Talk:Mediterranean cuisine/Archive 1

Recipes

Are recipes allowed?

In Wikibooks Pictureuploader 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How can we "Expand it"? Conquest1980 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

remove some of the close related

A main characteristic of the Mediterranean cuisine is the use of olive oil. Cuisines that are not using olive oil can’t be at any way close to the Mediterranean cuisine. Therefore I request the removal of the following Links (How are those close related to Mediterranean cuisine?) Albanian cuisine, Bosnian cuisine, Bulgarian cuisine, California cuisine, Croatian cuisine, Montenegrin cuisine, Macedonian cuisine (Slavic), If anyone has any objections please advise and contribute! Thank you! (Seleukosa 13:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)) And leave Serbian cuisine in? Only on the ground that, for example the Bulgarian cuisine uses sunflower oil instead of olive oil? Have you tried any of these cuisines at all? The Bulgarian cuisine is so close to the Greek and the Turkish cuisine, that they share most of the dishes (mousaka, baklava, dolma/sarmi, the cheeses,etc, etc...) 78.86.82.106 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As it says at the beginning of the article, the category "Mediterranean cuisine" is not a particularly meaningful one. It presumably should mean "cuisine of the regions around the Mediterranean", but it is used by some nutritionists (especially) to refer specifically to the cuisine of poor coastal people in Crete, Southern Italy, etc. Emilia-Romagna is right on the Mediterranean, and their primary cooking fat is butter. Algeria is right on the Mediterranean, and their primary cooking fat is sheep fat. For more on the made-in-America Mediterranean diet, see that article. --Macrakis 15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I must completely disagree with the first comment. Croatian cuisine typically does use olive oil in nearly all of it's dishes. I find it somewhat odd that you would keep Serbian cuisine on the list when it has very little to do with Mediterranean food, for instance it does not include much fish or olive oil.

"mediterranean"

"Mediterranean cuisine" refers not to "the food of the countries with shores in the mediterranean" but to areas around the mediterranean, which constitute of mediterranean common denominators contributing to shared elements, such as origins and culture just as any other aspect of things "mediterranean" such as climate, ethnic groups, flora and fauna, etc.

To distinguish portugal from spain because portuguese shores are in the atlantic is simple minded and narrow thinking. portugal and spain have ties that are undeniable and to separate the two would be like drawing a line down france creating two new countries and then saying that they are different.

Also, northwestern spain is excluded. This is wrong. what about the very north of italy?.. shouldn't that be excluded going by the existing logic, because it isn't. that isn't in the mediterranean either. are we designating regions here by actual cuisine that come from a mediterranean "eco"-culture or are we only counting a specific number of miles or kilometers from mediterranean beaches going only so far into land as far as this author concerns what "mediterranean" is in his/her mind?

If there were an article on Iberian cuisine, a solid differentiation between portugal and spain would not exist because it dos not exist. there is much more in common than there is different and many differences between the two countries happen to be regional. the peninsula needs to be looked at as a whole in amny many matters. very often there is as much different between one region of spain to another as there is between portugal and spain, and many times there is more in common between portugal and a certain region of spain then there is between taht region of spain to another region of spain. many people who are not portuguese or spanish don't understand this. It would then, and does, contradict the insinuation of this article that they are different. "closely related" doesn't cut it. regardless of the shoreline, it is "mediterranean".

There may be more gross errors concerning the exclusion of other cultures but I don't mention them because I can't speak for them. I don't know, but Portugal I know.

The definition of "mediterranean" here is preposterous.

Lusitano Transmontano 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lusitano, the basic problem (which is already discussed in the article) is that "Cuisine of the Mediterranean" may not be a meaningful category in the first place. Note the quote near the beginning where an Italian writer says that northern Italian cooking is really more Central European than Mediterranean, for example. There is also a confusion between recording what is actually eaten in the Mediterranean region and idealizing it based on current nutritional theories about the Mediterranean diet, which is essentially based on the diet of poor people in Crete and coastal southern Italy as observed in 1945-1960. --Macrakis 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I admit sometimes I can get jumpy. But aside from the quote about Northern Italian/Central European cuisine and the acknowledgement that the title may not be a suitable one in the first place I still felt the need for, and don't regret, saying my piece regardless of whether or not it has been brought up. My thoughts are here and can may help improve this or another related article for talk page readers by bringing some ideas to their attention. Still thanks for your reply and making me aware of the point you bring up.

Lusitano Transmontano 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

useless category

this entire entry should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.126.218 (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About removal of closed related.

They are not only close but gathered by the hand. Mediterranean cuisine means from the mediterranean area, and it is nor clasified for olive oil based cuisines. (unsigned comment)

The current list of "closely related cuisines" includes most of the (extended) Middle East, most of the Balkans, and then some Latin American cases. This is extending the notion of "closely related" pretty far.... I think it would make more sense to just add Middle Eastern and Balkan and leave it at that. I will WP:BE BOLD and do just that. --macrakis (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Shared principles

The article currently reads:

Despite this, given the geography, these nation-states have influenced each other over time in both food and culture and the cooking evolved into sharing common principles.

• Why talk in terms of "nation-states" (most of which are relatively recent creations)? Why not talk of regions?
• No doubt foods and cultures around the Mediterranean influence one another -- but they also exchange influences with central and northern Europe, with the inland Balkans, with Persia/Iran, with the Americas (cf. the tomato, the pepper, ...), etc.
• What exactly are the "common principles" here? Is there a reliable source for this claim, or is it original research?

All in all, this seems like a pretty vacuous statement. --Macrakis (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I added Persian cuisine, which is clearly part of, and had historical influence on Mediterranean diets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:4D9C:B294:40FB:579 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the great tradition of Persian cuisine has had much influence on some Mediterranean cuisines and food vocabulary. However, this article is about Mediterranean cuisine itself. Persian cuisine is not "clearly part of" Mediterranean cuisine. Persian cuisine has had an even greater influence on South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) cuisine via the Moghuls. Should we then classify Persian cuisine as "Indian" or "South Asian"? Or conversely, should we classify Indian cuisine as Persian? Either way is a fallacy -- just because A has commonalities or historical connections to B doesn't mean that A is a kind of B or vice versa.

Also, your comment conflates Mediterranean cuisine (things eaten around the Mediterranean) and Mediterranean diet (a modern diet inspired by diets of some people in some parts of the Mediterranean).

Finally, you are making these claims without any reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are actually familiar with the the traditional Persian diet, it doesn't take much to realize that is clearly in-line with most diets of the Medittanean. This includes the heavy use of olive oil, high portion of vegetables, bread and grains, yogurts, and inclusion of wine (of course, ancient Iran being one of the origins of winemaking) - these are hallmarks of the med diet. In contrast, there is very little similar (the use of eggplant and turmeric, being the notable exception) to South Asian, or Mogul, cuisines, and almost all historical influences would have from Persia outward. I suggest you do some research before making edits. You obviously, have not cited resources for every single cuisine listed as 'mediterranean'. For this, it is only appropriate to include Persian Cuisine. 167.1.146.100 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

From what you say above, I think you are confusing Mediterranean cuisine (i.e., foods consumed around the Mediterranean) with the Mediterranean diet (the modern recommendation).

Re the "heavy use of olive oil". According to the Olive Oil Times, "The annual per capita consumption of olive in Iran currently stands at 160 grams [i.e., 0.160 kg]." According to the Olive oil article, this puts Iran below the global average olive oil consumption, an order of magnitude less than Turkey (1.8 kg), and two orders of magnitude less than Spain (13.6 kg), Italy (12.35 kg), or Greece (23.7 kg). Rather different.

Re South Asian vs. Persian food. Many dishes share both names and similar (though not identical) recipes: kebab, yakhni, pulao, tanur/tandoor, biryani, chorba.

Of course, there are some dishes that are shared from South Asia, through Persia, into the Eastern Mediterranean, like raita / mast-o-khiar / cacik / tzatziki. These aren't pan-Mediterranean dishes, though.

As for wine, it is of course not an important part of modern Persian cuisine.

