Talk:Lavash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Armenian cracker bread

Armenian cracker bread is something else...its a cracker not a soft bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.55.230 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, Armenian cracker bread is lavash. Use Google. Hakob 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com

Reference the user supplied gives information about the etymology of lavash. What it reads is "Armenian, from Turkish", which means that the word entered English from Armenian, and it entered Armenian from Turkish.

So, the user wrote "it is of Armenian origin";

1. If the user wanted to imply that the word's etymology is of Armenian origin, this is not true. The reference he gave denies himself.

2. If the user wanted to imply that lavash bread itself is of Armenian origin, the reference he supplied doesn't give any information about this.

--85.102.189.236 11:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins of lavash

One of the users has modified the article citing that lavash is natively Armenian giving two references. I couldn't verify one of the references.

I found the second reference in Google books. Here is the url:

Like Our Mountains: a history of Armenians in Canada

In the book the author doesn't give any information that it's natively or originally Armenian, only writes that it's an Armenian dish, but it can also be a Persian dish, Turkish dish etc...

In another book I have found in Google books it reads about the Iranian roots of lavash, although it's called Armenian flatbread. Here is the url:

Making Classic Breads with the Cutting-edge Techniques of a Bread Master

In another book, it reads that it's a Georgian bread. Here is the url:

The Soviet Jewish Americans By Annelise Orleck

So, if you can find serious sources, verifiable ones will be appreciated, I will be with you to revert the article. Thanks...

Chapultepec 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lavash is not considered as Armenian bread in Iran, otherwise Iran would not oppose to UNESCO's decision to recognize lavash as Armenian bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.14.85 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


The references proving it is being of Middle East origin are being continuously reverted. 

  Just examples:
  • Encyclopedia of Jewish Food |author=Gil Marks |publisher=John Wiley and Sons |year=2010 |page=355
  • In a Persian Kitchen: Favorite Recipes from the Near East Paperback – December 15, 1989
  • Big Green Egg Cookbook: Celebrating the World's Best Smoker and Grill
  • Persian Cooking – January 1, 2000 by Nesta Ramazani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuisine stubs

Chapultepec may I remind you the more stubs the better it makes the article more popular and more people will see it, please do not remove it because that is the whole purpose of the tag, so people will see it and possibly expand. Artaxiad 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections for the tags. What I fear is, in multi-national cuisine stubs only, that all the other related cuisines will rightfully place their tags and soon the articles will be a mess of cuisine stub tags. Chapultepec 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the majority are Persians and Armenians judging from the article, plus the Turkish cuisine and the rest are going to be accepted so everyone is going to make it. We will judge by the majority so far Iranian, Armenian, Turkish seems fine for this article thats not bad. I doubt theres going to be any more. Artaxiad 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, not a problem. Thanks. Chapultepec 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The bread

This is a reprize of what I put on the talk under hummus. This bread, it sounds very much like the bread I knew in Lebanon, called ma-ouk [forgive my spelling or such, I remember only how it sounds] This was a flat bread, would not make a pocket, and was made by throwing the dough on an inverted wok-like metal dish. Was not often seen in Beirut, was considered a peasant bread, found in the countryside. --Dumarest 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacy do you mind explaining your newest addition? --VartanM 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eloghlu, the sources you added are not reliable for number of reasons. Economist source is a journalist diary, and there is no mention of Azerbaijan the article says its origin is in northern Iran. The second source is bogus it only mentions lavash once. Third one is not reliable because its not a refrence, its a recipe of how to make lavash, and nowhere in that source it says that lavash is has Azeri origin. The fourth one is also bogus, no mention of lavash whatsoever. Please don't disturb this article. VartanM 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't own article so you can't say other people not to touch the article. Regarding sources. The article has three sources. Following your logic teh article has two other boguz refrences. Either we will leave Economist or should remove two others as well. Besides, these first two sources does not indicate from there it has taken. So, please provide full description of sources. Besides, I am adding the source about the origin of the word 'lavash'.--Dacy69 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I edited and added two versions of the origin - Azeri and Armenian. I hope it will end the dispute. The source which I provided for the origin of the word lavash being Turkic also claims that it was emanated from Armenia. I believe it is fair enough.--Dacy69 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, both are bogus references. Nowhere to I find the words Lavash is Azerbaycanlar.Hetoum I 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, the Economist article is not reliable because, first and foremost it doesn't say lavash has Azerbaijani origins, secondly its a diary of a journalist. Eda-server.ru reference only mentions lavash once, here is what it says
Мясо заедают рисом (или рисом, завернутым в лаваш) и вслед за тем пряной травой. Translation to English Meat is served with rice (or rice rolled in lavash) followed by greens
Please show me where it says lavash has Azerbaijani origin. Lastly don't put words in my mouth, I never told anyone not to touch the article. I only politely asked not to disturb it, and adding bogus sources is certainly disturbing it. VartanM 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Economist article says lavash originated in Azerbaijan, so I added that info back. Also, how the word lavash is Armenian, if it is of Turkish origin? This line makes no sense. Grandmaster 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Economist says merely "north-western Iran." That's both Iranian Azerbaijan and historic Armenia. It doesn't contradict the "Armenian origin."--TigranTheGreat 22:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So North-Western Iran is historic Armenia? Are you serious? Grandmaster 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the geography, please tell me where in Economist or Eda.ru articles it says Lavash has Azerbaijani origin. VartanM 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It says it originated in North Western Iran, which is Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats WP:OR Northwestern Iran is Iran. VartanM 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Whos the author of the Economist article? VartanM 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian

Below are sources that say that Lavash is Armenian

Do you want more? VartanM 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As you noticed perhaps, in my version I had two opinions saying about Armenian and Azerbaijani origin. Secondly this article has now two unclear references. Please provide full description of reference number 3,4. Plus, information about the origin of word in incorrect. The reference says about etymology of the word which is from Turkish.--Dacy69 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've noticed what I said about your so called references. VartanM 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, pls. provide full descirption of those references and see information below.--Dacy69 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

some sources don't say it clearly, other are penned by Armenian authors. Below are sources that say Lavash was Georgian, Damascus (Arab) or Iranian for example, there are that say Turkish, Arab, Hebrew, Greek. Best to say Middle Eastern, which is what reliable sources do.

More can be listed. Eloghlu 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sources

Eloghlu, its nice to see you in the talkpage. We are yet to see any reliable sources. VartanM 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • especially for VartanM:

wording on 1 and 2 about lavash is same, but pages are different, authors are different

3. "what kind of reference is this??" you ask - "oval loaves of lavash (Georgian bread)" (Jewish Russians: Upheavals in a Moscow Synagogue By Sascha L. Goluboff).

4. "soft lavash wraps (sometimes called Damascus wraps)." (A Year in a Vegetarian Kitchen: Easy Seasonal Dishes for Family and Friends By Jack Bishop) - I think "Damascus wraps" is a rather unambiguous reference to origin.

5. "nothing about its origin" you say - "For Iranian flat breads, that is, barbari, lavash, taftoon (tanoor), and sangak, flour of 78%, 82%, 84%," (Flat Bread Technology By Jalal Qarooni)

VartanM - you references are mostly written by Armenian authors, who are neiher chefs (cuisine specialists), experts on lavash or historians. From my references, one Mr. Pokhlebkin, a top Russian-Soviet authority on the subject of national cuisine, is enough to override your refs, plus all other cooking/cuisine books provided. It is clear that lavash, despite being Turkish, has become so widespread and popular in all of Middle East, with everyone making their variations and varieties, that now it cannot but be called "Middle Eastern bread". Eloghlu 07:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eleghlu, calling my references mostly Armenian is absurd, only one was Armenian, which I removed. If we follow your logic then we should rename Turkish coffee to Middle Eastern coffee. As for Mr. Pokhlebkin can you please provide the link and a quote. VartanM 07:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly armenian. WHere you in middle east find non armenian lavash. Throught foods like this exist around middle east, but they aren't lavash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.71.250 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-Ok all of you look, as a turk, I need to tell one thing:

