Talk:Kebab

Bhaditraka

An edit (Special:Diff/881504192/881690943) mentioning a dish called "Bhaditraka", has been reverted. There were several problems with the edit. I would still be interested in discussing whether and/or how this information could be included in the article. The edit added the following:

twelfth century south indian cookbook from [[Karnataka|Kanataka]], [[Manasollasa]], mentions a dish called Bhaditraka which was kabab of today, in which pieces of meat were bored, stuffed with spices, roasted on spits, and then spiced again.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Indian Food Tradition A Historical Companion Achaya K. T.|last=nindi punj|first=|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=90|language=English}}</ref>

I'm always interested to see references to older texts such as the Manasollasa. However, there are some problems with the currently proposed edit. The first is that it requires editing for proper English. But the bigger problem is saying that bhaditraka is/was the "kebab of today", without further explanation. This article's "History" section already makes it clear that cooking meat on a skewer or stick goes back to prehistoric and even pre-human times. It mentions, for example, Minoan civilization, and so it would not necessarily be wrong to also mention ancient precursors in South Asia. But it is not correct to name all these ancient ways of cooking meat "kebab". The article also attempts to convey that "kebab", that is, dishes called by the name "kebab", or clearly related to it, are much more than simply "meat on a skewer". The cited book's equating of bhaditraka with kebab of today can only be seen, I think, as a kind of metaphor. For that reason, it is not strictly speaking correct to call bhaditraka a kebab, nor to list it under the "National varieties" section. --IamNotU (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Kebab dishes originated in the medieval kitchens of Persia and Turkey.[3] They were generally made with smaller chunks or slices of meat, or ground meat, often cooked on skewers over a fire. This cooking method has a long history in the region, where it would be practical in cities where small cuts of meat were available in butchers' shops, and where fuel for cooking was relatively scarce, compared to Europe, where extensive forests enabled farmers to roast large cuts of meat whole.[1] The word kebab, most likely of Arabic origin

The history section doesnt make any clear distinction of what distinguishes a kabab from what is already mentioned in the RS i quoted, the word Kabab is of arabic origin and yet origins of kabab itself is from persia and turkey. from the definition of kabab itself Bhaditraka is a kabab, if you have objections, then you can publish your own book stating what makes a kabab special which doesnt qualify this dish to be not a kabab, and get peer reviewed. From the definition of kabab, it is just pieces of skewered meat cooked on a fire, even marination is not mentioned. Kabab word is of arabic origin so the dish must be of arab prigin as well, but its specifically mentioned that only the name is arabic, the dish is persian in origin which implies that the dish already existed before being renamed kabab, so it appears kababs infact are a generic term for skewered meat and all those skewered meats under islamic/arabic sphere of influence were renamed kababs.60.52.50.71 (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As noted in the lead and history sections, kebab does not mean "meat on a stick". This idea is contradicted by the many examples of kebabs that are stews, meatballs, or baked meat dishes. Even if you take simplistic English dictionary definitions (that typically refer to shish kebab), while many kebab dishes are indeed cooked on skewers, it doesn't follow that every dish cooked on a skewer is a kebab. For example, anticuchos are not kebabs, even though some English speakers may superficially refer to them that way, along with fruit kebabs, and many skewered foods that resemble shish kebab. This is explained in § Kebab in Western culture, and these types of dishes are not discussed in this article.

More reliable sources, such as those written by food historians, covering the subject in depth, invariably discuss kebab as being not one particular dish, but a name referring to a range of meat-based cuisine that developed mainly in the medieval Middle East. It is acknowledged that the custom of roasting chunks of meat on a stick has an ancient history in the region before this time. However, it has been the consensus so far that, as a general rule of thumb, the subject of this article is demarcated as various dishes that are named kebab, or that are clearly derived from such. Descriptions of dishes that may have been precursors to this, such as the ancient Greek preparations, are mentioned in the History section. Just as we don't say anything like "kebab is originally Greek", there will almost certainly not be a statement like "kebab originated in India", as this would be considered a fringe theory that is not widely supported by scholarship in the field. Unless some direct connection to kebab cuisine as described above can be shown, it's not accurate to describe bhaditraka as a type of kebab, nor to include it in the "National varieties" of kebab section, any more so than it would be to include anticucho or Japanese kushikatsu.

