Talk:Lavash/Archive 2

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

User Yahya Talatin

@Yahya has obviously no respect for wiki rules, policies and other editors. Based on his alleged corruption theories and offencies against authors of published sources in articles, he proposes to replace sourced materials with his personal POV. Both Etienne and I referred to common wiki policies, which he disregards and persues his POV pushing. Hayordi (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should I pay to watch a comedy, when I can have that for free on Wikipedia. Friend, you above in another post confirmed that the version I am proposing is true, and not just my opinion (you just want more than that). I never wrote that sources should not be used, what I specified was that the article skeleton should not be source dependent. Sources are just a second layer of an article. As for Wiki policies, I am refering to one wiki policy, you are preventing me to adhere to it. :) Yahya Talatin (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Source are the core of wiki articles. Hayordi (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This nails it: WP:FATRAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:FATRAT is applicable in worse case to meet a consensus when no other rules and policies are at help. This article is well sources and is a result of current concensus. You simply looking for ways to push your POV. This is wikipedia, not your personal blog. You simply don't get. Hayordi (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am writting to a wall. Look Friend, go ahead, twist my words do whatever you want. I won't be wasting any more time with the nationalistic war. I'm done. bargads Hay vortin, orme gartna :) Yahya Talatin (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliance on sources is a nationalism? That's another POV of yours. Hayordi (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
whatever.., it is all yours. :) Yahya Talatin (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong synonym.

Lavash in Persian is and has always simply been called "lavash". There's no such thing as "mar'ou'a مرقوق‎" (someone added that as a supposed unsourced synonym) in the language. Lavash is simply called Lavash in all the nations their lingua franca's that use the bread en masse, namely in Armenia, Iran, Turkey and the Caucasian republics. I'm just writing this here might in the future it be brought back for some ludicrous and miraculous reason.

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Country in the sidebox

@Esc2003: I think deleting the country paragraph from the info box at the right side is not necessary. We should more countries apart from Armenia (didn't realise this), but it is not good to delete the 'country' section itself from the side box. Well we can decide here better. --92slim (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Armenia, Turkey and Iran can be written together to that section. --Esc2003 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of the infobox. The infobox is specifically for UNESCO intangible heritage and is complete with ID number of this particular food item. To say that the state sponsor of this food is something other than Armenia is to go against the classification of UNESCO. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Etienne: if we use the UNESCO infobox, we should stick to the UNESCO information. Alex2006 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur. Per this infobox type, it should only and solely include Armenia, rightfully so per UNESCO. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that UNESCO has authority above everything else. There is obviously a problem in marking the name of a country (and excluding others) for food, since food knows no frontier. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Unleavened?

The article states that lavash is unleavened, but one of the references says that it is made with yeast. A Google search produces many articles and recipes that mention yeast or the use of a starter in the preparation of lavash. Can anyone shed some light on how lavash is prepared 1) traditionally and 2) currently/commonly, say in a country like Armenia? Ketone16 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lavash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to laffa?

Is this word etymologically related to laffa? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UNESCO template

EtienneDolet, please be carefull while reverting other constructive edits. You removed UNESCO template with Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey thinking that "no mention of armenia as a state party". But Armenia was already mentioned as "state party" in another template. There are two UNESCO templates in article as Lavash was included in UNESCO list twice. First under Armenia, second time under Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey. The photo of granny is also related to Azerbaijan, not Armenia by the way (so I placed it to template, where Azerbaijan is written, and added new photo from Armenia to the template, where Armenia was written). And what was a reason two remove Azerbaijani description of Lavash? You wrote "edit neutrally", but you removed all state parties excluding Armenia. So, I returned this template and Azeri description. Now it is neutral. Interfase (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Armenians false claims