The American source that says Lavaş comes from Armenian but is originally Turkish is complete nonsense, as their etymological research is not thorough enough, they did not go to the penultimate root. The word "lavaş" is not even turkish etymologically while "yufka" is. To put THE END to all that discussion to "is it Armenian or Turkish or Âzerî", I'd say look at the Turkish-Armenian Linguist Sevan Nişanyan who says the word itself is of persian origin. "Lâven" is in Middle-Persian synonym to Turkish "Yoğurmak" (to knead - to open dough) and "Lâvâş is the derived noun[1]. Now, where it is geographically from? I'd say south caucasus, including Turkey, Armenia, Northern Iran and Azerbaïjan. Again, food brings us together, while we use it to divide ourselves. Can we unite around a table for a while? Look at the article Döner Kebab, Armenians, Turks and Greeks, Look at that GERMANS say it is THEIRS basing themselves on some BBC newsreel... Now isn't that scandalous???? --85.99.39.91 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/search.asp?w=Lava%FE&x=0&y=0
and Armenian was pieces of Persia culture.
Over two thousand years ago, the Achaemenid soldier in the war with Greece and the Greeks, on the shield of war, would make bread
Below are sources that say that Armenian was pieces of Persia culture.
you can see evidences in UN and all college of history in the world.
Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.236.160.200 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

McLavash

In eastern Europe lavash is quite a populars, so McDonalds has made McLavash. Look here http://foto.inbox.lv/greg1w/20-06-2007/P1010130-1.jpg Just don't understand, what armenians do with parandjas? 159.148.71.250 09:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in Latvian. It means "discover eastern secrets", and it has nothing to do with Armenians. Dr. Klim (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

I can't find mention of it here or elsewhere on the internet, but the "lavosh" in Hawaii is often sweet, made with tropical fruit juices. See this site for some examples (there are 3 pages of different varieties). I don't know if anyone wants to include it in the article, but I thought it was interesting to see how much recipes can change as they travel around the world. Indeterminate (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Turkic etimology from the "Etymologic dictionary of Turkic languages" (Moscow, 2003)

Quotation from the "Etymologic dictionary of Turkic languages": Что касается второго элемента аш, то одним из старейших его значений признается 'еда, пища'. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Those who are interested can find the dictionary here. "Lavash" is the first word there. --Quantum666 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Try here:

--Emir Ali Enç (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenian "translation"

Aram van, stop adding unsourced information to the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Aram van, using non-etymologic non-neutral sources will not help you to prove Armenian etymology. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested quotation from "Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке"

Aram van requested the quotation from "Е.Н. Шипова. Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке. Алма-Ата, "Наука" КазССР. 1976. Ответственный редактор академик А.Н. Кононов. стр. 218"

It is here: лаваш, м. пресный пшеничный хлеб в виде тонких больших лепёшек (у татар, грузин и др.); лавашное тесто. Сл. Акад., 1915 лаваш; каше,лаваш (Сл. Акад., 1957, 6, 12). Радлов лаваш (тур., чаг., аз.) 1. тонкое пирожное из пшеницы; 2. (аз.) круглый тонкий хлеб вроде блинов,лепёшка, служащая также вместо скатерти; лаюаш (крым., тат.) род пирожного (3, 741). Ср. севр. аз. лаваш хлеб из тонко раскатанного теста,иногда в виде лепёшек разной величины (Аз.-рус. сл., 1941, 191). --Quantum666 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The word is listed in "Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке" (Dictionary of Turkic words in Russian language) so I see no reason to put the absurd quotation request. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How should I know is the word lavash really listed in "Словарь тюркизмов в русском языке" (Dictionary of Turkic words in Russian language)? AV--Aram-van (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
See WP:VERIFY. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Source

Now an Armenian source is listing "lavaş" as of Persian origin, from the word "lāvuk" (kneading bucket)...

Now where are going? Can we stop all that nationalist absurdity? This is BREAD!--Emir Ali Enç (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lavash is Persian bread and Armenian was pieces of Persia culture. Over two thousand years ago, the Achaemenid soldier in the war with Greece and the Greeks, on the shield of war, would make lavash. And we see that the Armenian government with less than 25 years of independence, is looking for its identity, even with distorted history. However, the Armenian nation with nation is the greatest friendship and cultural proximity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.236.160.200 (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ingredients

What kind of flour is used? The article mentions flour several times, but no mention of what kind. Is it typically wheat flour, lentil flour, or some other grain? --Showeropera (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lavash origin

There are anecdotal evidences proving lavash of Armenian origin. Therefore it is not correct to mention it as of Armenian origin. I changed it to Middle East. Another fact was added to wiki, UNESCO did not publish on its official webpage lavash as of Armenian origin. This fact also questions statement that lavash is armenian food. Please do not remove the amendments I did, since they shed light on origin of lavash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Those "anecdotal evidences" are published books which describe lavash is of Armenian origin. Regarding UNESCO, the organization has a list called the "Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" and they have recently included Lavash and its preparation traditions to that list. You can see it online here: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&RL=00985 Their website states that "Lavash is a traditional thin bread that forms an integral part of Armenian cuisine." The sentence that you added to the intro ("At the same time in spite of initial request by Armenia, UNESCO did not publish on its webpage lavash as of Armenian origin.") is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because again, it's not their job to say where lavash was originated. They simply document intangible cultural heritage around the world and their statement says exactly what it says, you are not to comment on it the way you desire.
Also, you twice add countries to its place of origin ("Middle East - Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan region") which is simply not true. Just because lavash is popular in Turkey or Azerbaijan doesn't mean it was originated there. The intro already says that. --Երևանցի talk 22:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Yerevantsi,

This is a fact that UNESCO declined armenian request to publish lavash as armenian national bread. This fact must be included on this page. Secondly, there are other resources proving that lavash is Turkish bread and was borrowed by armenians along with other many dishes. This is not armenopedia this is wikipedia, therefore all view points should be taken into consideration. To respect all sides I am going to revert the origin of lavash to Middle East. Please do not ruin the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

UNESCO on lavash

The decision of 9th session of UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

The Armenian provocation to present lavash as armenian national bread was prevented. Thus, the name of the UNESCO file was changed in accordance with the requirements of the UNESCO Convention revealing that lavash doesn’t belong to the Armenian nation, it only exists in Armenia too. According to the outcomes of the discussions held in the Committee, this attempt of Armenia is unacceptable and preparation of any food in Armenia doesn’t mean that it belongs to the Armenian nation.

The Committee’s accepting lavash as a bread existing in Armenia instead of belonging to the Armenian nation reconfirmed that Azerbaijanis lived in the territory of Armenia and Armenians learned these traditions from them.

post scriptum. I believe UNESCO it is the most valuable source on this matter contrary to sources on this page stating that lavash is armenian bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.14.85 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

After the protest made by Azerbaijani and Turkish sites, the initial UNESCO statement "Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of TRADITIONAL ARMENIAN BREAD (!) as an expression of culture" was changed to "Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture IN ARMENIA". UNESCO rejected Armenia's appeal to present lavash as bread of armenian origin. In my opinion UNESCO is quiet reputable organization and makes its statements based on reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? [1] Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything that trumps the 4 sources stating Lavash is of Armenian origin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Positive, just search the web. I guess you know that anyway. Even some Russian sources laugh about this - due to absence of tangible heritage items, baking of lavash was proposed as a piece of intangible one, for example the countries like USA and Russia so far did not suggest any intangible items to include in UNESCO list. --Fmelikov (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources I published, which prove it is being of Middle East origin, you just continuously revert the edit.--Fmelikov (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Origin of The Word Iavash.

According to armenian linguists, Yervand Sevortyan and others the word lavash is made up of two turkic words: "lay" which means "layer" and "ash" which means food. For references see: 1. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков, Том 6, Эрванд Владимирович Севортян, ‎Анна Владимировна Дыбо, ‎Институт языкознания (Российская академия наук) - 2003; Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages, Volume 6, Ervand V. Sevortyan, Anna Vladimirovna Dybo, Institute of Linguistics (Russian Academy of Sciences) - 2003 2. Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia

I believe the reputation of Yervand Sevortyan is stronger, than mentioned Hrach Martirosyan, just search the web to compare.

What is the point to hide from the public the real origin of the word lavash!?--Fmelikov (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That statement comes from an azeri website, which are known for lying to belittle Armenia and Armenians. Your sources do not mention anything similar to that statement. And the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia makes no mention of such a statement as well. Tell me which page and volume of the Armenian Soviet encyclopedia does he supposedly make that claim? Also which page of the Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages does he make that statement? Is this like the Zori Balayan book where azeris invented a book to back up there claims except these books exist but those statements dont?
According to azeri linguists the word lavash is of Armenian origin.
For reference see:
1.) azerbaijani soviet encyclopedia Ninetoyadome (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ninetoyadome, Kansas Bear, Étienne Dolet, Squinge ,Yerevantsi

For reference proving turkic origin of the word lavash please see the link at the section Turkic etimology from the "Etymologic dictionary of Turkic languages" (Moscow, 2003)

I believe, you would not doubt the scientific work of the famous armenian scholar, Yervand Sevortyan published in well reputable Russian source.

