Talk:Turkish delight/Archive 1

message: To the Anonymous user who is creating the Lokum page. Please see my remarks on the Talk:Lokum page. -Rholton 02:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: To the anonymous creator of this page:
I apologise if I have missed something that is obvious, and caused you to lose work. At first glance the content of the new Lokum page was identical to the content of the Loukoumi page. On closer examination, there seemed to be som superficial changes to the first paragraph to adapt the article to the new page name. Seeing no particular reason to have two essentially identical articles under different names, I erased the content of the new page and made it a redirect to the original page.
After you replaced the contents, I made a more careful comparison between the versions I based my original decision on, and found that you had also made some helpful edits to the content of the Lokum page. But none of them seemed to distinguish Lokum from Loukoumi. In other words, these helpful edits would be equally helpful to the existing Loukoumi page.
If you have future plans to distinguish Lokum from Loukoumi, please leave a mesage here so that I, and others who might do as I did, will understand.
If you are trying to improve upon the Loukoumi page, please simply edit that page. There is no need for a separate page in that cirsumstance.
Finally, you might be pleased to know that your work is not really "lost". Every version of every article is saved in its entirety in the associated Page History. It can easily be copied/pasted to a new edit of the page, reverting the page back to the version which I removed. See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version.
Thank you,
-Rholton 02:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: -Rholton 02:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: I am so sick of this page being a front in the cultural battle between the Greeks and the Turks. It's just candy, people. But I guess there's nothing we can really do about it :( --Iustinus 3 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
:*I guess this comment is tongue-in-cheek? No battle exists. Jonathunder raised the only objection, which seems to have nothing supporting it. It's been a month without a peep from him/her. Why not just move it? -TM
::No, it was serious, but wasn't directly related to the name-change vote. A recent edit was made for the sole purpose of moving "Greek" to the end, and "Turkish" to the begining. Back when this WAS at Turkish delight someone changed it to Greek delight. Let alone all the edits to switch back and forth between Greek and Turkish as the language that originated this word. Or the fool who changed the interwiki link La:lucumium to La:lucumi apparently just to make it closer to the Modern Greek form. And so on and so on ad infinitum.
::We may be opening a can of worms by moving this back to the proper title. ;) --Iustinus 6 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
::: In Greece, it is sold as "Greek Delight," just as the Greek Key is not called that in Turkey. Both the Greeks and the Turks can feel very strongly on the issue, however, it is most commonly known as Turkish in English, and I see no need to advance the cause of Turkish linguistic nationalism. Pelegius 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it is sold in Greece as 'Greek Delight' or lokum. Actually I think it's English language nationalism to presume something has the same name all over the world...  As the article relates how the sweet was popular with the Turks so it might also mention that the Turks were popular with us (English speakers) - hence the name we have for this sweet today.  Btw could it be said that it was a brand name to begin with? Hakluyt bean 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Can someone tell me why the tiny mention of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is so controvercial that everyone keeps deleting or rewriting it? --Iustinus 08:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm getting sick of this phenomenon. I'm inclined to keep the "Popular Culture" section, but not strongly so. However, I don't want it to keep getting deleted and then reinserted. So I've reinserted it myself, with a note saying not to delete the section unilaterally. If you want to erase that section, please bring it up on this page first, and see what other people think! --Iustinus 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narnia 

message: Someone, possibly with commercial intent, added a reference (and link) to Liberty Orchards. I have changed the phrasing slightly, but kept it because they do seem (to me at least) to be a noteworthy company. Perhaps someone could further improve the phrasing though, so that it's less of a commercial. --Iustinus 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aplets & Cotlets 

message: I have seen recipes for this confection using pectin, cornstarch, and gelatin. None of these seem like the likely original thickening agents in the candies, at least not in their modern, boxed forms. Does anyone know what was used historically? The connection with rose flavoring suggests that perhaps the original may have been a rose hip jelly (pectin-based) that was flavored with rose water, but this is just a guess.
On second thought, the connection with salep (as mentioned in discussion above) suggests that the salep (also a source of starch-like polysaccharides) may have been the original thickener.
On third thought, GP4Kids states that the original was a cooked mixture of honey (of course, no processed sugar) citrus (a source of pectin) and rose water...Mschmidt62 02:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical thickener?  

message: I reverted this change Nonetheless, since lokum became popular Greeks started selling it under the name of Greek lokum so that a Greek made-up story of lokum should be expected. It was pov and was unsourced.--Dakota 07:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The next Greek who emails me a letter with CAPSLOCK ON about "Greek Delight" will get a 100% free,natural prostate examination by the tip of my boot.--85.97.76.234 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Last Note 

message: I was under the impression that Mastic was used in Turkish Delight (backed up by the fact that the Mastic article even mentions its use in Turkish Delight). However, this article does not mention its use… Shouldn't we include it? –Wulf 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this, not from any knowledge - got here from the mastic article - but if anyone knows more please add reference if appropriate. Thanks -Fitzhugh 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mastic