Since the definition of Mediterranean cuisine is the cuisine of the regions around the Mediterranean, I don't think we need sources to show that Italian, Tunisian, etc. cuisines are Mediterranean -- though as this Talk page shows, it isn't at all clear that it's meaningful to include Serbian cuisine (for example). --Macrakis (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but current production, is not a good reflector of traditional preparation and usage. Olive oil usage has been historically significant in Iran, and has been applied since, at least, 2500 years ago. Iran is one of the biggest producers of olive oil. The modern (post 60's) Iranian consumption, has essentially become one that parallels that of American. As the Harvard researcher Dariush Mozaffarian noted, “The traditional Iranian diet—rich in vegetables, herbs, nuts, fruits and yogurt, with small amounts of rice and cheese and sweets as an occasional special treat—gets an A+. Unfortunately, the modern Iranian diet—large amounts of white rice, meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and sweet/deserts, with few vegetables, herbs, nuts or fruits—grows increasingly similar to the US diet.” 2601:882:100:D7B0:3CE6:B1D9:D7C6:60D7 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your comments above reinforce the sense that you are talking about diet in the nutritional sense, not about cuisine. On WP, we don't privilege either "tradition" or "modernity"; we try to report on both. I can believe that the Iranian diet of the past included little meat and few sweets; that's probably true of most diets around the world until very recently, whether in China or in Peru or in Poland. It is silly to call them "Mediterranean" because of this. Conversely, around the Mediterranean, there are many regions where the predominant cooking fat a century ago was not olive oil but lard (Spain, central Italy), sheep's-tail fat (North Africa), or butter (northern Italy, Turkey). That doesn't make them less "Mediterranean". --Macrakis (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your notion of 'Mediterranean cuisine' is questionable, in the first place, as it makes no sense to group food by region in that way. Such a classification is just a pointless and arbitrary as grouping diets by a country's population size. For example, Turkish and Persian food are so similar that an average person would find it difficult not to confuse menus. For that reason, by 'Mediterranean cuisine' can only meaningfully be interpreted as 'Mediterranean diet'. Furthermore, any slight amendment to the definition of Mediterranean cuisine, for example, 'around' as opposed to 'adjacent'. Please reference valid sources for the concept of Mediterranean cuisine (as well as Mediterranean haircuts, while your at it). (unsigned comment -- 2016-01-08T09:27:58‎ 2601:882:100:d7b0:dc01:2508:1a6b:191f )

I agree completely with you that grouping the cuisines around the Mediterranean into some sort of "Mediterranean cuisine" is questionable and probably pointless, because there is great diversity around the Mediterranean. That is exactly what our reliable sources say. As for the "Mediterranean diet", that diverges quite a bit from what is actually eaten in the Mediterranean area. You ask for "valid sources" -- the article includes four so far, none of them from questionable places like cookbooks (which are typically uninformed or naive about historical matters) or medical papers (which are not famous for their understanding of gastronomy...!).

I am not sure why you are pushing the notion that the great tradition of Persian cuisine belongs in the "Mediterranean cuisine" article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ingredients and cooking styles

The "Ingredients and Cooking Styles" section currently reads:

The food consists primarily of fruits and vegetables with an emphasis on poultry and seafood, grains, beans and pastas. Olive oil the most prevalent fat or oil used in the preparation of salads, marinades, vegetables, poultry and seafood. Eggplant, artichokes, squash, tomatoes, legumes, onions, mushrooms, okra, cucumbers, and a variety of greens are served fresh, baked, roasted, sautéed, grilled and puréed. Yogurt and cheese are also major components of Mediterranean cooking. Coastal areas use seafood. Herbs are used in abundance.

Some of this is true, but most of it is overgeneralization or idealization (based on the "Mediterranean diet"). For example, yogurt was basically unknown in Italy, France, and Spain until pretty recently. Stews (both vegetarian and with meat) are very common throughout the region. Lamb and mutton are widely eaten. Okra is uncommon in Italy and France. (And where are garlic, peppers, etc.?) Etc.

It continues:

Mediterranean cuisine is characterized by flexibility, a wide range of ingredients and regional variations.

This is a pretty vacuous (or maybe just romantic) statement. I will remove it. --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This page sucks, I want to help fix it.

Hey y'all :) Just came across this article and it really disturbed me. The Mediterranean is a vast and amazingly rich expanse of culture, history, and wars. Spreading wide from the cradle of civilization (Egypt), to the birth place of Jesus Christ (Palestine), to the great Roman empire, to the birthplace of modern Liberalism (France). The cuisine is just as rich and vast as the history, with a zestful uniqueness and broadness, the fact that the Wikipedia page for Mediterranean cuisine only displays 4 narrow and non-insightful paragraphs is an absolute shame. I am doing a rough edit of the page, please dont hesitate to add comments or suggestions in order to help, i will display changes here. (unsigned)

Have changed the intro

Mediterranean cuisine is cuisine native to the Mediterranean, which has a vast and amazingly rich expanse of culture, history, and wars. Spreading wide from the cradle of civilization (Egypt), to the birth place of Jesus Christ (Palestine), to the great Roman empire, to the birthplace of modern Liberalism (France). The cuisine is just as rich and vast as the history, with a zestful uniqueness and broadness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkizzler (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That might be a good introductory paragraph for a personal essay, but doesn't belong on the Wikipedia page about Mediterranean cuisine.... --Macrakis (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is judgemental

As it currently stands this article comeas across as an uninformative diatribe against the concept of "Mediterranean cuisine", consisting in large part of two heavily judgemental quotations saying the same thing. What seems to have irritated contributors is fundamentally only the confusion created by the inaccurate naming of what was originally a medical concept; it's really nothing to get excited about. I suggest cutting out the two longest (and grumpiest) quotations and relegating them to references. Dayvey (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The medical concept is covered in the article Mediterranean diet. As the article says, "The Mediterranean diet, popularized in the 1970s, is sometimes conflated with Mediterranean cuisine". Elizabeth David, writing in 1950, was not talking about the medical idea, which was popularized much later.

Like most articles, this one could certainly be expanded with additional information about the idea of Mediterranean cuisine as it actually is, and as it is perceived. There is a lot of misinformed romanticism around the idea of Mediterranean cuisine. For example, one book I have on the cooking of Provence says that outsiders think of the typical foods being ratatouille and the like, whereas the locals think of the most typical and best food as roasted birds. (I'll have to find that source and add it....). --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if you have serious sources discussing Mediterranean cuisine (not the Mediterranean diet) from a gastronomic viewpoint, you should certainly contribute to the article, using them as sources. --Macrakis (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content, driven, perhaps, by a point of view?

I am startled to see that a cited section of dishes, all stated to be "Mediterranean food" by Elizabeth David, and fully cited, has been cut by Macrakis with what I consider the absurd comment that they are not "Mediterranean", but have different national identities. All dishes from around the Mediterranean sea have such identities, unless perhaps we grant that some dishes like risotto have joined some sort of international identity. I think what is happening is an attempt to enforce a specific point of view, namely that if national styles exist, then there cannot be a larger scale of cuisine. That is, I think, clearly not correct. Greek and Turkish Meze (mentioned by David, as it happens) are not identical to Spanish Tapas: but they are not a million miles apart: you sit in a warm place on a summer's evening, you drink some good cheap wine, you nibble at some delicious small dishes. Moroccan Tagines are not the same as Greek stews, but they make use of the Mediterranean's excellent lamb, and potatoes, and olive oil. To be philosophical for a moment, the existence of one level (Greek provincial cuisine, say) does not prevent higher levels from existing (Greek national cuisine, Greco-Turkish cuisine; Mediterranean cuisine). If that were so, we would not be able to claim that Banbury Cakes were part of English cuisine, but they certainly are. You are right, therefore, that Bouillabaisse is definitely French. But it is also definitely Marseillaise; definitely Provençale; and 100% Mediterranean. Let's put the content back without fuss now, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is this. This article is about "Mediterranean cuisine". We could take that to mean the collection of all foods served around the Mediterranean, the same way we could define, say, "European cuisine" as all foods served in Europe. That would include sopa de ajo, hákarl, Wiener schnitzel, bangers, kokoretsi, cheese fondue, etc. And sure enough, you can probably find cookbooks devoted to European or Continental cuisine. But is that meaningful or useful?

Your guess that I believe that countries are the correct units of analysis is false. The meaningful units of analysis are more like "Ottoman cuisine" (including Greece, Bulgaria, Bosnia, etc.), "Levantine cuisine" (including Syria, Lebanon, parts of Turkey), "North African cuisine" (conventionally referring to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, and not Egypt), "Riviera cuisine" (for lack of a better name), "Po Valley cuisine", etc. These may be larger or smaller than countries, and generally overlap. --Macrakis (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; to answer your question, yes, I think "European cuisine" a useful class, though much larger than what we have here; and I'm glad you agree that we can define Mediterranean cuisine.

I'd also happily agree that there are regional cuisines such as Ottoman, Levantine, etc. Both of those indeed encompass smaller units; and both form part of the wider Mediterranean cuisine.

Fortunately, however, we do not have to do so ourselves. Many books, starting (it seems we agree) probably with Elizabeth David, say that it does. Several of those books are now listed in the article. I think we should go with the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth David's romanticizing of Mediterranean cuisine is an interesting cultural landmark, contrasting the drab postwar diet (and rationing) of England with an imagined bounty of fresh vegetables and fish. I certainly agree that "Mediterranean cuisine" has become a successful marketing term for cookbooks and restaurants, but I hope we can take a more detached, historically informed, and encyclopedic view here. --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's take this carefully. Firstly, David was not a helpless romantic: she lived and worked on the Mediterranean, in numerous places listed in the article, including in wartime Egypt for the duration of the Second World War. She both studied and liked the food of the region, and not unreasonably (as various critics have remarked) she found the bones and gristle of postwar England under rationing somewhat unappetising. The vegetables, fish and other ingredients she talked about were not therefore wholly imagined: she had for years seen, cooked, and tasted them, and of course she (and England in general) soon did so again.