Please do not revert my edit, which gives another opinion on origin of the word lavash!. --Fmelikov (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No one is hiding anything. We go by what the sources say. Although there may be disagreements as to when and how the word "Lavash" came about, there's certainly an overwhelming amount of sources that state it was originated by Armenians or in Armenia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Again, tell me what page of the Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages volume 6 he said that and what page and volume of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia those statements are stated. You being unable to state these simple things proves that statement does not exist and is made up by the azeris. Also you have been banned from editing the Lavash page so stop. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been a consensus already that this food is of Armenian origin. Why are there tags being added constantly to this article? Please see what the points me and Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs) have made about sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


The only source used here that mentions it explicitly being of Armenian origin is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - adding balance to the discussion is necessary. --92slim (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Esc2003 (talk · contribs) has added that it is of Iranian origin without discussion. But this is entirely undue considering that UNESCO, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and many other RS sources that state that it's specifically Armenian. I shall remove the Iranian origin part due to that reason. Let me know if there are any objections. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I would have no objections. I have just checked the information available on the American Heritage Dictionary, and it mentions an editor named Calvert Watkins as contributing his expertise on Indo-European languages to the first edition of the dictionary. Apparently the dictionary is famed for the inclusion of Indo-European etymologies, so I'd like to note that this source definitely has weight. It would be useful to add the Unesco reference too, if possible. --92slim (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ethnic Regional Foodways United States: Performance of Group Identity mentions lavash in one sentence and never again, which means it's only a Wikipedia:Trivial mentions (The general notability guideline arguably states that sources that only mention a topic in "one sentence" are insufficient to establish that topic's notability, and clearly states that "trivial mentions" of a topic are insufficient). Considering this was the only basis of Iranian origin which is completely UNDUE, I removed it. --Steverci (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

lavash, a large flatbread, often baked hard for keeping. ” Found in the Southwest, borrowed in Tatar and Bashkir. The distribution suggest an innovation (or borrowing) in the Southwest, except that ninth and tenth century Uighur writings we find the word liv (borrowed from some other language; no native Turkish word begins with 1) and a compound word liv-as, incorporating the Turkish word for cooked food. Both words mean "food; ritual food." Since this word seems to have meant a boiled grain dish (liv-as is declared to be rice in one Turfan text), the connection of lavas and liv-as is extremely speculative. In Tatar; läwäs means not only a latbread but a sort of small pie: a circle of unleavened dough folded over a filling of raisins, sugar and butter, and then fried. Borrowings: The word lavash is found in Persian, Armenian, Georgian. The Ossetes of the central Caucasus have borrowed the word twice: lawïz/lauz, "pancake," and (via Georgian) lawasi, "flatbread."

This is written in A Soup for the Qan -Esc2003 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Esc2003, what is the "Southwest" that is mentioned there? --92slim (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Esc2003 You've done nothing to solve the undue weight issues here. That source says nothing about its origins. Etymology is alos different from food origination. There's three users here who want "Iranian origin" deleted for that reason and other reasons stated above. I still think, along with many others here, that inserting Iranian origins is entirely unnecessary. So instead of edit-warring, please participate in the discussion and explain your reasons as to why you think we should be giving it the same weight as Armenian. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just looked at the citation provided, and it doesn't claim it's not Armenian. In fact, it says it has origins in Iran, but it's an Armenian staple food. Read carefully to avoid forging content. --92slim (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, I suggest removing origins in Iran altogether. It can be explained in more detail elsewhere in the article perhaps. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The way it is phrased now is a good alternative, as it doesn't imply the origin is not Armenian - just that it "originated in Iran" "from Armenian foodways"- could imply the ancient Minni people, could not. Could imply the Armenians from Iran, could not. But if you think there is a chance of pushing further NPOV, please do change the article. I personally think it stands fine as it is now. --92slim (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed categories and classified the breads mentioned in the article by the use of sour dough. Please do check if there are any errors. --92slim (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about the origins of lavash, not "the word"

The source provided says:

"Also from Armenian foodways, but with origins in Iran" = Armenian

Let's find other sources, and then we can change it to another, if it says so. The source must say:

"It has x origin" or "it originates from". There is a UNESCO souce already that proves it's from Armenia. Not "the word is", etc. The etymology is unfortunately not usable in Wikipedia. --92slim (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That is your inference. "Also from Armenian foodways, but with origins in Iran" ≠ Armenian. OK? UNESCO says: Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture in Armenia. UNESCO did not say ...from Armenia. --Esc2003 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Esc, you are pushing your POV here. You need to find a new source - it's very simple; contrary to what you may think, the one you have provided also implies "Armenian". The Unesco webpage clearly says: "Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture in Armenia, Inscribed in 2014 (9.COM) on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Country(ies): Armenia" We have to follow what the source says and try to minimize the differences. I am certain that even if UNESCO says "Armenia", if there are any other important sources that claim otherwise, they should be included to. But as far as I am concerned, I cannot find them.
And @Etienne, I think that is not what the source says. It doesn't say "believed to have origins in Iran". The source is what matters here, not what we believe. --92slim (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, Iranian doesn't mean Armenian, but Armenian could mean Iranian. It is obvious, as Armenians are a minority in Iran, just like many other minorities living there who form basis of their society. --92slim (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, the book only mentions lavash in one sentence, so it is not a reliable source. --Steverci (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO listing

The UNESCO listing of lavash explicitly states:

Takes note that lavash is shared by communities in the region and beyond, recalls that inscription on the Representative List does not imply exclusivity and encourages the submitting State when implementing safeguarding measures to remain conscious of the element’s larger cultural context in the region;
Recalls the importance of using vocabulary appropriate to the spirit of the Convention and avoiding expressions such as ‘unique’ and ‘original’.

