of oxford reference on the talk page.)
As you say, this is an etymology section, so naturally it should be using high-quality sources about word derivation. That has nothing to do withWP:NOTDICT. The most reliable sources for language-related issues are language dictionaries and solid reference grammars like G.L. Lewis's. Though Ayto'sDiner's Dictionary is a good source for many food-related questions, Lewis and Ağralı are better sources for thelanguage-related issue here. BTW, both Ayto and Lewis were published by Oxford. I also wonder why, in aprevious edit, you removed Lewis in favor of Ağralı, which is a language textbook, not a reference grammar.
The text you prefer says thatdolma is "derived from the verbdolmak ("to fill")". Well, Lewis and Ağralı are just a bit more specific abouthow it is derived: it is a verbal noun. I don't see what's problematic about that. Also, the language authorities glossdolmak as 'to be filled' (Lewis) or 'to get full' (Ağralı). --Macrakis (talk)16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's like saying the etymology of "jumping" is "to jump". The word "derive" seems to be creating the confusion here, so it might be helpful to get clear on the difference between verb conjugations and word origins. The latter is found in dictionaries, while the former is the subject of reference grammars. It's not a problem with the reliability of the source but how it has been used.Spudlace (talk)00:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Derivation is a word formation mechanism often mentioned in etymologies, not to be confused with conjugation (i.e.,inflection). A "wedding" (a noun for the ceremony), for example, is indeed derived from "wed", though it can also function as a regular gerund or participle. I don't know why you prefer a linguist specializing in English (Ayto) to one specializing in Turkish (Lewis) for the origin of a Turkish word. --Macrakis (talk)15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John Ayto is an etymologist and the Chief Etymologist of a major English Language dictionary.The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink is a compendium of food word etymologies.Spudlace (talk)22:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. He is a specialist inEnglish. The question here is the relationship of the formdolma todolmak, which is about Turkish. Lewis is a specialist in Turkish. --Macrakis (talk)23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same etymology given by Merriam-Webster.[10] To avoid confusion we should not use italics for words that have entered the English language.Spudlace (talk)23:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference for an etymology section about a dish like this would be a section that addresses how the meaning of the word has changed over time and entered the countless languages where it is used today, where different words can be used for the same dish, and the same word used for different dishes across cultures.
Do you guys find this kind of content interesting or think it is something we should expand? I'm worried about two things: I think it would be uninteresting for the average reader and I haven't been able to find reliable sources to expand the section. As an alternative, I want to merge the short etymology section into another sections where it would be less discordant.Spudlace (talk)00:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting topic, though at that point, perhaps "etymology" wouldn't be the best title for the section; maybe "Names" or "Word history"? Some languages use synonyms fordolma (mahshi), others borrow the Turkish word with variations (tolma). As you say, some languages conflatesarma anddolma. In Greek, a synonym is used for stuffed foods (gemista) and the Turkish word is used for the wrapped foods calledsarma in Turkish (ntolmades). It would be great to discuss this all together if we can find a reliable source for it. --Macrakis (talk)15:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS On the other hand, I don't see the interest in mentioning the Turkic dialect versions unless they're part of a larger discussion on variants. --Macrakis (talk)15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree on removing the Turkic dialects because the source doesn't give any information on whether the word is for stuffed foods or wraps. Otherwise I have been looking for reliable sources to expand but section but I haven't found any yet so I am just going to merge the sections for now.Spudlace (talk)22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sao saosson: I understand that the Charles XII story may be fishy. But we need a good source for that. Maybethis book has something useful to say? Unfortunately, I don't read Swedish, but it looks like it calls the Charles XII story apocryphal, though it seems to agree that he was somehow related indirectly to the introduction of kåldolmar to Sweden. Can you translate? --Macrakis (talk)22:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book is called “100 historical myths” and he discusses why the theory sound very probable but how it’s not supported by any evidence. For example we do have much written about the travels of Charles XII, never is Dolma mentioned. Yes, the author of this book himself think that Charles XII probably had something to do with the dolma and it’s introduction to Sweden. Although it’s too far of a stretchSao saosson (talk)10:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sao saosson: The source for the content you removed about Swedish cabbage rolls isOxford Companion to Food which is generally reliable and provides detailed explanations of the evidence disproving some of the widely circulating food myths. Even a very reliable source such as theOxford Companion can contain errors, but we would have to see evidence of that. I don't think the inclusion of this information is essential to the article but concerning your edit summary statingIf you want to keep spread this Turkish nationalist myth. You can do that on another forum. There is not a single source that mention this, I have checked the source and found this to be an untrue statement. I'm just not inclined to restore the information at this time.Spudlace (talk)15:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You checked exactly what? The source? Could you please with highest respect provide where in the source it talks about how Charles XII traveled through Europe with a Dolma recipe. There is not a Swedish historian or food historian who support this myth. It’s made up and completely untrue. You’re probably a very logical and intelectual being yourself, so you must understand how illogical it is for Charles XII to run out from a burning house meanwhile fighting Ottoman soldiers with a recipe in his hand just so could ride to Sweden from Bender. And there are no sources, witnesses or written texts that Charles XII did this. It’s clearly a Turkish nationalist myth, that is not accepted by Swedish academiaSao saosson (talk)22:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”returned to Sweden in 1715 with his Turkish creditors and their cooks.” Who are these cooks? What are the names of them? Who are the creditors? As I said, this statement is NOT supported by any witness or first hand account. And is therefore also considered a myth. The user who reverted my edit claimed that the source was clear and talks about this. His claim is also wrong. ThanksSao saosson (talk)22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From source:
“Kåldolmar (‘cabbage dolmas’) have long been part of Swedish cuisine also, as an unplanned consequence of Charles XII’s sojourn in Turkey after his defeat by the Russians at the battle of Poltava. When he returned to Sweden in 1715, he was followed by his Turkish creditors—and their cooks—who remained until 1732.”