On your second point, I'm glad we agree that the title of the article describes a concept that is used by both books and restaurants, in other words it is at least an idea that exists in the world, which is all we require to write an article about it. I am happy to assure you that my food articles are very carefully grounded in history, and they're open to inspection.

So to your last point. By discussing David's contribution in detail, the article is starting to anchor the concept in history. I intend to go far back beyond 1950, for while David may have invented a term, the dishes she described in her book go back much further, and it will be interesting to see what evidence there is for their origins. By comparing the concept with "Mediterranean diet" we have already started to ground it in popular and medical culture. By giving examples of different regional Mediterranean cuisines (as in the cited text that you deleted), I was starting to ground it in place. I think this discussion has gone far enough for it to be clear that that text should be restored now, as place is an essential element of an encyclopedic view of cuisine, just as historical time is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "Mediterranean cuisine" is a less arbitrary category than (say) "Cuisine of islands". But the examples should show that. Examples which are specific to one region (paella is specific to the Catalan countries) don't really help make the point; and neither do generic foods that are found worldwide, like grilled fish. One example I can think of is bottarga; another is meat-vegetable-and-tomato stews. Other examples? --Macrakis (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to an extent we can try to select pan-regional dishes, but I think you're probably right in hinting they will be hard to find. Of course we can talk for a little while about stews and bottarga with no risk of disagreement. There are also common ingredients, both native (like the Olive) and imported, like the tomato: but that really only gets us to the diet, not the cuisine. We need to face a simple fact here: the majority of dishes within the Mediterranean area, even old and famous ones, are mainly found only on parts of that long coastline. The best we can do is to say, for instance, that the tomato, once arrived from the New World, found its way into dishes as varied as Greek Mousaka and salad, Italian stews and pasta sauces, Spanish paellas, and Moroccan soups, not to mention David's Tarte aux Tomates, and sure, that's French. These are all Mediterranean dishes – for Mousaka, Paella, and Spaghetti we have David as witness – and while of course we can carefully say they aren't pan-Med, their individual and regional Med-ness is honestly not in doubt. The article should rightly celebrate both the (fairly sharp) distinction of Med from Northern European cooking, implying a degree of unity of cuisine, and the obvious regional differences of one Med region from another. I'm happy to announce that pan-Med dishes are few and far between; once we are over that preamble, the article can describe (or link) the wealth of regional cuisines and dishes, and it's time that it did.Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The history of individual dishes should probably be covered only within the articles specifically about those dishes, or the immediate regional or national cuisines of which they are a part. This article can discuss the relationships between those regional and national cuisines, and the history of the term Mediterranean cuisine. That history can indeed include individual dishes, especially where the article turns to the term's use in marketing (I imagine there's probably some standard set of dishes in the restaurant industry that commonly appear on "Mediterranean" menus.) But we should avoid conflating that with practices in the actual Mediterranean region. Rather than being the focus of controversy surrounding the term, this article should only document that controversy. Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I'm glad we're having a productive discussion here.

I think the problem goes beyond the lack of pan-Mediterranean dishes. The point about Elizabeth David is not that the dishes she mentioned didn't exist before her, it's that they didn't belong to a category called "Mediterranean" (and remember that she talks about Mediterranean cooking, not cuisine, which reifies the category in a different way). There are certainly long-standing traditions around the Mediterranean, including of course the Ottoman tradition, the (overlapping) Levantine tradition, etc.

Another problem is the definition. The lead currently reads "the food from the cultures adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea". I am not sure what it means for a "culture" to be "adjacent" to something, or for that matter what a "culture" is supposed to mean in this context, but let's interpret this as "the food eaten near the Mediterranean". So what is "near"? Is Milano near enough? Should we consider costolette alla Milanese, which are almost the same thing as Wiener schnitzel (which is surely Central European cuisine), to be a Mediterranean dish? Is boeuf en daube, a typical Provençal dish, a Mediterranean dish? How about bistecca alla fiorentina; is Florence too far from the sea? How about porridge of maize, wheat, or other grains? This was the staple of poor people across the Mediterranean, but also of northern Europe, eastern Europe, etc. Do we call polenta "Mediterranean cuisine" because it is eaten near the Mediterranean Sea, but mamaliga "Black Sea cuisine"? Certainly none of those foods conform to the stereotypes. Or are we only talking about specifically coastal cooking? --Macrakis (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential distribution of olive tree over the Mediterranean Basin (Oteros, 2014)

I carry no brief for old definitions in the article. However, the Mediterranean area can be measured in different ways, for example by the extent of the Olive tree, a plant seen by botanists as characteristic of the region. But of course we aren't talking about purely coastal cooking, whatever the stereotypes of Amalfi, the Ligurian coast, Provence, Catalonia, or for that matter the Turquoise Coast. The easy broader definition, "countries bordering the Mediterranean", gives the problem that the cuisines of Normandy and Trentino scarcely fit anyone's concept of Mediterranean. A better fit to the concept of Med. food in cookbooks (and in popular culture on web and TV) would be "provinces bordering the Med.", which would approximate the region of the Olive tree. David does not say where her " Risotto aux Fruits de Mer", but it sounds like Provence, derived from Italy. When she names places, they are often but not always coastal - Naples, Valencia, Alicante, Provence, or simply "The south of France" (p. 72), but she mentions Cassoulet Toulousain, so she is not strictly marine - Toulouse is 100 miles from the Med, and just in the Olive's area. So intuition, David, the Olive and usage by cookery writers do broadly correspond. David can't be the whole story, of course, since cookery writers cheerfully include Moroccan cuisine, for example.

On the question of the word "cuisine", I believe you are understanding by that a single type of cooking? If so, David has it right again by talking of "Mediterranean food" and "The cooking of the Mediterranean shores" (the first words of her 1950 Introduction). I'd be very happy to move the article to "Mediterranean cooking" (currently it redirects here, perhaps wrongly) or "Food of the Mediterranean region" if we agree that these avoid the connotation of a single pan-Med cuisine, which exists only in fragments. The term cuisine is slippery as it is used to mean food and cookery in general (a synonym of my proposed titles), elides with Med. diet, and yet to an extent implies a single type of cooking, which obviously doesn't take account of regional variations. If we write an article on Food of the Mediterranean region, then a short section can cover the difficulty with the "Med. cuisine" name, and we can move on to write about the food and its history, which is what we should be doing, rather than arguing about categories.

I agree, by the way, with Ibadibam that we are free to discuss individual dishes from any of the Med. regions, provided we set them in their regional context. I agree, too, that our job is to describe the different positions in the debate, and the different meanings that have been set on the term, rather than to pick one and to defend it. I think we'd better get started on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I more meant that we generally should not discuss individual dishes in this article, but rather broader cultural and culinary traditions within the Mediterranean region, and their interrelationships. One exception (and maybe this is what Chiswick Chap is saying, in different words) is for specific dishes that exemplify these interrelationships (moussaka, say). Another is the constructed pan-Mediterranean cuisine presented by some cookbooks and restaurants, which typically revolves around a few common Greek, Turkish and Arab dishes, which would need to be named. I think we also need to recognize that the term is sometimes used as a euphemism for Palestinian or Israeli cuisine to avoid political questions.

Also, count me as one who sees no distinction between cuisine and cooking, in this context. Ibadibam (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

On the individual dishes, I agree that those are among the main reason for mentioning them - to exemplify points about the cooking of the Med region, the use of the major ingredients of the region (olive, grape, wheat; and seafood), and to describe and illustrate sub-regional variations, e.g. Levantine (coastal Middle Eastern), Ottoman, Spanish, Maghreb.

On the cuisine, cooking, food question, I'll take Ibadibam's "no distinction" as encouragement to write as if the article were already renamed "Mediterranean cooking/food" (or something similar, as per my suggestions above). If consensus is for the word cuisine but with redirects from other such names, then we are agreeing to gloss over at least part of the implication of a unified pan-Mediterranean cooking style, and to describe the cooking of the Med. region with variations. If the word cuisine is not usable (and I note that there is a meme for articles named "xxx cuisine"), then we should move at once to a Med. cooking-type name for the article.

All this implies a plan for the article which includes:

• History of the idea of a Mediterranean cuisine;
• Geographical area;
• Distinctive ingredients (olive, grape, wheat "trinity"; coastal => fish, seafood; fruits inc. citrus; vegetables inc. tomato);
• History of cultures and their foods in the region, inc. arrival of potato, tomato, etc from the Americas;
• Tour of the main subregional cuisines, with illustrations;
• The extent to which there really is a common, pan-Mediterranean cooking style, with widespread dishes;
• The modern idea of a Mediterranean diet, to be eaten for health reasons, with evidence of the claimed health benefits;
• The modern adaptation of "Mediterranean cuisine" as a style to be cooked in homes and restaurants far from the region, with the gloss of Mediterranean diet/health, and "sold" in the media.

