Talk:Shakshouka

Untitled

I'm not sure whether this article and chakchouka should be merged, but they seem to describe the same dish. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes originally from North Africa and seems to be an amazigh word. As many recipes in Israel, that come from East or South Europa, North Africa or Middle East, it can't be said properly «israeli recipe», as it can be said « jewish recipe ». I'm asking an amazight speaker about the meaning, to confirm that it's a north african word. Anyway, «shakshouka» and «chakchouka» (also said «choukchouka», «tchoutchouka», «tatouka», etc.) are the same, except that there's local variants: in Algeria and, as I can know it, in Morocco, it never contains meat; in Tunisia it can contain «merguez»; some variants are made without eggs. Olivier Hammam 09:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. I forgot to mention it yesterday, but I've completed the merge. Someone had set up a redirect, but didn't move the content from the other article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn't appear to work, so I removed the (inaccurate) Hebrew etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.92.14 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed "In Hebrew it means “all mixed up". Despite the article in the Jewish Chronical, the word shakshuka does not mean that in Hebrew. Check any dictionary. It might be used as a metaphor for something that is all mixed up, like salad in English, but salad does not mean "all mixed up" either. Certainly "all mixed up" is not the etymology -- the source or origin -- of either word, shakshuka or salad.Linguistatlunch (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It cant be a very old dish since tomatoes and peppers where only introduced to the these cuisines after their cultivation in Europe.-- 77.118.41.164 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In Turkey "Şakşuka" is nothing like what is described here. This one resembles the "menemen". But the turkish şakşuka is more like the Ratatouille. 94.122.192.69 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkish saksuka is a completely different dish, I added a more accurate description in the article backed up by reliable sources. No reason for people to argue over factual information. Reinhearted (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Similar dishes

This section is confusing, probably because more than one person has contributed to it and, as is so often the case, there's been no check on consistency.

"Shakshouka is similar to the Turkish dish menemen, and the Mexican breakfast dish huevos rancheros but different in the fact that the egg yolks are kept whole instead of scrambled."

Well, for a start we could improve on that with this:

"Shakshouka is similar to the Turkish dish menemen, and to the Mexican breakfast dish huevos rancheros, but different in that the egg yolks are whole instead of scrambled."

But the information is wrong anyway. The eggs in huevos rancheros are not scrambled but fried. And therefore "whole". I would argue that shakshouka and huevos rancheros are pretty similar, and that it's the spices which make the difference. Although I admit that the eggs in shakshouka are more-or-less poached rather than fried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.236.90 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Change "Jewish Dish" to "Israeli Dish"

I have seen this create some confusion among people looking at this article, who don't understand the nuances of the process of aliyah and the creation of the modern israeli society. We should also clarify that it arrived in israel as part of the maghrebi jews migrating to Israel.

Unless I'm missing something here?--Paolorausch (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing is the Jewish influence, even arguably extending to the creation of the dish, predates the re-establishment of the Jewish state. I think your points could be further expanded in mainspace certainly. What really pisses me off at the moment is sporadic attempts to deny Jewish linkage of the dish, which is basically racist vandalism. Irondome (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What is racist vandalism is constantly emphasizing it as an Israeli or Jewish dish when it is really a North African dish eaten by all North Africans, Muslim, Jewish, Arab and Berber. It's even become a common dish in some Mashriq countries. Even more aggravating is when moron pro-Israel shills try to exaggerate its uniquely "Israeli" identity as opposed to being part of the common regional culinary heritage. Part of the all too common Israeli attempt at using its Mizrahi/Sephardi population (whom it otherwise historically discriminated against) to appropriate various regional dishes and pass them off as distinctively "Israeli" to naive foreigners. Zionist appropriation of local cuisine or attempt to pass it off as being uniquely Israeli or even broadly Jewish when its eaten by all in the Maghreb needs to stop. It's an insult to the region's peoples, including MIzrahi/Sephardi Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.73.241 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite the fact the commentor above is a bigot who's probably unaware of his own bigotry, I have to agree with him on the "Jewish linkage". The dish is definitely not Jewish (it's called in Israel Tunisian Shakshuka for a reason). Almost no one in Israel claims it's Jewish, so what "Jewish influence" do you see exactly? You're very ignorant on the subject in my opinion. While there are some cuisines which are originally Mizrahi Jews and not middle eastern like Jahnoon and Sabi'h, Shakshuka is definitely not part of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.7.61 (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not a bigot. That you think so reflects your own ignorance. Israeli appropriation of local dishes and passing them off as distinctively Israeli has been documented and criticized by many academics and historians, including those of Israeli background. Zionism as a settler-colonial movement threatened the Palestinian people. Rejecting Zionism (without adopting an anti-semitic disposition or guilt by association mentality) is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. That you think my comment is bigotry indicates your delusional understanding of anti-Zionism, as well as the fact that you are probably one of those idiots who thinks Zionism is a nice moral movement and completely oblivious about what it did to Palestinians (in which case you probably lack a human conscience and should probably be avoided all costs). Zionism has no legitimacy in my book and should be fought tooth and nail. But the point still stands - Shakshouka is a North African dish shared by all Maghrebi people (Jewish and Muslim, Arab and Berber and Sephardi). This sectarian Israeli co-optation of all indigenous foods as Israeli Jewish, using the heritage of Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews for its own agenda is disgusting. I would say the same thing if it was a Muslim movement doing the same thing. Hummus, falafel, kanafeh, baklava, shawarma, ful mudammas, shakshouka, kifteh, Ottoman coffee, are not Israeli or distinctively Jewish.The Zionist settler-colonialists adopted the dishes of the locals whom they later mostly expelled. This ideological attempt to make all these dishes Israeli or distinctively Jewish ignores the common regional hertiage of these foods shared by the region's Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze and others. Jewish communities have their own dishes, indeed, but they also partook in the common regional cuisine. They weren't cut off from their environment, the Zionist narrative of Jewish history notwithstanding. Shakshouka is Maghrebi, not Jewish, not Muslim. Maghrebi. Its as simple as that. For your information, there are many critics, including leftist anti-Zionist Israelis, who have criticized the Israeli co-optation of local traditions in culture to manufacture a certain sense of nationhood even though its cultural appropriation. If Israelis like eating that food, that's fine. Its expected when you move somewhere to adapt the local cuisine. But recognize that its part of the wider regional cuisine (shared by Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, etc) of which Israeli Jews are a part, Zionist Euro-oriented delusions notwithstanding. Pointing that out is not bigotry, especially when the OP (Irondome) has a wikipedia history of pushing a pro-Israel POV on these culinary articles and accusing anyone who disagrees of being racist. I suggest you read the dictionary on bigotry before you accuse me of being a bigot. Pardon the repetitiveness but your ignorance is particularly maddening. 96.87.73.241 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Read Nadia Abu El Haj about Israeli attempts to project a mythologized reconstructed Jewish identity onto the archaeology and landscape of the Levant, at the expense of the many other groups and archaeological heritage present in Palestine. All part of the Zionist nationalist ideal to assert an authentic indigenous unitary monochromatic version of Jewish identity that didn't exist by appropriate various local cultural elements, even though they aren't uniquely or distinctively Jewish but part of the greater MENA region, displacing actual rich diasporic Jewish cultures that developed in Europe, the Middle East-North Africa, India and elsewhere. So spare me the drivel about bigotry.96.87.73.241 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic has been beaten to death. Cultural appropriation issues notwithstanding, given that this dish is undeniably a staple food in current vegetarian form across North Africa, some evidence needs to be provided to support less likely claim that dish originated or was 'influenced' by Jewish North Africans who made up 2% of population at peak. Much more likely that Jews adopted local dish throughout various waves of migration to North Africa, then undeniably brought it with them to Israel in 20th Century where it has become popular. Irondome: a 1 sentence statement in Jewish cookbook claiming Jewish orginin is NOT reliable evidence. I am a new poster to Wikipedia, not a banned user as previously suggested, but you do not need to be a Wikipedia expert to understand that evidence is needed to substantiate an unlikely claim. Unless reliable evidence or some convincing argument can be provided, the claim should not be included in the article. Dish should be attributed broadly as North African without making additional unfounded claims as to origin from a small population within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo.jones (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew name in the lede