.
So my claim is correct. If you have RS sources claiming opposite or supporting your view - then you are welcome to share them, alternatively you can take source to the RSN. Regards.Abrvagl (talk)04:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tolma is an Armenian food.Tolma is a food that was prepared in pagan Armenia before our era. The word "tol" (տոլ) in Armenian means bush or leaf and was dedicated to pagan gods.217.76.12.50 (talk)08:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given UNESCO attributes dolma to Azerbaijan, why does this page claim it is Ottoman without anyWP:RS citation? The page also includes that in the headers. Yet, it seems contradictory.
The page and the video speak extensively about the sense of tradition that has grown around dolma in Azerbaijan. I didn't see or hear anything saying that dolma originated there.
I don't know exactly what the motivation is behind UNESCO's Intangible Heritage program or what their selection criteria are (I find it interesting that they've recogized Slovakian bagpipe tradition but not Scottish bagpipe tradition), but it pretty clear is intended to celebrate living traditions today, not to find out where things came from.Largoplazo (talk)23:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO does not focus on the origins of dishes, but rather on their cultural significance and use within a specific region. Therefore, dolma could be included on the UNESCO list as an intangible cultural heritage in any country where it holds such cultural importance.Barseghian Lilia (talk)19:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missing Acknowledgment of Iraq’s Culinary Heritage in Dolma Article
The earliest documented practices of stuffing vegetables and leaves can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia (Sumerians and Akkadians), where culinary tablets mention recipes involving stuffed onions and other vegetables.During the Abbasid Caliphate (8th–13th centuries), Baghdad was the center of an advanced and diverse cuisine. Medieval Arabic cookbooks such as "Kitab al-Tabikh" (The Book of Dishes) compiled in Baghdad contained references to early forms of stuffed dishes resembling dolma, indicating its deep-rooted presence in Iraqi culinary tradition.In modern times, Dolma is widely recognized as a national dish of Iraq, especially famous in Baghdad and the south for its unique preparation style, where grape leaves, eggplants, zucchini, tomatoes, onions, and even green peppers are all stuffed and layered in a single pot, often flavored with tamarind and pomegranate syrup. This version is distinct from Levantine or Turkish styles.While the Ottoman Empire helped spread the term "dolma" and the dish throughout its regions, the core practice has strong Iraqi and Mesopotamian origins. As such, the article should be updated to reflect that dolma is not exclusively a Turkish or Ottoman invention, but rather a shared heritage with clear historical and cultural roots in Iraq, where it remains a national and iconic dish.Iraqi History Editor (talk)06:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Haydi123, I see yet another editor has removed your content. As I indicated in one of my edit summaries, the references you provided only support the etymologies. The reasoning by which you start with those etymologies (which prove that thewords are Turkish, but that wasn't disputed) and arrive at the conclusion that the origin of the foods is Turkish seems to be your own reasoning, and falls under the policy forbidding the addition of content based onoriginal research. If you think I'm misunderstanding something or if you think you can better clarify what it is you mean to say, please discuss it herewithout restoring, yet again, your version of the article before a consensus to do so is reached.Largoplazo (talk)15:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the words deriving from Turkish would be a good indication of the foods being Turkish, at least Ottoman. However I don't see the relevance of the edits that @Haydi123 made, and as you said the origins of most of these foods aren't disputed. Even then, the words being Turkish don't really point to their origin as the Ottoman Empire was massive and a considerable portion of it spoke Ottoman Turkish which is similar to modern Turkish. I wish that @Haydi123 would stop arguing in the edit summary and move here instead.Mr.DetectiveMan (talk)13:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, though I realize I wasn't explicit above, is that the name English borrows for foreign things is or derives from the name given to them by the people by which those things were introduced, regardless of where they originated. English, for example, got "masa" (or "masa harina") (a word derived from Latin and, before that, Greek) from Spanish, because the products were introduced to the English-speaking world by Spanish speakers. But masa and masa harina (the corn/maize dough or flour from which tortillas are made) definitely didn't originate in Spain or among any Spanish speakers, as they predate Spanish-speakers' own acquaintance with the product by centuries.
