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

I am starting a new talk page section again in the hopes it will help this conversation stay focused on one specific problem with the article, namely, that it does not followWP:LEAD in presenting a citation-free summary of the body of the article. I propose something like the following:

Shakshouka (Arabic: شكشوكة : šakšūkah, also spelled shakshuka or chakchouka) is a dish of eggs poached in a sauce of tomatoes, peppers, onion, and olive oil. The earliest origins of the dish are debated, with two theories pointing to theOttoman Empire or theWestern Mediterranean as sources. Tunisian Jews brought the dish to Israel in the 1950s, after which it became globally popular. A wide range of regional variations involve different ingredients for the base sauce or different accompaniments.

M.Bitton, I know that one of your concerns is to keep the term Maghrebi in the lead. However, I think something like the above is more appropriate because the two full sentences on origins are more informative than a single word. I'm proposing my rewording on the talk page since the lead has been contentious in the past, but please do feel free to rewrite the lead directly in the article to addressWP:LEAD.~ L 🌸 (talk)01:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you as I see no reason whatsoever not to mention the undisputed fact that it's Maghrebi. Your insistence this is all the more puzzling, given that the two related dishes that you added (Ratatouille andPiperade) are described as "French" and "Gascon and Basque". Anyway, I see no point in repeating what has been discussed, let alone in yet another new section that you created while#Back to the initial proposal is still open (you know, the one in which you made the factually incorrect claim that "Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi").M.Bitton (talk)00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I infer from this that you would find the lead below acceptable?

Shakshouka (Arabic: شكشوكة : šakšūkah, also spelled shakshuka or chakchouka) is a Maghrebi dish of eggs poached in a sauce of tomatoes, peppers, onion, and olive oil. The earliest origins of the dish are debated, with two theories pointing to the Ottoman Empire or the Western Mediterranean as sources. Tunisian Jews brought the dish to Israel in the 1950s, after which it became globally popular. A wide range of regional variations involve different ingredients for the base sauce or different accompaniments.

I think it's a worse lead than what I proposed but better than the one in the article. I continue to find it weird that this one word seems to totally block your ability to engage with any of the other changes proposed, and that you refuse to propose alternatives or edit the article directly.~ L 🌸 (talk)05:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, you reverted this edit by saying I don't have consensus for it, but I thought I had addressed the concern you raised by including the term "Maghrebi." I am confused. Do you think this proposed lead does not accurately summarize the article? Could you propose an alternative that followsWP:LEAD, or identify your specific concerns for revision?~ L 🌸 (talk)23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

First, you kept challenging the word Maghrebi until a citation was added to it. Then, you challenged the citations until you were proven wrong; and now, you decided to remove the citations and the link, and when reverted, you tell me that you're confused. Really??

As for the rest: the fact that you don't like the current lead doesn't mean that I have to agree with you or that I have to keep answering you ad nauseam. I see no reason to mention the claims about a remote possible ancient origin in the lead. The same goes for the etymology. The recent introduction to Israel is barely relevant in the body and has no place in the lead (the dish has been introduced to France in the 19th century and is consumed there by millions of Maghrebis without anyone making a big deal out of it).

In any case, as I've had enough of this, I will ping the other editors:@Skitash andMrOllie: your input on this will be highly appreciated.M.Bitton (talk)16:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the lead is perfectly fine as it currently stands. I fail to see why it should mention the supposed remote origins of the dish or its introduction to Israel, especially when we already have adedicated section for the origins of the dish. @LEvalyn, I suggest you refrain from edit warring and altering the lead without consensus.Skitash (talk)17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I overlooked the fact that you did revise the leadhere. Thank you for that -- it is a clear improvement over the prior version. I do agree that this lead isfine, and maybe that is the source of our ongoing conflict: I am trying to make this article not justfine butgood. Compliance withWP:LEAD isa Good Article criterion.

I get the impression that you two spend most of your time dealing with SPAs and newbies. I feel like this is causing you to misinterpret my edits here. After my mentee brought it to my attention, this article has attracted my continued interest because it isbadly written. Badly written articles annoy me; I like to write good articles. My previous GAs are mostly related to historical literature, but now that I've done some research on this topic, I don't think I will be able to get the article out of my head until I bring it to GA status.