The origin of the English word kebab is described as coming into the English language through contact with Arabic, and partly through Urdu, Persian and Turkish. That does not mean it is originally Arabic. The prevailing theory traces it back to origins in Aramaic and Akkadian, and earlier. There has been debate about whether it entered Persian through Arabic, or directly from an earlier Semitic root, and for example Gil Marks has said that it entered Arabic from Persian and not vice-versa. This had been discussed in earlier revisions of the article, but was removed for various reasons (that I don't completly agree with). In any case, it is an old word in several languages, appearing for example in the Babylonian Talmud, which later became applied to and associated with the style of meat cooking that arose in the medieval Middle East. --IamNotU (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

if you have RS to back up your claim that Bhaditraka is not a kabab, please feel free to do so, i have again reverted your revert, because you are deliberately trying to remove RS, your personal opinions dont matter, you can bring RS stating that Bhaditraka is not a kabab and you can add that argument in the article, i wont edit that out, thanks. 60.52.50.71 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The source is already given in the article, which states and discusses in detail that kebab originated in medieval Persia and Turkey. The source you have given, which says merely "Bhaditraka was the kabab of today", is best interpreted as meaning "was similar to the kebab of today", rather than a authoritative statement that it is considered in fact a kebab. It cannot be used to override the above source, or many others that define kebab as a cuisine of Middle Eastern origin. Please undo your revert, and stop edit warring while discussion is taking place. --IamNotU (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Bhaditraka doesnt have the name bhaditraka kabab so i dont think that it tries to lay claim on the origin of kabab away from the middle east, the author is drawing parallels between this dish and the indian kababs of today and states that essentially bhaditraka was the indian kabab of today, i dont think that author tries to challenge that bhaditraka was the first kabab or the kababs have origins in this dish, author is just trying to equate indian kabab cuisine with the pre islamic ones, and wants to convey that indians knew kababs before their dishes were renamed kababs with some outside cuisine influences. regards 60.52.50.71 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

i think now you since crossed two reverts are using multiple accounts to revert my changes, but i wont stoop to your level and use fake accounts/IPs to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.72.188 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

175.137.72.188, I'm assuming you're the same person as 60.52.50.71? Are you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here... I can assure you that the other editors are their own persons, as you can easily see by comparing our edit histories, and that they have their own reasons for reverting you - Sumanuil and Wikaviani, perhaps you could confirm that I am not U? So if you have a problem with their edits, please take it up with them. Sock puppetry is a serious offence on Wikipedia, and the proper procedure if you have evidence of it is to file a report at WP:SPI, since it is easily proven by a "checkuser". Unfounded accusations on talk pages are considered uncivil. Unless you intend to file a report, then as a show of good faith, I ask that you strike out your comment, as explained in Wikipedia's policy on civility. Thanks.

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will answer your other comment soon - I would like to do a little more reading first. As I mentioned at the beginning, I think the citation of Achaya's book you contributed is valuable and interesting, and I hope we can include it in the article, otherwise I would not have started this discussion. But there are some questions to be answered first, which may take a little time. Please keep in mind there is no rush to change the article. I'm personally interested in learning and talking about the history of kebab, and I don't think I have very fixed ideas about it, other than that any information presented in the article should be verifiable in multiple high-quality published sources. I hope we can have a pleasant and relaxed conversation about the subject. However, if you feel for some reason that I am not being fair and neutral, you are free to pursue one of the resolution options given at WP:DISPUTE. --IamNotU (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been called a lot of nasty things in my time here, but 'sockpuppet' is a new one. Really?Sumanuil (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm neither IamNotU nor Sumanuil. IP user, i would suggest you to desist from this kind of baseless accusations. You're free to file a SPI if you really think that we are the same person ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