It might turn out thatreliable sources apply the same logic (with suitable elaboration) regarding Turkishgrammar as Haydi123 was using to help identify the path of the foods themselves. But, if so, we would need to have one or more of those sources cited. We can't rely on Haydi123, or anyone else here, applying that logic directly.Largoplazo (talk)14:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. However I really don't see the relevance of Haydi123's edits, as this is the page for Dolma it shouldn't be used to argue about the sources of certain foods. We shouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.Mr.DetectiveMan (talk)21:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looked to me that Haydi123 was just illustrating a general phenomenon of which dolma are an example to make a point about dolma. I see your point to the extent that that explanation may go too far afield.Largoplazo (talk)22:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I reverted the edits by Erdemozcantr as they are likely AI-generated and contain hallucinations. While there is anANI thread on this, the signs seemed to rise to the level of immediate attention:
The term derives from the Turkish verbdolmak, meaning "to fill," which in turn originates from Old Turkictolu -- This is cited toAn Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, which does not appear to mention the word "dolmak" anywhere. Theother source does mention the word "dolmak" but seemingly not the word "tolu."
in Armenian cuisine,tolma is often made with grape leaves; in Persian cuisine,dolmeh includes fruits such as quince or apple; and in Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire, versions such asholishkes oryaprak dolma became part of Sephardic and Iraqi culinary traditions is cited to a book calledThe Ottoman Influence on Middle Eastern Cookery by Charles Perry in 1986; I cannot find any evidence of this book existing. The bookA Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East is real, but it does not mention the words "tolma", "dolmeh", "yaprak", or "holishkes" in the text.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Your accusation that my edits are “AI-generated” and “hallucinatory” is both unfounded and inappropriate.
All information I added is based on verifiable linguistic sources and established etymological works on the Turkish language. The Turkish verb dolmak (“to fill”) and its Old Turkic root tolu are well-documented in historical Turkic dictionaries and linguistic literature. Claiming these are “AI hallucinations” is not only incorrect but dismissive of sourced contributions.
I would kindly remind you of Wikipedia’s core policies:
WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith) — Editors should not make bad-faith assumptions about others’ edits.
WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks) — Labeling another editor’s contributions as “AI-generated” without evidence is a personal attack.
I request that such claims be retracted unless you can provide verifiable evidence.
They did provide some evidence, so this is not unfounded. One source doesn't appear to exist and the other doesn't support the attached claim. The wording of your additions failsWP:TONE in ways which are very similar to LLM content. Further, your response on this talk page also appears to also be LLM-generated.
Regarding this source:
Perry, Charles (1986). "The Ottoman Influence on Middle Eastern Cookery".Petits Propos Culinaires
This is formatted to cite a magazine article fromPetits Propos Culinaires, not a book. That magazine's website includes info on some back issues, but not all, and none from 1986. This is a very obscure source. If you are citing a physical magazine which is not available online, please provide a specific issue and page numbers. But more importantly, make sure thatyou are the one summarizing this in your own words. Don't rely on ChatGPT or some other LLM to summarize a source you haven't read with your own eyes.
If you wish to 'focus on improving the accuracy and neutrality of this article', you should address these concerns. Do not attack other editors for raising legitimate concerns.Grayfell (talk)20:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I would like to clarify a few points.
The purpose of my edits was not to remove or replace reliable information, but to ensure that all perspectives on Dolma are presented in a balanced and verifiable manner. In a highly contentious topic such as this, it is equally important to examine all cited sources with the same level of scrutiny especially when certain claims rely on a single author’s personal interpretation rather than a broader academic consensus.
For example, attributing the dish’s origin exclusively to “Armenian culinary heritage” based on one author’s subjective view does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:V, just as much as removing verifiable data would not. Presenting any individual’s opinion as fact risks misleading readers.
