Talk:Tajine

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Morocco High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Help expand the project: edit history watch purge You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mounir Charïbi Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco Stubs : Morocco stubs Other : Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu Algeria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tunisia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I haven't been able to find any sources for the statement that Dutch Ovens braise best in the oven and tajines best on the stovetop . . . Is there any reference that can be used to verify this superlative language? If not then I owuld consider it to be PoV. StateOfTheUnion (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it spicy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.26.222.185 (talk) 15:01:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No, not per se. But it may well be accompanied by harissa, a red pepper sauce that's spicy. VERY.--El Ingles 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Word and the method of cooking Tajine is from the Persian Tah Cheen meaning to layer on the bottom.

Does this mean the word is pronounced "tah-CHEEN", or maybe "TAH - cheen"? - cso1@281.com

It would be really nice if someone could add a picture. I have no idea what they look like.

It looks like an upside down funnel on a plate. They are made of clay or pottery.

The inverted funnel may act as a sequential still returning some volitile aromatic and spice-derived flavours back to the pot (food). Some steam escaping would dfferentiate this from a Dutch oven. Many herbs AND spices have flavour compounds more volitile than water. The tagine seems to be an emperically derived sucess at preseving some of the flavour of spices and ingredients during prolonged, low heat cooking.. I'd like to know more from culteral cheifs in this hypothesis. Regards: Robbie@rpiacono@bellsouth.net 20-2-07

In Morocco they use a rough clay charcoal burner that the Tajine sits on.

I have heard that the tagine is used because it recycles a lot of the water content, allowing stews to be prepared where water is scarce, e.g. desert areas. Does anyone know if this is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its more for a slow cooker affect than to conserve water. Besides alot of water is lost when it steams off the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.168.120 (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "tajine" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.paula-wolfert.com/recipes/tun_tagine.html|author=Paula Wolfert|title=Recipe for Tunisian Tajine|accessdate=2008-04-18}}
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.paula-wolfert.com/recipes/mor_tagine.html|author=Paula Wolfert|title=Recipe for Moroccan Tajine|accessdate=2008-04-27}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article name Tajine, but the spelling in the body of the article is Tagine? Shouldn't we pick one standard or the other for consistency? StateOfTheUnion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And what's the significance of the spelling Tajin attributed to the Berbers? They don't use the Roman alphabet, so all this can mean is that it has been transliterated differently. Or does it indicate a difference in pronunciation? Also, though the introduction now uses the spellings tajine and tagine, the text itself was a mixture of both. Googlefight gives a clear preference to tajine, so I've changed all instances except the first of "tagine" to "tajine". Groogle (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along the line, someone reverted these edits. I personally just changed all instances of "tagine" in the article back to "tajine" to keep consistency with the article title. I don't have a stake in the actual spelling, though, so if editors were to reach consensus in favor of "tagine," that would be fine with me so long as the article was also titled "tagine"! kristephanie^TALK 01:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're up, the Arabic word is given at the top with the al prefix but elsewhere without it, which I think preferable. —Tamfang (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article regarding Tajine, but can someone include information on beverages it's served with? My Moroccan neighbors mentioned that they went well with local wines from the Maghreb or from France.. depending on the meat... The guys at the resaurant I go to don't drink for personal and religious reasons, but he said that restaurants carry it, and that a lot of the customers went with red wines. Just some suggestions on tajine/wine etiquette would be appreciated. I don't want to look like an idiot and to show some respect/knowledge of the cuisine when I next try some tajine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadjoproject (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Tagines (as they are spelt in New Zealnd)vary quite a bit in their taste because a wide variety of meats,fruits and spices are used.In Nz slowcooked lamb or beef is used -the lamb is cooked with appricots/rice and the beef with pear/rice.The dish is usually very tender with a moderate spicy flavour and mild hotness. A perfect winter dish but in NZ often served with a mixed side salad as we produce fresh veges all year round and winters are not really cold. In Nz the dish is served in a small cast iron pot.I prefer to drink very high quality Steinlager Pure beer with this beef dish. My partner prefers Savignon Blanc with the lamb dish. There are, of course, endless top quality Savs in NZ for very reasonable prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the description, it's stated that one of the defining characteristics of a tajine is the dish itself, and especially the cone-shaped lid... yet there isn't a picture!