Hello @ZackTheCardshark: No one says otherwise but its an Arabic word, Hebrew is unrelated. So it doesn't mean you have to put its name because it is used in Israeli cuisine.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah Canbel: Thanks, I found my way to MOS:FORLANG and this makes sense. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, hold on. As I was going to change it back, I checked the source in the "Etymology" section, and it says the word is Hebrew. Now I don't know what to think. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@ZackTheCardshark: Thank you for leaving this note, I would like to say this dish is a Tunisian origin and I don't think in Tunisia they speak Hebrew, Shakshouka was first brought to Israel in the 1950s by Jews migrating from that area.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehension.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have restored the organizational changes made by 161.10.59.76, but would like an explanation of what content needs to be adjusted for NPOV. I also don't understand why you removed content about shakshouka being served as an evening meal in Israel - I don't think it is found on evening menus in all countries, so isn't this quirk worth a brief mention? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Palestine? Is it to be erased from memory? Not to be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popenda (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Place of origin

It seems that multiple users are editing back and fourth with one another over the origin of the dish, instead of bickering over and over how about we try to find a resolution instead Reinhearted (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple users have reverted your changes. That is a strong signal that you should stop edit warring. I am restoring the longstanding, sourced version of the infobox. When you changed the infobox to North Africa it made the infobox inconsistent with the (sourced) version of the article by erasing Yemen as a possible origin. I think a Yemenite origin is unlikely for this dish but it is sourced and has been in the article for many years. The removal needs to be discussed because it is controversial. If it's removed from the infobox it should also be removed from the article for consistency, but you should gain a consensus for these changes instead of edit warring. Spudlace (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Cariema Isaacs

@Macrakis: I removed the page needed tag because this is an e-book that does not have page numbers. Spudlace (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spudlace: Do you have access to the full text? "According to food historians" is awfully vague; it would be much better to know which food historians it's talking about (which is why I added a tag), especially since in another place in the same book, it says "Shakshuka's origin is Tunisian and is enjoyed across North Africa and the Middle East". Having the full context would help: I wonder if the two passages are talking about two different versions. Perhaps the meat stew version of the dish is Ottoman and the egg version is Tunisian as Gil Marks says.

Unfortunately, none of the histories of Ottoman food I have mention şakşuka, though they mention several other egg dishes, notably enderun yumuratası (which is onion-based): Işin (Bountiful Empire), Yerasimos (500 Years), and Barbu (Earthly Delights). Yerasimos intriguingly mentions (p. 201) a recipe for eggs with tomato in Nedim bin Tosun's book, which I have ordered but don't have yet.

In the meantime, there are lots of RS that call it a Tunisian dish. --Macrakis (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also thought it needed a second source so I did some more research. Joan Nathan was the best source I was able to find. She's a recognized expert on Jewish cuisine who has won multiple significant awards for her work on Jewish culture and cooking. Spudlace (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and she says it was in Ottoman North Africa according to your quote! Between her and Gil Marks, the story seems to be that the meat stew was Ottoman (unspecified geography) and the egg version was Tunisian. Perhaps specifically Jewish Tunisian, but since Gil Marks only talks about the Jewish aspect of the foods he covers (it is after all a book about Jewish cuisine), that is less clear. --Macrakis (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Macrakis, I'll see if this can be made clearer in the article (only after I've had some coffee!) Gil Marks does say there was an Ottoman dish saksuka (made without tomatoes), that evolved to the modern form of the dish (with tomatoes) in North Africa. Where he writes "When the Ottoman tomato stew reached the Maghreb..." it may just be a typo. It does help to have a second (and third) source to confirm that tomatoes arrive in Europe in the mid-16th century through Spain, and the tomato form of the Ottoman stew originated in North Africa. I guess that's why Nathan's known as the "matriarch of Jewish cooking". Spudlace (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to get some non-Israeli, non-Jewish sources for the North African part of the history, too. See above in this Talk, where it's claimed that it is pan-Maghrebi, not specific to Tunisia, and not specific to Jews.

Re tomatoes, there is no question that they arrived as part of the Columbian exchange, and I don't think it adds anything to quote Nathan on that. --Macrakis (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why "non-Israeli, non-Jewish sources"? I think it was known in Israel before the 20th-century migrations of Jews, but the content of the article that it was introduced to Israel by Tunisian Jews is sacrosanct around here. It seems that folks are perennially unsatisfied with emphasizing one country as the origin because there is no evidence supporting any of the theories. We only know, generally, that tomatoes arrived in the mid-16th century, and that they were more likely to have reached North Africa before they reached Yemen. So, in evaluating the quality of a source, I think Nathan is recognized for the quality of her work. Spudlace (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's always good to have WP:Third-party sources when good ones exist. An Israeli source will naturally be Israel-centric, and might not be aware of the full Maghrebi history. A Palestinian source may want to demonstrate that shakshouka predates the Zionist immigration to Palestine, whereas a Jewish source might be inclined to prefer a Jewish origin (even if Tunisian Jewish). Most New Yorkers think of shakshouka as an Israeli dish, because there are more Israelis than Tunisians in New York. A Maghrebi source will naturally privilege a Maghrebi origin. etc. etc. Of course, NPOV says we should report on all reputable POVs.