Regarding the linguistic aspect: the term dolma is widely acknowledged by international linguistic and etymological references as being of Turkic origin, derived from the Turkic verb dolmak (“to fill”). The supposed connection to an Armenian root toli meaning “grape” lacks credible linguistic support and appears to be speculative.
I always write and summarize in my own words, based on verifiable sources I have personally read. My goal here is to help improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article, not to promote any national narrative.Erdemozcantr (talk)21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address my concerns, so it seems like you're just saying what you think I want to hear. This style of writing makes the LLM issue harder to dismiss.
The tone of your edits was not appropriate. Start withWP:WTW, if you need more guidance.
An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish doesn't support the claim it was attached to.
Please provide a specific issue and page numbers for the magazine.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The information added in my recent edit is directly supported by several reliable academic and linguistic references already listed in the article:
Clauson, Sir Gerard (1972) – An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press). This work documents the Old Turkic root tolu (“full”), from which the modern Turkish verb dolmak (“to fill”) and the noun dolma derive.
Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü, “dolma” entry – Official modern Turkish dictionary confirming the derivation from dolmak.
Işın, Priscilla Mary (2018) – Bountiful Empire: A History of Ottoman Cuisine (Reaktion Books). Discusses dolma as one of the most widespread dishes of the Ottoman Empire.
Işın, Mary (2013) – Sherbet and Spice: The Complete Story of Turkish Sweets and Desserts (I.B. Tauris). References the layered and stuffed pastry and vegetable traditions in Ottoman cuisine.
Zubaida, Sami & Tapper, Richard (2000) – A Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East (Tauris Parke). Provides regional comparisons showing how Ottoman culinary techniques spread to neighboring cultures.
Perry, Charles (1986). “The Ottoman Influence on Middle Eastern Cookery.” Petits Propos Culinaires.
Davidson, Alan (2014) – The Oxford Companion to Food (Oxford University Press). Notes the Turkish linguistic origin and Ottoman-era diffusion of dolma.
Ghanoonparvar, M. R. (1995) – “DOLMA,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. VII/5. Discusses later Iranian adaptations, which postdate the established Ottoman–Turkic tradition.
For verification convenience, here are the reference links:
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The cited Google Books entries are accessible in my country’s database, though it is possible that they have since been removed or restricted globally. These works still exist in print and through other online academic databases or publisher websites, which can be checked for verification.Erdemozcantr (talk)22:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong.Google Books' API has no record of any books by the IDs you gave.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Please maintain a civil tone. The phrase you used is unnecessarily hostile and violates. I’m not interested in personal back and forth arguments. If there is a specific factual inaccuracy you believe exists, please state it clearly and provide a reliable source to support your claim otherwise, this discussion is no longer constructive.Erdemozcantr (talk)23:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Let’s keep this focused on content and sources. The page cited to claim this as “Armenia’s cultural heritage” does NOT mention dolma in its English version; it discusses traditional clothing, music/dance, and the Armenian alphabet. Also, comments about whether I “use AI” are off-topic and not constructive. Please keep the discussion civil per and address the sources.Erdemozcantr (talk)23:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've introduced many fake links in a discussion about the accuracy of sources, in addition to all the other signs of LLM use, your behavior is disruptive.
Regardingthis link, it includes more entries than the English version, including one for "տոլմա" which is (apparently) Armenian for dolma. Even if we took these edits at face value, this entire argument would beWP:SYNTH/WP:OR, but it's no longer worth taking at face value.Grayfell (talk)00:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I wish you happiness with your biased stance, but dolma is a Turkish word and a traditional Turkish-Ottoman dish. Your personal opinions honestly don’t concern me. That’s quite ironic, because the very source you mentioned (Wiktionary) explicitly states that the Armenian word “tolma” was borrowed from Ottoman Turkish dolma. So, if we’re relying on that source, it actually supports the Turkish origin, not the opposite. Your sense of “fairness” truly moved me thank you for that.Erdemozcantr (talk)00:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is not a reliable source, so that Wiktionary link was for your convenience only, to explain how the cited source does mention dolma.
You've poisoned the well. I would've been amenable to discussing changes to the article, but only based on reliable sources that actually exist, not this nonsense.Grayfell (talk)00:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Well, today I learned that a word used continuously from Old Turkic to modern Turkish is somehow “Armenian”. Since you mentioned nonsense I would really suggest thinking twice.Erdemozcantr (talk)00:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're trying to change the topic. The article already says, as the first sentence, "Dolma is a family of stuffed dishes associated with Ottoman cuisine". It also says that 'dolma' is of Turkic origin, and "some dishes of Armenian cuisine with Turkic names are also found across Turkey and other countries, making it difficult to determine the true national origin of such dishes."