It's a bit of a programme, but it will lead to a far more informative article. As I say, any reasonable title for the article will be fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I am beginning to like your proposal of naming this article "Foods of the Mediterranean", which avoids the implication that there is a single "cuisine". --Macrakis (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Garlic

I'm not sure what the point of mentioning garlic as diagnostic of Mediterranean cooking is:

David briefly mentions an alternative way of defining a region, quoting the French chef Marcel Boulestin: "It is not really an exaggeration to say that peace and happiness begin, geographically, where garlic is used in cooking". That area would not be limited to the Mediterranean,

As this says, garlic is far from being limited to the Mediterranean. Our garlic article says:

Garlic is a fundamental component in many or most dishes of various regions, including eastern Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, northern Africa, southern Europe, and parts of South and Central America.

So I'd suggest removing this. --Macrakis (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No no no, you've missed the point. Garlic is not being mentioned as diagnostic, but as a way of defining A region, not ours. Hence the idea of using a(nother) plant, the olive. Read it again now you know this! I'll revisit the wording to see if I can make it more obvious, but the point is logical and useful in the context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the point. Boulestin seems to be using garlic to define Mediterranean French cooking (though the quote as it stands is unclear: the wording makes it sound as though he's defining all of France this way). But clearly that criterion doesn't work in general; the olive arguably does. So what's the point of mentioning garlic at all; why not go directly to the olive? --Macrakis (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that David cites Boulestin as defining all-of-French cuisine (not Mediterranean French, it applies to the whole country) as the garlic zone; she chooses (and that's of interest) to define the culinary Mediterranean zone the same way, using the olive. Further, ecologists define the (botanical, ecological) Mediterranean zone using the olive also. Thus Boulestin's garlic is both a precedent (a cook defines the zone of a cuisine using a plant) and the reason for David's thinking to choose another plant for her zone, as I have stated in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If Boulestin is defining all of French cuisine as the garlic zone, he's simply wrong, or maybe David is misquoting; I should look it up. As Waverley Root says, "...the Loire...provides a rough boundary between the country that uses garlic sparingly and that which has frequent recourse to it" (The Food of France, p. 265). --Macrakis (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, Boulestin must have meant all the south and centre then. In any case, nobody was equating the garlic zone with the Med. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Erm, I've demonstrated why the Boulestin example set a precedent, we were discussing it already on the talk page, and you suddenly delete the text without agreement? Not ideal, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too quick on the draw. I just read that passage and it made no sense. The main interest of the passage as far as I can tell is showing how romantic and unsystematic David's definition is: "those blessed lands of sun and sea and olive trees". And the Boulestin part doesn't add anything to that: a) he isn't defining a culinary region, he just says people are happier where they eat garlic; b) I don't see what sort of "precedent" it is. People have defined geographic areas by their agricultural products from time immemorial. Just a quick example (easily found with Google Book Search) from the Encyclopedia Americana of 1904 s.v. Italy: "Italy may be divided into four agricultural zones or regions: -- (1) the olive, orange, and citron region... (2) the region of olives and pines... (3) the vine and oak region... (4) the vine and chestnut region". --Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Well, the sense in it is that Boulestin's example was cited by David, and she used it as a precedent. Perhaps it would be better as a footnote than as main text, I agree. On alternatives, obviously there are plenty of geographers and ecologists who use plants for regions, but even if the EA definition and others like it had been known to David, she wasn't a botanist and she didn't mention them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Returning to David's "Definition"

The article is currently basing its definition of the Mediterranean region as "coextensive with the range of the olive tree" based on a remark at the end of David's introduction to Mediterranean Food where she talks of "those blessed lands of sun and sea and olive trees". Picking this particular phrase in the introduction as her definition of the domain of Mediterranean food is arbitrary (WP:OR), since the introduction characterizes her area of interest in a variety of not-completely-consistent ways: "the Mediterranean shores", "the South", "the Latin genius" (excluding Greeks and Slavs and Turks and Arabs?), a Boulestin quote about garlic.

If you read the whole of that introduction, I think you'll see that she really isn't trying to define the concept at all. She is poetically evoking an escapist vision, as her biographer says: "...Elizabeth is concerned with evocation... she is an artist, a myth-maker... she has conjured images of those distant lands..." (Chaney, p. 246). Which is great. But it is not a definition.

To the extent there is any definition at all, it is laid out in the very first sentence: "the cooking of the Mediterranean shores" (as quoted in the first paragraph of the Geography section). She later lists specific cities, all of them coastal, none of them inland: Marseilles and not Toulouse or Lyon (though she does includes a recipe for cassoulet toulousain, and mentions "the Rhone valley" in her list), Barcelona and not Madrid, Genoa and not Milan or Florence, Alexandria and not Cairo, Smyrna and not Ankara; she does mention Constantinople, which though coastal, isn't really on the Mediterranean.... She adds in the Mediterranean islands, the "mainland of Greece", and Syria and Lebanon (the only countries in her list). Curiously (and I have no idea if this is intentional), she does not mention the Adriatic at all: no Venice/Veneto, no Romagna, no Croatia, no Abruzzo, no Albania. She also doesn't mention North Africa west of Egypt, except for Tunis, and I could find only one recipe for a North African dish in the whole book, namely chatchouka: no couscous, no brik, no harissa.

She also mentions that she has "varied this collection with some classic dishes and recipes from regions of France other than those bordering the Mediterranean". That is, the main topic is precisely the regions which are "bordering the Mediterranean". She also mentions later the "native shores" of this food, again underlining that she is speaking specifically of coastal cooking.

So to the extent that she defines the region of Mediterranean cooking precisely, it is as the coastal areas around the Mediterranean, and not as the range of the olive (which includes parts of California and Australia, after all). And as has been mentioned before, just because the olive grows in Morocco and Algeria (for example), does not mean that Moroccan and Algerian cooking uses olive oil heavily.

That said, though David seems to have invented the concept of Mediterranean food, I don't think we should over-use her as a source. Her colorful romantic descriptions of foods in the market and her characterization of some populations as "indolent" (!) really don't belong in an encyclopedia article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Boulestin material was removed a long time ago. We agree with David that the scope is the cooking of the Mediterranean shores, the coastal regions: indeed it is hard to imagine any workable definition which does not broadly coincide with that one; the Olive's distribution is usable precisely because it largely does, and because both botanists and David herself used it, so it is in no way OR but a cited usage. We state clearly that the concept of MC essentially dates to David, but also discuss and cite other authorities for the concept. We do not assert that every region such as the Maghreb "use olive oil heavily", but describe quantitatively the wide variation in usage from a cited source. Since that source does not give a consumption figure for the Maghreb, it would be fine to add a comparable cited figure for that region if one can be found. David is not asserting that Mediterraneans are indolent: she speaks of the relative industry or indolence, i.e. of a spectrum of activity, which she considered might be a factor in varying cuisines. The fact that her descriptions are colourful is important, as she was not introducing a scientific (e.g. food science, sociology, or ethnology) description, but her personal postwar culinary conception. She was aware of different cuisines, including indeed the Maghreb, but she had not lived in that region and wisely did not claim much knowledge of its cooking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Re Boulestin -- sorry about that! I started writing the material above a while ago, and only came back to it this weekend, and neglected to check the current state of the article.

Glad we agree about the coastal regions being the scope. But then adding in the range of the olive just confuses things. One of the large areas which is in the range of the olive is the hinterland of Morocco and Algeria, but (a) if I'm not mistaken, olive trees only recently became widely planted there, following the rise in worldwide demand; and (b) it is not an important part of their cuisine. As for the interpretation of David's phrase, there is a simple logical fallacy; saying "those blessed lands of sun and sea and olive trees" does imply that the Mediterranean has sun and sea and olives, but doesn't imply that all olive regions are Mediterranean, any more than it implies that all "sun and sea" regions are Mediterranean.

The article currently depends much too heavily on David; we agree that she was the creator of the concept of Mediterranean food, but that doesn't mean she's perfectly reliable or complete (e.g., I removed her mistaken statement about spaghetti bolognese).

I didn't say David characterized all Mediterraneans are indolent. But she says some are, and it shows in their food. Pretty amazing statement; that sort of stereotype was of course routine in her time, but there's no reason for us to follow her.

Re: "She was aware of different cuisines, including indeed the Maghreb, but she had not lived in that region and wisely did not claim much knowledge of its cooking." Yes, which is why we need to treat her material cautiously. The book is largely about Provence, Italy, and Greece, with a bit of Spain, the Levant, Egypt and generic French thrown in. (Someone must have done a recipe count.)

