Talk:Shashlik

I'm going to make a few corrections to this article - I think it was written by someone who is not a native English speaker.

Splitting this article is probably a good idea. I think the food related meaning is wastly more common than the scientific one. 62.16.144.149 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a translit issue here. Should it be Shaslik or Shashlyk? The words are used interchangably in the text 195.159.43.85 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My ketchup bottle says "Schaschlik"...wich I think might be the German way of spelling it. - Chsf 14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The English-language dictionaries I consulted spell this "shashlik" or even "shaslik" (see Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). However, in the most common contemporary transliteration schemes, including Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian the vowel "ы" of Russian would be translated as Latin "y" not "i". As "shashlik" is not a very common term in English (most speakers would refer to this as a "shish kebab" or just "kebab"), I suspect "shashlyk" is more likely to be used by those familiar with the Russian language by rules of transliteration (although I state this likelihood without documentable confirmation), hence I left "shashlyk" as a variant. jchristopher 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See the etymology on the Chislic page - it appears the German and Russian words are similar and basically mean the same thing (Chislic is just another derivative). The name was probably passed on orally from its origins as Shish Kebabs in Persia (Iran) and Turkey and later written down using different spellings based on language. --Daschnarr (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Russia v USA

I cut the following text from the article:

Shashlyk has a social context in Russia that is slightly different from the BBQ culture in the USA. In the USA, barbecuing can involve the latest grill, special charcoal, special cooking tools, and even special clothes. Emphasis is often on comfortable family gatherings in the back yard or in a park. In Russia, the preparation of shashlyk can also be a family event, but it's often associated with a concept of hunting. A common family outing involves making shashlik in the woods, utilizing whatever can be found to cook with. Pride is taken in finding everything needed to cook at the site, such as wood gathered from any source, stones to surround the fire, and even an improvised grill made from an old metal screen found on the ground. During last ten years of nowaday prosperous Russia, people often use touristic portable mangal, special packed charcoal and flammable liquid for quick and comfortable firing. And while there's a BBQ season in the USA, Russians will venture out into bone chilling cold to prepare shashlik, possibly the most notable seasonal difference being that they're more likely to take along some brandy and huddle closely around the fire when it's very cold. That's not to say that shashlyk isn't prepared precisely as it is in the USA, with commercial gas grills or on the stove. It's an ubiquitous food in Russia, something you can count on finding at nearly any truck stop, where it's likely to be served with a plate of rye bread and some vodka.

If the citations are provided then it could be re-written and go back in, but as it stands it seems to violate WP:OR. Yunshui (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It will be hard to find such a reference. Since I am from the former Soviet Union I can just comment on it. It was hardly a concept of hunting: you don't go to hunt with your own meet, while it is substantial that you marinade shashlyk beforehand. Indeed, sometimes it was cooked utilizing whatever was found, but I wouldn't call it shashlyk then: it has to be cooked using a good wood or charcoal, which can keep for a long time a high temperature without an open fire. Now there are portable mangals in Russia, but those who loved and knew how to cook shashlyk always had them on their back yard. Actually shashlyk is originating from the Caucasus, where most of the people live in their own houses and have back yards. The above description gives a wrong impression about shashlyk itself, the process of cooking and about the social event in general. I would say it is more like the russian implementation of shashlyk within the limited possibilities in the cities. Tagir (talk) 12:50 Dec 2011 (JST) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Merge?

Does this really deserve an article to itself? It's just a form of kebab, and the name is dubious: it's a shish kebab or just (in my UK family) kebab. Few English speakers would ever call it shashlik and since it's no different from Middle Eastern forms, it should not have its own article. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There are separate articles on many forms of kebab, e.g. Doner kebab, Adana kebabı, Jujeh kabab, Chelow kabab, chuanr. They are all referenced from the general overview article Kebab. In addition, there are also separate articles on similar dishes in many cuisines: Arrosticini, Brochette, Khorovats etc. So I see no reason why Shashlik should not deserve its own article.