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I’m not the one changing the topic you just repeated exactly what I’ve been saying. The article itself acknowledges that dolma is associated with Ottoman cuisine and that the word is of Turkic origin. That’s precisely the point. So if we agree on that, maybe stop accusing others of “fake sources” just because the facts don’t fit your narrative. The same article also claims that certain dishes in Turkish cuisine “originated from Armenians,” citing dolma as an example, and even suggests that Azerbaijani cuisine adopted it from Armenia. That’s not a verifiable historical fact it’s merely the opinion of one author. You’re calling my sources “fake,” but what is the actual source for that claim? Can you point to a single written Armenian recipe or record mentioning dolma that predates the Ottoman period? The book titles I mentioned are real, and I’ve already explained them in detail. If you choose not to believe them, that’s your personal preference not an argument.Erdemozcantr (talk)01:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I had it pointed out to me thatGS imposed ECR still allows non-edit-request talk page disucssion, so altering the reason for the block above to the other issue at hand. -The BushrangerOne ping only05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not defending the usage of possible AI here, but the article itself is quite biased in my opinion. It keeps referring to the point that Dolma is very likely of ‘’Armenian origin’’ and that the Turks took it over from them, yet it provides zero evidence for that nor that the word Dolma has any Armenian origins.
‘’The origins of dolma, as suggested by The Oxford Companion to Food, likely stem from Armenian culinary traditions before becoming integrated into Turkish cuisine.’’- What is the evidence for this? Like there is zero explanation for this part nor any evidence.
And then this ‘’On the contrary, Armenians contributed to the cuisine of the Seljuk Turks, so many truly Armenian dishes later became known in Europe through the Turks as, allegedly, Turkish cuisine (for example, dolma).’’ - again, which historic documents confirm such thing? If this isn’t being biased, then I don’t know what else is.
The Armenian name Tolma does comes from the Turkish ‘’Dolma’’. Yet the artcile mentions the Armenian version as the following: ‘’In Armenian, the dish is referred to as tolma in Eastern Armenian and dolma in Western Armenian. The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means "grape".’’- again, this is a Armenian claim for the origin of Dolma (how are Toli and Tolma related and turned into a same name as Dolma?). There is no such coincidence that the name Tolma, almost the exact same as Dolma, already existed before it. Nor is there any such historical evidence before the Ottoman cuisine came to be known.
The citations for an Armenian origin were addedrelatively recently. ReviewingWilliam Pokhlyobkin#Controversies, I don't think we should treat this source as strictly reliable for factual statements. A sentence to summarize this would work, but I don't think the relatively lengthy quote is proportionate or due. Pokhlyobkin seems to have had a history of fabricating sources (huh) and the quote is an emotive and subjective claim.
Regarding theOxford Companion to Food cite,from Google books it appears it includes dolma in a list of elements of Armenian cuisine "...toasted pumpkin seeds, roasted and salted pistachios, DOLMA (which according to some originated in Armenia and went from there to Turkey), basturma/pastourma, a pungent...etc." The source is not saying this is likely true, only noting parenthetically that it's 'according to some'. Well... okay. Lots of people say lots of things.
The article required a complete overhaul. It primarily consisted of blog posts, YouTube links, various Turkish and Armenian food sites, and numerous other unreliable sources. I'd also suggest giving it extended-confirmed protection, as new editors frequently appear with the intent to alter this article's content. As for Pokhlebkin, he is a laureate of international awards and a well-known, widely published author. Criticism of his work concerns only the topic of vodka, mainly because, as a humanities scholar, he misunderstood some basic physical laws.Barseghian Lilia (talk)07:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being well-known and widely published doesn't automatically make Pokhlyobkin a reliable source. His article lists a few awards (being international is also mostly irrelevant) but none of them are sourced.Only one is (ostensibly) independently notable. If, for example, a reliable source explains what theHugo Grotius Prize is and why it is significant to William Pokhlyobkin's legacy, please add it to that article. For now, to determine reliability, we can only go by what is supported by sources.
William Pokhlyobkin#Controversies covers a lot more than just basic physical laws.This source, cited at that article, seems pretty damning in describing how "Pokhlebkin's fabrications [had] been elevated to the status of legend" and says that Pokhlyobkin is no longer taken seriously by academics in the field. That book citesthis review, which starts with "If you read this book, keep a bottle of strong vodka by your side to stun the more thoughtful parts of your brian." It gets less flattering from there. It is very muchnot just about basic physical laws. This is about fabricating or misrepresenting historical details and also "crackpot hypotheses", per that review.
Hey Grayfell, I don't remember whether I had free access toThe Oxford Companion to Food or not. Most of the information I added from this book most likely comes from the Russian Wikipedia. If you have an open-source version, please share it so we can double-check everything.