whatever mate, multiple accounts or not, one thing is certain that you have used other accounts to revert my edits which are sourced from RS without them being in the discussion you have failed to convince me why you are removing my RS, you can edit the content if you want but you are outrightly removing my RS and you dont find any reason to revert them, anyone can do that, but let just rest this debate, i dont want to waste a lot of time on this pathetic debate special on kababs and convince few middle eastern/arab/persian egos. regards 175.137.72.188 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This IP has been trolling a number of West- and Central Asian food related pages in which he is promoting a India-nationalist-, or Hindu-nationalist POV by selectively quoting from a single source, KT Achaya's Indian Food: A Historical Companion, OUP India, 1994, or by obscurely quoting from it. I say India-nationalist- or Hindu-nationalist because the goal of these edits is often to claim Indian, especially pre-Islamic Hindu provenance for food dishes that are commonly associated with regions outside of India, especially ones in the Islamic world. Please see my list of sources: Talk:Pilaf#Fowler&fowler's_sources, especially its source 8, which clearly gives the lie to this use of Achaya, and explicity mentions Kebabs as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

butt hurt desparate west asian/ central asian?, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Says the IP, "butt hurt desparate (sic) west asian/central asian?" says he tauntingly about someone who has written a large number of India-related pages, including all the major sections of the FA India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

you sir have an agenda, and that agenda is biased against india, what ever you are contributing in indian articles, which i have no inkling of, must be westernising, or europeanising indian topics, i have encountered such users before, which is more damaging than contributing so hardly can be appreciated, your rant of indian/hindu nationalist, both of which im not/neither hindu/nor an indian/ just exhibits the very nature of those contributions, i dont want to be judgemental, but thats what appears to be, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I see little issue in mentioning it in the India section, but grammar and pose needs to be improved. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC))

I've mentioned it in the History section, and done some more editing there. There's no issue to mention that the description of skewered meat in the Manasollasa (and the spit-cooked meat described in the Mahabharata), predates the Mughal Empire, just as we already mention the descriptions of ancient Greece in the History section. But the source doesn't support the idea that the kebab of today in India is an indigenous dish from ancient India, that was only renamed "kebab", rather than the modern kebab being introduced through the Mughal influence, which is broadly supported by scholarship in the field. I've also tried to clarify further the distinction between the two senses of the English term kebab, one being almost any kind of small pieces of food on a skewer resembling shish kebab (in which sense Bhaditraka could technically be described as a kebab), and the other sense that is emphasized in this article, which is a broad range of skewered and non-skewered meat dishes of medieval Middle Eastern origin. --IamNotU (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

you are repeatedly inserting ancient greece here, which has no relevance, do greek manuscripts share food recipes and one resembling kabab?, for bhaditraka/bhadritakas we have recorded recipes which scholars have argued is essentially a kabab, it would be convincing if you present sources which discuss bhaditrakas as not being a kabab but what i see here, you making only an assumption that bhaditrakas/bhadritakas are not kebabs just because we have no western/european sources discussing them.

But the source doesn't support the idea that the kebab of today in India is an indigenous dish from ancient India, that was only renamed "kebab", rather than the modern kebab being introduced through the Mughal influence, which is broadly supported by scholarship in the field.

here is another source which verifies bhadritakas/bhaditrakas as being nothing but a genuine kabab

The Manasollasa (12th century) has a recipe for a dish in which pieces of meat were marinated in fruit juice, threaded on to skewers and then cooked on hot coals. Though the Manasollasa is a South Indian text, today’s North Indians will have no difficulty in recognising these dishes as kebabs. hindustantimes

, those western sources who have declared kababs of india as mughal influence, have they discussed ancient indian pre islamic recipes and how they may bear relate to modern indian cuisine? if they have not, then its really an assumption, isnt it?, western sources are biased, and i have a good evidence that assumption and premeditated generalizations being made without properly researching preislamic indian cuisine references/sources.

If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization.