That is, listing it as part of Armenian cultural heritage does not mean (a) that it is necessarily of Armenian origin or (b) that it is not part of other cultural heritages as well. I have no knowledge of the origin or current culinary importance of lavash in Armenia or anywhere else -- I just want to point out that the UNESCO listing cannot be used to show that lavash is originally or uniquely Armenian. There may well be other sources that do show these things. --Macrakis (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Macrakis. Besides that, it would be interesting to know which sources UNESCO used in this context. Alex2006 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, UNESCO clearly refrains from making any statements about the origins of this sort of bread, and takes extra care in making an explicit statement that the bread is shared by many cultures. Yet UNESCO listing is used in this article as one of the references to support the claim of ethnic Armenian origin of the bread. That is inappropriate. Also, I find any fights over exclusive ethnic origins of something that is shared by many cultures from Afghanistan and Central Asia all the way to North Africa to be ridiculous. There's no way to trace ethnic origins of something that exists since times immemorial, unless one has a time machine to travel back and find the first ever maker of bread. The sources used to support the claims of ethnic origin are not that compelling, they are mostly cookbooks and dictionaries making passing remarks on the subject, but no dedicated scholarly researches. I believe it is better to use some neutral wording in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Macrakis: It's worth to note that the UNESCO source wasn't used in the article to make a claim of Armenian origins until recently. I will remove that source. Also, the article makes it clear that the food is eaten in other parts of the world as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Grandmaster. If anything, the article sounds desperate to claim ownership over something as innocuous as a type of bread. That is why, to avoid some kind of political fanfare, I propose rewriting the beginning. Claiming that bread is Turkish or Armenian, providing only etymological documents or cookbooks and dictionaries as sources is...well, it's not a dish, after all, but a primary resource used by many civilizations during the course of history as far as I am concerned. It's like saying that beef comes from Iraq (does it?). Unless we find some archaeological evidence, the arguments will be hard to hold. But I disagree that UNESCO worded it in a way to carefully avoid this strange argument. UNESCO clearly stated "Countries:Armenia" in their webpage. This doesn't tell about origins I agree, but the cultural heritage where it is contained within. I am pretty sure it could have easily said "Armenia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait." - but their assessment shows simply that it is more important' to Armenians than to other nations. I suggest changing the "origins" part with a mention of the cultural influence implied. --92slim (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
TL:DR - you can keep it like this, but there is no archaeological proof that the bread is Armenian; there is though proof that the bread makes up a big part of the Armenian culture. --92slim (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, same goes for Turkish coffee. As far as the origins of the method of preparation, it's a most probably a South Arabian beverage originated in Yemen - there are sources of course. UNESCO decided it's not, because the cultural influence is far more important - although, it could still be called Arabic coffee or was it Northern Cypriot coffee. But that is another talk. --92slim (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. The coffee actually comes from Ethiopia (the word comes from the Ethiopian word Kafa). It passed through Arabia up to Armenia, where Armenian merchants of the Ottoman era traded it to Western European visitors, who stupidly dubbed it Turkish. Clearly if something that has no origins to Turkey is labeled so (though the article is a mess), then soemthing with clear origins to Armenia can be labeled Armenian. --Steverci (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
What has "clear origins in Armenia"? Alex2006 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The UNESCO listing is for the culture of lavash in Armenia. Their statement "does not imply exclusivity" clearly means that it is perfectly possible that there is also a noteworthy culture of lavash in other regions or countries. The UNESCO listing certainly does not mean that lavash is specifically or originally Armenian, just that in Armenia, there are noteworthy traditions around it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, but in this case the UNESCO doesn't say noteworthy culture of lavash in other regions, only that it is not unique or original (as stated in the webpage). Otherwise, it wouldn't have been included only in Armenia or Countries: Armenia, would it? I think the problem arises when someone states "origins" in Armenia or "origins" in Georgia with no tangible proof. --92slim (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to use as a template the example of the article Kebab, in the intro. --92slim (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reason that UNESCO listed this bread for Armenia is because Armenia was the first to apply for it, not because it is more important for Armenians than for other people. After all, Armenians are not the only people to eat bread, and it plays an important role in the daily food consumption of other people in the vast geographic area. UNESCO has no opinion on ethnic origin of anything, and makes no researches on this matter. And as other users pointed out above, UNESCO takes care to discourage any claims of exclusivity, i.e. it does not consider lavash to be exclusively Armenian. Grandmaster 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the overall statement, but one inconsistency: The only reason that UNESCO listed this bread for Armenia is because Armenia was the first to apply for it Which source states that? It is likely, yes, but there must be a reason for it to be so if this were true. In regards to After all, Armenians are not the only people to eat bread, and it plays an important role in the daily food consumption of other people in the vast geographic area. For me, that is (and should be) the sole reason of the argument, as opposed to proving the currently unprovable. Apart from Armenians obviously, no one has considered the exclusivity of lavash as being Armenian. I agree that this is quite strange to be in the article, as it happens for many articles in Wikipedia (let me say, they are quite a mess). But UNESCO does state, in other words, that it represents an important tradition to Armenians, whilst the methodology used is not presented there, for which @Macrakis asked to find the sources they used (if possible). This is why I think the origins part must be deleted and/or replaced, and a cultural importance part written. The sources are what should guide us in these kind of delicate arguments. PS. I personally think that the origins argument can be mostly futile but for example in Kebab there is archaeological proof provided (which I personally find quite amusing). --92slim (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean by "Apart from Armenians obviously, no one has considered the exclusivity of lavash as being Armenian". Grandmaster 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The UNESCO source was never used to say the bread was of Armenian origin. However, there's a plethora of sources that call it Armenian bread. There's even more sources that say it's Armenian. So we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Also, if 'origin] get removed, I suggest just calling it "Armenian lavash" in the lead. Typing Armenian lavash in google books yields a substantial 164 results. As opposed to others such as Turkish Lavash yielding only four and Iranian Lavash yielding ten. I suggest changing the lead simply to:
Lavash (Armenian: լավաշ; Persian: لواش or mar'ou'a مرقوق‎; Turkish: lavaş) is an Armenian bread made of soft, thin unleavened flatbread.
Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a solution. The origin should stay anyway, it's an important part of the article. I'm sure there are original manuscripts mentioning lavash that predate all of the aforementioned sources. Can someone with access to Matenadaran manuscripts find and add references to couple of them so we can put and end to this discussion? Hayordi (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The bread is as much Armenian, as it is Iranian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Afghani, etc. So "Armenian lavash" is not a good solution. And I highly doubt that any manuscript could be a proof of anything. Bread existed long before Armenians or Iranians or Turks came to existence. Grandmaster 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Not true in the slightest. Just because Indian food is popular in Britain doesn't make it British food. --Steverci (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a good example. British people have not made that food historically. It is a recent import. If you look at Iran, Iranians also consider lavash a part of their national cuisine. [2] This article from Iranica could also be used in the text, it is too focused on one country. Grandmaster 22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grandmaster - I made a typo. What I meant is that only Armenians declare lavash as being exclusively Armenian (doesn't mean it's not Armenian, oy vey). Therefore, statements about origins, unless from archaeology or old manuscripts that declare the ancient origins of and many others, even if lavash in fact it comes from Kashmir, are in my opinion baseless and should simply be excluded - an idea that could probably set a precedent in Wikipedia for neutrality. We could simply state for example - "Lavash is a unleavened bread of the Caucasus [includes Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia] and of the Caspian region [includes Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc]." It's just simpler and reflects the reality. The fact that UNESCO declares it as having heritage in Armenia is another thing, which should simply be included in the article (Intangible Heritage of Armenia confirmed by UNESCO etc). I will be quick to point out, that the same applies to Turkish coffee as well, but for example not to Turkish delight (which in fact has a 100% Turkish origin). Using Wikipedia to advance economic or political gain seems to me as a corruption of the truth - regardless of what UNESCO says, as they can say a lot of things, whether true or not. If the cultural heritage belongs to many, then I am an advocate of ignoring the UNESCO (which, by the way, has an interesting tagline for themselves: Encourages international peace and universal respect by promoting collaboration among nations.) sources for absolutely any article as proof of anything as well as a precautionary measure, if necessary, in order not to tilt the neutrality. --92slim (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this section goes off the assumption that lavash having an Armenian origin is a recent addition, when in fact it has stated that for a long time and has had then and now plenty of secondary neutral sources confirming it. The only thing recent is hysteria from certain people in reaction to UNESCO acknowledging lavash's Armenian roots.. A lot of breads and other foods articles attribute a national origin to them, there is no reason lavash shouldn't, especially when all the reliable sources confirm so. --Steverci (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of how much everyone here would like to debate about its origins, Lavash is overwhelmingly recognized as "Armenian Lavash". As I aforementioned, typing Armenian lavash in google books yields a substantial 164 results. As opposed to others such as Turkish Lavash yielding only four and Iranian Lavash yielding ten. That cannot be dismissed. There's way too much WP:WEIGHT here. According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
In other words, we as editors need to simply reflect what the majority of sources say. If we don't, that is consider POV editing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
And how many hits does have Lavash totally? Alex2006 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alex2006, I don't think there is any difference on how many hits lavash has totally because this is a cultural matter really - but just providing information, to complete the above on finds: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Armenian+lavash%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#tbm=bks&q="persian+lavash" 9 results; https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Armenian+lavash%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#tbm=bks&q="iranian+lavash" 10 results - proves not much, but just to note it is true that everywhere I heard it as Armenian lavash, which is a common name for it around the world (specially in the USA and Russia, and this can definitely be proven by many sources). Of course, just as lavash is just called lavash in Armenia, coffee is just called coffee in Saudi Arabia, and not Turkish coffee for example. So here there is a point to take into consideration (remember the argument was between Iran and Armenia, as a matter of fact), and don't forget that Iranian culture is not exactly forbidden to spread, unlike the Armenian culture which has been shunned for centuries by its current neighbours (back in the day, Empires - we know what that means), for assimilation purposes, which would have influenced the distorted views here - this could even be included in the article, although it sounds totally patronising.