Regarding Pokhlyobkin, I've includedpositive feedback from Russian Wikipedia to highlight the monumental effort he put into his work. None of the critical sources point out inaccuracies in the sections on Armenian or Azerbaijani cuisines that he covered. I can also provide all the quotes and page references from Pokhlyobkin's books, which anyone can verify themselves. Pokhlyobkin is also widely cited in many Wikipedia articles.[11]
As I understand it, the criticism inHistory of Vodka comes from another historian,David Christian (historian). Basically, one reliable source contradicts another, which happens in many similar situations. This shouldn't prevent the use of a reliable source in an article, as long as there is proper attribution and a neutral interpretation. Don't you agree?Barseghian Lilia (talk)12:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be very careful when copy/pasting from other Wikipedia projects. Verify sources and make sure the added content complies withthis Wikipedia's standard. You must also followWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
As for proper attribution and such, sorry, I think that question is loaded, so I don't really agree. I don't think this level of detail provides a neutral interpretation, I do not think it is neutral to include an obscure, multi-sentence quote from a minority perspective. I would consider this a potentialfringe source.
Putting monumental effort into a work doesn't make it inherently reliable. It appears we accept that criticism of Pokhlyobkin was not due solely to his poor understanding of basic science (which doesn't seem like much of a defense, to be honest). It was not only one historian who has noted these issues. I have already cited two works by different academic authors which cast serious doubt on the credibility of these claims. Even this contemporary review:JSTOR24657298 ofA History of Vodka, which accepted his underlying argument, still recognized that his sources were poor and many of his claims were outlandish.
Am I reading your comment correctly that you have not read theOxford source, and instead copy/pasted it from somewhere else? Above I included a link to Google Books for that work. If you added the book without having read it, or have completely forgotten what it said after only a year, than we should remove it until someone who has read more comprehensively can verify it.
If thebest sources you can find for this are one vague and misinterpreted passing mention and one controversial, prolific, and partisan writer, than something has gone wrong. There are many sources suggesting other origins. Ignoring them and only citing these two for the Armenian origin is, at best,damning with faint praise. Please find better sources for this claim.
Heyuser:Barseghian Lilia, will you respond? Please join the discussion. We've shared our concerns about the issues on this page and are requesting changes. It would be helpful if you continued the discussion. If you don't, I'll revert the edits.Haydi123 (talk)14:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your issue? Because I have an issue with your series of edits too which erase mention of Armenia. Pokhlyobkin is still a historian, and he’s not the only source for this. At the very minimum, we should a) add sources that state that the origin is hotly contested between Turkic and Armenian origins; b) add the Armenian etymology. See sources:
Both of those sources look very useful. Pokhlyobkin's status as a historian is debatable, as he did not finish his dissertation due to his argumentative personality. 'Historian' can mean anyone who studies history, but it can also mean a position in higher education, which did not have when he wrote any of his works on cuisine. Anyway... My proposal is to remove the quote as unnecessary and instead summarize his position in a single sentence as the opinion of a Russian writer on food history. The Oxford Companion to Food reference doesn't seem useful, and it should be cut. I think the two sources you propose would be much more useful in explaining the argument itself. This would be a better foundation for expanding the article, which would contextualize Pokhlyobkin's position.Grayfell (talk)05:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've had trouble quoting this book, so I'd like you to comment on the reliability of this person's source. Please review the source this person cites to claim the word is Armenian. To summarize briefly, on pages 262-263, the author of the book speaks with an Armenian chief in Armenia. This user, however, thought this was a good etymological source. The same user also stated that Sevan Nişanyan was not a reliable source.Haydi123 (talk)08:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sevan Nisanyan is irrelevant in this discussion and his etymology website isWP:SPS unless proven reliable, per RSN discussion. Also I don't "claim" one or the other, I'm giving the Armenian explanation for the etymology per sources that was lacking here. Sources can have different explanations for the same thing.KhndzorUtogh (talk)08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell FYI one of the users opposed to the first source here so I found another one:
The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content.[12]
I will write the summary I wrote about this source here again: The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting." As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of stuffed. The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926), whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)." In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Moreover, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; That's my summary.Haydi123 (talk)09:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment has been copy-pasted 4 different times. I'll respond in RSN for the sake of consistency (since it's source discussion) and to not waste everyone's time.KhndzorUtogh (talk)13:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a problem with your editing and the sources you provided. Have you read the source you gave me, claiming the word is Armenian? Let's read it together. Here's what the source says:Haydi123 (talk)08:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that modern etymologists don't discuss the etymology of this word. It's widely accepted as Turkish. Sources claiming the word is Armenian or Urartian are unreliable. The source you cited is a prime example. You haven't read your source, and you probably assumed we wouldn't either. The author speaks with an Armenian chef, who claims the word comes from Urartian, which the author disputes (which you quoted as the author's own opinion). Later, the same chef lists numerous dish names, claiming they're all Armenian (many of them foreign), and you share this claim as credible. I didn't know we were supposed to take seriously the etymological views of a nationalist Armenian chef at a Random restaurant.Haydi123 (talk)08:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the author Anya von Bremzen, whose book has been Named a Best Book of 2023 by Financial Times, The Guardian, and BBC's The Food Programme, included it in her book, then she thought it was noteworthy. Certainly, unfounded accusations by a Wikipedia editor like yourself ("views of a nationalist Armenian chef at a Random restaurant.") are uncalled for. In any case, this is also not the only source supporting Armenian etymology, see below:
The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content.[12]
"If the author, Anya von Bremzen, whose book has been named a Best Book of 2023 by the Financial Times, The Guardian, and BBC's The Food Programme, included it in her book, then she thought it was noteworthy." First, the author is telling a story from her travels; she's not writing an article about the etymology of this word. Second, the author herself doesn't claim the word is Armenian; a chef she spoke with claims this, which the author disputes. The same thing happens with other food names, and the author disputes all of them. And you're sharing this book saying, "Look, this book supports Armenian etymology," that's the problem. I want other editors to read and comment on this source, and I'll wait for their response.Haydi123 (talk)09:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so why do you keep ignoring the additional source I provided? I pinged you below. And do not split this discussion, it's visible to all users.KhndzorUtogh (talk)09:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even looked into that yet, and why are you trying to divert the topic? We're discussing why the first source you provided isn't reliable, but you're trying to divert the topic with another source without responding. I wanted to discuss the issue in a separate thread because I want it to be more visible and get more people involved in the conversation. But my text isn't showing up; I don't know if it's been shared.Haydi123 (talk)09:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haydi123 You opposed to one of my sources, I provided another one even more recently published from 2025. How is this "diversion", I'm literally showing that other and more modern sources support Armenian etymology too and you do not respond to it. If you don't have valid opposition to my additional source then say so, I don't got all day.KhndzorUtogh (talk)09:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to my other comments; read them. You've gone off topic because, while the reliability of the first source is already being debated, you're sharing another source I consider unreliable and prompting me to discuss it. I also think citing your first source as a source for etymology here was incredibly problematic. Therefore, I believe readers should discuss this action.Haydi123 (talk)09:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said here was off topic. I've heard your concerns in regards to the first source and provided a new additional source, what's "problematic" in that? Don't just throw aroundunfounded accusations. I heard your criticism, read the full quotes, and moved on to a newer better source taking into account your concerns - I haven't even usedany of the sources in the article.
I strongly disagree with your "research" on the newer source though, but I won't respond to you because you can't stop splitting this discussion in multiple different places.KhndzorUtogh (talk)11:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I've heard your concerns in regards to the first source and provided a new additional source" No, while we were discussing the reliability of the first source, you didn't properly respond to any of my writing. You initially presented your source as if it was credible, asserting things the source itself didn't claim, and claiming that the author had won an award, therefore, everything the author included in their book was true. I responded to all of these, but without properly responding to my comments, you sent me a second source and asked me to comment on it. I wrote a lengthy article explaining why I believe this source is also unreliable, and you're once again avoiding addressing my concerns: "I strongly disagree with your "research" on the newer source though, but I won't respond to you because you can't stop splitting this discussion in multiple different places". Therefore, I've shared these sources both in the discussion section of the dolma page and inthis section, because I don't think a one-on-one discussion with you is helpful. I want more people to engage with the topic.Haydi123 (talk)11:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haydi123 Here again, yet another source explaining Armenian etymology. This is the second time I'm pinging you.
The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content.[12]
The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting." As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of dolma. The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926), whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)." In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Furthermore, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; that's my summary.Haydi123 (talk)09:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haydi123 Do not split this discussion[13], it's not productive. Answer my comment here, what is your problem with the other source I provided?