Here's one I found that seems nifty (it was pretty much the first hit on Google), but I don't feel like making an account just to add it, and I'm not entirely sure what the protocol is for adding images that aren't mine or explicitly stated as having some sort of copyleft. Soooo... dear universe! Take note! :D

http://www.fiery-foods.com/dave2/images/tagines/tagine3.jpg

71.223.74.23 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunisian section appears to be lifted directly from the Paula Wolfert recipe linked in external sources. It should be re-worded to avoid plagiarism. BillMcGonigle (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one picture of outdoor cooking from gallery, because it is already one picture of it in the gallery, and an other one doesn't add anything to it, only makes a big gap in the article. Hafspajen (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many descriptions of how to prepare a tajine from Arab scholars from the mid-centuries.

cited to: ""tajine" in a sentence - tajine sentence examples - ichacha.net sentence maker". eng.ichacha.net.

A collection of context-free sample sentences is hardly a substantive reference. But if it were, what the heck are "the mid-centuries"? The periods 1930-1970, 1830-1870, 1730-1770 and so on back? —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. With regard to this revert and its claim that sourced content had been removed:

The Tifinagh name, the irrelevant statue and the clearly unreliable source (wordnik.com) were reintroduced without explanation.

2. With regard to this addition:

• Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources generally advises against using dictionaries as sources. Besides, other dictionaries either make no mention of the origin (Macmillan^[1] for instance), or in the case of Merriam-Webster, a subsidiary of Encyclopædia Britannica, give an origin of the word that is closer to the reliable secondary source cited in the article.

History and Etymology for tagine: dialect Arabic (Maghreb) ṭažin, from Arabic ṭājin frying pan, shallow earthenware pot, from Middle Greek tagēnon pan, from Greek^[2]

• The reliable secondary source cited in the article describes the word tagine as:

The Arabic word tajin is derived from the Greek teganon, meaning "frying pan". Regional use of the word tagine varies in North Africa; in Algeria tagine refers to various pots and pans. The most common use for the word tajine is for meat and vegetable casseroles cooked in clay cooking vessels with conical lids. The cooking vessel and the finished dish are both called tagine... Bread called khobz tagine are cooked on griddles also called tagines.^[3]

Therefore, I will be reverting to the previous version which ignores the cherry picking and reflects what the secondary source says.

M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

using dictionary as a source only for the etymology section.

the article says 'For English, such dictionaries include the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Merriam-Webster) (W3), the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE), and the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (HDAS).'

the oxford dictionary

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tagine

gives the same origin.--AZSH (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As if the blind reverts, the cherry picking (including from the raised concerns) and the misleading edit summaries weren't enough, you've decided to take it a step further by removing content that's been in the article since 2015 (while falsely claiming that the revert of an unexplained deletion is a change). I'd be lying if I didn't say there's something very familiar about your editing pattern.

Are you in any way related to History21st? M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

huh? what do you mean?!

actually you are right it was added unilaterally by an IP address before. it should not have been added. I propose to make a section for every country as the tajines are different from one country to another. It will be left as it was for the moment.--AZSH (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

huh? what do you mean?! I have a strong suspicion that you are History21st.

Since you keeping reinserting the same old garbage without so much as acknowledging what had been said, I'll be reverting to Wikaviani's version. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

start by respecting people then we can talk --AZSH (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are Moroccan Tajines, also the references talking only about the Moroccan Tajine, why including Algeria too while they don't even know how to cook it, this is a Cultural Theft. Jamaru25 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This page is so non-rigorous and the editor, for whatever unjustified raison, so unwilling to accept corrections and inputs from people who actually have and know what tajine is.