Roger, Delphine (2000), "The Middle East and South Asia (in Chapter: History and Culture of Food and Drink in Asia)", in Kiple, Kenneth F.; Ornelas, Kriemhild Coneè (eds) (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. Volume 2, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1140–1150, ISBN 978-0-521-40215-6 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)175.137.72.188 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: I commend your ability to stay calm and focused. The Indian-POV has only one source. It is K. T. Achaya's Indian Food: A Historical Companion. As I say in my posts on Talk:Pilaf#The_problem_with_Achaya, this source is problematic. The LA Times review has the same concerns. All references using it should be prefaced with: "Author K. T. Achaya has claimed, " or "According to author K. T. Achaya ..." The Mahabharata is mythology. Its own page Mahabharata says it is epic poetry and a legendary narrative. It they ate meat, and if they had fire, they likely had a spit, but to claim it was kebab is a stretch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

References

history of kabab is non neutral eurocentred and west asian centered based on one sided european scholarship

the history of kabab is non neutral, eurocentred/ persian/ west asian centered and wants to claim that kababs originated in the middle east and influenced the kabab dishes in the rest of the world.

the non european view is not accepted for instance by indian scholarship which argues that kababs were indeed present in indian subcontinent before islamic invasion and many dishes like bihari kabab, pasande, gola kabab, shaami kabab, hence all kinds of kababs skewered or made into patties, deep fried or roasted were can trace their origins in india before the arab/persian/turk invasions and has nothing to do with middle eastern influence.

The biased european scholarship on culinary topics fail to cite any indian pre islamic source for discussion on indian cuisine and is heavily biased in favour of western asian/ european agenda and doesnt acknowledge indian pre islamic/ post non islamic scholarship at all and only cites persian non sanskrit/prakrit cookbooks.

the sactarian and bias tendencies of the european scholars cited can be easily discerned in the following quote

If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization. Roger, Delphine (2000), "The Middle East and South Asia (in Chapter: History and Culture of Food and Drink in Asia)", in Kiple, Kenneth F.; Ornelas, Kriemhild Coneè (eds) (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. Volume 2, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1140–1150, ISBN 978-0-521-40215-6 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Indian food historian Colleen Taylor Sen in her book Feasts And Fasts: The History of Food in India explains that while gastronomical issues were given great importance in ancient Indian texts, little attention was paid to the culinary aspect. Most of the references to food in these ancient texts pertained to what should or should not be eaten, in what season, and so on. They gave little or no importance to the palate.

175.137.72.188.

same gibberish has been repeated by western food historians/ over and over again while refusing to entertain indian scholarly sources on food.

I have read Alan Davidson's book The Oxford Companion to Food, and not a single indian scholarly citations are made for indian dishes, and are blatantly declared persian/ middle eastern, this one sided european scholarship has been conveniently used by european editors here an an excuse for manipulating the articles in their ethnic favour. K. T. Achaya's book Indian Food Tradition A Historical Companion, mentions a lot of ancient indian scholarly references to the pre islamic food present in ancient india and has sourced all the information from past scholarships including western ones and ancient indian historic manuscripts like, the western culinary scholarship has only tried to impose its eurocentred propaganda without citing any credible evidences.

non european users are requested to completely avoid this bogus history of kababs section and the article as a whole which rather aims to serve european/west asian readers. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Davidson is a perfect source. They will try to give everyone something, some dishes are declared Greek or whatever. We can't change the political behind the scenes decisions at Oxford. But, why is the origin of the dish important? Most scholars believe there are multiple origins. Most likely the route of transfer was not only east to west, but back and forth exchanges of culture over centuries...but to answer the question where does cooking meat on a spit originate, what does it gain to spend energy on this? We have only etymologies, not origins, and readers do not come to food articles for etymology lessons.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

i agree with your views, i dont think that kabab origin can be pinpointed to a specific region, this is what i originally argued, i only tried to change the indian section of kabab here which european users dont agree with, i have still not got a viable answer, what makes the middle eastern kabab, a kebab, and the rest of non middle eastern kabab like dishes labelled as brought by invaders, and then they cite european sources which are presumptuous as in the text i highlighted earlier. middle eastern kabab is from middle east and the kababs in india are from india, but they want to claim foreign dishes as middle eastern, they have issues calling an indian dish from pre invasion times as kababs just because the recipe is given roughly less than hundred years prior to invasion. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see only this problem in the section:

• "This cuisine has spread around the world, in parallel with Muslim influence"
• "The 12th-century Manasollasa text also describes this technique being used with spiced meat in South India predating the Mughal Empire that introduced Central Asian kebabs to the Indian subcontinent."