Undeniably Lavash is an Iranian bread. Armenians, citing false claims by a person named Acharian(or Adjarian), claiming that the bread in Tehran was called Armenian bread! which is a big lie because no one in Iran had ever called it Armenian bread! Apparently a user by the name of Vahagn Petrosyan (talk · contribs) has spread it to Wikipedia and Wiktionary to justify this false claim. This bread is one of the oldest bread that has been baked for thousands of years and belongs to the ancient civilizations of the Iranian plateau.--Irman (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Moreover, they are likely to have deceived the UNESCO with this false claim.--Irman (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about the provenance of the bread itself, but Martirosyan's tentative Armenian etymology which I added here myself is probably wrong. The word has a Semitic origin. See wikt:en:լավաշ. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan:, I've added the semitic origin explanation. It is stated in multiple sources, (one being Sevan Nişanyan's etymology dictionary, taking Jastrow, Dict. of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli etc. sf. 701 & 710. as a source) and I can't find any mention of a connection between lavash and PA/PIE apart from the Armenian source given in the text. Wikitionary has also a wide array of sources listed. I think this theory can still be stated in the text, but semitic origin should be presented atop the section.--Gogolplex (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gogolplex: I just found out that Hrachia Acharian states that lavash definitively is a Semitic word, "especially of Assyrian and Akkadian origin" (His dictionary is freely available). Considering Acharian's fame and standing, I think he should be the primary source for the etymological section. As I can read Armenian, I can add the source later on.--Aram-van (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gogolplex: I wrote the Wiktionary page. The most relevant source for the Semitic origin is Ačaṙean 1979 quoted there. I would remove Martirosyan's etymology altogether. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Given what the sources that are cited in the "controversial origins" section say, which one of the following wording sounds better ?

1) "The origin of lavash is often attributed to Armenia, but some scholars say lavash probably originated in Iran."

2) "The origin of lavash is attributed to Armenia or Iran."---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