The Yemeni story right now is based on one newspaper article, which I'd be inclined to discount. I don't think we need to make arguments based on when the tomato arrived in Yemen. --Macrakis (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I ask that you strike the above comment, it is very offensive. It's just not true that an Israeli source will "naturally be Israel-centric" or that Jews did not live in Israel prior to what you are calling "the Zionist immigration". We have two sources, one is a Jewish author, one is an Arab author, and I will make the changes later so the article reflects those views.Spudlace (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's to be expected that the perspective of an author from country X (for all X!) will be different from that of an author from country Y, which is why we have a policy on WP:Third-party sources. --Macrakis (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Re Zionist immigration, there were certainly some Jews in Palestine before it, but the point was that a Palestinian might want to emphasize different aspects of the dish's history. --Macrakis (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, who is the Arab author you mention? --Macrakis (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Need better sources for origin

Most sources agree that the egg dish (as opposed to the meat dishes of the same name) is Maghrebi. As far as I can tell, the claim that it is from Ottoman Turkey (as opposed to the Ottoman Maghreb) or from Yemen come from one newspaper article, which doesn't seem like a particularly solid source, as it doesn't give its own sources. I think we can "demote" those claims as non-mainstream. --Macrakis (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis I don't know if you are aware that this article suffers from routine vandalism to change the origin to Tunisian/Moroccoan/Algerian/whatever. It is certainly likely that it originated in North Africa (most probably Spain to North Africa to the rest of the Ottoman Empire) but there is no evidence of whether it was Morocco or Tunisia. I also think Turkey and Yemen can be removed as unlikely origins. On the other hand, I think the source accurately reflects an ongoing dispute among the communities of Israel, and is mainstream as such, and has value to not be erased from the article that there is these rivalries among Israelis. I've restored the stable version for now. Spudlace (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

I noticed Israel wasn't mentioned in the lede at all, so I changed this to Israeli cuisine. Before doing this I searched for confirmation in reliable sources that this dish in its poached egg form is consumed anywhere outside Israel. I couldn't find any such confirmation (although similar dishes like Uovos in Purgatorio are given brief mention). To the contrary, it may be that shakshouka refers mostly to non-egg dishes outside Israel? Then I saw this recently published article:

Shakshuka, which is consumed daily in Tunisia, is referred to by all as ‘Israeli’, while the cultural identity of the Tunisian community in which it was invented is erased.

If this is true it would be nice to have other sources confirming it so we can change the lede back because it definitely wasn't my intention to erase any cultural identities. If no other sources can be found I am going to remove some of this. Spudlace (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is probably a little inappropriate to define it in those terms, as the dish is widely consumed across the Middle East. I still need to find a good source for this, but it appears to be pretty common knowledge People eat it all over North Africa, Egypt and the Levant, as one would expect of a dish initially conceived in the 16th century. I'm also not 100% sure if the Tunisian specific angle is totally accurate either. Harissa is very Tunisian, but the dish can also be less or even not spicy. It's possible that the dish with harissa is just a Tunisian variant. There is obviously the Algerian chakchouka and I've seen claims of a Moroccan shakshouka too. Here, a Yemeni connection is even posited. By and large, I think reductionist labelling with regards to this dish is likely to be overly simplistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok it's fine with no national cuisine in the lede. I still have my doubts if its widely consumed across the Middle East because none of the sources are reliable by encyclopedia standards. There are similar dishes (like Uovos in Purgatorio and menemen) but I don't think they are called shakshouka in those countries. Most of those blogs copy us so we can't use them. It would be nice to have a reliable source with more details. Shakshuka is just a slang term for shaken anyway. The berber origin doesn't have much supporting it. It could be a play from sofrito too. There are a number of blogs that support this including the one linked above but we don't cite blogs. Spudlace (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• It shoud described as Israeli as it is mostly known as Israeli. It has a history of coming from Mexico and then by Jews who fled pogroms, but it is now part of the essantials of Iaraeli cooking. Free1Soul (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC) sock

Is this some kind of joke? How on earth can a dish that is closely associated with the Maghreb and attested there (Algeria and Tunisia) in sources that predate the creation of Israel be described as Israeli? I have restored the stable version that mentions the region it's associated with. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thank you for those sources. The source does mention a chakchouka from the colonial era, but it's for an omelette, possibly one of the fritata or egg tajines that go by different names today? Larousse also mentions a chakchouka closer to the dish described in this article. But just as I wouldn't use British primary sources for Indian cuisine, how can we be sure it's accurate to the authentic Berber culture? I am not joking nor trying to erase anyone's culture, and I readily admit my ignorance of Berber culture. My point is only this - 100% of reliable sources I have seen only mention the Maghreb as an influence on the Israeli cuisine, not the significance of this dish in the Maghreb itself. Is it served at the restaurants and cafes? Is it part of a typical Maghrebi breakfast? I haven't been able to find this out. Spudlace (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This book says Israeli. It is part of the standard Israeli breakfast. That it has a North African (and Mexican before) influence doea not make it less Israeli. Free1Soul (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC) sock

@Free1Soul: A book written by a photographer is a joke as far as RS is concerned. No other comments necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spudlace: One of the old sources describes it as an egg and tomato omelette, while the other describes it as a local speciality. I'm not aware of any other Chakchouka in the Maghreb. I wouldn't use old sources either (and those are not the only ones), but the point I was making is that since the dish is attested in the Maghreb long before the creation of Israel, describing it as Israeli makes no sense.

We have no reliable way of determining its significance in a vast region that is known for its rich and diverse culinary history, and even if we did, it would still be irrelevant to the fact that the Maghreb is regarded as its home (where it's still consumed to this day). Likewise, some sources mentioning its influence on the Israeli cuisine don't change a thing with regard to the fact that everything about it is Maghrebi, starting with its name. For instance, in her book "Culture and Customs of Israel", the anthropologist Rebecca L. Torstrick mentions its influence while acknowledging its home, by describing it as one of "the most renowned dishes" of the Maghreb. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

To suggest that Shakshouka is an israeli dish is like suggesting that Borscht is American. My Maghrebi friends constantly remind me that the reason it is popular in Israel is that Magrehbi Jews took it there! The article text seems to support this too. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 20:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok ... there just isn't anything in the article text about Maghrebi cuisine other than as a point of origin for an Israeli dish. There is some language ambiguity for non standard food terms. Sometimes egg shakshouka is called ojja. There's also الباذنجان شكشوكة without eggs. The food language may not be standard from Arabic to English so we may be missing some of the details because of Anglicization. It's a very common issue so I don't give etymologies too much weight. Spudlace (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Middle Eastern

This was added recently and reverted multiple times until an administrator protected the page. No discussion was started on the talk page but the edit warring has stopped for now. Is there any reason we shouldn't add Middle Eastern to the first sentence while keeping Maghrebi. It's been discussed previously and rejected to change it to Israeli or Jewish. Would the addition of Middle Eastern be an improvement? It has become part of the local cuisine of the Middle Eastern countries. It is just as much Middle Eastern as Maghrebi and often described that way by reliable sources. Spudlace (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Describing Shakshouka as Middle Eastern would be misleading at best, as it's no more Middle Eastern than any other dish that was recently introduced there. Please see the previous discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