So, for this specific content dispute: agood leadmust mention the origins (and the variations, and on reflection the etymology too) because, perMOS:INTRO the lead is supposed tobriefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It's also the norm for the lead to contain no citations, as all its contents should be cited in the body. However, I don't mind letting the lead re-write wait while the body is improved.

Because encyclopedia writing is collaborative, I have tried to address concrete concerns when raised and I welcome additional contributions. You don't have to write a good article if you don't feel like doing that kind of content creation: the encyclopedia needs all kinds of editors. But I would appreciate it if you could also respond with a more constructive, collaborative assumption of good faith.~ L 🌸 (talk)20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All I'm gonna say is that really no consensus has been made, it's all what you want and the biased interpretations you have made. We just can't deal with the toxic environment you have kept us in. So I'll just wait it out until a more collaborative editor is involved :)) I wanna make it clear this is not a personal attack just an observation from the previous threads cause I can see how someone can misconstrued my statement.Raturous (talk)23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you don't name a section after an editor (I renamed for you). Second, regardless of what you think, a consensus exists. Last, your verbal diatribe speaks for itself and says more about you than anyone else.M.Bitton (talk)23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't realize I am not suppose to respond to a false remark that you've made 😂 Again a consensus hasn't been made, we just don't to work with you.Raturous (talk)23:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like it's productive to get into another talk page argument, but I do want to note that if you're counting me as part of this "consensus", you are over-stating the consensus. From my point of view, we reached consensus that the new origin section is an acceptable improvement over the previous origin section. We havenot reached consensus that the articleor the section is complete and unable to be edited further.~ L 🌸 (talk)04:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Mostly stashing this as a note to self, but I'd like to pin down a more concise and authoritative explanation of the etymology... this is what the OED has for the origin of the word: "MaghribiArabicšakšūka, ultimately of imitative origin (compare the relatedšakšaka to bubble, to sizzle, to be mixed up, to be beaten together)." I want to see if any Arabic-language dictionaries have more detail but it's time for me to get to a meeting so this is a loose thread for now.~ L 🌸 (talk)17:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are many references cited in the Etymology section. One of the references appears to be in Arabic, which I cannot read, so my comment does not apply to that reference. The other sources are in English, and not a single one of them is a reliable source on the subject of etympology. Wikipedia is full of bogus word-origin myths, and this is a particularly egregious examples. Cookbooks, newspaper articles, and travel guides, are not reliable sources here. Crowd-sourced online dictionaries are usually just as bad.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/shakshuka is an entry from a actual dictionary researched by lexicographers and etymologists, rather than chefs, cookbook authors, food writers, and travel writers. All of the imagined origins refering to any of the English sources should be deleted, along with the citations references, and replaced with a citation from a properly researched dictionary, such as Collins. If the Arabic source is from a chef, cookbook authour, food writer. or travel writer, it should also be deleted.— Precedingunsigned comment added by172.56.198.242 (talk)00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  The arabic source is a news article, totally useless/unreliable for this context too. Thanks for digging up the Collins.~ L 🌸 (talk)04:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  The etymology section is best kept and dealt with properly. The Collins claim is just as baseless as the rest as there is no such thing as "šakšaka" in the Maghrebi dialect. I'll look into this and will share what I can find.M.Bitton (talk)11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Collins Dictionary is... baseless? Anyway, as quoted above, it's the OED that links the word to šakšaka. It's a transliteration ofwikt:شخشخ, which certainly appears to be an onomatopoeic verb relating to the right sound. (Elsewhere I see it translated more like "to sputter" which seems most relevant here, but in the article I used the OED's gloss.)