The hiding of the word "Morocco" and confusing it sometimes with North Africa, others with Middle East, Arab or even Muslim is quite suspicious.

Most references state that tajin is Moroccan--that is a fact-- and people are trying to highlight that.

But the editor consistently and very quickly reverts the correcting inputs. There is no smoke with no fire!!!

The very logical logic of this page is that tajin is from Persia (although Persians know nothing about tajin). That those Persians, somehow, couldn't give it a name and had to use a Greek word (although Greeks know nothing about tajin). To make thinks even more funnier, the page says nothing about a Syrian tajin (rightly, because there is no tajin in the middle east), yet it states that the best recipe is from an old Syrian writer (according to the logic of this page, for centuries and everywhere in Morocco, people have been eating a Persian dish to which they gave a Greek name, and they have not been using the best recipes--to make the best tajin, they have therefore to be told to look for that only and sole old recipe from a country that has no tajin--Syria).

These not to mention the pictures of an olive and chicken paella-looking dish, claimed to be Algerian tajin, and the a tortilla-looking dish claimed here to be a Tunisian tajin.

As you said the pictures are from Morocco and, for whatever raison the name Morocco is not stated in the description.

The only place where potters make tajins is Morocco, the only place where tajin is traditionally and weekly prepared and eaten everywhere is Morocco, if you look for tajin recipes the vast majority (to not say all) will be recipes of Moroccan tajins. Yet, this page is telling us that tajin is Persian, the word is Greek, the best recipe is from an old Syrian writer and it is in Algeria (because ages ago a traveller said that he saw tajins in western Algeria--which by the way was Moroccan before the French colonizers draw the new borders) and that tajin is also from Tunisia and Libya because some one found pieces of pottery that might be from tajins in an ancient archaeological excavation.

This is the logic of this misleading page; where parsimony evaded.

Keep it up and keep giving Wikipedia the unfortunate reputation of non-rigour that it is unfortunately increasingly having.

The fact is that tajin is as Moroccan as pizza is Italian, if you want to eat tajin you have to go to a Moroccan restaurant or to Morocco and if you buy a clay tajin it would have been made by a Moroccan potter in Morocco. When people hear the work tajin, they expect a Moroccan tajin--because there is actually no other tajins.

Of course anyone can cook tajin anywhere in the world (just like pizza) and, even, any one can cook anything in anything and call it tajin (just like pizza), but that will not give that person the right to say that tajin is from my country--just as no one can say that Pizza is from his/her country, European, of the Caucasian people or Christian. And of course no one would produce pictures of any dish or claims of ancient travellers, or fragments of whatever to say that Pizza is also Spanish, Egyptian... Even Americans, where pizza is most consumed, do not claim that pizza is American (contrary to some, they don't need to hijack or steel other countries heritage).

Heritage theft and hijacking is a bad thing and, fortunately, in spite of all the paid and unpaid effort to claim other peoples' heritage, reality is what is (just ask people, look in the net or books--including most of the references in this page).

Finally, I hope that the editor of this page can check with cooks, chefs, historians, consider what Moroccans are telling him/her, or at least be fair to attributing tajin to countries according to what references say and to the prevalence of the book and net search results (not to say the hard reality facts).

All the best,

Mbakkali Mbakkali (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is that you are "unwilling to accept corrections and inputs from people who actually have and know what tajine is", such as the people who wrote all the cited sources that disagree with you. And I see a lot of shock coming fron people who can't believe we report on what's written in multiple published works rather than heeding a few unknown Wikipedia users who insist that they're right and that all those sources either don't say what they say or else can't be relied on because ... because why? For reasons that involve a lot of hand-waving about cultural appropriation and heritage theft without a shred of evidence that that's what's going on here.

