Talk:Hyderabadi biryani

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fatimas1937. Peer reviewers: Mesa26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"...less frequently, chicken"?

In my experience, chicken is more common than beef nowadays. Nath 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the opposite seems to hold true. Perhaps we could just remove the "less frequently" qualifier? 80.47.173.238 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This was stated reference to authenticity and preference of people in Hyderabad.Wiki Raj 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Would agree with this. Chicken is far more common since it is not only more acceptable in India than beef, but also cheaper to consume and more popularly preferred for its distinctively different flavor. You could remove the less frequently, but it would be better to put chicken first and other meats second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.14.233 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Preferred Meat

The current article is inconsistent. The preamble states that goat is the default meat, and chicken is a substitute. The "Ingredients" section states that mutton is the default and that both goat and chicken are alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tijm6140 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

recipe

The recipe is gone, while the introduction to the recipe still is in the article. 213.10.80.25 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

Name of the article should be "Hyderabadi Biryani". What say? @Vin09 and Rizwanmahai: --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Hyderabadi biryani. Clear consensus this is the common spelling and "biryani" should be decapitalised per Wikipedia's MoS. Mergers are generally outside the scope of RM, if anyone wants to follow up on that they should probably start a new discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Hyderabadi biriyani → Hyderabadi Biryani – WP:COMMONNAME. Main article on this type of recipe is also named Biryani, article itself uses term "Biryani" everytime and not "Biriyani". Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Note to closer Please read the discussion carefully as there was a great deal of confusion about where the article was going to end up (i.e. most people seem to have misunderstood it as being a move to the non-capitalised form biryani from biriyani rather than to Biryani). Ogress _smash! 02:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per Biryani page spelling, but no idea on whether it be caps for B.--Vin09 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to biryani instead. Almost a complete overlap of content. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to biryani. Also, since we aren't speaking German, why would we capitalise biryani? Ogress _smash! 17:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support rename … comment whilst adequate redirects are in place, within the various articles, spellings are inconsistent, this reflects the 'real world', but looks tacky. Biriani, etc. are other variants.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC) … … nb biryani, lower case.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know why some users asking for "merge". There are already articles on many other Biryanis mentioned in this article. It seems that there is no objection for the move except "B" should be in lowercase. So we can move article to Hyderabadi biryani and can start new discussion for "merge". Hyderabadi biryani gets more than million results on google search [1]. Hyderabadi biryani is also likely to get Geographical Indication (GI) tag [2]. This Biryani has special identity and deserves separate article on it. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

the article had 3500 hits last month

I am recommending a merge because almost all of the content in the article is applicable to biryani, and is not particular to Hyderabadi biryani. In the whole article there is only one sentence that falls in the latter category ("Hyderabadi biryani originated after blending of Mughlai and Iranian cuisine in the kitchens of the Nizam, rulers of the historic Hyderabad State.").

I haven't looked at other biryani articles, and if they are similar largely duplicative content forks, they should be merged back to the biryani article too. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The ingredients and cooking methods are 'variations on a theme', but distinct. I agree that all the articles are a bit 'over explanatory' or stating the obvious (on main page chicken biryani is made with chicken, beef biryani is made with beef etc). Pincrete (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move to Hyderabadi biryani (lowercase b) per nom. Oppose a merge. There's too much content here to put in the main article and there are several other standalone articles on other biryanis. —  AjaxSmack  02:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per Biryani page.Srinu523 (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per Biryani page. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Srinu523, Davey2010, Pincrete, Human3015, and Abecedare: The proposed name is capitalised, which is specifically against Wikipedia MOS, why are people voting in favor of it? Ogress _smash! 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I, and I think others, are assuming that the non-B option is now the proposal (ie simply respelling biryani consistent with related pages).Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did actually assume the Uppercase B was part of it but if it's not then I just support the correct spelling. –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I support biryani and mentioned the page name. Srinu ^{(Talk | contrib)} 19:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hyderabadi biryani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120713060843/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/related_features/article1474804.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/related_features/article1474804.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