TL:DR - the argument of WP:WEIGHT does stand, in my opinion. Maybe that fact (worldwide notability of the name Armenian lavash) can be added to the article, and with the Kebab introduction example, it would be a perfectly reasonable edition which would possibly comply to Wikipedian standards. That would postpone any claims about origins, which, as I have pointed out, aren't reasonable to use at the moment. If any ancient document or new archaeological finding arises, maybe this could be considered. --92slim (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just found the perfect example, in fact it has already been done in the Russian Wikipedia: ru:Лаваш. --92slim (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@92slim, thanks, I agree with you. Defining the origin of such dishes is a very difficult matter, and the simpler is the preparation, the more difficult it is to find the "inventor". At most we can write: "Lavash is first attested...". The same is valid for example for the tomato sauce over pasta, which appears for the first time in an Italian cookbook of the 18th century. But this does not necessarily imply that the sauce was "invented" in Italy. Nevertheless, it is a matter of fact that tomato sauce since 18th century is widely used in Italy, becoming part of the Italian food culture, and the same can be told for Lavash in Armenia. Alex2006 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think what you say makes sense. No one doubts that lavash is an important part of the Armenian cuisine, but it is as much important for other cultures. UNESCO listing is an acknowledgment of the importance of the bread making tradition in Armenia, and should be mentioned in that context. But origin claims I think should be left out of this article. There has never been any special scholarly research on the origin of this sort of bread, and I cannot even imagine what method could be used to determine the first place where this bread was made, and by whom. Grandmaster 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I would add that even though lavash is in the Intangible Heritage List of the Republic of Armenia, the UNESCO source shouldn't be construed as some kind of scholar assessment about lavash origin. I'd also recommend to trim three sources in this regard. The quotes from Encycl. Ethnography Of Middle-East And Central Asia and A Taste of Russia: A Cookbook of Russian Hospitality do not explicitly support the Armenian origin. Both simply mention "Armenian lavash". Also, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is not the appropriate source to claim Armenian origin. Brandmeistertalk 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is not the appropriate source to claim Armenian origin? Trim sources that call lavash Armenian bread? Did you read your add before posting it. It's completely biased. Hayordi (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. Please read WP:No original research,WP:Verifiability and above all WP:RS about that. Of course writing about food history is a really difficult task: often with the origin and the development of food are associated many legends, and at the same time national pride plays often a big role. Nevertheless, sometime one can find good reliable sources also in this field: food encyclopedias, books like "Oxford Companion to Food", sometime scholarly papers published on reputable journals. Our job here is to find such sources and to integrate them in the article. Personally I think that a good example about food history is at the Baklava article. Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Baklava article itself, which you find as well written, uses Oxford English Dictionary as source. So,American Heritage Dictionary of English is not appropriate while Oxford English Dictionary is? Besides, baklava article, without any ground, uses Ottoman Empire as place of origin and here is what the article itself states "Though the history of baklava is not well documented, there is evidence that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul". That's not a evidentiary conclusion on place of origin. So, that's far from an exemplary article. Hayordi (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I expressed myself not enough clearly. A dictionary can of course be a reliable source for all what a word concerns (pronuciation, spelling, etc.), and the Oxford English Dictionary is used in that article to reference the pronunciation. Where a dictionary is not reliable, is when it tries to describe the properties of the object represented by this word. Regarding the second objection, the origin of the current form of baklava (Istanbul, Ottoman Empire) is clear enough, according to the sources which we have now. What is not clear, is from which food baklava derives. You can go to the talk page to read the process which has brought to the current version of the article. Alex2006 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood me with regard to the Baklaba article. I simply pointed out that the origin of Baklava (general product, not one of its current forms) is deduced to have originated in Ottoman Empire based on origin of it in its current form. In that aspect objections to the origin of lavash, in light of plethora of sources backing it up, is on more shaky grounds. Hayordi (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I still object to the way the article is presented. Also, the Baklava article is another slight of hand. The following highlighted text: "One source writes that baklava was already present in a 13th century Turkish cookbook and as such can be considered the Turkish dessert with the strongest links to pre-Anatolian Turkish cuisine.[18] The tradition of layered breads by Turkic peoples in Central Asia has been suggested as the "missing link" between the Central Asian folded or layered breads (which did not include nuts) and modern phyllo-based pastries like baklava would be the Azerbaijani dish Bakı pakhlavası, which involves layers of dough and nuts.[clarification needed] The Uzbek pakhlava, puskal or yupka, and Tatar yoka, sweet and salty savories (boreks) prepared with 10–12 layers of dough, are other early examples of layered dough style in Turkic regions.[13] The practice of stretching raw dough into paper-thin sheets probably evolved in the kitchens of the Topkapı Palace, based on Central Asian prototypes.[19] One of the oldest known recipes for a sort of proto-baklava is Güllaç, also found in Turkish cuisine. It consists of layers of phyllo dough that are put one by one in warmed up milk with sugar. It is served with walnut and fresh pomegranate and generally eaten during Ramadan. The first known documentation of güllaç is in a food and health manual written in 1330 that documented primarily Mongol-Turkic foods called Yinshan Zhengyao (飮膳正要), which was written by Husihui (忽思慧) who was a Turkic physician to the Mongol court of the Yuan dynasty" is pseudoscience, as far as I am aware. It sounds like a far fetched theory with no real basis. Probably the highlighted text should be substituted with the part about Güllaç, which is another basket case (proto-Baklava? This just like one of those proto-xyz pseudo-linguistic theories that I've read in this encyclopedia). @Hayordi: I am not against your source additions, but I think it muddles the waters even more. May I say that both article's history sections look far from acceptable and/or credible? I'm all for new theories, but not for food, and I cannot fathom who comes up with all these theories - cannot take the word "proto-Baklava" seriously, specially if it is unsourced. I suggest Hayordi to find a better example at least, to show another way of presenting the article. Regarding the mention of the current form in the article 'Baklava', I'm sure this part should be below the real origin part, not above. But that's a minor detail. --92slim (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources muddle the waters? There are multiple complementary sources that back up the origin. The last one added is from a book written by professor in food science. The introduction of the article takes also care to mention the use of lavash in other cultures as well and seem to be fare. Hayordi (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources backing up the Armenian origin of lavash

