Talk:Pastirma

message: A user called Hecktorian totally reverted my edits on this article without stating any reason to why he has reverted. I will revert back as I have added information to the article. Hectorian can you not suppress information on wikipedia please.
There is no citation about how Pastirma considered Armenian originally. This topic is therefore biased.  That is the personal opinion of the writer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.141.240 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Does anyone object moving the article to Pastirma (thus replacing the Turkish ı with i)? Rationale is that the meal is known throughout the middle east and not only in Turkey and that the common name in English is with a normal i.--Rafy talk 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time a Turkish Wikipedian moves the article without consent. This is an English language Encyclopaedia and there is no reason to use foreign characters when an English proper name is well established.--Rafy talk 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rafy, first of all please begin section titles with a capital letter. Secondly, I misread your previous comment; sorry. Thirdly (and most importantly) do not refer to users like me (objective and honest editors) with their nationality. Last but not the least I will not object (for my honest mistake) to a name change back to "pastirma". All the same it is pastırma, FYI. --E4024 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Pastirma 

message: I have reverted some recent editing mainly because of poor spelling. I now see that I have stumbled into a conflict of an inter-ethnic kind about which I have no knowledge. My apologies for any error I may have made. Feel free to undo my edit. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be apologetic: the edit you reverted was clearly of low quality, and also removed good-quality material.  It would be great if you could help us find good-quality sources from all points of view.... --Macrakis (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Don't worry at all; socks from Turkey's neighbouring countries will come back and claim ownership of Turkish cuisine items with Turkish names all the time. Some may even find sources for Turkish language being a dialect of theirs; as it is more difficult to change names of the products and dishes after centuries. --E4024 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-vandalism patrol 

message: Pastroman not  Pastirma.
The name does not mean "pressed meat" it means "neatly layered meat"  which was piled and salted sometimes during the curing process.  The information is very flawed, and is from an ahistorical Turk viewpoint.  Pastroman, the article even points out is Byzantine and most likely an ancient native food of Asia Minor.  The Turks were foreign and adopted this practice of curing meat in a drum.  Nomadic Mongol and Arabic people like the Turks, did not historically cure meat in caldrons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.7.37 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A belated congratulation for the "Nomadic Mongol and Arabic people like the Turks", it's really creative! (Do you belong to one of those peoples who feel very bad that they would not have had a national cuisine if their country hadn't been invaded by the Turks? At least they have given you a taste of life :-) There is no doubt about the Turkish origin of Pastırma, so I don't understand why but there are many third party sources like this one that refer to (the quality of) "Turkish Pastirma". Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Note: It is clear that my words are to the IP user who employed the qualification "Nomadic Mongol and Arabic people like the Turks". No-one else has to take my words personally. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally inaccurate article! 

message: If User:Kmoksy has a good reason to delete material, then they should present this reason here, persuasively. IFF others agree, then the material may be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are claiming it has an "Anatolian" origin - however "Anatolia" used in this expanded way is a post-Ottoman Empire invention and I think it would be wrong to backdate that expanded usage into historical periods. In the Byzantine era "Anatolia" was just the name of a theme. Kayseri / Caesarea was in Cappadocia, not in Anatolia. Armenia is also not in Anatolia - not then, not now. That said, I have problems with some of the sources - I doubt Ifood.tv  is rs - and wording like "It's believed", "it has been claimed", etc., is not appropriate. And what is going on in reference 2: "The authors may be thinking..."? Where is this opinion from? If it is the opinion of a Wikipedia editor then it is OR.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Just because the word is Turkish doesn't mean the dish is. And people lived in Anatolia before the Turks did and the Turks were notorious for appropriating the cultures of the people they conquered.74.70.146.1 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: I've just now reverted an edit that removed a large amount of sourced material, replacing it with a much smaller amount of very different and unsourced material.
Don't do this. If the "sourcing" is defective in some way, bring this up here. If you have different material that you want to add, provide credible sources for it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The mass deletions continue

message: This section is a mess. What on earth does this sentence mean, for one thing?: "Some authors claim that the medieval Central Asian nomad traditions to modern production of pastirma during the Ottomans is an extension of that older tradition." --Macrakis (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibberish. Go ahead and remove it. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: History and etymology

message: I'm removing John Ash as a source. Considering the Ottomans didn't conquer Romaniaa - and that most expert sources in history use considerably more precision when discussing this topic (distinguishing between different territories rather than saying the Ottomans "conquered Romania") - I don't think we can use this as a history reference (quote from article:  (though certainly John Ash is a fine reference for recipes or preparation related content).Seraphim System (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Ash 

message: Since we obviously won't be able to agree to which narrative should be used on this page, here's my attempt at a compromise: we do both. I have made the changes, and further discussion can take place here, if you're willing. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to discuss the changes, then stop edit warring and discuss them and explain why you think the sources support the content you keep restoring - the only solid source in there for history/etymology is Alan Davidson "Dried meat, a forerunner of the pastirma of modern Turkey, became a delicacy." - which is directly quoted in the article. As for paston, I suggest you read the content in the article instead of edit warring. Restoring SPS because you think it has an Armenian origin is not a good reason, we're not going to agree unless you can find reliable sources that support the changes you want to make.Seraphim System (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If RS support your edit, I won't object, but the only RS supporting Armenian origins is one SPS. Whether and how that source is admissible should be brought to RS/n, because it's not a decision I would be comfortable making without community input. If you bring it to RS/n we can discuss it, and possibly use the source with attribution. However, an RfC is not a substitute for RS. If you open an RfC without engaging in discussion to push through edits that are not reliably sourced, I intend to request a procedural close. I've asked you to post reliable sources that support your edits. The fact that reliable sources don't support your edits is not a good reason for an RfC and is troubling in an area with long-term persistent sock puppetry and LTA issues. Inserting content that is not reliably sourced into articles for POV reasons is extremely damaging to the encyclopedia. You don't seem concerned that the information you are adding may not be accurate.Seraphim System (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested compromise. 

message: It is obvious that Pastirma is traditional Greek meze. The Greeks of Cappadocia have contributed in modest but distinct ways to the general food culture of modern Greece, reinforcing and adding their own nuances to the special foods of the major Christian festivals. They also claim pastirma as one of their specialities. In spite of such Byzantine precursors as apokti, it is true that the pastirma tradition has deep roots in the nomadic culture of the medieval Turks. It is highly probable that they transmitted the idea to the Cappadocians alongtime before Constantinople was conquered, and, although Constantinople knew all about pastirma from the seventeenth century onwards, it is certain that after the population exchanges of 1923 modern Greece acquired its knowledge of pastirma from the Capadocians. For more see: Gifts of the Gods: Andrew Dalby, Rachel Dalby, A History of Food in Greece, Foods and Nations, Reaktion Books, 2017, ISBN	1780238630, p. 149. Jingiby (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece. 

message: I want to add the earliest mention of basturma, in armenian aboukh. Acccording to a source I know (https://armenianprelacy.org/2016/07/08/how-do-you-say-basturma-in-armenian/) it is stated that aboukht is mentioned in the first armenian bible translation. Can I use this as a source, or not? Also If someone can, can someone please verify If the word aboukht actually appears in the Armenian bible translation? 2003:EA:4F4F:CFED:81DC:9569:5D8B:70B4 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why it could not be used. Please add it to the article and if you difficulty doing so, post a request for edit here. Netherzone (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thanks, I added it to the article. 2003:EA:4F4F:CF55:474:E868:9C6C:2C14 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be used as a source?