Please stop repeating the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It's disruptive to people who, when changes show up in their watchlists, come here to find it's the same thing they've already read half a dozen times before. It accomplishes nothing and wastes everyone's time. Largoplazo (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, I think you should stop removing sourced content without justification here.--Parabenz (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Algerian Tajine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is a Moroccan dish not Maghreb all the photos here are from Morocco !! 128.139.225.245 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SegoviaKazar: you need to stop collecting sources that mention the word in passing. While a source that you added says that the conical tajine may have originated in Morocco, this does not and should not apply to the other tajines which come in various shapes and sizes. Also, how on earth can you possibly justify what you wrote in the lead? M.Bitton (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC) You need to stop accusation and stop vandalisation of the article.[reply]

• Since yesterday you attack all modification with incorrect reason.
• You make mistakes and I don't attack you with the known "reverse accusation" of "nationalist POV-Pusher".
• I'm surprised to see how you act quickly to delete the parts that do not seem to please you but how in a single reading I was able to spot so many inconsistencies in an article where you regularly intervene and that you did not bother to reread and correct .
• How do you explain that ?
• 1. You tried to hijack my source by talking about tangia instead of tajine when the word is very clear and highlighted
• 2. You did not bother to change Algeria to Tunisia while the Althiburos site is in Tunisia
• 3. You go after the content that I source quality by adding the famous "according" to try to weaken the source, something you only do when it doesn't suit you
• It's still strange and quite indicative of a problematic mindset in Wikipedia.
• My dear, I am not an account that starts on Wikipedia, so I ask you to respect me as I respect you and stop all accusation and provocation.
• Your reverts repeatedly defend a version of the article totally in contradiction with the sources that I have tried to correct and you justify your reverts by "personal interpretations" in total contradiction with the spirit of Wikipedia and try to censor the article .
• This is unacceptable in Wikipedia.
• 1. I bring quality sources with my edits
• 2. I don't do personal interpretations
• Your interventions in the article are problematic because I see it as an obvious blocking attempt to maintain a version riddled with errors.
• You obviously haven't taken the time to read the article but you're content to make excessive reverts: it's precisely the POV Pushing you're trying to accuse me of. -
• Regarding the introductory sentence, you have just clearly misappropriated the source by deleting part of the source's remarks.
• This is totally forbidden on Wikipedia.
• The source must be respected and not diverted according to your point of view, this is an infringement.-SegoviaKazar (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made the mistake by giving the wrong page number (that I corrected for you). I don't expect a thank you, but the least you could do is at least acknowledge this verifiable fact.

What you added to the lead is beyond ridiculous and you know it. Anyway, I removed the unreliable source that you pathetically tried to use to push your nationalist POV.

The sources that you brought are all crappy. Who the hell is "Galliot Bernard" and what makes you think that a mention made in passing deserve to be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice?

I also suggest you stop edit warring as you usually do and seek consensus for your addition per WP:ONUS. M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally wrong and I know what you're trying to do.

The page pointed to the dish TAGINE and not TANGIA and you justified your revert by the fact that the page points to the TANGIA.

Your revert was therefore unjustified, it is AN ERROR.

Then, I brought 2 complementary sources to the first to justify the assertion and you quote only one of them, you thus try to handle the facts. This is very serious.

The 2 additional sources to the first are academic, you do not have the right to withdraw them.

The first is from Helene Almeida-Topor, a historian, the second from a teacher in the culinary field Galliot Bernard.

3 different and school sources say the same thing.

I also notice that you act as if the article belonged to you, and remove the source that illustrates the introduction so as NOT to transcribe the information it provides when it sourced the same content.

Are you trying to hide the manifest error you are defending by erasing the evidence?

1. Your lack of respect resulting in repetitive accusations is unacceptable

2. Not correcting obvious ERRORS in the article when you have been working on it for a very long time raises questions about your role in this page

3. Deleting correctly sourced content by ignoring the sources that I bring and maintaining content by misappropriation of sources poses serious problems

I therefore ask you to immediately cease your attacks, I remind you that WP:ADVOCACY is very serious.

So I ask you to get involved to find a solution.