Re: "The fact that her descriptions are colourful is important, as she was not introducing a scientific (e.g. food science, sociology, or ethnology) description, but her personal postwar culinary conception." Exactly so! But I don't think this article is intended to be about one author's personal postwar conception. --Macrakis (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is not now 100% about David: it does its best to be balanced (and got a GA for its pains), but the sources do indicate that she started it, so she is of necessity important. David absolutely does NOT characterise anybody as indolent, she describes a relative spectrum of activity. Had she said "All Ruritanians are lazy" that would have been rude of her, but she said no such thing, nor implied it. I have not restored your deletion of David's mention of bolognese sauce, mainly because I don't feel the point worth fighting over, but it is the case that Italians make that sauce with meat and eat it with spaghetti, and indeed it's the case that many English-speaking people imagine that this is the main way spaghetti "should" be eaten, so David was not far wrong, and she makes plain (indeed the article did, and does) that many other ways existed. I do hope you will not attempt to cut anything else, as the article has now been thoroughly reviewed, and I don't see why reliably cited and relevant materials should be removed without consensus. The olive is both a precise indicator of the Mediterranean zone to botanists and ecologists, and explicitly mentioned and cited by David; and the fact that she paints in multiple overlapping but very close definitions shows she was introducing a concept that she presumed would be new to he readers. That she is now supported by later authors says that however she was influenced by her own time and place, she was pretty much correct in her suggestions; and therefore we should absolutely not indulge in WP:OR by trying to create our own definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Re "spag bol", the article you cite does not say that Italians eat bolognese with spaghetti. In fact, though they introduce the recipe as "traditional spaghetti bolognese", the recipe itself calls for tagliatelle (admittedly dried, not fresh). I'm not saying it's forbidden to eat them together (I do it myself...), just that there seems to be a pretty strong feeling among Italians that bolognese is not eaten with spaghetti. --Macrakis (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was only the paper's subeditor who thought so... the Italian regional cookbook doesn't seem to mention it, and come to that, though I've had many a pasta dish in Italy, SB never featured! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean Italian

Article reads:

Mediterranean Italian cuisine includes the cooking styles of the Italian riviera (Liguria), Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Sicily, Abruzzo, and Veneto.

This assertion is strange and unsourced. Some parts are fine: By any definition I can think of, I agree that the cooking of Liguria qualifies as Mediterranean. And it seems reasonable to exclude Piemonte, Lombardia, Val d'Aosta, and Trentino-Alto Adige. Beyond that, the rest of the list seems arbitrary. Why Rome and not the rest of Lazio? Why Naples and not the rest of Campania? Why Abruzzo and not Molise, Puglia, Basilicata, and Calabria? Why Sicily and not Sardinia? If inland Tuscany is included, why not inland Emilia-Romagna and Umbria? Is it because they use too much lard and butter? But Tuscany, though famous for its olive oil, also uses lard and butter. Is it because they eat too much beef and not enough lamb and mutton? But Tuscany is famous for its beef, not its lamb. For that matter, for all of Italy (including, say, Abruzzo), as a general rule, the inland/upland regions use more lard and less olive oil.

This brings us back to the question of how to define Mediterranean food.... --Macrakis (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I say, we're still stuck with defining what exactly is and isn't Mediterreanean. Milanese cooking is generally characterized as Central European, not Mediterranean. Bolognese... less clear. Several Italian sources (I'll have to check sources) characterize what is called in English "Mediterranean cuisine" as what is called in Italian "cucina povera" — that is, it's not about regions, but about the simple cooking of the poor. --Macrakis (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on running multiple discussions. I've replied to the definition issue above, and won't discuss it down here. However, if you have suitable sources that relate cucina povera to Mediterranean cuisine, we can add them: obviously, we can't assume the two are equivalent. I can read Italian, by the way, so am happy to help if you feel like sending me a scan or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mediterranean cuisine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118190636/http://faostat.fao.org/ to http://faostat.fao.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Function of the lead

May I remind editors that the function of the lead section is to summarize the main points of the article body, not to introduce new thoughts. The article, and the sources on which it relies, demonstrates that the area corresponds to the distribution of the olive. That of the grape does not match so closely, and the sources do not assert that it does, so it would be quite wrong (WP:OR, and not the function of the lead section) to claim it does in the lead. Hope this is clearly understood. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion of wine production in other areas

While the article necessarily mentions wine, the methods of its production and its prehistory in areas outside the Mediterranean basin are not relevant to the subject at hand here, which is Mediterranean cuisine. Wine requires to be mentioned here only insofar as it contributes to the cuisine of the area: all other details like its tannin content, its first usage in faraway countries, and the methods of production employed are off-topic and do not belong here. This has been explained repeatedly and should be obvious to all editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap: While I agree with this explanation about grapes/wine, I have an issue with this revision which isolates olive oil as the main or only cuisine factor to be mentioned in the lede first paragraph. I feel we need to integrate the 3 characteristic ingredients - olive oil, wheat, grape/wine - for the opening statement about cuisine. Perhaps use the 2nd paragraph first? --Zefr (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at it again. This was the text that passed a careful and thoughtful GA review, and the lead text is accurately matched to the article text, so I'm somewhat reluctant to mess around with it; further, the olive has a special role in defining the geographical area, as is fully cited in the article, which the other two members of the trinity do not. If I can see a convenient rearrangement I'll make it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

Chiswick Chap restoredthis content mentioning multiple reliable sources to counter my suspicion of original research. But where is the source discussing the confusion of the American Diabetes Society? Isn't this "Thus ..." sentence simply a Wikipedia editor's idea Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copy-edited the section to remove any such suggestion (I think that's now sorted, feel free to tweak if no). We do not need (or wish) to hold up any learned society as confused, and its own words are in any case far better than seeming to make inferences from it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about the "multiple reliable sources". And is olivetomato.com authoritative? Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Willett says "is based on", so let's stick with that clarification. We can certainly find many RS for that but I think one is enough for this modest statement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source on Egyptian cuisine

An editor has just reverted my deletion of an unreliable source, EgyptianStreets, which was replacing a reliable source, The Guardian, and making the opposite claim. This was despite a notice on that editor's talk page explaining about sourcing. I intend to get the material reverted but would be grateful for other editors' assistance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, we've reached agreement and another editor has reverted the changes. I've added a piece on falafel from Davidson. There isn't room for an extra image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Levant

Article currently reads:

Levantine cuisine is the cooking of the Levant (including the Middle Eastern Mediterranean coast, east of Egypt).

The parenthesis is confusing rather than helpful, and we have the definition of Levant and Levantine cuisine just a link away, for those readers who don't know what the Levant is. It is also incorrect, in that it's not just the coast. Levantine cuisine extends into inland Syria and Palestine, in particular. Or is the article making some claim about the specifically Mediterranean part of Levantine cuisine? This article claims that "Mediterranean cuisine" is coextensive with areas where olives are cultivated, and according to the map in the article, that area extends well inland. I removed this confused and confusing parenthesis, but it was restored with the edit summary "we will need something as other editors are working in that direction" -- not sure what that is alluding to. --Macrakis (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I stated above, long ago, that the coastal region was all that concerns us here, and I have only restored the text as it has long and rightly been. Now others are working on Lebanese cuisine, and as Israeli cuisine has an equal right to be considered Mediterranean I thought to mention them with links thus briefly here. I still think that wise and necessary. Perhaps with this knowledge you will not feel so inclined to oppose my every move... I did bring this to GA long ago and would have thought you might cut me a little slack when I see the need for action, but there it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "others are working on Lebanese cuisine", and I don't think anyone has questioned whether Israeli cuisine has a right to be mentioned here.

The change that I was questioning was singling out Lebanese and Israeli cuisine in the definition of the Levant, when they're only part of the region.

As for the parenthesis "(including the Middle Eastern Mediterranean coast, east of Egypt)", I'm not sure why that is useful. Is the reader intended to draw a mental line north from the Sinai to see where Levantine cuisine "ends" in Turkey? Just because the text has been there since 2016 doesn't mean we have to keep it.

It goes without saying that we disagree on what is "wise and necessary" and what "rightly" belongs in the article. Simply asserting that is not a helpful argument. --Macrakis (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I do feel that there is good cause here, and both WP:BEFORE and Good article say the text was fine, for the present purpose. There are two salient points:

1) the region that is relevant is defined by the extent of the Olive tree (check the article), which is basically just the coastal region all round the Med, and in the Levant that means Israel, Lebanon, and a small part of Syria - happy to name all three of those. Turkish cuisine is covered in a separate section, as Egyptian is so we don't need to repeat those.

2) work is advanced on Lebanese cuisine (check that article), and I'd see no reason not to mention the other two cuisines.

All I'd like to do is to say something alone the lines of 'and the Mediterranean cuisines of the Levant include the Israeli, Lebanese, and Syrian', any such wording would do, with wikilinks. This is a small, simple, verifiable, and practical change so we can acknowledge the articles on Levantine cooking. I do hope that's fine with you; if not, please propose the wording you would like as we have already spent much more energy on this small change than it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It would have to read something like "cooking of the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey, Israel, and Palestine)". The cuisine of Gaziantep and Hatay is typically Levantine and not highland Turkish or Aegean Turkish -- after all, Aintab (Gaziantep) is almost as important a center of Levantine cuisine as Aleppo. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to exclude Jordan, which normally identifies its own "typical" cuisine as bedouin, although nowadays there are large numbers of Palestinians cooking Levantine cuisine there, which brings us to the next point....