I added new source, a book writen by Sergio Román Othón Serna Saldívar, a professor at Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education who specializes in food science. Hayordi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But it is not a research on history and origins of bread. From what I can see it is purely a technical book which makes a passing mention of lavash. Grandmaster 21:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
A professor wrote a book without research? Then how did he come up with it? That's your own opinion. Hayordi (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course he did a research, but on a different subject. From what I see, he dedicated to lavash just one line. His book is not a research on the subject of lavash. Grandmaster 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If the book doesn't contain any theory that proves the factual explanation of the origin of the bread we now know as lavash, then this new source is invalid. This is my take, as far as the rules - correct me if I'm wrong. I think buffing up to prove an origin is unscientific. Right now the article contains (apart from the two encyclopedia of food sources) a dictionary and a cookbook. I am not sure how can this prove the origin of lavash, quite difficult to shake the consensus established above about handling this kind of topics. I'm not debating the origin. I'm debating the source, and that is why I think we should focus on the real problem, to be able to sort this out. --92slim (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. All those sources contain no more than passing remarks on lavash, without any explanation on how they established the ethnic origins of lavash. I don't think it is sufficient for claims on origin. It is usually possible to establish with high degree of certainty the origin of dishes which are recent creations (Big Mac, for example), but I don't think there's a method of establishing the origin for something that exists almost as long as the human civilization itself. Grandmaster 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to highlight what is being done here: see churchkhela. Churchkhela is what every single other nation knows as sucuk, soujoukhos, sweet sujuk, etc. Only the Georgians call it churchkhela, but in the article it is claimed that it has Georgian origins, while using the exact same kind of sources as the current version has (a journal of food excerpt, a dictionary and an encyclopedia of food), and buffing them up to make it look as if this is indeed the case, to put it bluntly. --92slim (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Considering that 'Armenian Lavash' is a very common usage for the term lavash, I see it as a disservice to our English reading audience to exclude a name so common in the English language. As I've aforementioned, there's way to much weight around 'Armenian lavash'. Perhaps starting the lead sentence off with "Lavash (alt language names), commonly referred as Armenian lavash, is a soft, thin..." This might be a good solution to the issue of weight here, and perhaps an even better solution to end issues of origin, which I don't think should be in the first sentence of the article. Perhaps its origins can be explained more thoroughly in other places in the article. I'd also suggest to use the 'note' found in the former versions of the article that gives a bit more elaboration over lavash's origins ([3]). Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Grandmaster notet that author in last source dedicated to lavash just one line, which is not true. Quote from lead in lavash subsection in book: "Lavash is another popular flat cracker bread with ancient roots in Armenia. Lavash is thin, soft flatbread that is served with dips and used for wraps. It is usually made with wheat flour made in variety of shapes all over the regions of the Caucasus, Iran and Afghanistan....". As you can see he mentions the different regions where it is made, but takes care to refer to Arminia where it takes roots. Again, in comparison to aforementioned Baklava, which origin is boldly set to Ottoman Empire, the claim of origin here is on more solid base. Most of ancient wiki food article are rendered based on existing sources in this way. The aim here is not to scientificly proof the its origin. The Armenian origin is widely accepted and added sources just complement it. Hayordi (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That's 3 lines dedicated to lavash, of which only 1 mentions the origin, without any explanation of how the author came to a conclusion that lavash has "ancient roots in Armenia". That does not make this source a dedicated research on the origins of lavash. Grandmaster 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet, I think that's a good solution. As far as I understand, we have reached the consensus, and therefore we can proceed to edit it accordingly. If there are any objections to Etiene's idea, please elaborate on them first. Basic scheme being (in the following order):
  • Intro (Lavash, commonly referred as Armenian lavash, is a soft, thin, ... eaten in all the Caucasian and Caspian states) (like in Kebab or the Russian version - but origin part excluded from the beginning as there is no archaeological reference like in the Kebab article)
  • Explain the Armenian lavash reference with the proper sources, and include the UNESCO mention
  • A History section that comes first, inclusion in other places, etc, which can be elaborated, see also and the rest
(corrected)Sorry I missed it before, yes we should definitely use that note at the bottom to explain the current consensus of the origins for the history section.
@Hayordi, it is an understandable argument (although I disagree about your sentence "The aim here is not to scientifically proove the its origin part", for I believe scientific sources out-do any other kind of explanations) and it is well possible lavash being from Armenia. The problem is that the sources are not appropiate, they include no historic events, etc. That source still doesn't mention the actual history of lavash throughly, only that it has Armenian origins without specifying where, the city, the names, etc - so what could be outlined in the new history section (for the time being) is the bread being traditionally considered from Armenia by most sources. Nonetheless, the kind of sources being used currently here I believe are mostly unacceptable for a throughly explanation of the origins. PS. I understand that Armenia has ancient origins, and read that in 2200 BC Naram-Sin of Akkad already mentioned "Armina", but the problem is that food has to be measured the same way (with tangible evidence or historic events). In my opinion, we should not include food science specialists, but archaeologists and historians, and this is the consensus that we have mostly agreed on already. --92slim (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I can safely say that the current version of the Churchkhela article can be changed too, as it's supposed origins are currently being justified with dictionaries and a food encyclopaedia too. --92slim (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
With that reasoning it's impossible to state the origin of nearly any dish unless ancient Egyptian, Arameic insciptions, or leftovers of cavemen are presented as archeological finds, although you don't object to the origin of Baklava, but object to source of an respected experts in food science. Still, presented sources are commonly used throughout wikipedia. In fact the last one added is present in Russian version as well. So it's a meaning of personal opinion. Based on suggestions I altered the lead section as follows:
The origin is removed from the lead section replaced with User:EtienneDolets suggestions, but the sources are moved to the right sidebar where they should stay. The UNESCO reference is removed from right sidebar, since it's allready present in lead section. This is as far as we can aggre on. Hayordi (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect to Churchkhela, you should leave your suggestions in Talk:Churchkhela. But as noted above, such sources are used throughout wikipedia, so I disagree. Churchkhela article in my opinion is well written and sources are valid. When multiple complementary sources back up the origin, everything else is a matter of personal opinion. It applies to both Churchkhela and lavash article. Hayordi (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly true. If there are no archeological finds, then it's still better to state all the facts on the origins. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. As I said, I have to repeat this as I don't think you understand currently the problem (while you mention the Baklava article again for no apparent reason): I don't object to the origins. I object to the sources. And the users above do too. The current origin sources originating from food encyclopedias, are hardly appropriate sources as per the consensus reached above which I have already mentioned several times, and should be included for interest purposes and for the time being, not as facts (the current version and the one before did not reach the conclusion on origins; I suggest you read the conversation above clearly). If you disagree, you still have to follow what most users here have reached already, as per WP:Policy. We don't have to agree exactly with everything everyone has to say, but to completely ignore the above conversation for political gains is unacceptable I'm afraid. Please, read again the conversation before changing the article, and explain why you disagree with the conclusion before making any substantial changes.

If you took the time to check, you would see that the Baklava article currently has three different origin theories in its history section (certainly not on its headline, and two of them might be intertwined theories), as there hardly is a consensus on its origins, based on the available information.

Lastly, just in case it isn't clear enough what we have actually decided above, sources such as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language are not the appropriate sources to claim Armenian or other origins (although maybe info about etymology is permitted) as per the consensus reached. And I think it's a hard case to prove, as a dictionary has absolutely no valuable information on origins. --92slim (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Basing origins on archeology, that's nonesence. Have you seen remains of ancient Baglava? There was no consensus to delete origin or sources, only on change in lead sentence. Still you deleted based on your and User:Grandmasters personal opinion. You argue that baklava article has three different origin theories, while the origin is set to Ottoman empire in sidebar. Isn't that biased? Origin should stay in sidebar or the same should apply to Baklava article. Elaborate on that. If you argue that encyclopedias aren't reliable sources why do you use jewish food encyclopedia as reference to back up Iranian origin. Here are your arguments: american heritage encyclopedia is not a reliable source, but jewish food encyclopedia is, there are no sources to back up the origin of baklava and you're in peace with it's ottoman origin, there are plethora of sources backing up armenian origin of lavash and you furiously question their reliability. Your objections are selective Hayordi (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hayordi - first of all, The American Heritage title is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, and certainly not about food. Please, let's keep it civil, and understand the arguments, if there was only a personal opinion involved there would be no consensus reached. Secondly, baklava has possible origins in the Ottoman Empire. This is detailed throughly in the article. I suggest you read it, so you can have an idea of the content, and what has caused the article to stay like it is now. If it bothers you, delete the Country of Origin parameter, but you will eventually find out below that the dessert did originate in the Ottoman Empire, during the 15th or 16th century, and specifically as a reward for the jannisaries after battle (that's as far as I understood). I don't think, nonetheless, that comparing articles negatively is constructive. --92slim (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not speak on behalf of others. @EtienneDolet suggested an alternative lead sentence not to delete the origin or sources. There was no consensus on deleting anything, just to alter the lead sentence. You stated, quote: I don't object to the origins. I object to the sources., yet you went on and deleted the origin along with sources. Hayordi (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've read the baklava article and it is based on same kind of sources. In food article you have to base on available sources. And as far as available sources are conserned, the armenian origin of lavash is more reliable then the ottoman origin of baklava. Mind that you suggested the baklava article as an exemplenary one. Hayordi (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I also did suggest to add that 'note' next to its origins. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


@Hayordi, yes, that's exactly what I have done, and the origin of lavash being more reliable is a fallacy, as well as the fact that I suggested that baklava is an exemplary article - please, don't invent things that I never said. I have only deleted the dictionary, because I will repeat for the last time: it is not a historical source. If you want an example of what it is meant to be like, check the Russian version of the article. @Etienne it is outlined in the history section. --92slim (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is quote from your add: I think that a good example about food history is at the Baklava article. Hayordi (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not my quote. Personally I think that a good example about food history is at the Baklava article. Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC
) - oh well. It just proves that you have made absolutely no effort to read the text above. --92slim (talk) 01:14, 17 :::March 2015 (UTC)