See my comments to you above. I eat shakshouka here in NE England at least once a week, but I wouldn't call it a Geordy dish, even though (in this case) it has come here from Maroc. I've had terrific fish and chips in Rabat and Casablanca, but I wouldn't call it Maghrebi. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it French either, even though it is included in French cookbooks from the colonial era. But, Middle Eastern appears to be widely used by reliable sources. We would have to ignore very many reliable sources characterization of this as a signature Middle Eastern dish. The lede is not a statement of origin. We do include multiple countries (or regions when there are too manny countries to list) where there is strong support for this in reliable sources. Spudlace (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's describing it as French and the cookbooks from the colonial era in question (assuming you're referring to ones cited above) are about Algeria and Tunisia. They adopted it in the Middle East, just like they adopted many other dishes from other places, but that doesn't make the dish Middle Eastern. M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In your words: "How on earth can a dish that is closely associated with the Maghreb and attested there (Algeria and Tunisia) in sources[1][2] that predate the creation of Israel be described as Israeli?" These dubious sources are describing a fritatta dish, not the dish we call shakshouka today. It is a dish of the Tunisian-inspired food of France more than anything authentic to Tunisia, if we are to base our content on French sources from the early 20th century. This is not an ancient indigenous dish. I'm sorry, I feel like I am telling you there is no Santa Claus but the argument abot origin/etymology is not addressing this issue. Spudlace (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about the sources and I stand by what I said. If you have anything to add to the previous discussion, then it's still open (there is no need to start a new one). M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Your issue seems specific to the adoption of North African shakshuka in Israel and elsewhere. This is ignoring the version of shakshuka common in the Arabian Peninsula, which is very different from North African shakshuka and has been a very common dish for generations. High surv (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

“Globally popularized.”

This isn’t indicated in the cited article, which I read. This is a big claim. I am from New York and know people all over America. I inquired just now of many of them and none of us have ever heard of this dish. Is “globally popularized” really accurate? Alexandermoir (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Duponiuex, this edit was undone because it reinstated claims that are categorically false. The Jews that are historically associated with Shakshouka are not Sephardic Jews but specifically Maghrebi Jews, because it is a Maghrebi dish. And since it has been a Maghrebi dish for centuries, was only brought to Israel in the second half of the 20th century, and is now presented as Israeli cuisine, then it has been appropriated. If you have WP:reliable sources that somehow prove otherwise, you can seek consensus for changes here on the talk page. إيان (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The "cultural appropriation" accusation (a problematic concept to begin with) for a dish brought to Israel by North African Jews is ridiculous POV that is not accepted by most reliable sources. It is part of the fake narrative of those who want to present Israel as a "colonial" or strange entity imposed from outside instead of an indigenous culture going back to their roots, even when it comes to something as trivial as a meal. All Israeli food is in essence an amalgamation or fusion of dishes from many different Jewish communities that got together. It has nothing to do with the concept of cultural appropriation. You are basically comparing a dish eaten by Middle Eastern Jews for hundreds of years and adapted to Israeli meals (by the same kind or similar Jews) to a white guy in Minnesota wearing a Native American silk scarf. Gefilte fish was not "appropriated" by Israel. It was BROUGHT to Israel by Ashkenazi immigrants and adapted to that country's cuisine, together with many other dishes. Keep your petty nationalism out of the kitchen. Also, the claim that Shakshouka is "more Arab than Jewish" is laughable. What part of the Jpost source that you removed is so difficult to understand?: "To say that this is stolen food – not only is it inaccurate, it’s just lazy. The real reason that everybody in that region cooks the way they do is because of the Ottomans."--Duponiuex (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought that that was two regions? - Roxy the dog 05:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just trolling or something?Duponiuex (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Duponiuex: The opinion of a chef does not refute scholarly consensus as evidenced in the multiple WP:reliable academic journals that your edit removed. The chef's opinion will not be given WP:Undue coverage on this page. What you contribute on Wikipedia needs to be supported by WP:reliable sources. إيان (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This POV opinion on "cultural appropriation" is not agreed by all experts in the field of cuisine and will not be given WP:Undue weight here.Duponiuex (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• That whole part about Israel is UNDUE and promotional. The history section should be about the origin of the dish and to a lesser extent, a mention of where it was exported to. What some some local chefs think about it is irrelevant and so is the extraordinary claim that it has been "globally popularized". M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Shakshouka isnt Jewish and isn't prepared on Shabbat

In Jewish culture, a large batch of tomato stew is made for the Sabbath dinner and the leftovers used the following morning to make a breakfast shakshouka with eggs.

No, no and no.

There is no tomato stew in Jewish culture, annd shakshouka cannot be cooked on Shabbat morning. (only reheated) I have no access to the source.

• This may relate to a recent Israeli hack to use leftover matbucha sauce as a quick base for weekday shakshouka.

Eliedaat (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

The statement "Shakshouka is a Maghribi dish" may be misleading. While it is true that chakchouka is popular across the Maghreb region, including countries like Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, it is primarily associated with Moroccan cuisine. Therefore, I suggest revising the statement to clarify that while chakchouka is enjoyed in various Maghreb countries, it originated in Morocco and subsequently spread to other North African and Middle Eastern countries. This part of the article: "Shakshouka is a Maghribi dish" used to be: "Shakshouka is a Moroccan dish" on this exact Wikipedia article.

It is misleading because the word Maghribi in arabic = Moroccan. However the change made here not to use the Arab word for Morocco, but to make the dish anything but Moroccan.

The assertion that "shakshouka originated in Ottoman North Africa" is inaccurate and irrelevant. I propose removing this information from the article altogether.

These changes will help ensure that the article provides clear and accurate information about the origin and spread of chakchouka.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylmt (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skylmt: If you can back up the Moroccan origin with a source, then please add it. But as previous discussions on this page will show, there already sources attributing the dish's origin to one place or another, as well as sources corroborating that its origins are disputed. (I've moved your comment, & replied to it, down here at the end to try and keep this page relatively tidy.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Utter nonsense (from start to finish). M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

... it is primarily associated with Moroccan cuisine: What does this mean, exactly? If it means, "when most people think of shakshouka, they think of Morocco", but if, as well, it is true that chakchouka is popular across the Maghreb region, including countries like Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, then the latter is what we should convey. Our goal is to inform, not to leave people's inaccurate preconceptions undisturbed.