The "natural unit" here is Levantine cuisine, not individual national cuisines. Though of course there are local variants in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, etc., it seems like a bad idea to over-emphasize national units. As for Israeli cuisine, it's its own synthesis of elements from the Levant as well as many non-Mediterranean elements, notably from Central Europe and Iran. It certainly overlaps Mediterranean and Levantine cuisine, but I'm not sure it makes sense to characterize it as part of Mediterranean cuisine. --Macrakis (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll consider using your wording. It's plainly awkward to stray into Turkey, and it's clear to me that there will be a renewed push for a link (or more) to Lebanese cuisine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mediterranean Greek

I believe that the Greek cuisine part should be changed to be in accordance with the page on Greek cuisine. I don't have any particular sources other that it is ridiculous that the part about Greek cuisine should say different things than the actual page referring to Greek cuisine, particularly regarding its origins. My suggested edit would be something like this (for sources please refer to the page about Greek cuisine):

Much of Greek cuisine continues traditions from Ancient Greek and Byzantine cuisine, while incorporating Ottoman, Middle Eastern, Balkan and Italian ideas. The names of the dishes also reveal roots from many of the regions of eastern Mediterranean such as Turkey, Persia and the Levant among others, with some prominent examples being: moussaka, tzatziki, yuvarlakia, keftes and so on. Some dishes' names probably entered the Greek vocabulary during Ottoman times, or earlier in contact with the Persians and the Arabs. However, many if not most dishes are pre-Ottoman, only taking Turkish names later; the historians of food John Ash and Andrew Dalby, for example, advocate that grape-leaf dolmadhes were made by the early Byzantine period, while Alan Davidson traces trahana to the ancient Greek tragos and skordalia to the ancient Athenian skorothalmi. Greek cookery makes wide use of vegetables, olive oil, grains, fish, wine and meat (white and red, including lamb, poultry, rabbit and pork). Other important ingredients include olives, cheese, aubergine, courgette, lemon juice, vegetables, herbs, bread and yoghurt. Some more dishes that can be traced back to Ancient Greece are: lentil soup, fasolada, retsina (white or rosé wine flavoured with pine resin) and pasteli (sesame seeds baked with honey); some that originate from the Hellenistic and Roman periods include: loukaniko (dried pork sausage); and some Byzantium dishes are: feta cheese, avgotaraho (bottarga) and paximadhia (rusk). Lakerda (pickled fish), mizithra cheese and desserts like diples, koulourakia, moustokouloura and melomakarono also date back to the Byzantine period, while the variety of different pitas probably dates back to the ancient times. Lmagoutas (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Ridiculous": well, it would be if this page wasn't cited and the other page was, but that's not the case. Your multiple claims are a) uncited and b) too much to include here - there is only a short paragraph about each national cuisine. I'll say more on your own talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Greek cuisine page isn't well cited? Because all the information I got was from that page only. Did you bother to look at the sources on that page? All I am saying is that there should be consistency. I really couldn't care less which of the two is right but if it stays like this it is just, well, ridiculous. Also my edit is about the same length as the one the page started with. I changed very little if you make a comparison, which I would suggest. Lmagoutas (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. I'm not suggesting anything about the Greek cuisine article; if it is well cited, good, but you must not copy materials from there without a) saying it's a copy b) copying the sources also, and ideally checking them; and c) keeping in proportion (see WP:UNDUE for the policy) to the very small space we have in this article for Greek matters - this is NOT THE PLACE for detailed discussion of the intricacies of Greek cuisine. If you find the two articles inconsistent, which often happens when different editors use different sources, the solution is to study the different sources and to work out from the best scholarship what the latest and most correct scholarly understanding is, and update the detailed article (Greek cuisine) accordingly, followed by updating the brief summary section to summarize the newly-understood position, citing the scholarly sources used to prove the new understanding's correctness. It IS NOT CORRECT to edit the cited text, even if it is outdated, without citing newer and better sources. I do hope that is clear. As for comparison, I think the article was better before, and yes, I did look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about a "detailed discussion" but rather the actual origin of Greek cuisine, something very fundamental that is sadly very inconsistent between the two pages. The fact that you say that inconsistency is frequent without doing something about it when it is pointed out makes no sense as it helps truly noone from whichever perspective you try to put it. If you believe that I am wrong in my edits that is completely fine, but that doesn't mean that you should be so completely ignorant to a very fundamental and reoccurring inconsistency. And just so you know my edit was less about changing the page and more about pointing such a big blunder. And so for the record, when it comes to my edited text I just merely made a suggestion based on the page about Greek cuisine (and its citations) and I didn't ask you to compare them for your own likeness (as I know that my text isn't the best), but for their length as you suggested that my text was too big.

Ps. As I understand from the texts that you sent me in my personal page I see that I might have come off to you as rude. I am sorry if this is the case and I assure you it isn't my goal. My goal is for this inconsistency to be brought to the table as I seem to have neither the tools nor the time to fix it myself and I will take no further position on the matter as, as I said before, I really don't care which of the two is true. Admittedly this is more than I can say about you with your completely one-sided and almost biased and unfounded stance that "Also: Greek cuisine is treated by scholars largely, and I know this is uncomfortable to anyone who loves Greece (as I do), as a branch of Ottoman cuisine". As for me, I legitimately just tried to fix the page that is referring to the actual article on Greek cuisine as that seemed more logical than the other way around in order to bring attention to the problem. Best regards and I hope we have reached an understanding.

Lmagoutas (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your feeling about the matter, and I share the desire to have Wikipedia as correct, up to date, and consistent as possible. The key word, I'm afraid, is "Sources", and another, perhaps, is "Volunteers". Anyone is free to volunteer their time, skill, and energy to improve things, and nobody is obliged to do so. It will be great if anyone reading this page realizes that they are the people who can address the precise issue you mention. The "Sources" thing is however critical: it's no good "fixing" anything without evidence, as evidence is the only solid stuff we have to build the encyclopedia with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Let me just say that I do have faith that such obvious and highlighted inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies will be more and more dealt with in the future, preferably with the side of the truth, which I do hope that it is the one in the very articles whose sources the encyclopedia relys on (more than weasel words about "many scholars" for example). Best regards and thank you for enlightening me on the basics of how Wikipedia works. Lmagoutas (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, the content in question was copied verbatim from the "Greek cuisine" page in 2016, in this edit: [1]. There have been only minor changes to it since then, the main one being the swapping of the order done in this edit: [2]. I've changed the order of the paragraph back (without changing the current content), because it seems more natural to have it chronological. Apart from that, it's hard to see how it's "ridiculously" different, "sadly very inconsistent between the two pages", or a "big blunder"; you can see what was changed here, again it looks fairly minor to me: [3]. --IamNotU (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I made myself clear when I mentioned to what regards I believed the two texts (the article and the paragraph) contradicted themselves which I trust becomes apparent when you compare them in their current forms and more importantly, in each section that the paragraph corresponds to what should have been, in my opinion, similar information to what is provided by the article and its sources. That's where the "blunder" exists in my opinion, not in how the paragraph itself can be traced as a whole but in the way that it corresponds to information mentioned throughout the Greek Cuisine article and its sources. This of course has also to do with how these sources are used and interpreted (e.g. Dalby's book), in some areas more than others, though primarily concerning "origin" and each editor's view on the matter -as seen in the other thread too- and to what extent they reflect all sorts of relevant themes (concerning parts of this article too) which in turn would determine whether there should be change (preferably without blunt arguments like wanting "to remove Ottoman influence as a whole from the article", or "you are just saying that because you are Greek" etc). Anyway, I believe that I already mentioned that I will take no further stance on the matter, nonetheless I think I made my view clear once again. Best regards. Lmagoutas (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Greek subsection

Another editor has now taken to cutting half the Greek subsection without discussion, resorting to edit-warring, leaving it seriously unbalanced. The editor has claimed that it is unfair to mention "Ottoman" in the subsection, as no other national cuisines contain such a mention: that is because no other "Ottoman" cuisines have subsections at all.

The matter clearly arouses sentiment, possibly national; the opinion of scholars, including citations just deleted (see the History), is however that Greek cuisine is in large measure "Ottoman". One option, therefore, as was originally taken in this article, is not to have separate subsections below "Ottoman" for the various nations under that former influence, but just to mention them briefly. The current position, namely to have no mention of "Ottoman" in the Greek subsection at all, is in my view straightforwardly misleading.

