Talk:Hummus

Edit request from 68.193.7.149, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On the Hummus page, the Palestinian section is extremely short. I have tried many times to edit that particular section. Instead of the simple few sentences, I felt the need to be more detailed (not too detailed). However, when I change that section it is often erased and changed back. This could be understood if I was vandalizing the section, however I assure you I am not. I am only adding to it in order to benefit 'wikipedia-ites' as they search and read, as well as offering a lengthier passage.

Please change this piece: "For Palestinians, hummus has long been a staple food, often served warm.[27] All of the ingredients in hummus are easily found in Palestinian gardens, farms and markets, thus adding to the availabilty and popularity of the dish. In Palestine, hummus is usually garnished, with olive oil, "nana" mint leaves, paprika, parsley or cumin.[28] A related dish popular in the region of Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("yogurt and chickpeas"), which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil. Hummus is served with pita bread and is eaten for breakfast, lunch or dinner." -Hummus Page, Palestine Section

INTO

"In the Middle East, hummus's principal ingredient, chickpeas, have been an important food item for over 10,000 years. They were eaten by people in ancient Palestine before 4000 BC. Chick peas were one of the earliest crops cultivated in Mesopotamia and were a common street dish in ancient Rome. For Palestinians, hummus has long been a staple food. The chickpeas are first boiled alone before the other ingredients are added and it is served hot. All of the ingredients in hummus are easily found in Palestinian gardens, farms and markets, thus adding to the availabilty and popularity of the dish. In Palestine, it is uncharacteristic to find the pasty spread devoid of some type of garnish. For Palestinians, hummus has long been a staple food, garnished with olive oil and "nana" mint leaves, paprika, parsley or cumin. A related dish popular in the region of Palestine and Jordan is laban ma' hummus ("yogurt and chickpeas"), which uses yogurt in the place of tahini and butter in the place of olive oil. Hummus is best served with pita bread and can be eaten for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Due to its history in Palestine, and availability of ingredients, hummus remains to be one of the most popular dishes in the area. "

The change is in wikipedia form.

Thank You

68.193.7.149 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: the reason the page was protected was for trying to insert this into the article. Please gain consensus on the talk page before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

6000 years ago there was no such a thing called Palestine

Just because the area was called Palestine for a certain time does not mean you can use this name for anything history related. The place was called Canaan before it was renamed to Israel. Stop hiding behind "original research". It's no more original research than the fact that the earth is round. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the source says "Palestine in 4000 BC", we should say ancient Palestine, not ancient Israel, the ancient near east, nor ancient Canaan. To do otherwise is original research. If necessary, I'll take this matter to WP:No original research/Noticeboard. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the article is "ancient Palestine", this does not imply that it was called Palestine at that time. He also violated the 1rr. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on TFighterPilot's Talk page about the 1RR violation, and I encouraged her/him to self-revert. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. So the source says "Finds in Palestine dating from 4000 BC at the latest show that the chick-pea was definitely used as a food at that time." Clearly that wording is referring to the geographic area known as Palestine, not any country or kingdom, modern or ancient. Two things. First, I agree with Malik Shabazz that we should not use ancient Israel or ancient Canaan, however purely geographic terms like "southern Levant" would be acceptable because they are synonymous with the geographic area called Palestine, and don't have any political connotations. Using a less controversial synonym is not original research, and may be less controversial, so that might be something worth considering. Second, changing the source's "Finds in Palestine" to "people in ancient Palestine" in the article significantly changes the meaning, and can imply something beyond the purely geographic meaning the source uses. I would, therefore, propose that this sentence be changed to either: "They were eaten by people in the southern Levant before 4000 BC..." or "Finds in Palestine dating from 4000 BC indicate that people consumed hummus in ancient times..." Either of should alleviate the current issues with the phrasing. ← George ^talk 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested to use the name Israel. I suppose southern levant would be the best wording here, since 4000BC predates even the word Canaan. Although I must stress that the word Canaan carries no political agenda whatsoever. Using the word Palestine is both wrong and very political. TFighterPilot (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Canaan is both a modern geographic term and the name of a long-dead political entity (a confederacy of city-states), which is why I would avoid it. There was never an empire named "southern Levant", so it can't be confused with anything but a geographic term, which is why I prefer it. But you're correct that 4000 BC predates most of these political entities, so if the reader isn't aware of that it may be confusing to use any term that carries both a political and geographic weight (Israel/Palestine/Canaan/Phoenicia/etc.). ← George ^talk 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of southern Levant is a good one, George. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is not the same thing as southern Levant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Southern Levant:

The southern Levant is therefore roughly the same area as Palestine and the modern states of Israel (including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) and Jordan. These terms are used by archaeologists, to avoid taking a modern geo-political stance in a region rife with border disputes.