And the dictionary is an unreliable source. So please, don't add it back. It does not really matter what the other articles have - if you're interested, edit those other articles, instead of engaging in an edit war and claiming "no consensus" reached when it is clear that we have agreed the sources to be unreliable. --92slim (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No offence, but your personal opinion doesn't qualify as consensus. Hayordi (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, keep repeating the same thing over and over again, maybe it will eventually become true (for some) - you know, yes offence :) --92slim (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@92slim, this edit appears to be original research and POV. You can't just add what you think may be true without a source, then add a citation needed tag hoping to have someone else verify it for you. That can be considered tendentious. We need to stick to sources and avoid adding unverifiable information. Also, the note should be included if we are to add Armenia to the origin part of the infobox. I think it can be a more balanced approach and we won't leave anyone's viewpoints out. We can still have the note outlined in the article as well. There's no harm in that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree Hayordi (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Well, ok, it has Armenian origin. Oh wait. Doesn't change the fact that we don't really know, does it? And there are absolutely no historical sources that prove this currently! So it's not WP:OR. But the failure to accept the invalidity of the sources presented is the loss of reality with which you are now confronted. I have nothing else to contribute on this article, as I can see that the anti-intellectual approach is prevailing. Note: some sources are still invalid - and if there is only one source claiming it's not from Armenia, then the origin section should not state that as a fact. --92slim (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The origin is based on available sources commonly used in other food article. They can't be unreliable on selective basis. You may stay at your opinion Hayordi (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"In other food article" - That is not a good reason, sorry. I don't think I have time for these kind of basic arguments. The article is not on my top priority list, after all this effort to see it thwarted with no real arguments - specially with libelous accusations directed towards me. All I am saying is the origins are not clear - you may continue to believe otherwise. --92slim (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We all agree that most sources claim that its origins were from Armenia (or made by Armenians in Iran), including yourself. To place Armenia on the same level as Iran is not really acceptable in terms of WP:WEIGHT, which clearly states "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". We should also consider that WP:WEIGHT states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Sources claiming origins from Iran is clearly in the minority, since as far as I can see, there's only one source that says so. With that said, for the sake of a consensus being reached, I am not proposing that we remove the Iranian claim entirely, but perhaps placing it in the form of a note, which should be sufficient enough. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Aggree. The viewpoint with regard to Iranian origin is also stated in history section. So we didn't left anything out Hayordi (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to claim a country of origin but region. It is a better idea to stat "often called Armenian flat bread", because that's mostly what we hear in most of the world, then give instead the region where it is mostly used. Both sides will have what they desire. Frontiers are not immuable, they never remained constant, they are not a good source for locating past events. More you attempt to increase the resolution by adding frontiers, more you run at risk to have opponents. Would everyone be ok with mentionning it is "often called Armenian flat bread" in the lead? "Armenian Lavash" is not very appropriate, an ethnic group attached to a food will stear conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.73.224 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian origin is backed by the majority of the sources and should stay based on WP:WEIGHT. We added a note at origin section to take into account the minority view. Read the adds above. This was the resoulution Hayordi (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reply fall short of answering what I have addressed. I am not disputing what you seem to believe I am disputing. The article stats Armenia, by place of origin. But everyone will agree that frontiers have changed and will certainly change in time. We should find better indications than claim "Armenia". Present day Armenia frontiers do not correspond with historical Armenia. My proposition is pratical and accurate, since it leaves "Armenian" not as ethnic qualifier but rather for practical reasons. Lavash is a flat bread, but there are many flat breads, so "often called Armenian flat bread" will distinguish it from other flat breads. The same is true for Turkish Coffee, the word Turkish is not used to assume Turks invented it, but rather to distinguish the way this coffee is used and drunk.

You must admit that this sentence is misleading: "Most modern food specialists claim that it originated in Armenia". The term Armenia, for most readers is the republic of Armenia, which exists since the 90s. Also, the term food specialists is very vague. My proposition will stand the test of time, because it does not add opinions, which require process and relies on the ego (specialists). Because scholars point of views are also opinions, and any new books published with different opinions which can be added in the article will change the current intro. Imagine now that your opponents position is later published in tens of books, what will happen then? This article will never find rest!

I am offering my neutral point of view, as you see the term "Armenian" remains in my proposition, but your opponents concerns are also addressed. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I will add, that we should be concentrating on things which can not change, regardless of new books being published. Because if things could be changing merelly by finding more sources, then what prevent any parties to finance scholars and change history? If Iranians call it Armenian bread, this is cultural, it does not depend on what scholars can write later, and this won't change in time, because it relies on oral traditions which have passed the test of time. Scholars should be used to report that in some and some region that's what it is called. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The origin is not concerned with current Armenian state borders nor the form of government - current Republic of Armenia or former Armenian monarchies. As @EtienneDolet clarified in add above, according to the WP:WEIGHT "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". WP:NPOV requires proportionality. That's what we've done by stating the origin based on majority view, without dismissing the minority vew, clarified both in note and in history section. Removing majority accepted view which is based on sources, doesn't constitute WP:NPOV. Hayordi (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Common sense goes beyond and above rules such as WP:WEIGHT or "As @EtienneDolet clarified in add above", because it precedes everything the ego comes up with such as rules. In fact, all those rules are constructs which attempt to put on writtings and approximate what common sense knows à priori without wordings. This is why, the concept of ignore all rules exist, and it appears even on Wikipedia, see here: WP:IGNORE. The term Armenia is limited to a frontier, it is a relative term which changes with time and variant to some structure (UN, EN, ect, and laws written by some restricted elites answering their wishes and wants). This is a simple truth, which does not require process and easily understood by everyone. To reject this, you need an organization of thought and sourcing over and over, on the other hand I don't need to do that, exactly like I don't need to source that the Sun wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night. Frontier drawing requires process, and everything which requires process will inevitably be a point of view, no matter if it is written by the king of England or Albert Einstein. See how this becomes ridiculous, suppose that tomorrow thousands of specialists claims historic Armenia never existed, because they changed the rules on how to interpret history, and claim official frontiers in the past never existed. What will happen then? Will this undermine the existance of Armenians? All those worthless conflicts around the World, including Nagorno Karabakh, are all caused by the same mentality. People identify themselves with nations, which are man made structures which are arbitrary to someone who doesn't come from Earth therefor sentenced to change. You can come up with some thousands of sources, all those are man made, and every writter by principale has bias and inner motifs he hides to himself. If it wasn't the case, he would never write anything in the first place.

Present me any articles written on Wikipedia, and there will be hundreds of ways to write it, divide sections, add sources and so forth. What does not change? Things which does not rely on Ego process. Imagine one day, that Azerbaijan and Armenia are not ruled by nationalists anymore, but the common people, who restricts their lives on values shared by all humanity, and this is what identify them, and not their man made (ego) nations. Imagine that now they understand that prior to that land being Armenian, Azerbaijani, it was just a land populated by people, mothers, daughters, babies. What will be changing with the way the information is presented in this article? "Armenian flat bread" will remain, just to distinguish it from other breads. On the other hand, the rest of the elements which nourrish all the fight over here will vanish. Particularly, the sourcing fight, which legitimize the corruption of the accademia, and serves some restricted part of the population to rule over others with rules invented by some elites to endorse their positions over others. I will not fead this, because it is a matter of time, they are left to starve.

My argument is stronger than yours, and this no matter how much supports you could gather, because of your statue or contributions here. Because mine is invariable, compleatly neutral and will never change no matter what happens. You can throw at me dozens of rules, I won't read any but venerate just one WP:IGNORE. Common sense is all I have as antidote.

Propose something which is not elitist and not subject to change, or I will go forth and modify it. Yahya Talatin (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpreted WP:IGNORE. It states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Removing well defined vital, sourced content is not an improvement, but the opposite. According to WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is current version of consensus, based solely on sources. You can't just go on and edit it based on your POV, irrelevant arguments about modern state borders and bold acusations of corruption against respected scientist like Sergio Román Othón Serna Saldívar, just because they don't share your POV. Hayordi (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing well defined vital, sourced content is not an improvement, but the opposite.

Vital is a point of view, is not an improvement is also a point of view. This is current version of consensus, is a point of view, I see above 3 or so users, which comments shows there was no concensus. based solely on sources I know that if I source a sentence about cell phones in the article about oil painting, it will be deleted. The point is?

Just to show you how ridiculous this could get, I have read you posting on someone else page, on my proposition on the lead, and here was his reply: Check to see which term is more common in Google. Google use a filtering mechanism, trademarked, which is biased toward namesake. Just to put it plainly, just let me understand what he is proposing, to hand over my judgment over the machine (google) so that it picks for me regardless of the sense it makes. Lavash is Lavash, it does not need some term such as Armenian added to it. What prevents an Azerbaijani, using the argument of regional variability to create a page on Azerbaijani Lavash. The reason I claimed to change that for Armenian flat bread, was to categorize what sort of bread it is. This is informational, rather than ethnical, while Armenian Lavash contain a word which can be added or not, depending of the editor à priori biases, therefor variable and changeable.