The opinions of other editors would be welcomed as to how this subsection should be handled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I objected to the introductory paragraph mentioning that much of Greek cuisine has been influenced by Ottoman cuisine. First, because no other section mentions INFLUENCES (Ottoman cuisine has also been influenced by Levantine cuisine, for instance, but there's no such mention in its section) and, second, because that somehow completely erases Greece's thousand year long culinary history and makes it some kind of substitute for Ottoman/Turkish cuisine which is incorrect and biased. Thus, if you're interested that much in influences you shall include them for ALL countries and not just Greece and specify them in the middle or the bottom of the paragraph, not at the beginning. Because that's very odd. You've already had another person object to the appearance and information of the Greek section. Instead of labelling my editing disruptive how about you include non-biased, proper information.

Ronbb345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted sourced content. I changed the order of the paragraph to be more chronological, with ancient->Byzantine->Ottoman influences; plenty is mentioned about each and it seems reasonably balanced. Just because some other sections might not mention influences, doesn't mean they should be deleted here, see WP:OTHERCONTENT; they could also be added there. There's certainly room for improvement in this article, neither the Ottoman nor the Levantine sections are very good.

In the Greek section, it seems like there is maybe debate about the use of "much", "many" or "some", which are vague, but probably should be vague. I don't think any of the sources make strong statements quantifying the proportions of influences. I think the statment the opinion of scholars, including citations just deleted (see the History), is however that Greek cuisine is in large measure "Ottoman" is probably too strong, depending how you interpret "in large measure" - but it's not in the article. I do find the statement "Ottoman cuisine has given rise to the cuisines of modern Turkey, parts of the Balkans, Cyprus, and Greece" a bit odd. For example, I don't have access to Ash's "A Byzantine Journey", but Davidson says "There is an astonishing continuity in culinary matters from ancient Greece through to the modern era", and Dalby (pg. 206) says "most of the menu has certainly been there since the classical centuries, the fifth and fourth centuries BC," etc. - certainly none of them give the impression that it's primarily from Ottoman times. But neither does the section as it now stands, as far as I can see. --IamNotU (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if other sections don't mention influences then the Greek one shouldn't either. For instace, Ottoman cuisine has been influenced by Levantine/Arabic cuisine and Spanish has been influenced by Arabic etc. Mentioning the influences solely for one section means that you're biased and that you want to devalue the country's thousand year long culinary history and originality, as I specified earlier. That's bias and a very suspicious bias. And, yes, I also strongly oppose the usage of the word 'much' in regards to the influence because it's untrue. Please don't keep it like that otherwise you're reducing the site's supposed neutrality.

@IamNotU & @Chiswick Chap.

-- Ronbb345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there is a lot of room for improvement in this article. Too many of the country sections under "Cooking" just give a few token descriptions of stereotypical dishes, and that's it. The various influences over time and between places could be better portrayed. I think the Greek section is better written than the others because it does include some of this, though probably it would be better if there was a more general coverage in the "History" section, rather than devolving everything into multiple forks in national(ist) subsections. In any case, an argument akin to "the other sections are poorly written, so the Greek section should be too" is not progressive. It would be helpful if you could refrain from placing all the blame for whatever shortcomings there are onto the people who are trying to discuss the problems, and implying bad-faith or malice, like "you're biased" and "you want to devalue the country's history", etc. I did not write any of it, and few if any of those who did are professional food writers or historians. Wikipedia is a work in progress.

The general idea is that we summarize what reliable, published sources have said. For example, Dalby's book, which I don't think anyone could say is biased against Greece, and spends most of its time discussing ancient and Byzantine cooking, does indicate that many (or "much") modern Greek dishes originated in a shared cuisine that circulated through the vast area of the Ottoman Empire (which does not necessarily mean "Turkish"). Your statement that "it's untrue" seems to have no backing other than "I'm Greek and I say so". One cannot with any kind of accuracy or neutrality discuss modern Greek cuisine as though the Ottoman period never happened, and repeatedly blanking that section of the text is not a solution. Improving the article would require people to put in some serious writing effort, probably mainly in other sections. --IamNotU (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that all the sections are brief introductions and summaries with links to their respective "main" articles, each of which provides much more detail than would be appropriate here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Portugal subsection

The Portugal section contains some misleading content. I do not feel qualified to change it myself, but I'll try to underline them here.

"Portugal lies on the Atlantic, not the Mediterranean, but its southern half, including the Alentejo and Algarve regions, is in the Mediterranean basin, characterised by olive groves and a Mediterranean climate."

This passage suggests olive groves and Mediterranean climate existe only in the south. Olive trees and olive oil are found thorought the interior of the country, and the Northeast has a Mediterranean climate.

"Other major ingredients are onions, garlic, bay leaves, paprika, cloves, and chorizo sausage."

'Paprika' might be a misleading term. It would be preferable to use 'pimentão.' Likewise, there's no reason to use the spelling 'chorizo' instead of 'chouriço.'

"The Alentejo produces red wines"

This implies only the Alentejo produces red wines. Actually, the whole mainland produces red wines.

Fair enough, despite the formatting of your text; and please sign your messages, too, using ~~~~. I've tweaked the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkans?

Few things I don’t get here. Balkan cuisine is not mentioned. Possibly no need for each national cuisine mentioned but then why singling out Greek cuisine, considering that one also falls into Balkan cuisine.

Ottoman cuisine is mentioned. It is often thought that Balkan’s was heavily influenced by Ottoman’s (I find it debatable if influence was one sided) but what about Byzantine? Cuisine of Serbia, Croatia etc existed even before the Turks were formed as a tribe. Call it Serbian, Balkan or Byzantine but it was there. — Boleynn (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Several points: we must be driven not by belief or intuition but by the sources. Balkan clearly overlaps with both Ottoman and Greek. None of the many reliable sources seen have treated Balkan as a category of "Mediterranean Cuisine", which region is defined by where the Olive grows. The article is not a list of all areas that have any connection however tenuous with the Mediterranean Sea. Several Balkan countries are not even on that sea. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Well it doesn’t help really, but I appreciate your comment. You see, olive grows all over Balkans - from Croatia and Montenegro, all the way to southern parts of Serbia. (?) Jordan doesn’t have a coastline in the Mediterranean but it falls under Levantine cuisine. (?) I just don’t get it, something is not right with these categories — Boleynn (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Olive certainly grows along the Dalmatian coast, which is certainly on the Med. Let's see if we can find reliable sources - textbooks, academic journal papers - that discuss Balkan Cuisine as Mediterranean; if so, then we're in business. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To begin with, this (Mediterranean food consumption patterns: FAO) maybe used, as FAO talks about Northern Mediterranean, Balkan and Southern Mediterranean within Mediterranean. Sadly, it lacks more data for Balkan countries. — Boleynn (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

But without asserting that Balkan cuisine is a type of Mediterranean cuisine, which is what is required. Don't worry, I'm looking for suitable sources; these aren't numerous or easy to find, or they'd have been included long ago.

The situation is analogous to that of France: the cuisine of Provence is Mediterranean, but that of inland regions like Perigord is highly admired but not Mediterranean. So, the cuisine of the Dalmatian coast is, and the cuisine of countries and areas away from the Mediterranean, like Bulgaria (home of the Balkan mountains) and Romania is not; and the Olive does not grow over there either, so our search must be narrowed to the Dalmatian Coast for which a proper case can be made, following the definitions in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Romania and Moldova most definitely not. They aren’t even on the peninsula in first place (only counted sometimes in the geopolitical context; Southeastern Europe etc.) I hope it is not a difficult search for you because I see not too many sources indeed. One thing to think of as well, I am not sure if it is the right thinking though: former Yugoslav countries used to make part of Greece, Rome, Venice, Byzantine and Ottoman Empire for millenias, having of course Roman, Greek, Italian, Byzantine, Ottoman cuisine/eating habits (Slovenia can be debatable probably). The fact that those don’t exist anymore and that borders changed does not mean that food habits changed as well. Or it does? Help me but that is the logic I see behind. When you look at the food of landlocked North Macedonia you see almost the same food like the one in Greece and Turkey and Albania but with different or even similar/same name. Same idea behind Jordan being without coastline but sharing the culinary history.

As for France, in my opinion it can be listed like Portugal — partly Mediterranean. That is a handy and realistic solution. (And possibly the one that can be applied for Balkan cuisine). — Boleynn (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but we must go from the published sources. Ottoman cuisine is reliably cited; and a cuisine and its traces can exist long after the political structures have vanished. Sources are the key; reasoning about anything else is WP:OR, forbidden in articles and off-topic on talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Check this one out. — Boleynn (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's about the Mediterranean diet, another subject altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It is in general, but if you scroll down to Environmental footprints of Mediterranean food consumption patterns you will see a table with countries included. Or you didn’t mean a source like this one? — Boleynn (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The table is of a piece with the rest of the article; it is about the diet, i.e. the nutrient balance from the point of view of keeping people healthy and so forth, not cuisine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary

As a reader (not native English, but will give my best) I found some problems with article Mediterranean cuisine. I call them a common sense problems. And with those ongoing problems I don’t think article deserves the status of a good one.