The only question which one might consider whether shashlik is a particular form of Shish kebab or whether they are just identical. In the latter case, one may adjust the introduction sentence/paragraph and consider this article also as the description of Shish kebab. Then one could change the redirection of Shish kebab to point to this article (currently it points to the respective short section in the overview article). To my knowledge, shashlik made in Eastern Europe is always marinated (also always with onions) beforehand for at least one day. From some Turkish shish kebabs I had an impression that they are not necessarily marinated. But I don't know it. Furthermore, the article also mentions a particular feature of shashlik in Iran as compared to the other forms of shish kebab, namely the size of the meat pieces. --Off-shell (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shashlik. 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/20131012203426/http://sobhtoos.ir/political/88-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7/30597-6lik.html to http://sobhtoos.ir/political/88-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7/30597-6lik.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved etymology from lead sentence

I moved the foreign-language (Crimean Tatar) equivalents and citations from the lead sentence into the etymology section, in accordance with MOS:FORLANG, which says: "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology." It has been put back into the lead sentence again by Devlet Geray, with the explanation: "etimologue it to be shown, see other articles". That doesn't seem to be a valid argument; the etymology is not disputed, but it does not belong in the lead sentence, according to the Manual of Style.

MOS:FORLANG also says: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence." However, shashlik is associated with many different countries and peoples, it is "an ancient dish, well known to herders and nomads across a wide swath of the Caucasus and Central Asia." There is no evidence that it is a dish specifically of Crimean origin or heritage. The etymological origin of the word, and the historical and cultural origin of the dish, are two different things, and shashlik - as a food, rather than a word - is not primarily associated with Crimea to the exclusion of other regions. Therefore I plan to remove it again from the lead sentence. --IamNotU (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean "is to be shown", not "it".

This word is Crimean Tatar (not Russian, Caucasus or other), so it cannot be associated with any other languages

[1] Devlet Geray (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Devlet Geray, thanks for answering. Regardless of what the etymology is - and that is another question - foreign-language words don't belong in the lead sentence just to show etymology, as is clearly stated in MOS:FORLANG. If there are other articles that disregard the Manual of Style, that is not an excuse to do it in this article. It must be removed. Btw., the link you gave to kraevedenie.net is not a reliable source, per WP:SPS/WP:BLOGS. --IamNotU (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

@Wikaviani

So you ignore Russian sources, english sites like Washington Times and books ? You say these sources have no weighting for you? That you do not even take the time to include certain relevant passages shows that you are have no really genuine interest in the subject. Its simply not objective. Wikipedia is already losing credibility. Even if the article stays that way, ok. This type of wikipedia policy only accelerates this process, less information diversity = less editor = less global information quality = less relevance. Over time, other platforms and sources of information will emerge that make Wikipedia irrelevant. I'm sure they are already in the coming. --85.212.110.234 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

°°° Have total (desktop + mobile) human English Wikipedia pageviews declined? Why? Short answer: Total (desktop + mobile) human pageviews likely peaked around late 2013, and have declined by about 20% since then. Per-page pageviews have gone down significantly more for the page types that saw the biggest desktop declines. Effect of per-page decline is partly cancelled by increase in number of pages. Candidate explanations are the same as for (2): increased reliance on social media and search engine algorithm changes.

Is there a compensating increase in other language Wikipedias? Short answer: No. In fact, other top language Wikipedias (German, Russian, Spanish, Japanese, French) have a broadly similar decline trend as the English Wikipedia, both overall and per-page. °°°

Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ghBZDavgywxXeqWSe/wikipedia-pageviews-still-in-decline

like i said. many Wikipedia veterans don't understand the zeitgeist. year after year you bring down wikipedia. it is frustrating that my edits were just blatantly deleted. this lexicon will soon no longer play a big role. --85.212.110.234 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

85.212.110.234, I understand it's frustrating when your edits are reverted. However, that will happen if you don't follow basic Wikipedia policies. The source you gave can't be used because it is not a reliable source, see WP:SPS. I'm sorry but there's nothing that can be done about that. You also removed material that was verified by multiple very reliable sources, and removed the sources themselves. Finally, you added material without any source, and made it look like it was verified by the existing source when it was not, see WP:HIJACK. If you familiarize yourself with the guidelines, you will find it easier to have your edits accepted. Also, article pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, please don't use them to make personal criticisms of other editors, or general comments, see WP:TALKNO. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the rules were not respected in your eyes, but the formulation still seems to be not authentic because of the historical circumstances, the material is questionable. The source relies primary on Max Vasmer which is not precise. He disregarded many important local features of Russia.--85.212.10.69 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)