Jump to content

Talk:Tajine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.Bitton (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 9 October 2022 (→Removing source from lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparative of Dutch oven versus Tajine in the article . . .no source cited

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]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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]

Spelling . . . Tajine/Tagine

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"! kristephanieTALK 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]

Pairing with wine?

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]

No picture of the top cone-shaped piece??

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]

Copied Content

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]

Outdoor cooking

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]

mid-centuries

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]

December 2018

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:

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.

References

  1. ^ "tagine (noun) American English definition and synonyms". Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved 11 Dec 2018.
  2. ^ "Definition of TAGINE". Definition of Tagine by Merriam-Webster. 6 Dec 2018. Retrieved 11 Dec 2018.
  3. ^ Ken Albala (2011). Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-313-37626-9.

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]

Moroccan Tajines only

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]

Tajine

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

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]

October 2022

@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]

Removing source from lead

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tajine&oldid=1115132076"