If you meant something different, then that's another story. Largoplazo (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention the dish is north African at the start

after saying it's a Maghrevi dish, we should say "(North African)" right after. Raturous (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It's redundant as the Maghreb is in North Africa. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

doesn't include Egypt, that's the point. Raturous (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Nor should it. Also, did you read the previous discussions? I did ask you to do so on your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it should. I thought you meant talk here, it's my first time using this feature. The article literally mentions that Egypt is one of the disputed countries of origin and is part of Egyptian cuisine, that clarification in the beginning is important. Raturous (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ya you did tell me to use this talk page "use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes" Raturous (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Those unsubstantiated claims shouldn't even be there. The bottom line is that this dish is associated with the Maghreb and nowhere else, even if it happens to be consumed worldwide. If you disagree, do what I did and provide some reliable sources that prove that it was known in Egypt in the 1950s or earlier. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion, and it's insane that you're even disputing what's written in the article already further down. I actually happened to find another wikipedia article that mentions its Egyptian root here: Shakshouka Raturous (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand you are not part of the culture, but to us disputing this is equivalent to disputing that we breathe air. Raturous (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's right, it's not a matter of opinion, so please provide the reliable sources that prove that it has been part of the Egyptian cuisine for a long time. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

i already have, click on the link Raturous (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Now anyways as it was already mentioned in the article that the origins are disputed in Egypt, I will go to the middle ground of not removing Maghrebi at the start and adding "(North African)" as a clarification right after. If you want to remove that "unsubstantiated" part, I recommend you starting a new topic on this talk page removing the "Egyptian origins" all together, as right now it is literally contradicting itself. Please provide your sources while you're at it ;) Raturous (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source is unreliable. Please read WP:RS and whatever you do, don't continue to edit war. I also suggest you read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

i am not, I used another wikipedia article. Which is as reliable. I didn't continue to edit, I simply reverted. Please provide another article that disputes what I just sent. Raturous (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

also you arguing over what's already written below as well. I am just reinforcing that statement at the start. You need to provide proof that it the Egyptian origins part should be removed. Raturous (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. It's now clear to me that I have wasted my time trying to make you understand how Wikipedia works. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

please clarify, I read the policy you sent me. I followed it to the best of my knowledge. I understood where you were coming from, did not remove "Maghrebi" as your point was valid, included "(North African)" after, then went to argue that the "Egyptian origins" part written below shouldn't even be there and although I provided a source, you wouldn't provide one. I am trying to be constructive. Raturous (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

1

2

3

4

5 Raturous (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are blogs and online guides, and are therefore unreliable. Consider reading WP:SPS. Skitash (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

6 is from a news site Raturous (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

6 Raturous (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

7, the guardian Raturous (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

8 Raturous (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Came here via WP:3O. The Guardian article does mention Egypt. While this is not a highest-quality source, the sources that are used in the article to support the Maghrebi origin are of similar calibre (e.g., the Jewish Chronicle article). Therefore I think it'd make sense to call it North African dish in the lede. This information should also be added to the article itself, naturally. Alaexis_¿question? 12:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, this is a fourth opinion. Apparently, the OP has has also approached another editor (their claim that they stopped edit warring after receiving the first warning is obviously incorrect, and judging by what they wrote, it's fair to assume that they still don't understand what edit warring is).

Anyway, since claims about history that are made by non-specialists are worthless, the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find (like we do for similar articles). I already have one in mind, and while not ideal, it's still better than what's in the articles. I'll see if I can find another one. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other editors in this section. Anyway, if you can find better sources, that would be great. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You must have missed Skitash's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I have. Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

apologies, I am still learning the ropes. This is a good learning curve, learning the rules and understanding how to deal with such frustrating circumstances. There is also the NY times article that mention it being North African. Also in terms of referencing it to be Maghrebi, is usually in terms of the way to prepare the dish. Although it's vague, as each country in NA has a different method of preparing. Raturous (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

kind of odd, but glad you did your due diligence :) Raturous (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Beginning again from a new starting place?

Having followed this discussion a bit as Raturous's wiki-mentor, it looked to me like things were getting a little stuck on one word when the article had a larger problem that the lead wasn't actually just a citation-free summary of the body of the article, as it should be per WP:LEAD. I made some very WP:BOLD edits to the article just now with the idea of improving its overall structure and flow (i.e., grouping all the regional variations into a "shakshuka is various countries" paragraph) and moving all citations to the body, with a new lead that just summarizes the body. There's still a lot of room for refinement -- the article would really benefit from citing some food historians! -- but I hoped this would help un-stick the debate a little and move the article toward improvement. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the word Maghrebi from the lead, especially given the fact that of all the cited sources, the only one that is written by a food historian states that Shakshuka is Maghrebi. I personally don't think much of Gil Marks as he sometimes makes some claims that are either extraordinary or factually incorrect, but since he is already cited, than it stands to reason to use him. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing it's not *EXCLUSIVELY* Maghrebi, it is Maghrebi too. Raturous (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: If you think removing the word "Maghrebi" from the lead fails to accurately summarize the article as a whole, please just add the word back in or discuss here. There was no need to revert my entire edit, which included many other improvements. I ask that you undo your revert and make your own improvements incrementally, as is the usual way to contructively build consensus. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that I commented just as you did. I don't see that the article currently cites anyone for a claim that the dish is Maghrebi, which is why I removed that from the lead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

i found this book that mentions shakshouka in context of it being an old dish in Egypt. Here. Raturous (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pharaohs ate tomatoes? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No one did?

"Bird eggs were eaten and offered to the gods. Cooking eggs in pharaonic times was no different from the ways in which they are cooked in Nubia and Upper Egypt today, for in addition to sekheina of modern-day Upper Egypt, there was egga (where onion and parsley is added), and shakshouka (again with onion and parsley)."

Please do not put words in my mouth. Raturous (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i found this book that mentions shakshouka in context of it being an old dish in Egypt It doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i literally quoted the book... Raturous (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

on top of that if you mean to assume the "ancient" and "old" are synonymous in this context then you are mistaken. Raturous (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I know and nowhere in it does it say what you think it does and "ancient" and "old" are your words, meaningless to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

as you quoted me "in context" Raturous (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

please remain objective and we will wait what others say :) Raturous (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:CANVASSING (including on the Egyptian project). M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that this source isn’t very helpful for this article — we’re trying to get away from cookbooks, and we have a stronger source in the Guardian article for the claim in “History” that Egypt is a possible origin of the dish. M.Bitton, since you haven’t responded to my comments above, I’m going to reinstate my organizational edits to the article. You are of course welcome to continue editing the lead and the history section, but please don’t revert a whole restructuring of the article over a single word. Also, please keep in mind WP:LEAD: I removed Maghrebi in the lead because it is not cited anywhere in the body of the article; if you want to add it back, please do so, with a source. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

1) The Guardian is not a strong source when it comes to claims about history. 2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert. 3) You are also aware that I am collecting RS to rewrite the origin section. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i haven't seen anything yet that says that shakshouka is exclusively a Maghrebi dish. I'm waiting to see this. Raturous (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