@ZaniGiovanni: Please read WP:OR, the fact that most of the sources cited in the article support an Armenian origin is not a legit reason to say that most of the sources support an Armenian origin, we would need reliable sources explicitly saying that most of the sources support an Armenian origin for that.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a reason for your changes without discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, i suggest you read our guidelines in order to better understand how this site works. Again, your revert was unwarranted as none of the cited sources are supporting the claim that most of the sources support an Armenian origin (blatant breach of WP:OR as i already explained above ...) . Also, please read WP:INDENT. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what I'm asking, do you? Please explain your key word changes about the origin of Lavash [1] in a section literally called "Controversial origin", without reaching WP:CONSENSUS first? Even if you think you're "right", you need to reach consensus for your changes especially of such nature. Surely, an editor with 10,000+ contributions should be aware of WP:CONSENSUS, as you also were mentioning the rule to other editor it seems like [2]. Now, if you would finally explain your controversial changes without reaching a consensus first (as you seem to be well aware of "how this site works"), we shall gladly continue if your changes had a place to be to begin with. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, i will clarify why i reverted the other editor (that was not in this article but another one, anyway ...). If you take a look at the history of the article, you will see that the editor was reverted by an admin, Drmies, before me, thus the editor had to go on the article's talk page and discuss his/her changes in order to achieve consensus with Drmies (as per WP:BRD), which he/she didn't, that's why i reverted that editor, and asked him/her to achieve consensus. You need to understand that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, nobody needs to achieve any consensus for bold editing, but when reverted, we need to discuss on the article's talk (that's exactly what i'm doing here with you by the way ...). The controversial origins of that bread needs a neutral wording, besides, you probably know that any claim on wikipedia needs sourcing (as per verifiability), but there is not a single source supporting "The origin of lavash is often attributed to Armenia", thus i reworded accordingly, removing the unsourced claim.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Most reliable sources support Armenian origin hence the wording is correct. It is logical to include the word often when the majority of reliable and scholarly sources support Armenian origin. Also, please spare me your personal dealings with another user, my mere example was to show that you're aware of the guideline. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Most reliable sources support Armenian origin hence the wording is correct." : according to whom ? Sounds like a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors of yours ...
  • "Also, please spare me your personal dealings with another user, my mere example was to show that you're aware of the guideline. " : it was you who mentioned my interaction with another user not me, i simply responded to your comment about that and yes, i'm aware of our guidelines, which you seem to blatantly ignore. If you are not able to provide several reliable sources for your above claim about most sources supporting an Armenian origin of this bread, then i will reinstate my edit in order to avoid misleading our readers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    I mentioned your interaction only to show that you're aware of the guideline. I'm sorry, but I couldn't care less what personal dealings you have with another user, which I again mention in my later comment. I don't ignore any guidelines, spare me the WP:ASPERSIONS.
    "Most reliable sources support Armenian origin hence the wording is correct." : "according to whom ?" According to the sources cited in this article? The wording was absolutely fine as the majority of sources here support Armenian origin. The ONUS is on you to show that it's not the case with reliable and scholarly sources, which you haven't done since starting this discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    For the last time, the number of sources is not relevant, you need to provide reliable sources that support that claim. None of the cited sources actually says that lavash is "often attributed to Armenia", there are currently 4 sources in the article supporting an Armenian origin and 3 supporting an Iranian origin, nothing less, nothing more. Pinging some other editors who contributed to this article for their opinion. @Kansas Bear and Visioncurve: your thoughts ? We have 4 sources supporting for Armenian origins and 3 for Iranian origins, does that imply that lavash is often attributed to Armenia as ZaniGiovanni seems to think ? Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ah yes, out of all the editors who "contributed to this article", you pinged an editor who gave you a barnstar. Please, avoid WP:CANVASSING as it could lead to a ban.
    If you would like to ask for a third opinion, then do it by the appropriate procedure. I'm kind of puzzled that I have to tell this to a 10,000+ editor. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    That editor is a veteran editor here on Wiki, trust me when i say that if i'm mistaken, he'll let me know. Also, i also pinged another editor just in case you missed that fact.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I already told you. there are procedures to be followed if you would like to ask for a third opinion, kindly take a look at WP:THIRD.
    Veteran or not / "I also pinged other editor" doesn't excuse your behaviour per WP:CANVASSING. You also made false claims of "harassment" and removed the notice from you talk page. [1] Please again, avoid ad hominem attacks and threats like ''you should learn our guideleines instead of harassing fellow wikipedians, don't post here again or you'll be reported''.[2]
    I already warned about casting aspersions. If you're going to continue doing so, then you'll leave me no choice but to report your account.
    Now if you wish, you can properly ask for a third opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    You better focus on content rather than editors, the point here is that you are unable to understand what i told you above about the number of sources. As to report me, please go ahead and proceed if you really think that i'm breaking some Wiki rules. I'm not sure what "aspersions" you're talking about, but i'm sure of one thing, so far, you have not been able to provide reliable sources supporting that sentence that fits with your POV about lavash being often attributed to Armenia, am i missing something ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I view it as an obligation to join a discussion at a talk page after being pinged, which I'll proceed doing now. First things first, I think ZaniGiovanni fell short of his goal when mentioning barnstars and stuff since Wikipedia does not prohibit users inviting fellow editors who have given them barnstars or whatever in the past to join their discussion. Though it does say that it is not right to attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion. Wikaviani simply asked for third opinions to cast a light on the argument; he was not trying to reach consensus or whatsoever by inviting other editors. Nonetheless, if it helps to put your mind to peace, ZaniGiovanni, I have never given a barnstar to user Wikaviani nor have I even posted a cup of coffee, baklava or similar baloney in his talk page. Regarding this compelling argument that I wrapped my head around, I have to say that your edit is a dead ringer for original research (with a pattern of editorial bias) per WP:OR and it's obviously giving an undue weight to a viewpoint or idea as per WP:UNDUE. To make long story short, the best of both worlds will be getting it reworded or at least fixed with in-text attribution (see WP:SUBSTANTIATE). Thank you!--VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 05:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We are in an obvious disagreement here. I asked for a third opinion from an editor and admin who has been involved with the scope of the projects. In the meantime, I would highly suggest for @Wikaviani to calm down as they're breaching WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASS. "You better focus on content rather than editors, the point here is that you are unable to understand what i told you above" : What website do you think this is @Wikaviani or whom do you think you're talking to? The user also has difficulties assuming WP:GF : "you have not been able to provide reliable sources supporting that sentence that fits with your POV about lavash being often attributed to Armenia".