  The etymology sourcing in the article is so poor that if the OED is unacceptable it would be better to have nothing at all. I checked the Doha Dictionary of Historical Arabic and Bibliotheca Polyglotta's Etymological Dictionary of Arabic (no entry for شكشوكة or شخشخ in either) and some fun linguistics articles (about how shakshuka can be a derogatory euphemism in Sudan), and didn't turn up any more etymological detail. So I can't see how we can write more than about a sentence on it.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless, as neither of them is an authority in the Maghrebi dialect and their unsubstantiated claims are totally worthless. While you're welcome to waste your time on what the word means in the irrelevant countries (that are not part of the Maghreb), I will do what I said above: I will look into it (like I did for the rest).M.Bitton (talk)19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is very surprising to me that you consider these dictionaries, which employ professional lexicographers for research,unsubstantiated andworthless. I don't think that is a widely-held opinion about the OED. But don't you think the dictionaries are at least an improvement over, say,Mug Meals: More Than 100 No-Fuss Ways to Make a Delicious Microwave Meal in Minutes ?~ L 🌸 (talk)07:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  don't you think the dictionaries are at least an improvement not when they are making an extraordinary claim about another language. The other sources are not wrong in stating that the word "Shakshouka" also means "mixture" (the closest word to the definition) in Maghrebi Arabic, but unfortunately, they don't address the context in which it is used in that sense.M.Bitton (talk)14:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't assess reliable sources according to whether you happen to agree with a particular point they've made. The whole point of relying on them is that it's instead of arguing among ourselves,WP:OR-style, over what makes sense to us. The OED is a reliable source for etymologies. The people who do the research are entirely capable of knowing things that you don't. As for this case, since when do Maghrebis not know standard Arabic? Or maybe it was a word at the time the dish received its name but has now become obsolete so you'd be unaware of it? Or maybe—the Maghreb is a big place—it's a word used by Maghrebi speakers in one part of the Maghreb but not in the area you're from? Even within what we consider a dialect, there can be considerable variation from one place to another. I don't know whether any of these possibilities is the reality, but the point is that you can't assume you know all there is to know.Largoplazo (talk)12:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  We asses reliable sources based on a number of criteria that I'm fully aware of.

  The OED is a reliable source for etymologies it's reliable for the etymologies of the English language. Claims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant, especially when they are extraordinary.

  since when do Maghrebis not know standard Arabic? how is this related to what I said? The Arabic word that they quoted above is spelled differently ("k" is not "kh") and means something else.M.Bitton (talk)13:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Claims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant It's the etymology of the English word "shakshouka". The etymology of most English words involves sources in other languages, to agree that it's reliable for etymologies of English words but unreliable the instant those words are from elsewhere than English is fallacious. In addition, there's the factor about your claim about the OED's claims about other languages being irrelevant. Why, because you say so? What makes a claim extraordinary? Again, it all comes back to whether it agrees with yourWP:ORa priori understanding of the matter.Largoplazo (talk)14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  how is this related to what I said? How is it not? Your argument was that even if it exists in Arabic, it isn't a word inMaghrebi Arabic. I'm pointing out that they could perfectly well have taken it from standard Arabic even though it isn't their local vernacular.Largoplazo (talk)14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  The etymology of most English words involves sources in other languages it's not an English word, it's a borrowed word and the claim that OED is making is not about how it was borrowed and when, instead it's about another language that the OED has no authority on.

  the OED's claims about other languages being irrelevant that's right. The OED is an authority on the English language and English language only. Other languages have their own authorities.
  
  

  Going back to what the OED says (according to LEvalyn):

  Maghribi Arabicšakšūka, ultimately of imitative origin (compare the relatedšakšaka to bubble, to sizzle, to be mixed up, to be beaten together.)

  
  

  In which language is "šakšaka" supposed to be?M.Bitton (talk)17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  The OED uses a very compressed style of conveying information which specialists are trained to decode. In context, the formatting of "MaghribiArabic" with only Arabic in bold and the keyword "compare" together indicate that šakšūka is primarily in Maghribi dialects of Arabic but the related šakšaka is from any variant of Arabic.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  the related šakšaka is from any variant of Arabic how did you come to that conclusion?M.Bitton (talk)19:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because Maghribi is not in bold to restrict all following statements to only the Maghribi contexts, and we are told to "compare" which means we are looking at a different linguistic context than the original piece of information.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  it's not an English word, it's a borrowed word Can you explain how that quibble has any impact at all on the issue here? If by, say, 50 years from now, "shakshouka" is as accepted a word in English as "broccoli", will that magically change how much the OED genuinely knows about its origins? That objection of yours is a dead end.

  You seem to be of the impression that ifyou don't know what language it's from, then either I have to know or you get to unilaterally discount the source incompetent.You are not the reliable fact checker on all our sources.The OED is an authority on the English language and English language only. Other languages have their own authorities. You're just repeating the same assertion that, as I already pointed out, doesn't make sense. Etymology involves going back to other languages. It's as though you told me that no credence can be given to OED when it traces the origin of "sugar" beyond Old French to Arabic because it isn't an authority on Old French etymology.

