Talk:Falafel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Politico-cultural implications

I'm wondering if this should go into its own section rather than being covered under History>countries? Honestly we could probably create Falafel wars. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

And if we did, we should have a summary of it here as it's clearly relevant. VR _talk 21:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Any food item that is the subject of gastronationalistic argument needs that to be mentioned (at whatever length is appropriate) in the article. But IMO the sections on the different countries (or regional/ethnic variations, whatever group is arguing with whatever other group) should focus on the difference between the versions of the food rather than the politico-cultural implications. It's a food. Yes, people use it as a symbol, but that doesn't change the fact this article is about the food. An article about a food should be about history, yes, but it should really be heavy on ingredients/preparation/serving and the food's importance in cultural traditions such as commonly being served at certain celebrations. Its modern importance as a political symbol should be part of the article, but probably in its own section. And if that section is so important that it starts to be the majority of the article, it should be a spinoff. Because this article is about a food. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the encyclopedia article about a food should be heavy on ingredients/preparation/serving, include yes but focused on no, though it definitely should be heavy on the food's importance in cultural tradition, but I dont think an encyclopedia article on a food should be heavy on what would be in a cookbook. I think thats losing the forest for the trees, this is supposed to have encyclopedic content about the topic, and that it is mashed up fava beans or chickpeas and deep fried is not really what I think of when I think of "encyclopedia". nableezy - 22:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The most important facts about a food are its history, use, ingredients, preparation, serving, traditional/cultural uses. Fava beans vs chickpeas is important; different regions/cultures have different ingredients available. Deep fried vs baked vs boiled vs fermented is important; different cultures have different methods available. Breakfast food vs feast food is important. Served hot or cold, served as a main or side or usually eaten as a street food, ubiquitous at weddings...these are important when we're talking about a food. Valereee (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it shouldnt be the focus of the encyclopedia article on the food. Like should we focus on cookbooks or on academic works about the food? Id say the latter, nableezy - 22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We should focus on what reliable sources are saying about the food itself, in the article about the food. The symbolic/political uses of a food are not about the food, so they're secondary. If they're important enough, we create Political importance of falafel. Valereee (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Gastronationalism is certainly a thing. Should it be WP:POVFORKed away from the subject matter about which there is a gastronationalistic dispute? I don't think so. It's what separates a cookery book from an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that things like cultural appropriation of a food is not about the food, and I also agree with DeCausa that what youre suggesting is a POVFORK, that things that dont follow a certain line need to be hived off to some secondary article. The topic of "falafel" is made up of what reliable sources discuss about falafel, and here that includes the cultural appropriation of falafel. nableezy - 23:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't discuss it here, of course we do. It's been politicized, and that's important to understanding the overall subject. But the food itself is the subject of this article. If what academics are discussing is the politicization of the food, they are discussing another subject: the politicization of foods such as falafel, hummus, etc. and the cultural appropriation of Arab foods by Israel. It's not a point of view fork. It's a food that is thousands of years old and which (until very recently, in relative terms) has become a political football. And entire books have been written about that politicization. Articles have appeared in academic journals. A documentary has been made about it.

Yes, it does matter what RS are discussing, and of course peer-reviewed current academic publishing is always best. And if they’re discussing the food, it definitely belongs here, including its recent history of politicization. I think it belongs in a section of its own.

But if what academics are discussing -- and mostly they are -- is the political uses the food is being put to, they aren't discussing the primary subject of this article. It doesn’t mean discussing the fact this food is being used politically doesn’t belong here at all, of course it should be mentioned in whatever way is appropriate. But it does mean academics who study the politics of food are discussing a different subject: The politicization of Middle Eastern foods, or whatever. This is an article about the food itself, and this article should be focused on the food. An article about the politicization of Middle Eastern foods is not a point of view fork. It's a notable subject, valid all on its own. Valereee (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I disagree, but we can definitely open this up to a wider audience to see what others think. But to me the idea that the politicization of the food is not part of the topic of the food is not one that is making a ton of sense to me, as to me they are clearly discussing the food, and its uses, and its cultural importance, and its symbolism. All of those things are about the food. But Id be happy seeking wider input. nableezy - 15:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not that it isn't a part of the topic. It's that it's not the primary subject of this article, which is the food itself. It's not that no discussion of this belongs here, it's that it should be a section, and if that section becomes long enough, with enough citations to reliable sources, it's worth creating an article, and that article is not a fork. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed on all parts besides it is not the primary subject, it is part of the primary subject to me. But yes, if it overwhelms the article then it can be split off. I dont think that has happened, and either way it would need to be covered here, including in the lead. Hell the fact that it could be its own article further establishes its weight here imo. nableezy - 20:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

And I agree with that: the fact it could be its own article does establish the fact it should at minimum be covered here. I think we can probably agree to disagree on what exactly falls under the primary subject.

For me, if we can go to a section, that's good enough for now.

And, yes, like anything else that is important to know about a subject, including in the lead. I feel that there's a good chance we can work out the details of all that as we work. Valereee (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think at the least where it says that it has been described as national dish in Israel that this has drawn complaints of cultural appropriation is appropriate in the portion on Israel, but the more detailed discussion I am fine moving in to a sub-section "Cultural appropriation" below a section on "Cultural significance". nableezy - 21:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, do you want to take a stab at that, and then I can maybe see what I think? Or would you prefer I try and you see what you think? Valereee (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Can try, though to be honest with everything else in the world this is lower on my priority scale than like 27 other things. But I can try, I got a few more in depth sources as well. nableezy - 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The section would also need to cover the views of the Open Source Food community that denies ownership of any dish to any geographic, ethnic, or religious group. See oue coverage of Jewish appropriation of the foods of Eastern Europe and of the European continent's appropriation of the Inca potato perpetrated by the Spanish conquistadors. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Open Source Food community? Valereee (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources, any at all, that discuss falafel in such a way? nableezy - 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"falafel is generically Middle Eastern, having originated in Egypt and found its way as far as Morocco and Saudi Arabia." per NYT, but attributed to some people so not usable per se. [1] Claudia Roden, born in Egypt and the author of The Book of Jewish Food, confirmed that while falafel was never specifically a Jewish dish, it was certainly eaten by Jews in Egypt and Syria. I'm not sure about "Arab origin." I'm pretty sure falafel was of Egyptian origin, but Arab? Any citation for that? Andre🚐 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The article says from Egypt? What are you responding to? (edit: oh I see the first line in the lead. WP:SOFIXIT, or create a section about that issue) nableezy - 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did [2] Andre🚐 22:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've made a stab at this, trying to find a version that can gain consensus. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

please do not remove sourced content about the history of falafel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)