I think it's an appropriate term to use for 4000 BC. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, southern Levant could mean Jordan, the geographical term Palestine is not the same area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

SD, do you have any better idea? I agree that Southern Levant is a bit vague, but then again, the borders in the middle east as we know them today had no meaning even a hundred years ago, let alone 6000 years. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Palestine, per the source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SD. I don't see why everytime someone comes along to project their political problems with the geographic term Palestine, we should accomodate them by introducing, in this case, Orientalist eupheumisms. The source says Palestine, its a reputable academic source discussing the subject in question, rejecting the wording is pure IDONTLIKEIT. Well too bad. (Sorry TFighterpilot but I'm getting kind of tired of this. Check the archives). Tiamut^talk 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Question - was there ever a kingdom/country/empire/city-state/etc. named Palestine? ← George ^talk 12:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is unnecessary. The fact that chick peas were consumed in <<whatever you want to call it>> in 4000 bc is simply irrelevant. The whole section on the history of the chick pea and of sesame in the region does not belong in this article at all. Presumably the reason that there is this much rancorous dispute about such a trivial issue is that some Israeli Jews and some Palestinian Arabs each want some sort of historical anchor to "prove" that hummus bi tahini is part of their historical tradition. But that is not sound historical argumentation. The chickpea has been known in a wide area for thousands of years. That area includes the area where hummus bi tahini was developed (our oldest good evidence so far says Damascus) and where it is popular today. So what? I say, delete the whole "history of the ingredients" section. --Macrakis (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then, do it. I don't see what's so political about Canaan or so inappropriate about Southern Levant, but the solution of keeping it "Palestine" is certainly not preferable. Just remove this section (I prefer not doing it myself, but will if there's other choice) TFighterPilot (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As the one who first added that material about the ingredients: there was no documented data about the history of hummus. I think because it is so much a dish of the people that noone had written about it in ancient 'cookbooks'. So, I looked at the ingredients to see when and where a group of such ingredients were noted - the only way I could see to suggest when in history, and where, hummus might first be noted. (Dumarest (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Dumarest, that probably made sense when we had no sources for the history of hummus. We now have documentation of a 13th-century mashed chickpea dish which does not include tahini (hummus kasa) and of hummus bi tahini itself in the 18th century. And by the way, I've found a medieval Provencal dish of mashed chickpeas without tahini (but don't have the exact reference), but I certainly wouldn't claim that that's evidence that hummus bi tahini is actually an old but unrecorded French dish.... Of course, the availability of the ingredients limits the historical possibilities, but a terminus post quem that comes 5000 years before any solid evidence isn't very helpful. My favorite example (you've heard it before, but perhaps others have not): clearly beef (even minced beef), cheese, and bread have all been eaten for thousands of years, but that doesn't help in figuring out the history of the cheeseburger. I would normally be bold and condense that section, but given the strong feelings on this page, I'd rather discuss first. --Macrakis (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time that was put in, there was no documented data on historical hummus BI TAHINI - IF THERE IS NOW DOCUMENTED DATA for the entire dish, then that requirement that I filled is no longer of the same importance, and let that take the place of the ingredients history.(Dumarest (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC))

I suggest Canaan. this is the area name before 6000 years -yona bendelac (discussion) 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dumarest, thanks for the reply. I have rewritten the history section, incorporating a very brief version of the history of the ingredients section. Since the chickpea and the other ingredients were used in a broad region stretching from India to Anatolia and probably beyond, and there is nothing linking hummus specifically with any particular subregion, there is no reason to name any particular subregion. I hope this will put an end to the pointless and fruitless dispute above, while also improving the legibility (and conciseness) of the history section. --Macrakis (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration note at the top

What on Earth does this article have to do with articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict? Did some joker mistake Hummus for Hamas? A sad world we live in :( 76.164.71.104 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that gave me one of the best laughs I've had in ages. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Dave

Because this article has been Hijacked for political purposes in the past. It's seen massive amounts of edit warring (Check WP:LAME) and nationalist silliness on many, many sides of the spectrum, generally from people overseas who don't understand the Israeli-Palestine conflict and enjoy demonizing one side. And using an article on a food I hate for this purpose, is still not cool with this chick. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Arabic translation in lead

Why was the Arabic translation removed from the lead? Since it is an Arabic word then, its translation should be in the lead. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says: "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical." [1]. We should follow Wikipedia guideline. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Was the Arabic ever in the lede? It appears in the Etymology section, which is appropriate, since it a source of the English name.
2. Why should the Arabic be in the lede? Reference to specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines would be helpful. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict when I typed my response. You're wrong on two counts. First, the word entered English from Turkish (see the Etymology section). Second, the guideline to which you refer is for subjects whose name is in a foreign language. Hummus is an English word (again, see the Etymology section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That it entered English from Turkish doesn't mean its not an Arabic word. And no, its not an English word, its an Arabic word that is also used in English. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Damascus source