  What do you think, that OED etymologies come to us from an in-house group of five or six people doing all the primary research on hundreds of thousands of words on their own, andmaking up words in Maghribi Arabic just to vex you? Don't you think they're accessing thousands of resources by people whoare authorities in their respective domains and recording the information they receive fromthem?Largoplazo (talk)22:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's as though you told me that no credence can be given to OED when it traces the origin of "sugar" beyond Old French to Arabic it's not the same thing since one is verifiable and attributable to multiple RS, while the other is not.

  Don't you think they're ... I tend to judge the sources in context.

  1) They are making a claim about a language. 2) That language has dictionaries, etc. Now, this simple question should normally highlight what I'm referring to:

  In what way is the word "Shakshouka" related tošakšaka? This is the same word that LEvalyn mentioned above (seewikt:شخشخ). If you know of any other "šakšaka" that they could possibly be referring to, then please do not hesitate to share.M.Bitton (talk)22:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  ... it's not the same thing since one is verifiable and attributable to multiple RS ... is just more of "ifI don't know where it comes from, then it isn't verifiable". It's like saying "OED may have half a dozen of its own reliable sources for this, but because I haven't seen them, then they don't exist and I get to declare that OED itself isn't a reliable source for this".

  If you know of any other ... is repetition of the same bankrupt "if I haven't heard of it and you haven't heard of it, then I get to ignore the reliable source, ordeclare it unreliable" argument that I already addressed.

  What's reliable and what isn't for Wikipedia purposes isn't determined by what M. Bitton and his interlocutors do or don't already know.Largoplazo (talk)01:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  When you sayClaims that it makes about other languages are irrelevant, I think you aren't taking into account what etymology is or what lexicographers do. Lexicographers do not specialize in only a single language, because doing so would make it impossible for them to research etymology. For example, here is the OED etymology for algebra:

  < post-classical Latinalgebra algebraic computation (12th or 13th cent.), surgical treatment of fractures (c1300)< Arabical-jabr<al the +jabr restoration (of anything which is missing, lost, out of place, or lacking), reunion of broken parts, (hence specifically) surgical treatment of fractures<jabara to restore, to reunite, (hence specifically in a medical context) to set broken bones.

  CompareMiddle French, French †algebre (nowalgèbre) (a1376 in an apparently isolated attestation, subsequently from 1554; 1546 in Rabelais asalgebra, all denoting the branch of mathematics; 1611 in Cotgrave in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures),Spanishalgebra (a1450 denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1552 denoting the branch of mathematics),Portugueseálgebra (1519 denoting the branch of mathematics; 1712 in medical use),Italianalgebra (1598 in Florio denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1606 denoting the branch of mathematics); alsoMiddle Dutch, Dutchalgebra (1460 in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1612 denoting the branch of mathematics),GermanAlgebra (1460 inpuech algebra un almalcobula lit. ‘book of algebra and almacabala’ as the title of a translation of al-Ḵwārizmī's mathematical treatise; 1489 asalgobre, denoting the branch of mathematics). Comparealmacabalan.

  Is it possible for the OED to be wrong? Sure, and if a specialist in Arabic etymology offered more or different information, we could use that over the OED. But the source you restored to the article, and are currently defending, isMug Meals. As Largoplazo notes, we don't evaluate sources based on whether we agree with them. We evaluate them based on their verifiability and editorial standards. Moreover, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can upgrade fromMug Meals to the OED now and still upgrade again later if some even better source is found.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not compare apples to oranges. We're talking about a baseless claim here. As for the sources that are already cited in the article, they don't make any claims about etymology.M.Bitton (talk)19:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? My entire point is that the OED's claims are not baseless and we should cite the OED for shakshuka's etymology. IfMug Meals is not making a claim about etymology, why did you restore it to the article as a preferred citation for the etymology?~ L 🌸 (talk)19:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  They are baseless: the only word "šakšaka" that is found in the English sources refers to something else (written completely differently in Arabic). I restored them because they are about the definition (if that means that the section should be renamed definition and etymology, then so be it).M.Bitton (talk)19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they're baseless because you say so, because you're certain that if you don't know something, they can't possibly know it. Got it.Largoplazo (talk)22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Answeringthis question would help.M.Bitton (talk)22:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)