If not, I will call an administrator to find a solution. It is enough. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SegoviaKazar:. It's best not to engage in edit-warring, otherwise your account will be restricted, and your changes will be removed anyway. In case of conflict, try to resolve it with discussion, and tag editors who worked on this page or pages with similar topics for alternative points of view on the matter. Articles on Wikipedia can be improved with enough patience and decidation, and with the collaboration of the community.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ideophagous:, so can you be a part of the solution ?

I understand but the badly justified systematic reverts are just as problematic.

My modification does not pose any problem in itself: I only want to add more sources for the sentence wihch I add yesterday [1] and I also want to make changes to the introductory sentence because the content of which is inconsistent with the source. For that, I have right to personal attacks. It is not normal. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you specify the page for the first source because from my side, I can't see any relevant information except a passing mention of tagine in Morocco. Adding the exact quote would be great, and makes verification much easier. You have the parameters "page" and "quote" in the Cite book template for that.

Nobody has a right to personal attacks. You should stay respectful even if another editor is being aggressive. If you think an editor is being unhelpful and disruptive, you can tag other editors to offer a third point of view, or tag an administrator to resolve the conflict. The list of administrators is here.--Ideophagous (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @M.Bitton:. Do you have a good reason to remove this source from the lead? What makes you think it's unreliable? I'm not aware of any rule that says that the lead shouldn't have sources, contrary to what you seem to claim in your commentary. --Ideophagous (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ideophagous: What makes you think it's reliable? The lead, being repeat information that is in the body, doesn't usually need sources (unless necessary). Do you think that a source is necessary for that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof, that it's unreliable, is on you. Unless it's a personal blog or such, or "www.geo.fr" has a history of posting unreliable information (in which case it should be added to the blacklist), there's no reason to refuse it as a source. An academic source is always better of course. If you have to scrutinize sources, you should rather have removed this blog link.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, I can add any source I want (from wherever) and the burden of proof that they are unreliable would be on you. Did I understand you correctly?

Why would I remove a scholarly source (written by Rebecca Jones)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply follow the guidelines in WP:RS. There's no need remove a source, unless you have sufficient proof that it's unreliable or the information therein is contradicted by a sufficient number of similar or more reliable sources. In case of conflict, we can simply open a discussion and resolve it.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question (regarding "the burden of proof"). nor did you acknowledge what I said about the source that you wanted me to remove (for no reason whatsoever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is pretty clear. There's no reason to waste time in pointless squabbling, and the article is still quite poor in content as it is. The "Origins" section certainly needs to be adjusted to not contradict itself. Let's just focus on that.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's far from clear and since you started questioning the reasons, I find it hard to focus on something else. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is posted in a blog, which is in the grey zone when it comes to newspaper blogs and magazines. We don't know the editorial policy of that website in any case. And the fact that it alludes to "black history" itself is problematic. It should at the very least be supported by additional academic sources.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. It's written by a scholar (unlike that thing, written by a nobody, that you want to keep in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a blog. If she has a the same article in a more reliable source like JSTOR, that should be added instead. If not, then the content is questionable. Scholars are not gods or angels, and they can make mistakes or have an agenda. Some of the people promoting "afrocentrist" crap about North Africa are scholars too, and they've written articles and books about their "theories" (e.g. Ancient Egypt being black and such).-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS, this cite is just fine, since it is from an established expert in the relevant field who has been published in reliable publications. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. It's a secondary point to my original point anyway. Though I'd be suspicious of any source that tries to promote North African history as "black history", given the overwhelming evidence of population continuity in North Africa from the Late Neolithic.-- Ideophagous (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from defending an unreliable source and questioning why I haven't removed a scholarly one, what exactly was your original point? M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to prove that it's unreliable. And as usual, I will remind you to focus on improving the content, which is what we are on Wikipedia for, instead of pointless squabbling and delaying actual useful work, as you've already demonstrated on Talk:Harcha and numerous other occasions.-- Ideophagous (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you that you've already been warned for personally attacking me? M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to ask questions, change the subject when the answers don't suit you and then resort to personal attacks. Come to think of it, I will ping the admin who warned you agasint this kind of unacceptable behaviour (here's the link to the previous unwarranted personal attack). @Doug Weller: as you see, after not liking the answers to their question and refusing to answer mine, they are now personally attacking me again. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this way of proceeding, prolong the debate, accusations after accusations to block the article.