The article has been discussed by multiple editors, and independently reviewed. It has been read by over a hundred thousand readers each year since then. It is very possible that your non-native English is causing you difficulties understanding the logic of the article: it is NOT BASED ON COUNTRIES BUT ON CUISINES, even if some of the cuisine labels correspond broadly to modern countries.

1. First, there is a bold statement that Mediterranean cuisine is where the olive trees grow. Not all the countries where they grow are mentioned, considering that there are plenty in Croatia (mentioned in the article only today), Montenegro, Albania, and nowadays even in Serbia and North Macedonia. Olive trees grow in California as well, however there is still a difference between what is known as American cuisine and Mediterranean. Is that statement more of a common belief? It is so vague.

It is not vague. The first line of the article says "used by the people of the Mediterranean Basin"; that is then qualified by the area where the Olive tree grows; the statements are reliably sourced. That excludes California. The other point is that the article is, as already stated, NOT A LIST OF COUNTRIES, but of cuisines that occur in the Med Basin/Olive regions; and the Balkans were taken (from the sources) to have an "Ottoman" style cuisine; but most of the Balkan area is not in the Basin anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Seeing Mediterranean as a part of the world with countries surrounding Mediterranean Sea – or in the wider Mediterranean basin – it is expected to have countries such as Jordan or Portugal included. By why not Bulgaria for example? When I brought up that question on the talk page, I was reminded of WP:OR. But the questions is: is it really me who is sliding into original research here, or was it the author of the text? My question was on point and legit, and it can easily be raised by any random reader. The definition and criteria are not quite clear and it looks like the author was particularly selective when writing about cuisines.

The text is based directly on the cited sources. We are only allowed to write what we can reliably cite. Bulgaria is not in the Olive tree zone of Europe, as has been explained already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

3. If by any chance only those countries with a coastline were to be mentioned, why were Albania and Montenegro left out?

Look, we go on published reliable sources. There has been little or no discussion of their part in "Mediterranean cuisine". Should suitable sources appear, we can use them. Without sources, we really can't say anything about them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

4. If Portugal was cited as: Portuguese – partly Mediterranean, for not having a coastline in the Mediterranean, why wasn’t French mentioned in the same way, taking into account that only one smaller part of the country eats Mediterranean food? By the same logic, doesn’t that make some Balkan countries (Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia) also partly Mediterranean when it comes to cooking? And even more so considering that they have more Mediterranean (Turkish, Greek, Italian) influences than Portuguese?

You are arguing from first principles NOT FROM SOURCES, which we simply can't do here. However, yes, we can call the French part 'Provencal', it would fit with the structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually no, on reflection, Provence is only part of the coast, and we'd get the same problems we're having with Dalmatian as it's not the whole coast. What is needed is to say 'Mediterranean coastal France' or some graceful wording for that; same for 'Mediterranean coastal Balkans'. Let's see if we can collectively think of decent names for these things. This is actually unlike the Portuguese situation as that is blended across the country, a hybrid cuisine; whereas in France, Provencal cuisine is certainly distinct: so "partly" gives the wrong impression. This is an issue of terminology which can be solved, slowly and carefully, with appropriate definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

5. In the section Dalmatian cuisine Serbia and Bulgaria are mentioned. Why? Those two have nothing to do with Dalmatian (Venetian influenced) sea cuisine.

Nobody said they did; what was said, quite clearly, is that Dalmatian cuisine is appearing there. We can remove it if you find that problematic, I'm not attached to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

6. If national cuisines of Balkan are not to be mentioned, why was Greek and Dalmatian?

Dalmatia happens to be mentioned in a few sources; it is virtually the only part of the non-Greek Balkans where the Olive grows, as you can see from the map in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

7. If former Yugoslav countries made part of Greece, Rome, Venice, Byzantine and Ottoman Empire, having Greek, Roman, Venetian (Italian), Byzantine and Ottoman (Turkish) cuisines – all Mediterranean, which cuisines do they have now when borders have changed? Did the food change at the same time as the political system? If Balkan continues to be influenced by Ottoman cuisine, why isn’t that mentioned clearly, as those countries have ties to the region as a whole?

This can be adjusted; however, there's an obvious focus on present-day regions or countries in the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are the questions raised. My proposal would be to leave Dalmatian cuisine where it is, but add Balkan cuisine (with Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania and Montenegro). Both Balkan cuisine and French cuisine to be mentioned in the same way like Portuguese – partly Mediterranean.

We can't discuss things without reliable sources. Even Dalmatia is barely mentioned in reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some bias in the article, I don’t know where it comes from but certain omissions were made without a proper explanation. It looks like it was largerly written by one editor, and like not much space for bigger minority opinions is left. Therefore I would call it highly controversial, especially looking at how certain categories, classifications and divisions are used in writing. True, it is a very complex part of the world in every aspect, but a little bit more consideration and more alert writing are needed. — Boleynn (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The article has actually been discussed and contributed to by several editors. We are all constrained by the sources available, I don't know why this basic fact is proving difficult. We are only allowed to discuss what the reliable sources state; anything the sources don't cover is out of our scope, as is true for all Wikipedia articles. I personally have no preference for any of the regions mentioned, though it is documented that Elizabeth David was selective, not least because she had only sampled some of the regional cuisines within the area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Clifford A. Wright" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Clifford A. Wright and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Clifford A. Wright until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mediterranean cuisine is only a certain genre of foods

Everybody knows that Mediterranean sea food involves specific cultural plates like hummus, falafel, shawarma, tabbouleh, baba ganouj, Tahini kefta which much of these involve cumin, coriander or sometimes cilantro, turmeric, sumac, cardamom foods that are not found in south or central Italian cuisine. People think only "Extreme North Italian cuisine does is NOT count as Mediterranean sea cuisine" but Tuscany & or Ligurian ISN'T EITHER. In fact, only a part of southern Italian food counts Medit food. Siclian food Calabrese NEVER uses cumin or cilantro or turmeric or sumac. Maybe a little chickpeas in a few dishes but that's it. Tuscany is on the Tyrhennian sea. Which has cooler waters than the "other sea. Only part of Sicily & the lower heel & back toe is on the Mediterranean sea. Otherwise let's call Mexican food & American Floridian food "Carribean foods" with that "logic". You must to keep in mind the cultural aspects of these labels you throw around. Look at it this way, both israel, iran and China are on the same continent, but despite that nobody claims that they are culturally the same in life & in their food. Both the US & Mexico share a border & large shores of the Gulf of Mexico, does that mean everything about those 2 countries are the same? I'll let you answer that. Is Mexico & Jamaica or Haiti the same? Some of Mexicos shores is on the Caribbean sea but that doesn't mean that their food & culture is the same due to geographical coincidences. Nobody confuses Sicilian & Napolitano food for Egyptian, Morrocan Afghani or Saudi cuisine so what's with the shoehorn labeling? 76.167.193.57 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, though Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. I concur with User:Largoplazo (see next thread) that general venting isn't a purpose of article talk pages. As for "Everybody knows that...", that is exactly what Wikipedia cannot assume; its job is to describe each topic, using only Reliable Sources. Any sort of discussion other than of whether the article correctly represents its sources and is adequately sourced is off-topic. Scholars and cookery writers have seen fit to describe this topic, so we do the same, citing them: that's all. It'd be appreciated if you'd keep your representations to the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Misconceptions about what constitutes Mediterranean sea

Croatia is NOT on the Mediterranean sea, it's on the Adriatic sea. The same goes with Montenegro. Albania is probably at the cut off point. It is Hard to pinpoint but generally that's the overlapping. Even Italy has only about a quarter of a coastline on the Med sea. And in case some of you want to say 'well what's the big deal"? Then don't complain when I say "Texas & New Orleans Alabama lie on the Caribbean sea" which is an arm of the Caribbean sea, which is by extension an arm of the Atlantic. So instead of calling Jamaican & Belize cuisine Caribbean, I'll opt with the name "Atlantic cuisine" instead. You can't have it both ways. 76.167.193.57 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Adriatic Sea is part of the Mediterranean Sea, as are the Ionian Sea, the Ligurian Sea, and the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Gulf of Mexico isn't considered part of the Caribbean Sea. I don't know what that has to do with the article anyway, because Croatian cuisine is more categorized as Balkan cuisine.

Having said that, do you have specific changes you think should be made to the article, based on content found in reliable sources? General venting isn't a purpose of article talk pages. Looking at the Balkan cuisine section, my observation is that it acknowledges that most non-Greek Balkan cuisine really isn't Mediterranean cuisine, which seems to agree with you. So the only reason to include it is because, technically, the Balkan peninsula is part of the Mediterranean hinterland. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Germany

Why is Germany cited in wine production? It's not part of the Mediterranean. 2.205.250.3 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed. In fact, production is a matter for articles on agriculture and winemaking: this article is about cuisine, so I've removed the sentences concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)