These two statements seem to be contradicting one another. One is sourced to Davidson, the second to another Oxford book.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Shofet tsaddiq, could you tell me why you see that as a contradiction? The second sentence is talking about the technique of cooking small pieces of meat on a skewer, known since prehistoric (even pre-human) times. The first sentence is talking about a particular cuisine of many different meat dishes, including stews, meatballs, etc., given the name "kebab" in the medieval Middle East, and spread through the Islamic empires.

Anyway, I've made a change to the sentence, does it improve it? --IamNotU (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see what now what is meant. The third paragraph defines kebab as "mainly associated with a diversity of meat dishes that originated in the medieval kitchens of Persia and Turkey". The second paragraph says "The 12th-century Manasollasa text also describes this cooking technique being used with spiced meat in South India, predating the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire that introduced the various Persian- and Turkish-influenced meat dishes named kebab to the Indian subcontinent." These are out of order, with the second paragraph referring to ideas that are not introduced until the third paragraph.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Predating" is synthesis, for none of the sources make that claim. The references to Kebabs after the Muslim invasion of India are numerous and ubiquitous, both medieval and modern. Manasollasa, on the other hand, is a single source; there is no other medieval Hindu source making that claim. It is not well-established common fare; rather, it is royal fare, indeed it appears in Achaya's chapter called Royal Fare. It is dated to 1153 AD, long after the Muslim appearance on the Indian subcontinent: permanently in the 8th century in Sindh, continually in the 10th, 11th, and early 12th centuries across northwestern- and western India, and only a few decades before the establishment of the Delhi sultanate. Cultural historian Ashis Nandy, in Nandy, Ashis (2004), "The Changing Popular Culture of Indian Food: Preliminary Notes", South Asia Research, 24 (1): 9–19, doi:10.1177/0262728004042760, ISSN 0262-7280, says explicitly:

" (p. 11) All around India one finds preparations that came originally from outside South Asia. Kebabs came from West and Central Asia and underwent radical metamorphosis in the hot and dusty plains of India. So did biryani and pulao, two rice preparations, usually with meat. Without them, ceremonial dining in many parts of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is incomplete. Even the term pulao or pilav seems to have come from Arabic and Persian. It is true that in Sanskrit — in the Yajnavalkya Smriti — and in old Tamil the term pulao occurs (Achaya, 1998b: 11), but it is also true that biryani and pulao today carry mainly the stamp of the Mughal times and its Persianized high culture.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Other sources have said the same, such as: Roger, Delphine (2000), "The Middle East and South Asia (in Chapter: History and Culture of Food and Drink in Asia)", in Kiple, Kenneth F.; Ornelas, Kriemhild Coneè (eds) (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. Volume 2, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1140–1150, ISBN 978-0-521-40215-6 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help); |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link), which says:

"(p. 1151) As we have noted, Islam also strongly imposed itself on the cookery of the subcontinent for religious, as well as for purely gastronomic, reasons. Although a late cultural and religious arrival, Islam came to India via many channels. Arab traders, Afghan and Turk soldiers, along with Iranian administrators, all settled down there and made converts to their religion, as well as to portions of their culture. If Hinduism has given a high spiritual content to the meal, it has paid little attention to the art of cooking. Boiled cereals and griddle bread, stewed vegetables, and pulses had been the usual diet since the beginning of Indian civilization. Islam gave to Indian cookery its masterpiece dishes from the Middle East. These include pilau (from Iranian pollo and Turkish pilaf), samossa (Turkish sambussak), shir kurma (dates and milk), kebabs, sherbet, stuffed vegetables, oven bread, and confections (halvah). Such dishes became so well acclimated in India that vegetarian versions of them were elaborated. It is this cross-cultural art that is now acclaimed all around the world."