If you have anything other than this is sourced to provide, I'd like to read it, or else I will go on and edit, showing you what is a real neutral point of view. If the situation was reversed Armenian and Azerbaijani, would you be leaving the other side with such a version. I doubt it, given that from my neutral point of view, I see a bias in your presentation. Yahya Talatin (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Román Othón Serna Saldívar, lol! Unlike what the majority believe, an idiot is more credible than a scientist. Because his observations, he takes them as is from the environment, while a scientist has a position to defend, which requires manipulation of informations, treatment, process. The scientist is biased, because his positions are biased by his own prior experiences, he accept or deny data and sources based on rules set forth which are rarely questionned, because they are sitting on heavy names (Albert Einstein, Darwin ect). They are all subject to change, because those people are mere mortals. This is the reason why the Torah, the Bible and the Quran have remained unchanged, because texts inside do not rely on technical accuracies but are alegorical in nature, about human condition which is invariable and non-temporal, not bind to the ego or namesake, but on an eternal ego, shared by everyone viewed as God Yahya Talatin (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

User:EtienneDolet proposed the inclussion of Armenian lavash, since it's a commonly referred name, further above and met a consensus. You accuse authors of sources in corruption, call respected scientists not sharing your personal view idiots, disregard wiki policies stating You can throw at me dozens of rules, I won't read any but venerate just one WP:IGNORE. Is that your manifestation of neutrality? Hayordi (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My friend, where did I deny Armenian Lavash being a commonly referred name? It is an unnecessary information, by the simple fact that Lavash IS Lavash. It is only a matter of time, that some could be using regional variations of the bread to come up with an Azerbaijani Lavash. Yes I do accuse authors of corruption, every author is corrupted by the simple fact that they sign their work with their name and recieve funds from a source (unless someone is directly paid by God lol). This has nothing to do with the position they adhere to. And where did I call any scientist an idiot? I wrote that an idiot is generally more credible than a scientist. The idiot will describe simple things which he can directly reach, without some foreign models. The scientist rely on models, which are all man made contructs and have always changed. As for the last comment, Wikipedia rules for me are just nuisance, I am not a machine, and therefor don't need to program myself with restrictions used out of context. I use common sense, which is the only natural rule of the rational mind and the only which does not rely on some process.

Since you don't seem to accept in the face of the obvious, any concessions, I will stop debating and go on preparing a version of the article myself. Yahya Talatin (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yahya Talatin: You do not own this article, and you can't just blatantly ignore the arguments of other users just because you personally believe that your "argument is stronger" than others here. That's considered WP:POV-pushing. Ignoring Wikipedia policy on the basis of your understanding of common sense is also not recommended. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Dolet, what POV am I pushing exactly? Yahya Talatin (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Your own. An opinion, not backed by sources, cannot be considered credible just because you say it is. That becomes your own point of view which in turn falls short of the basic tenets of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
What opinion? I asked you what POV I am pushing, and you claim my own. I need specifics on what I am exactly pushing. I am not stating any of my opinions, therefor I need not to provide any sources. I am simply stating a fact (which does not even require a source, since it is common knowledge) that the term "Armenian" is more permanent than "Armenia", since the later alludes to a territory which is relative and will change with time. Anything which requires a source relies on the academia, therefor relies on opinions, and for that reason is subject to change. First, one should build the structure of the article, on permanent facts, which no sides will disagree with, then the sourcing comes in to simply clarify on those facts. Or else, anyone with ulterior motifs can write whatever he wants, and then use sources to support anything he wants. Then he will keep repeating it is sourced. Nationalism is the worst virus, much, much worst than religion, because religion can unite even the Muslim with the Christian, nationalism feads on division. Lavash does not come from Armenia, no more than it comes from Iran or Azerbaijan, because those are only man made arbitrary divisions. But I am all for stating that it is called Armenian flat bread, because there were Armenians in Iran, Azerbaijan and elsewhere, regardless of how wide Armenia was. Also, to specify what kind of flat bread it is. You can call any neutral reader here, and you will see that he will agree with me. Yahya Talatin (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yahya. This is your POV from your previous adds:

  • authors of referrenced sources are corrupted, therefore can't be trusted
  • scientists are less credible than idiots, because they don't share your opinion, therefore their publications can't be used as references

So instead of asking for clarification, read your own adds. Hayordi (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Friend, I see that you are well versed in humor, lol. Because they don't share my opinions? You see you just proved how sources can be manipulated, by simply quoting someone out of context. I never specifically wrote of referenced sources. What I rather wrote was that all authors are corrupted, by the simple fact that they all have their opinions, their source of financing and rely on their brain, which is limited. It is stupid to solely rely on some selected number of people to write history. Or else, everyone who is organized and can find a source of financing, can build his own history of events by buying his version. If your sole reason to add something, is that it is sourced, what prevents me to add Greek mythology in this article and source it too? The Ego (authors) is just human, like you and me, it is not God. the skeleton of an article should be based on informations which require minimal process, which means everyone can agree with. And it is only from there that more info should be added (in layers), such as sourcing. I don't want to make this as if I am criticizing one party and not the other, I know it's worst on the other side. I am interested with this article because it is easily fixable. Yahya Talatin (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yahya Wikipedia is based on collaboration, presenting content in light of sources is an important part of it. You still go on with your corruption occusations against authors of referenced sources, call scientist less credible then idiots (correct?) and push your POV. Obviously you don't get it. I tried my best Hayordi (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Collaboration? Then why are you not collaborating with your opponents then? As for corruption of the academia, this isn't comming from me, most if not all philosphical texts raised those issues since ancient time, this was from where religion was born. Dghas toon bargads es, gsme lav hayerem kidem, :) as well as Azerbaijani, Arabic, little bit of Persian, Italian, French and few others. If you want to test my Armenian go ahead. But I know exactly how it works in the academia, everyone inside the profession knows what runs it, corruption. Few academics are pushing their way against the majority with their trademarks. It is easy to buy a position these days. Since you have nothing else to add, I can proceed. Yahya Talatin (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

First attempt

Most modern food specialists claim that it originated in Armenia,[12][13] whilst others state that it probably originated in Iran.[14]

with

It originated from the region accompassing Caucasus and Western Asia

See the dinstinction, the second is a statment of fact, the wording does not depend on sources, and does not require to specify specialists. Sources can be added without needing to change the structure of the article.

Second, merging etymology and history together, etymology often relies on oral history and therefor part of history. Yahya Talatin (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourced material won't be replaced with your POV. Ethymology and history are common sections in wiki articles and should stay separate. Your POV contradicts NPOV which requires stated views to be based on published reliable sources. Mind WP:BLOCK Hayordi (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
So, it is my point of view, that it comes from the region of Caucasus and Western Asia? Ethymology and history common section on Wikipedia? Those are just conventions, again process. :) Just to see how those things can become funny: based on published reliable sources who testify that it is a reliable source, ascertaining the reliability of a source requires process and is a point of view. No one on the other hand could oppose to the fact that Armenia was in the Caucasus and Western Asia. Yahya Talatin (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on sources it comes from Armenia, which is in Caucasus, which is in Eurasia, which in turn is on Earth. Noone disputes geographic location of Armenia, but that it's irrelevant to this article. Hayordi (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

lol! friend, we are in a circular discussion, :) source do not determine accuracy, they specify only. There are sources which stat otherwise, asessing credibility of sources is an opinion. Why am I even debating, you are a Hayordi afteral. :) Yahya Talatin (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See Börek article. I guess you don't have any objections there Hayordi (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do! It is easier for Armenians to conform to general facts than Turks and Azerbaijanis. Because Armenians have a clearly defined identity outside of a frontier. If you are going to change Borek, you have to do the same here and elsehwere. I am only requesting consistency, and everytime you add a process, you run at risk to inject bias. Yahya Talatin (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not suggest to change anything in Börek, that's just an example for comparison. I just wanted you to understand that you can't simply go ahead and change content of articles on selective basis based on your POV. I hope you get it now. Hayordi (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting thing I found with the article, Humanism, and it shows exactly what I am talking about, regarding the credibility of wikipedia. For most in the world, humanism has nothing to do with the philosophical movement, which is restricted to some elites. Humanism is simply our human nature, which is unlabelable, and not dependent to some ego writings. In Nguni Bantu the term Ubuntu (human kindness) applies. This misappopriation of foundamental terms by the elite is an indoctrination, and is actually a minority point of view, but on wikipedia, it takes precedences over everything, as if they were Gods. What I am stating is a simple fact, which is solely based on common sense and therefor not bound to a source. It is also funny that you keep claiming the arguments I provide are POV, when they don't rely on process and therefor unlabeled..., but I'll let others judge my writings, by the future readers in years to come, as to what piece of the article does not get deleted or reverted and what does, and particularly why. Nice discussion though. Yahya Talatin (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I will not delve into philosopic discussion about wikipedias rules and policies, I didn't defined them. But presenting content that is not coherent with sources, which are vital part of articles, is considered POV. Hayordi (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavash/Archive_1&oldid=1216020294"