1) The Guardian is stronger than the cookbook. 2) It is not reasonable for you to unilaterally revert any edit which changes this one word without engaging with my argument, namely, that the lead must summarize the body. 3) I am glad to hear you are planning to improve the origin section, but that has no bearing on whether other improvements there (and in "variations"!) can occur in the meantime. I reiterate my own key point: there is no need to revert an entire structural edit over one word. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

1) What cookbook are you referring to? 2) It's not reasonable for you to remove stable content in the middle of a dispute. As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go). The only reason I refrained so far from doing that is because I wanted to find better sources. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant the pharonic cookbook Raturous cited above, which I said was not as strong as the Guardian, to which you replied with your point #1. And, certainly, a rewrite using our strongest sources would be very welcome: that is why I tried to begin one. Instead of building on that, you twice reverted the edit entirely, which really feels more like edit warring and WP:OWNership than collaboration. It feels futile to attempt any changes because it feels like you will revert everything. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75644746/f4.item.r=chakchuka.zoom# Raturous (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a published source Raturous (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Back to the initial proposal

Here are the reliable sources that I found so far. I cited the first two yesterday and I'm evaluating a fourth. I also intend on allocating some time this weekend to search for some more. If you know of any other RS (of the same calibre) that should be considered, please do not hesitate to share. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: please refrain from imposing your POV through edit warring. From now, and to avoid a repeat of the same scenario, I suggest we make proposals for the rewrite here. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, if you had not been so fast to revert my entire edit, you might have seen that those three sources are exactly the three that I used to rewrite the article. However, naturally I cited the material to the authors of the works rather than the editors of the overall volumes. Your WP:OWNership behaviour at this article is verging on the absurd. Please undo your revert and engage constructively with my edits, using RS. I am beginning to think ANI may be the only path forward. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I ignored the aspersion casting once, this is the second. Needless to say that I won't do it again.

Care to explain why you keep removing the word Maghrebi from the lead? Do you dispute the fact that all three sources associate the dish with the Maghreb?

I also noticed that you're talking a lot of liberties with the sources. For instance: By the nineteenth century, shakshouka had become established as a Tunisian dish.. is your WP:OR (the source makes no such claim). Likewise, The similar Turkish dish menemen shares this origin (that you added in wikipedia's voice) is WP:SYNTH as that's not what either of the two sources (that combined through the use of this) say. M.Bitton (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

1, I wrote the lead to summarize the body of the article, as I have explained several times. The three sentences I wrote about the origins were more specific and informative than the single word "Magbrebi." Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi, and the more recent food historians make it clear that Marks' proposed origin is no longer widely accepted. Sienna literally cites both Buccini and Marks and says that Buccini is more likely.

2, "The appearance of shakshūka in U-vishalta Ve-akhalta and in these French cookbooks [from the 19thC] affirms Tunisian Jews’ particular affection for it." (Sienna 177) All of p. 176 is about shakshouka as a 19thC Tunisian dish. We could add "Jewish" to the sentence. Or we could to delete this sentence and use a different paragraph transition to the 19thC, maybe "The first published recipe for shakshouka...".

3, "As shown by Anthony Buccini, shakshūka is one member of a widespread family of 'western Mediterranean vegetable stews' developed after the introduction of tomatoes and peppers in the early modern period; it is related to the Turkish menemen and more distantly to the Provençal ratatouille." (Sienna 175)

These kinds of refinements would be much easier if we were editing an article, where, for example, you could just rewrite the specific sentences that you find problematic. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To go further with #1 -- when you re-added Maghrebi here, you cited two sources for it: Marks (discussed above), and Buccini (via a malformed cite that attributed it to Hosking, the volume editor). Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Only Marks explicitly calls the dish Maghrebi that's factually incorrect. This is also shows that you're only reading what you want to read: Sienna describes it as Maghrebi and Buccini associates it with two or possibly three Maghrebi countries (if you think that "Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?" are not Maghrebi, then there isn't much I can do to help you).

2) By the nineteenth century, shakshouka had become established as a Tunisian dish.. is your WP:OR that you have failed to justify.

3) The similar Turkish dish menemen shares this origin (that you added in wikipedia's voice) is WP:SYNTH. Again, your so-called justification for using "it is related to" to imply that the two share a specific origin (in Wikipedia's voice to boot) is really worrying.

4) The stew spread to North Africa with the Moriscos is also your WP:OR that you attributed to a source.

5) There, they introduced the stew as shakshouka your WP:OR, again, attributed to a source.

These kinds of refinements don't try to whitewash what you did, because I won't let you.

I don't know whether the above is intentional or due to an inability to analyse the sources. All I know is that you did it and that there is nothing that you could possibly say that will change that, especially now that you decided to waste my time with a frivolous ANI report in which you displayed the same behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, if we were editing an article constructively and collaboratively, you could just rewrite the specific sentences you found objectionable. Instead, you’re using a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, accusing me of only reading what I want to read, and acting like I need your permission to edit the article.

I have provided direct quotes from these sources, and I could provide the entire text of them to anyone who wishes to edit this article constructively. My edits were not written in stone and I do not feel particularly strongly about any of them; I would welcome collaboration. What I care about is following the sources, and providing a welcoming and constructive environment for newcomers to the encyclopedia. Accusing me of original research and POV-pushing, and telling me don’t try to whitewash what you did, because I won’t let you, is not collaborative. What I did was make a positive contribution to this article using academic sources. I have been reverted and harangued for doing so. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

What I did was make a positive contribution to this article Nope. What you did is remove content without a valid reason and misrepresent the sources (that I looked for and shared with everyone).

I have provided direct quotes from these sources what you have provided has been dissected above and none of it comes close to explaining what you did.

Since you ignored my suggestion about making proposals on the talk page and are now threatening to edit war (I saw your discussion with the SPA who's manipulating you), I will ping someone who has experience dealing with similar subjects. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your summary of my conversation with a newbie I am mentoring strikes me as unfair. I disagree that it is edit warring to wait two weeks and then plan to put back in a version of what I wrote earlier, taking into account M.Bitton’s critiques of the sentences they didn’t like. Writing a new draft, revised in light of the feedback offered on the previous one, is a normal way to improve an article. I will be very happy to see any editor revising the article to address the problems with sourcing and the lead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: without getting involved in the above dispute, would you be willing to summarize the three sources that I provided above for the history section? I just want someone else to do it (for reasons that I'd rather not get into).

The first source is easily accessible. Repeating what I previously said about it: I personally don't think much of Gil Marks as he sometimes makes some claims that are either extraordinary or factually incorrect. Luckily, the third source (see below) summarizes this source's most important claim.

The second source can also be accessed here. Please see the last paragraph of page 133 as well as page 137. Again, the third source summarizes its most important claim.