LeoFrank it is observed that rather than correcting the article and raising your objection on talk page, you are simply spoiling the article by reverting my cited edits. I feel you are trying to advocate Macrakis with wrong intention to promote editwarring like situation between both of us. We both are working on this article quite from some time with mutual understanding, he is guiding me to construct this very article. I humbly ask you not to promote your wrong intentions if any among users. Please support us to bring this article to GA and then FA. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Peacock and falsification

@Omer123hussain:, thank you for the note on my Talk page. I'm replying here because this is the right place to discuss the article. Despite saying that you have incorporated my suggestions, your latest edits directly conflict with what I said about your earlier edits in this edit summary:

a) UNESCO is about the cuisine as a whole

The UNESCO Creative Cities program does not mention Hyderabadi or any other biryani: [3], and the Times of India articles does not say that it is "the pinnacle of Hyderabadi cuisine" -- it only mentions biryani in general with the title "Magic of Biryani helps Hyderabad bag UNESCO title". Your edit is dishonest and constitutes source falsification.

b) lots of WP:PEACOCK language

WP does not use puffery and peacock language:

• "elevated Hyderabadi biryani to an art form"
• "meticulously prepared"
• "the pinnacle of Hyderabadi cuisine"
• "cooked through the careful process"

c) grammatical errors

"both cooked through the careful process of dum pukht" -- things are not cooked "through" a process

"Hyderabadi biryani distinguishes itself from regular biryani by the time-consuming process to cook" -- "the process to cook" is not English

"their techniques used for required ingredients, time, and equipments was what differentiated it from regular biryani"

Multiple problems with the English in this one phrase:

• "techniques used for required ingredients" -- "the" missing? even so, fairly unintelligible
• "equipments" -- "equipment" is non-countable
• "their techniques ... was " -- subject-verb agreement

Also:

• "professionally trained chefs were quintessential" -- seems to be using "quintessential" as a stronger form of "essential", which it is not
• "Despite the legend bout [sic] the Nizam's professionally trained chefs were quintessential"

"bout" seems to be a typo for "about" (inherited from an earlier version), but what is needed here is "that"

• "Traditionally cooking of Hyderabadi biryani is processed in periodic method" -- unintelligible
• "The final assembling of Yakhni at the bottom of the pot, a layer of Adhan is spread over Yakhni, sprinkled with saffron flavored warm milk." -- missing main verb

d) irrelevant sources

There are lots of weak sources used:

• The support for the claim "Despite the legend bout [sic] the Nizam's professionally trained chefs were quintessential [sic] to the birth of biryani" is a quotation from an Indian restaurant chef in North Carolina which doesn't even actually say this.
• The support for the alternate name "Hyderabadi dum biryani" is from an American encyclopedia of meat which mentions that name in passing. Oh, by the way, it also says that it is only has "slight variations" from other biryanis, contradicting the claims in this article about uniqueness. But in any case, it isn't really a WP:RS for names of H.B.

Taking all this together, what do I conclude about User:Omer123hussain?

1. They are ignoring advice and refusing to get the point.
2. They are edit warring by restoring problematic content rather than discussing it.
3. Their English may be inadequate for editing WP.
4. They do not appear to understand NPOV and are trying to promote a particular point of view.

I do hope that Omer123hussain can become a productive WP editor, but for now, the density of errors, policy violations, and POV-pushing is high enough that it is reasonable to revert en bloc rather than try to fix the large number of problems with their edits. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Macrakis:, will comeback with 1) all reliable sources supporting the claim, 2) Yes due to non native speaker of English there minght be grammar errors, so will correct all those once actively participating on WP. Regards :)—--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Omer123hussain, you still don't seem to be willing to address points 1 and 2 raised by Macrakis. You have edit warred and you still seem to be in denial of that. FWIW, you go about calling our reversions as edit war while you happily continue to do that. Read WP:BRD thoroughly. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: all your blankings are without discussion, and deserves reversal. Once i get time, will answer to Macrakis quaries and appriciate his c/e technique and guidance. Regards –:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Omer123hussain I cannot help about your sheer arrogance in your blatant statement where you are justifying an edit war. You still seem to lack understanding of how things work here: refusing to get the point and your justification of edit war. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Macrakis:, thanks you for your c/e, review, and discussing on talkpage.