We can't give equal billing to an obscure reference in Achaya and a commonly cited fact of food exchange during and after the Muslims invasions of South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How many people who have contributed to this section are aware of the information at WP:WEIGHT? - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Twelve. Why do you ask? --IamNotU (talk)

(Interruption) I think Sitush is telling us to pay attention to due and undue weight when editing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I was just kidding! It's a good point, so thanks Sitush, for your comment, for reverting the revert of my self-revert, and for pointing out the relevant discussion at Talk:Pilaf § The problem with Achaya. --IamNotU (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shofet tsaddiq and Fowler&fowler, thanks, you both make good points, so I took that sentence out for now. I'm not quite sure what to do with it. I'm wondering now if that whole first part of the History section puts too much emphasis on the meat-on-a-stick idea. The reason it's that way is that the article used to define kebab the way most dictionaries do, e.g. "a dish of pieces of meat, fish, or vegetables roasted or grilled on a skewer or spit", and also the History used to be a long section of nothing but every mention in Greek history related to meat-on-a-stick, I think because someone was trying to prove that souvlaki is Greek and not Turkish... I tried to reduce the Greek stuff and broaden it to say practically all cultures cooked meat-on-a-stick, probably even Neanderthals. So I'm kind of happy to have references to more old texts that talk about cooking meat-on-a-stick, besides the Greek ones. At the same I've tried to get across the idea, particularly from reading Gil Marks, that kebab isn't generically meat-on-a-stick anyway, but a whole range of not-always-on-a-stick meat dishes specific to medieval Islamic cusine. It feels like both senses of the word need to be addressed, but it's hard to find the right balance. This article attracts a lot of edit-warring over the idea of the national origin of kebabs, so anything that helps avoid that is welcome. --IamNotU (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thousands separators

Should not thousands separators be written according to ISO-Standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, they should not. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, both comma separators and narrow gap separators are acceptable optional styles.

The ISO style is possibly more suitable (though not required) in science or technical articles, but this is not one. It has the drawback that it doesn't work well with screen readers. The comma style is still more commonly used, and likely less surprising to most Wikipedia readers. It is also used for example by Encyclopedia Britannica.

While it's possible to change an article from one optional style to another, if there is good reason to do so, generally talk page consensus should be sought first, so thanks for bringing it up here. However, at the moment I don't see any compelling reason to change the existing style.

I noticed you've asked the same thing in several other articles over the past couple of years. If you feel the current general practice should be changed, the best place to address it is on the talk page of MOS:DIGITS, as was suggested to you last time in September. I hope that helps answer your question. --IamNotU (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Usage in English etc., second paragraph

Halbared, you've twice now removed "outside of North America" from the second paragraph. That leaves a statement that isn't accurate and doesn't reflect the sources or reality. In the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc., people usually call a sandwich/wrap with meat from a vertical rotisserie literally "a kebab", e.g. "I'd like a kebab please", or "we stopped for a kebab after the pub". This usage is essentially unknown in the US and Canada, where it was popularized mainly by Greek immigrants. There, the common name overwhelmingly is "a gyro", (sometimes "a donair" in Canada) not "a kebab". This is common knowledge and easily verified, I added a citation and there are many more. Please stop changing it to imply that in North America a common name for gyros/shawarma/doner is "a kebab".

The first source, "Language and Food", says:

Kabab/Kebab, most likely a word of Arabic derivation, is now ubiquitous, not only in the Middle East but worldwide, to be found on every high street in Western cities. The ‘default’ kebab is cubes of meat on a skewer, the shish kebab or shashlik of international cookery. [...discussion of its presence in West and South Asia...] The ubiquitous kebab of our time is döner, rotating vertical skewers of which are to be found in profusion in every city in the Middle East and Europe. Döner is a Turkish word indicating turning or rotation. In the Levant (and in Arab and Israeli dispensers inEurope)it is called shwarma...

First, note that Zubaida does not say that the doner is more ubiquitous than the cubes of meat on a skewer type, which in a global context it certainly is not. In the first sentence, ubiquitous refers to all types of kebab. The shish kebab type had spread worldwide much earlier, measured in centuries; it's not until "our time" (i.e. since the 1970s) that the doner has also become ubiquitous. Secondly, the sentence describing doner as ubiquitous goes on to say "in every city in the Middle East and Europe" - i.e., outside of North America. He doesn't mention the situation there, nor gyros.