The third source is not easily accessible, but it basically boils down to this (though, I can send you the pdf version if it helps):

shakshūka. As shown by Anthony Buccini, shakshūka is one member of a widespread family of “western Mediterranean vegetable stews” developed after the introduction of tomatoes and peppers in the early modern period; it is related to the Turkish menemen and more distantly to the Provençal ratatouille. While Gil Marks suggests that it was introduced to the Maghreb from the Ottoman Empire, it is more likely that the Maghrebi shakshūka and the Turkish menemen share a common ancestor, along with similar dishes like the Basque piperade, Spanish pisto con huevos, and Italian uova in purgatorio (Neapolitan ova ’mpriatorio). The word shakshūka itself derives from an onomatopoeic verb in the Maghrebi dialects of Arabic related to mixing or chopping.

Marcelin Beaussier’s 1871 Arabic dictionary defined shaqshūqa as a term in Tunisian Arabic referring to “a dish composed of tomatoes, fresh peppers, and onions, with eggs on top.” Several recipes for this popular dish appeared in the French press in the 1890s; Le Gaulois, for example, describes shakshūka (chakchouka) as “very suitable for breakfast” and perfect “for housewives in search of exotic preparations.” It recommends adding “a slice of smoked ham to replace the strips of sun-dried lamb” of the original.38 Interestingly, shakshūka first appeared in the French press as “Oeufs à la tunisienne” (Tunisian- style eggs) but over the course of a few years was described as generically North African, then Egyptian, Arabian, and Turkish. This may testify to the movement of shakshūka into the Levant but more likely represents a homogenizing Orientalism in the French colonial empire that did not bother to differentiate local cultures or contexts. Long before shakshūka was a “global food trend” or sold at Trader Joe’s, this dish was already being touted in colonial France as “the dish of the season... that can be appreciated by even the most delicate European palates.”

It is therefore no surprise that Tunisian Jews brought shakshūka with them when they immigrated to Israel in the 1950s (following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and especially after Tunisian independence in 1956) along with many other Maghrebi Jews. While many new immigrants from the Islamic world faced discrimination, racism, and anti-Arab sentiment in Israel, certain aspects of their culture, including food, were valorized as contributing to the harmonious mosaic of new Israeli ethnicity and validating the emerging sense of locally rooted Levantine identity. It appears that shakshūka was among the foods adopted by the general Israeli public in the late 1950s; unlike hummus or falafel, however, it had not been previously associated with Palestinian or Levantine cuisine.

Ideally, one to two sentences per claim/source, including the third, should be more than enough (just like the third source summarized the others), but it's up to you.

If you'd rather not, I'll totally understand (no explanation necessary), but please let me know either way. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to note here that I've read the ping message here, but have not gone through all the prior discussion on this talk page or studied the history of the article, wanting to keep fresh eyes.

To keep it short, I'd propose something like:

Marks, noting some similarities with the Ottoman dish menemen, suggested that Shakshouka spread to the Maghreb through the influence of the Ottoman Empire. Buccini noted similarities between a wider range of vegetable stews. He (and Gaul et al.) concluded that both Shakshouka and Menemen, among other regional dishes, are members of a wider family of vegetable stews of common ancestry appearing throughout the western Mediterranean.

The migration of Tunisian Jews in the 1950s brought the dish to Israel, where it was subsequently widely adopted despite not being previously present in Palestinian or Levantine cuisine.

One could obviously add more details. I was tempted to add more about Spain, but I tried to stick to what appeared in multiple sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a good foundation to start from -- thanks. I think you're right that it would benefit from being expanded with more details, but for now, I'd say you can replace the "origins" section with this and update the lead to match. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: much appreciated. That's pretty much how it should be done, short and to the point (after all, these are just claims). If anyone feels like expanding it (whatever that means), they would need to do it here first so that it can be reviewed. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, it is really strange that you keep asserting that potential changes must be posted on the talk page for your review before they are permitted to be made. I do a lot of content creation, and it’s simply not true that such a process is either required or normal. For example, one expansion on my mind is to mention the 2018 National Restaurant Association survey, because I think it’s a useful indicator of the dish gaining global popularity. To add that information, the appropriate and normal process would be for me to just add it, and if someone sees a problem with it, they can rewrite it to address the problem. Even for slightly contentious material, it’s only necessary to drag things to the talk page after a few rewrites can’t hash out a consensus phrasing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talking of "abnormal" and "strange": misrepresenting the sources (like you did) is strange to say the least, trying desperately to whitewash it is definitely not normal. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Article still has important problems

M.Bitton, Skitash, it’s been several days with no changes to the article, but it still definitely needs revision. The two issues are, 1, citations are primarily to low-quality cookbook and news sources; and, 2, the lead does not follow WP:LEAD in presenting a citation-free summary of the body of the article. I still think M.Bitton’s proposal, to rewrite exclusively from the food historians they found and remove the other material, is the right one. I am very willing to contribute to that work, but you’ve found every word I write unacceptable. Could you please begin to implement your own preferred edits to address these two concerns? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It has taken longer than necessary because of what you did and the time that I wasted dealing with it and the ridiculous ANI report that you started.

Anyway, I don't need to be reminded to finish what I started. As initially planned, I will set aside some time either this weekend or the next to look for other sources. The article has been the way it is for a long time, so it's not a week or two that will make any difference. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"in a sauce of tomatoes"

Hi, I tried to make a streamline and grammatical adjustment to the article (with a subsequent link to the corresponding wiki article), but the fix was changed back to its original form.

Currently the article describes the recipe as being made from "a sauce of tomatoes".  Firstly, the correct spelling of the fruit is "tomato" not "tomatoe".

Secondly "a sauce of tomatoe" is the circuitous way to say "tomato sauce". Lastly, a "tomato sauce" wikipedia article exists here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_sauce Please consider my changes as they are helpful and informative to a potential reader of the article. Skylynx2 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what your point is about tomatoes, whether you are arguing that it's incorrect or you're reporting that someone else is. To put it clearly, "tomato" is one of several English nouns that take the suffix -es in the plural, others including "potatoes", "heroes", and "noes" (the opposite of "yesses"). But I also don't see what that has to do with your edits, as you've made a great deal of revisions. Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

My objective is to aide readers in cross-referencing articles that relate to the subject. By intentionally misspelling the word, you are disabling links. Since this recipe utilizes tomato sauce, there should be a link to the tomato sauce artice. Isn't the purpose of this site to pool information? Also, what do my prior revisions have to do with anything? Skylynx2 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the recipe doesn't use a "tomato sauce". It uses a sauce that consists of a number of ingredients, with tomatoes being one of them.

Is this request related to this edit of yours? M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a tomato sauce. Tomato sauces come in wide varieties. In fact one of the earliest tomato sauces from Mexico included peppers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_sauce

" They sell some stews made of peppers and tomatoes – usually put in them peppers, pumpkin seeds, tomatoes, green peppers and fat tomatoes and other things that make tasty stews."

You are intentionally skewing the article and are thus showing a bias. Skylynx2 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that you started casting aspersions, let me be brutally honest with you: your edits and all of this nonsense stink of nationalism, therefore, I suggest you seek consensus for that mumbo jumbo on how to spell "tomatoes".