a) UNESCO is about the cuisine as a whole

The dossier have mentioned about it and it can be confirmed here "universally acclaimed dishes such as Haleem and Biryani," according to the dossier submitted by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to UNESCO, claiming a place in UCCN." and here. Any way I removed that content by myself. I thought, as a signature dish of that cuisine its worth mentioning in any appropriate form, such as the subject is an key part of UNESCO recognized cuisine.....

b) lots of WP:PEACOCK language

WP does not use puffery and peacock language:

• "elevated Hyderabadi biryani to an art form"

• If any food reached to an art form then it's worth mentioning, making food can also be art. this, this, and this also cite it.

"meticulously prepared"

• Cited from here

"the pinnacle of Hyderabadi cuisine

• Choose that word with the purpose to avoid c/e issue, it can be replaced with suitable.

"While Biryani and Haleem are signature dishes of the city"

from here, here, "The delectable haleem and biryani have once earned global recognition ...." and here,

"cooked through the careful process"

• How does careful is PEACOCK here ? it is cited from here, here

c) grammatical errors

"both cooked through the careful process of dum pukht" -- things are not cooked "through" a process ::"Hyderabadi biryani distinguishes itself from regular biryani by the time-consuming process to cook" -- "the process to cook" is not English ::"their techniques used for required ingredients, time, and equipments was what differentiated it from regular biryani"

Multiple problems with the English in this one phrase:

• "techniques used for required ingredients" -- "the" missing? even so, fairly unintelligible
• "equipments" -- "equipment" is non-countable
• "their techniques ... was " -- subject-verb agreement

Also:

• "professionally trained chefs were quintessential" -- seems to be using "quintessential" as a stronger form of "essential", which it is not
• "Despite the legend bout [sic] the Nizam's professionally trained chefs were quintessential"

"bout" seems to be a typo for "about" (inherited from an earlier version), but what is needed here is "that"

• "Traditionally cooking of Hyderabadi biryani is processed in periodic method" -- unintelligible
• "The final assembling of Yakhni at the bottom of the pot, a layer of Adhan is spread over Yakhni, sprinkled with saffron flavored warm milk." -- missing main verb

• Article is in filling stage and I am non-English native, later in reviews you and guild of c/e can help.

d) irrelevant sources

There are lots of weak sources used:

• The support for the claim "Despite the legend bout [sic] the Nizam's professionally trained chefs were quintessential [sic] to the birth of biryani" is a quotation from an Indian restaurant chef in North Carolina which doesn't even actually say this.
• The support for the alternate name "Hyderabadi dum biryani" is from an American encyclopedia of meat which mentions that name in passing. Oh, by the way, it also says that it is only has "slight variations" from other biryanis, contradicting the claims in this article about uniqueness. But in any case, it isn't really a WP:RS for names of H.B.

• Tag the content and let me know, I will replace with more reliable citations, reverting the content is not advisable.

Taking all this together, what do I conclude about User: Macrakis?

1. Your review is important but article is still in immature stage, so let me complete the work then you may proceed with review, then only we will be able to submit for GA.

My style of editing the article is that; add the content, cite it with reliable citations, c/e, organise citation style, seek review from Editors and Guild. Submit for GA. Regards :)---Omer123hussain (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comments above confirm what User:LeoFrank said above: you "lack understanding of how things work here", both as to process and as to goals. Your "style of editing" isn't quite the way things work. You should be adding reliable citations at the same time as adding content. It's not enough to promise to find better citations later. And you should be careful to stick to what the sources actually say.

As for goals, our goal here is not to promote Hyderabadi biryani, but to describe it. For example, instead of saying that it is cooked through a "careful" process using "exotic ingredients" and a "mix of innovations", we describe how the cooking process differs from other biryanis. --Macrakis (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)