@Visioncurve with respect, I'd also like to hear what an admin thinks about the canvassing stuff. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  • " I would highly suggest for @Wikaviani to calm down as they're breaching WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASS." I suggest you justify your accusations of me breaching WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASS since baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks (especially when you were the one who posted that irrelevant warning on my talk ...).
  • "What website do you think this is @Wikaviani or whom do you think you're talking to? " Well, i thought that i was speaking to a fellow Wikipedian, but it seems that you disagree ...
  • "The user also has difficulties assuming WP:GF : "you have not been able to provide reliable sources supporting that sentence that fits with your POV about lavash being often attributed to Armenia"" : Well, that's a fact, so far, anybody can see you have failed to provide any reliable source that supports the origins of lavash being often attributed to Armenia .... ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey El_C, thanks for stepping in this. Just wanted to make sure, do we really need to go through a RfC in order to legitimize this edit i made in order to go by what the cited sources say (if so, then i'll proceed) ? Also please tell me if the argument pointed out by ZaniGiovanni is valid or not (they say that since there are 4 sources supporting an Armenian origin vs 3 supporting an Iranian origin, that means that the sentence "The origin of lavash is often attributed to Armenia" is legit while none of the sources actually say that). Thanks in advance. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for context, here is the full quote that @Wikaviani edited:
"The origin of lavash is often attributed to Armenia, but some scholars say lavash probably originated in Iran". [1]
I thought this was fairy represented and needed no change. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikaviani, you may as well, now that it has become a thing. Speaking for myself, I find neither contested version immediately intuitive, though admittedly, my knowledge of the subject matter approaches zero. El_C 13:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, i will go to WP:DRN, a RfC for this topic could be biased by some nationalistic trolls.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@El C do you think that WP:DRN is better suggested by @Wikaviani? If so, then please proceed . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, this may come across as a bit contradictory (hey, I'm complicated!), but although I have much respect for Robert McClenon, and although I do think he and the other DRN regulars do good work — I rarely if ever recommend it as a dispute resolution request (for reasons which go beyond the scope of this), and I do not do so for this case. HTH! El_C 14:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@El C: I think that there is no need of expertise for this dispute, it's about finding out which version of the article fits better with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and if the argument of the number of sources for each claim pointed out by ZaniGiovanni is valid or not.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikaviani, I suppose I'm extra-dumb, then! El_C 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
If you are extra dumb then i must be mega dumb LOL ! Anyway, thank you for the good humor, i'm gonna follow your advice and open a RfC, hopefully, it won't be drowned by trolls. Cheers !---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to help, Wikaviani. And nice to see you. Don't be a stranger! El_C 14:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@El C thank you for the clarification. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
//Bows. El_C 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Response to Ping

I agree that an RFC is better than DRN in this case. As we remind editors from time to time, DRN is a mediation noticeboard and not an arbitration noticeboard. We do not decide a content issue, but facilitate discussion. If there are already two or more well-defined viewpoints, then at DRN I would formulate an RFC. The RFC below has not been activated yet. If it is supposed to be an official RFC, then it needs to be activated by inserting the template that calls the bot to do behind-the-scenes work. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you and sorry for the template, i forgot to insert it. If, however, i did it the wrong way, please feel free to fix it for me. Many thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavash/Archive_2&oldid=1216022322"