In the second source, Marks says:

Kebab denotes an array of Middle Eastern grilled or broiled meat dishes; in America, it typically refers to shish kebab, while in Europe it more commonly indicates doner kebab (shawarma)...

That's a very clear statement. It also doesn't mention gyros, but that's the reason. It does support the idea that - outside of North America - these days arguably "a kebab" more often means a doner than a shish kebab. However, he refers to Europe in general, including e.g. Austria, so if we want to make a statement that In most English-speaking countries, as the paragraph begins, the sense of "a kebab" as doner is demonstrably more common than the sense as shish kebab, we would need a better source. I think it's not really worth the effort, and is not necessary to quantify which sense is more common, at least not in the lead; the current wording suffices. --IamNotU (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I may have been misunderstanding the first sentence. I was reading the anglosphere as being North America (and US centric), whereas now it scans OK to me as both versions of the kebab are in the anglophere.Halbared (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying... --IamNotU (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Grammar

I fixed a grammar error on this page citing the region of origin. The previous sentence didn’t make as much sense so I fixed it so the reader can understand it more clearly. Reinhearted (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that there was any error in the grammar. I have restored it to the previous version which I believe was better. --IamNotU (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the article should take place here, so I've copied this comment by Reinhearted from my talk page: How can something be “originating in Middle Eastern cuisines” this is not a region or state but rather a culture of food. The proper pronunciation would be “that originated in the Middle East”. As described in the History section, the basic techniques of cooking meat on a stick or skewer originated in Africa at least half a million years ago and predates the existence of modern humans. So it's not really accurate to say that it originated in the Middle East. On the other hand, the particular styles and recipes of the broader range of dishes we now call kebabs, beyond simple meat-on-a-stick, mainly arose in Persian and, later, Ottoman cuisines. I don't see that there is any grammatical problem in describing something as originating in a certain culture rather than a region or state. It's been this way for about three years, and nobody has complained. It also allows us to link to Middle Eastern cuisine, which is a more likely destination for readers of this article, who probably already know what the Middle East is. --IamNotU (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The article states that “Kebab is a style of meat with their origins in Middle Eastern Cuisines” clearly not referring to the the basic meat style that originated in Africa. That claim is misleading and irrelevant to say the least Reinhearted (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, can you indent your replies please? You've changed this again, but I still don't see a good justification for it. For the past several years, the lead sentence has been:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]], with their origins in [[Middle Eastern cuisine]].

I don't really see how the proposed replacement improves it:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]] that originated in the [[Middle Eastern cusine|Middle East]].

I prefer the existing version, as I explained above. I don't agree that there's a grammar error in it. Kebabs only originated in the Middle East in the sense of the name and specific recipes coming from a certain cuisine, i.e. Persian/Arab/Turkish medieval cookery. See the History section. Linking directly to the desired cuisine article is clearer to the reader, avoiding the problem described in MOS:SUBMARINE. Do we need to go do dispute resolution about this? --IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis, I noticed your edit:

Kebabs are various cooked meat [[dish (food)|dishes]] in [[Middle Eastern cuisine]].

which Reinhearted has also reverted to their version. It seems Reinhearted is concerned that we define the geographical origin of kebabs, as a region or state, in the first sentence. I prefer the stable version. Yours is pretty good, I would just say that at least some kebabs, e.g. doner kebab and shish kebab, have broken out from Middle Eastern cuisine and really have become global, so that's why I like "origins in Middle Eastern cuisine". I'm not so attached to "origins", could maybe be "stemming from" or something, if it's really necessary to change it. --IamNotU (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the stable version, so let's return to that for now. Reinhearted, you are of course free to argue for your preferred version here on the Talk page and see if you can change the consensus.

As IamNotU says, a problem with "that originated in the Middle East" is that the link is about the cuisine, while the text is about the place. --Macrakis (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)