It's a well-known technique of WP:ADVOCACY while he made personal attacks against me from the beginning.

All this for one purpose, block the article.

I just brought new sources [2] to complete my sentence, he deleted them and called them bad, like I was novice in Wikipedia. Since when, we do a war edit for adding sources !

The only problem is my English. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: please, is it normal to attack my integrity with "nationalist pov-pusher" by M.Bitton who is acting like if the article his a personnel propriety when I try to correct all the big mistakes that he never correct in an article where he always participate and where I try to add more sources for the sentence which I added yesterday ?

Now he tries to make a conflict with a conciliator, to block the article.

Have Mr.Bitton a personnel propriety in some articles of Wikipedia? --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For information @Ideophagous:, I didn't add GEO source, she was there, I only constated that what in the source is not what is in the texte, so I add the complet sentance, and he reverts it for "nationalist pov pushing", after he tried to erase the source because it is a proof that there has been misappropriation of source if you let the source with the sentence.

By the revert, he therefore chose to leave a content different from what the source reports, this is what is commonly called: a misappropriation of source. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've known M.Bitton and his antiques for a while. Don't let him waste your time or dissuade you from doing what you came to do, which is improve the content.-- Ideophagous (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this content dispute and am not getting involved. We have forums for discussing sources and other editors. SegoviaKazar I see no personal attacks on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Doug Weller:. Can you point where these forums are located on Wikipedia? I'm only aware of the Administrator's Notice Board and the RfC page.-- Ideophagous (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ideophagous WP:RSN Doug Weller talk 08:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) -- Ideophagous (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I wouldn't have pinged you if this was a content issue. The problem here is Ideophagous's repeated personal attacks against me (despite your previous warning). Here's a permalink to the comment that was meant for you (bottom of the page) that you probably missed in the above wall of text. The fact that they doubled down on their attacks after I pinged you (see their latest comment about me) is a clear indication that they're finding it impossible to hide whatever grudge they've been holding against me for a while. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, wasting time, unnecessarily aggressive attitude, provoking conflict, all to distract editors from the subject at hand. This is not a persoanl attack, it's a statement of fact, which was also confirmed independently by @SegoviaKazar:, and I believe @Achraf112: mentioned that elsewhere as well. Keep this up and you will be reported as a disruptive user. If @Doug Weller: or some other administrator is willing to get involved, they can check the discussion at Talk:Harcha which showcases your attempts to disrupt editing work, keeping articles poor, confusing and uninformative for whatever reason. This quote from your comment at the end of the discussion, which led to a much improved article content and quality in Harcha, compared to how it was, sums up your attitude:

Thanks for that. What a waste of energy that was. I'll leave it to you to sort out. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

--Ideophagous (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideophagous, your response here is a personal attack from top to bottom. If you were to report this, I do not think it would go the way you seem to expect it to. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that an editor is disrupting edits is considered a personal attack? What do you suggest we should do then in such cases? -- Ideophagous (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any disruption from M.Bitton here, so the premise of your question is flawed. But to answer the hypothetical: escalating any situation by making attacks yourself is not going to be helpful. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're restricting your judgment to this conversation, which is fair. As already mentioned, this is not the first time I interact with this user. They're also the only user I've interacted with on enwiki with whom conversations somewhow devolve in such a way on every occasion. I've had my edits reverted by other users, or we had disagreements on content on many occasions, and there was always either a very good reason for the revert, which I thanked them for, or we eventually came to an understanding through discussion. Again, feel free to check Talk:Harcha as an example of a previous interaction with this particular user.-- Ideophagous (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand that you're doing here (personally attacking me) is not acceptable. The sad part is that you probably don't realize that the comment that you quoted and the one that follows it show that you've been assuming bad faith from day one. The fact that you're still banging on about it is the ultimate proof that you've been holding a grudge against me. Canvassing is also a new low for you. I wonder what's next. M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton ANI I guess if this continues. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I agree. There is a limit to the amount of abuse I can put up with. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing is also a new low for you."