Also, don't you ever dare to email me again! M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Current article greatly exaggerates dates

Currently the article states that shakshouka originated in Ottoman North Africa in the mid-16th century after tomatoes were introduced by Hernan Cortes.

 This could not be the case as Southern Europe and the Islamic world were at odds during that time.  According to Wikipedia the Tomato didnt get to the Islamic World until somewhere between 1799 to 1825 by the British.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato Skylynx2 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is based on a wiki article (that doesn't mention the maghreb) and your simplistic understanding of the relationship between southern Europe and the Maghreb. M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The article needs a revised lead

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 follow WP: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 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.

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 address WP: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 and Piperade) 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 follows WP: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 and MrOllie: 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 a dedicated 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 lead here. Thank you for that -- it is a clear improvement over the prior version. I do agree that this lead is fine, and maybe that is the source of our ongoing conflict: I am trying to make this article not just fine but good. Compliance with WP:LEAD is a 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 is badly 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: a good lead must mention the origins (and the variations, and on reflection the etymology too) because, per MOS:INTRO the lead is supposed to briefly 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)

June 2024

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 have not reached consensus that the article or the section is complete and unable to be edited further. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Note on etymology

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: "Maghribi Arabic šakšūka, ultimately of imitative origin (compare the related šakšaka 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.198.242 (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 of wikt: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 and worthless. 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 your WP:OR a 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 in Maghrebi 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 Arabic šakšūka, ultimately of imitative origin (compare the related šakšaka 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 "Maghribi Arabic" 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 if you 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, and making up words in Maghribi Arabic just to vex you? Don't you think they're accessing thousands of resources by people who are authorities in their respective domains and recording the information they receive from them? 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 to šakšaka? This is the same word that LEvalyn mentioned above (see wikt: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 "if I 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, or declare 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 say Claims 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 Latin algebra algebraic computation (12th or 13th cent.), surgical treatment of fractures (c1300) < Arabic al-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.

  Compare Middle French, French †algebre (now algèbre) (a1376 in an apparently isolated attestation, subsequently from 1554; 1546 in Rabelais as algebra, all denoting the branch of mathematics; 1611 in Cotgrave in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures), Spanish algebra (a1450 denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1552 denoting the branch of mathematics), Portuguese álgebra (1519 denoting the branch of mathematics; 1712 in medical use), Italian algebra (1598 in Florio denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1606 denoting the branch of mathematics); also Middle Dutch, Dutch algebra (1460 in an isolated attestation denoting the surgical treatment of fractures, 1612 denoting the branch of mathematics), German Algebra (1460 in puech algebra un almalcobula lit. ‘book of algebra and almacabala’ as the title of a translation of al-Ḵwārizmī's mathematical treatise; 1489 as algobre, denoting the branch of mathematics). Compare almacabala n.

  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, is Mug 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 from Mug 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. If Mug 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)

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

RfC on etymology

Which sources are more reliable for the etymology of the word 'shakshouka'?

Current article sources:

• Ellis, Robin (2016-03-03). Mediterranean Cooking for Diabetics: Delicious Dishes to Control or Avoid Diabetes. Little, Brown Book Group. ISBN 9781472136381. Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
• Ly, Linda (2015-03-20). The CSA Cookbook: No-Waste Recipes for Cooking Your Way Through a Community Supported Agriculture Box, Farmers' Market, Or Backyard Bounty. Voyageur Press. ISBN 9780760347294. Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
• Planet, Lonely (2017-03-01). The World's Best Superfoods. Lonely Planet. ISBN 9781787010369. Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
• Bilderback, Leslie (2015-09-01). Mug Meals: More Than 100 No-Fuss Ways to Make a Delicious Microwave Meal in Minutes. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9781466875210. Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
• Jakob, Ben (2017-06-06). "How Shakshuka, Israel's Famous Breakfast Dish, Took the World By Storm". Culture Trip. Archived from the original on 2017-11-16. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
• Fitzgerald, Mary (Apr 24, 2021). "Shakshuka: All mixed up over a brilliant breakfast". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2021-09-09.
• "وداعا "البيض ومطيشة"". Hespress - هسبريس جريدة إلكترونية مغربية (in Arabic). 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2022-01-26.
• Salah, Maha (14 February 2020). "Shakshuka". Middle East Monitor.

Proposed alternative sources:

• "shakshuka". Collins Dictionary.
• "shakshuka". Oxford English Dictionary.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am opening an RfC because my request for Dispute Resolution was declined, and Robert McClenon recommended RfC as the next alternative. My opinion is that the OED and Collins are more reliable because they are written by professional lexicographers. I consider it a clear improvement to cite the article to them instead of preserving the current etymology section. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this RfC doesn't make any sense and is just a waste of time and resources. For a start, the reliability of the sources depends on context. Second, this is not WP:RSN, and third, it's comparing apples to oranges (the already cited sources are about the definition of the word and not the etymology). M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how it is a waste of time when the edit history shows the word "revert" or a longer form of it appears 166 times in the last 200 edits. In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer. It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the issues have recently been resolved. The problem that remains is over a specific claim that is made by a dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The sources cited above are indeed cited in the article for the etymology they are used to support the definition of the word and not its etymology, as previously said (in the discussion I mentioned that the section could be renamed to address that).

  There are no arguments against the dictionaries, the arguments are against a specific claim that you're welcome to address. M.Bitton (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is factually incorrect, & what is of concern to you is apparently not the topic of the RfC. You've had plenty to say on this matter. You should probably just let folks comment at this point. Pathawi (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, it's your claim that is factually incorrect. Everything I said is easily verifiable. When you make baseless claims about what others have said, you will get an answer whether you like it or not. M.Bitton (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like you intend to bludgeon the process. I'm not going to debate the standing text with you. Anyone can check the relevant ¶ & citations for themselves. Pathawi (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. How did we get to a point where we need a RFC to settle whether dictionaries are more reliable sources for word etymology than recipe books and newspaper articles? Is there more to this that we're missing? Reading previous discussions didn't help clarify the argument against prioritizing dictionaries in this context. spintheer (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea how that happened or why the OP decided to create such a RfC. The previous discussion was about whether a specific claim made by a specific dictionary was reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Dictionaries: The OED and Collins are clearly far better sources, and none of the arguments against them holds any water: This isn't Wiktionary where we allow OR on etymologies, & the notion that English dictionaries are only etymological reliable for English words just isn't a tenible consistent position. A specialist source on the etymology of Arabic would be better still, but the dictionaries are clearly superior sources to regionally non-specific diabetic or microwave cookbooks. The RfC equally clearly makes sense: The sources cited above are indeed cited in the article for the etymology; three editors have not been able to reach consensus and one has rejected mediation. Seeking additional input is the right path forward. Pathawi (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)