I also removed a paragraph, since it isn't supported by the source. The book only writes that Hummus wasn't prepared in 18th century Damascus, and that the claim that it is a traditional cuisine in Damascus is not supported. The paragraph said something completely different.Avaya1 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous Etymology

"The English word hummus comes from Turkish humus meaning the hummus food dip or spread, which in turn comes from Arabic حمّص ḥummuṣ" - This is ridiculous, and actually quite desperate. Thinkfood (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This derivation is given by the OED which is a highly respected source. I have checked online and this derivation is still what is given there and has not changed since the version originally cited..--Peter cohen (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I need a "highly respected source" in this instance. The term, 'hummus comes from Turkish humus, which comes from Arabic hummus' is ridiculous. Turkish humus is irrelevant. I could not verify your claim, you can provide the link if you wish, but that does not change the matter regardless if the OED expressed that opinion or not. Also, this is not an issue whether Hummus comes from Arabic or not, so what is your objective here? Thinkfood (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:V. A number of editors of this article have various ethnic affinities which may lead to certain views about the interactions between Israelis, Arabs, Greeks, Turks and Armenians in various combinations. They may believe that various "truths" apply and look at the content of Wikipedia through the lenses of these "truths". However, unless these "truths" are supported by respectable and, preferably, non-affiliated sources, then they have no place on Wikipedia. In this case the OED has no apparent affiliation with any of the ethnic groups listed. Therefore when it says the word came into English via Turkish, we should take it on face value. The mention should only be replaced if people produce other sources with equal or greater status in the field of etymology to counter what the OED says.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thinkfood that "The English word hummus comes from Turkish humus meaning the hummus food dip or spread, which in turn comes from Arabic ḥummuṣ" sounds ridiculous, what exactly does the source say? Its basically the exact same word. So I think its more accurate to say that it "entered" the English language from Turkish. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the OED is fairly reliable in most things - however, that does not mean it is for everything all the time, nor that it has conducted the right research into the subject matter, in this case the notion that Hummus entered the English language through Turkish. If it in fact did, I welcome the information, although it would be best to find out exactly how this happened. Also, have you considered the possibility that what's true for the UK may not be for the US? The OED obviously takes the position from a British perspective. OED says first use was 1955, Websters says it was 1949 so we already have a discrepancy within two reliable English dictionaries. I don't know how this "official date" was established, but I'm sure that both these dates are incorrect in that hummus was obviously consumed in America much earlier, especially considering that many new Armenian, Greek and Jewish, communities sprang up in the States at the turn of the century who escaped the harsh conditions of the Ottoman Empire and WWI. For all we know they could have prepared it in their local communities. Thinkfood (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Those Ottomon refugees would have spoke Turkish. But a distinction between what is essentially the same word in two different alphabets does seem silly.169.232.131.133 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Earliest known attestation in Engliah

I have no idea why people are changing this. It doesn't belong in the article at all without a very reliable source stating it is the earliest known attestation. It's easy to find it as early as 1848, and that isn't necessarily the earliest. Please don't reinstate it. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The OED's claim that English 'hummus' was borrowed from Turkish doesn't sound particularly plausible, since hummus is not widely known in Turkey. Just because the OED is a reliable source in general doesn't mean we have to accept it as gospel.

There is also always the question of what constitutes a "borrowing" and what is just a "quotation" of a word in a foreign language. If a text says "The local people make a dish they call 'hummus'", that is not an indication that the word has been borrowed. The line of course is not clear, as the preface of the OED (1st edition) says. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hummus was known in Turkey in the 1950s. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Varieties

Varieties must be added. For example, Hummus bi Lahmi (lit. translation from Arabic: Hummus with Meat). It is a Hummus dish that comes with small pieces of fried mutton on top. --E4024 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've consumed that dish. But, lacking citations, it cannot be added.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Serving methods

The presence of (only) Israeli and Palestinian 'serving methods' (to the exclusion of other regions where the food has been traditionally consumed for many years) seems to be more of a socio-political statement rather than an attempt at all-encompassing coverage. Is this focus on either territory in this article really necessary? Either remove the distinction from the article entirely or provide broader coverage that is actually representative of the food's usage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The article claims Israelis and Palestinians eat more of it than other Arabs. This is a sourced statement. I can attest that they both eat a lot of it, but so do Lebanese. So then since it is consumed the most in that area, Israel and Palestine should have primacy, but the article could use info on other countries.