No, not really. My main point is that the used sources are quite biased/one sided. It keeps claiming that Dolma is somehow of Armenian origin, but the name itself is of Turkish origin as the Armenian name has no such historical record of ever been used during that period (before the Ottoman cuisine came to be known). It basically tries to tell us that many Turkish dishes are of Armenian origin, yet it provides zero evidences, historic records, name origins etc. Its just very vague.Woxic1589 (talk)14:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Woxic1589, etymology does not always indicate origin. Pokhlebkin notes that some dishes from Armenian and Georgian cuisines are common in Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkey, often under Turkic names, which makes it difficult to determine their true national origin. I think this is quite logical. For example, Armeniangata is known askətə in Azerbaijan and Turkey, where it also has its own meaning (!): "layer." From an etymological perspective, it might seem that gata is more Azerbaijani than Armenian, but in reality, it's the other way around. That's the nonsense of etymologies in the region where I live.Barseghian Lilia (talk)15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the sources used on this page claim that the dish Dolma already existed in the Armenian cuisine, but it doesn’t explain why the Armenian ‘’Dolma’’ uses the Turkish name instead of its original Armenian name (does that even exist?). And considering that ‘’Tolma’’ for sure is derived from the Turkish ‘’Dolma’’, it doesn’t provide us with any sort of a historical evidence that the Armenians were making ‘’Dolma’’ before the Ottoman era. It basically skips the Turkish/Turkic origin, and simply claims that many Turkish dishes with Turkish names, were of ‘’Armenian’’ origin without showing us any historical records, evidences. This just screams biased/one sided editing to me.Woxic1589 (talk)16:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Grayfell left a comment, and I recommend you respond to them. They explained the issues well, but I wanted to add something.
"He was the author of over 50 books and a large number of articles, but most of his works were only printed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Because so many of his works were printed for the first time simultaneously, some speculated that "Pokhlyobkin" was a pen name of a whole artel of writers."Haydi123 (talk)16:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In Armenian, the dish is referred to as tolma in Eastern Armenian and dolma in Western Armenian. The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means "grape"."This claim is absolutely false, yet it's consistently posted here. I've looked at the concerns about etymology on the dolma discussion page, and they all say the same thing. This claim has been reposted here for years, despite being false. It's been reported numerous times on the discussion page. All modern, reliable sources agree that dolma is a Turkish word. There's no debate about this; as this article states, the word is Turkish. I find the attempts to link this word to Armenian or Urartian malicious and nationalistic. Etymology is a serious field, not a toy.Haydi123 (talk)16:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't comeboth from Turkishdolmak and Armeniantoli, yet the text was saying, in brief, "The word is from Turkish, except when an Armenian prepares it, in which case the word is from Armenian". That was a problem.Largoplazo (talk)21:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to be an extended confirmed user to edit this page? We've been discussing the omissions, inaccuracies, and unreliable sources on the dolma page for several days, and even longer. Several users have expressed concerns about these issues, and many agree that the errors on the page should be changed. I shared my views on this, but User:Barseghian Lilia hasn't responded to me, despite responding to users under the same post. He avoids addressing concerns about sources and biased opinions, and despite repeated complaints that the author, whom he presents as trustworthy, is unprofessional, he refuses to listen. I've been editing this page for two days to address these issues. I've deleted untrusted sources, corrected some errors, and also cited the book where the word first appeared. In short, I've made a number of changes, which you can see in the page history. Today, Barseghian deleted all these changes and re-added old and incorrect information. His reasoning is as follows: "reverting a non-WP:XC user (WP:GS/AA), please reach WP:CON in the ongoing discussion before making further changes".Haydi123 (talk)18:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is semi-protected. That means you don't have to be an extended confirmed user to be allowed to edit it. The article, however, is also under general sections/being treated as acontentious topic. I don't see where, for this article, this is specifically called for, but typically there is a 1RR limit: having made an edit and having had it reverted, you need to leave it alone until there's a consensus in favor of your edit.
I haven't been following the discussion but if Barseghian Lilla thinks that "consensus" means thateverybody has to agree, they're wrong. You should, indeed, readWP:CONSENSUS to find out what's involved in establishing that one has been reached. If you achieve that, then edit the article according to consensus. If Barseghia Lilla reverts after that, then they're being disruptive. On the other hand, of a consensus hasn't been reached, then, yes, you do need to leave the article alone with respect to the aspects that are under discussion.Largoplazo (talk)19:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh gave me two sources while discussing the etymology of the word dolma. We were discussing the sources they gave under the "William Pokhlyobkin and Armenian origin" discussion page, but I want more people to see them and participate in the discussion. I think my previous post isn't showing up because it's too long, so I'll write a shorter version here. This is the first source they gave. Please read pages 262-263 very carefully. Let's discuss whether this source is a good one:https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=PY33EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA262&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
I will share the summary I wrote about the second source here again: The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting.[14]" As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of "dolma". The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926)[15],[16] whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)[17][18]" In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Moreover, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; That's my summary.Haydi123 (talk)10:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between15 September 2020 and10 December 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Telestudent2020.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog(talk)08:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)