And this is not considered a "personal attack"? Either way, I suggest we go back to business (working on the content). This will be my last comment in this non-content-related conversation, unless I'm summoned to clarify by an administrator or such. Have a good day.-- Ideophagous (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of facts. You started canvassing after a series of personal attacks that show no sign of abating. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit: 1) the first source doesn't mention the word "conical". 2) The second (which has been reverted previously) makes a passing mention of the word tajine. It says nothing about either "two parts" or "conical", yet SegoviaKazar (who has been asked to either provide the page number or a quote from it, ignored the request and re-attributed content to it again). M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's see where do you want to go, I break it.

The conical word is here [3]

So what's the problem with this source ? --SegoviaKazar (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with the facts: 1) you misrepresented the sources (this is an undisputed fact). 2) in the second, there is nothing more than a passing mention of the word tajine. In fact, even the first shouldn't be there as it contradicts the archaeological evidence. 3) the new "source" is obviously a simplistic dictionary for restaurateurs (written by someone who teaches restaurant hospitality). 4) you need to stop edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, regarding this edit: I don't understand how the image you've replaced is better.

Here they are for comparison—input from other editors is welcome too. The image I propose features the topic of the article prominently in the frame, it's well lit, and it's well composed. It's an all-around improvement. What's wrong with it? إيان (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't replace any image (I reverted your change because the image that you replaced the stable version with is clearly not an improvement). If you're after an image that is "well lit", then we already have one that is, in every respect, a much better choice than what you're proposing (though, I have yet to be convinced that the stable version needs replacing). Basically, my choice is to either keep the stable map (option 1) or, if we really have to change it, use option 3 (as it shows the dish as well as the pot and its cover). M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally fine with either image. The article has much deeper issues that should be discussed, other than the image. For one, the Tunisian Tagine should probably be in a separate article, since it practically shares only its name with other North African Tagines, as noted in its very section. Also, Tagine pot should have its article, where its history and crafting techniques can be detailed, since it's clearly not the same thing as the dish it's served in (there's a section about pottery but it's small and does not cite any sources). The article overall can benefit from more vetting and adding of sources and expansion of its content.-- Ideophagous (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton: Map? Please stay on topic and refrain from editing my comment without my permission as you did in this edit. This conversation is to understand why you reverted an image that you think is clearly not an improvement, an argument you have so far not substantiated. Then, if there is an outside element you would like to bring into discussion, please do so in your own comment. إيان (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Unlike the POV pushing (up there, which should be ignored), this version doesn't attribute someone's thought to the others:

image إيان supports

option 2 (stable image)

option 3

I edited you comment because you attributed your own thoughts to me. Needless to say that editing was mild compared to what I would do if you did that again. I left a comment and explained my reasoning, so please don't ever ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The note template has come out but the question remains unaddressed. A veiled, ambiguous threat is still a threat and therefore constitutes a personal attack WP:TALKNO. Anyway, option 1 is still the best, as explained above, but I would go for Option 3 over Option 2. إيان (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your POV and I will address it again (this time in bold): I disagree with your opinion and with the fact that you attributed your thoughts to me. I will ignore the other nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the stable version (the "I just don't like it" isn't doing much to convince me of the contrary). M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nnot only is image number 1 a much better quality photo than option number 2, at 5.99 MB vs a measly by comparison 765 KB, but it's certainly better lit and a much more close-up view of a tajine dish, vividly depicting its constituents rather than clouding them in steam as in number 2. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]