Talk:Pilaf

Can not perform any reverts on this page

This page has been recently edited by a disruptive editor, but I can not perform any revert on this page as all revisions of this page purportedly contain "a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." I am not trying to introduce any new external link, so I don't know what any of this is about. Uness232 (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I removed the about.com reference that was causing the issue and reverted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge from Nasi kebuli

Uzbek plov is same as Osh palov

I noticed in pilaf article, the gallery presents Uzbek plov and Osh Plov as if they are separate dishes as they are presented with different names, despite those names all refer to essentially the same traditional Uzbek rice dish. Osh is just the more formal name used inside Uzbekistan while Uzbek plov is merely widely used outside Uzbekistan - but it's the same thing. Albeit there's over 40 variations of the dish and its popular enough to transcend boundaries. But to avoid misleading readers to think they are two separate things, I believe they should be all given one name, and also a side mention that the dish indeed has other names. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie Makes sense, but it would be best to find a source for that _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have a non paywalled source from Dharka Tribune that says; Plov, also known as osh, is Uzbekistan’s national dish and a symbol of hospitality. - . Also these other sources support that it's also called Osh or palov, and the cook for this recipe is called oshpaz. Since the majority of English language sources seem to prefer to say Plov, I suggest we list it as Plov, but note it's also called osh in Uzbekistan. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Consensus for removal of Avicenna

@Fowler&fowlerIn the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359406273) you mentioned "long standing consensus". Can you share the Wikipedia link of that discussion? The source is reliable. The author is Gary Paul Nabhan Hu741f4 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowlerThis article doesn't mention two key points

1)Where did pilaf originate (West Asia? South Asia? Europe? Central Asia during the time of Alexander)? Or where its earliest known recipe can be found.

2)The time of its first appearance.

So its origin, geography, time period remain unclear. It talks about how it spread, but not where it originated. For example the first paragraph of history section will give readers an impression that it actually originated in Spain and Abbasids just carried it from Spain to south Asia:

It was at the time of the Abbasid Caliphate that methods of cooking rice which approximate modern styles of cooking pilaf at first spread through a vast territory from Spain to Afghanistan, and eventually to a wider world. The Spanish paella, and the South Asian pilau or pulao, and biryani,evolved from such dishes.

.

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Second attempt to discuss the issues with @Fowler&fowler

Since my earlier attempt to discuss my concerns with @Fowler&fowler went unanswered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pilaf#Consensus_for_removal_of_Avicenna), and the user reverted my edits+some other edits which I didn't make, without any discussion—instead threatening me with "administrative help"(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359994468) —I am again tagging @Fowler&fowler. I have explained all my edits in the edit summaries very well, and all the content I added is supported by reliable sources, so I would like to know which of my edits (or the content that I added) do not fit this article. I am referring to the edits that I made after your 2nd last edit (8:40 17 June 2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359626691) Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to explain why you have changed a longstanding history and lead of several years cited to several broadscale sources, such as the Oxford Companion to Food, to fronting the lead and the history section with a sentence which attributes the pilaf to one second-millennium source, cited to a narrow-scale article published by a team of archaeologists in the journal Rice. That article is about the spread of the foodgrain rice, not a technique for cooking it as rice spread from "boiling and steaming" cultures to "grinding and baking" ones. You have attempted to change the precedent. The onus is yours to garner a consensus for your change. WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy. Thus far I see no consensus for your edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The precedent you have attempted to change is six years old. Here is an edit by Doug Weller, an admin and editor with interest in archaeology, from February 2019. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was you, not me. You added that from R. N. Spengler (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359625899) and reverted my edit when I tried to remove it. (I wanted to keep only the content that was relevant to pilaf.) Hu741f4 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't mean no new content should be added to the history section. I just added missing content, i.e., "Dishes like Pilaf originated only within the last thousand years." The source for this is WP:RS and fits the Wikipedia guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, since R. N. Spengler is a research leader at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. The article is not just about rice, but also about how dishes like pilaf originated. You first added irrelevant details from this exact source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359625899

It was you who expanded the content using this same source (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359586577), but you left out some very important details that I added later in subsequent edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359664034 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359663487 ).

The only point I want to keep is that "Pilaf originated over the past thousand years." Apart from this, only the content about Kitab al Wusla was my addition.

And none of those other things, like "Avicenna was father of pilaf" or "The first recipe of pilaf was given by Avicenna," were my additions. I added that to the lede because it was already there in the article. Hu741f4 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In edits made by you on 29 April, 6 May, and 15 May you made changes to a six-year-long consensus on the lead and history sections.

I did not make any edits during that period.

WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was summarizing the content already mentioned in the history section (added by other users). What do mean by "changes to a six-year-long consensus on the lead and history sections." Did the consensus say that no additional content should be added to lede??? Where are links to RfC? Discussions??? You are repeating the word "Consensus" again and again without providing me link to such discussion. Hu741f4 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS.

It says, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content."

For six years a certain version of the lead held.

You, and no one but you, attempted to change it between user:Gotitbro's edit of April 25, 2026 and yours of May 15, 2026

If you think someone changed it before you did, please tell us the username of that editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You didn't provide me link to any RfC, DRN, 3O?? Which consensus are you talking about? Was there a consensus that no new content should be added? This particular edit is my addition and it is based on R. N. Spengler. The second sentence summarizes things that are already mentioned in this article's 'history' section. It can't continue like this. This article needs extensive cleanup and evaluation. I'll try to take it to noticeboard soon. Hu741f4 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And it was me who added The Oxford Companion to Food . It wasn't there in the article. Hu741f4 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to add this content:

"According to R. N. Spengler, dishes like pilaf originated only within the past 1,000 years."^[1]

The source is reliable (and specifically relevant under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, since R. N. Spengler is a research leader at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). It doesn't contradict anything already stated in the article. The article mentions pilaf many times and the last sentence of the article's conclusion is

While rice is an important part of Central Asian cuisines, it probably did not become a significant crop west of the Indus region until well after the Islamic Expansion. The pilaf or other rice-based dish that exemplifies many Central and southwest Asian cuisines probably only originated over the past millennium.^[2]

Does it belong in the article, or should it be modified or removed based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?Hu741f4 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this content be added to the article? Well, here is the argument Fowler&fowler is giving: I shouldn't edit this article because I am changing a 6-year-old version. They claim that for whatever edit I make, I need to reach a consensus because I am changing a 6-year-old version of the article. I asked Fowler&fowler for a link to any such discussion or consensus stating that no additional content should be added, but the user has not provided one. The user is less focused on the content in question and more focused on why I am editing the article in the first place. I'd like to establish a consensus regarding this content. my primary issues with their reverts are:

• No Proof of Consensus: Despite my requests on the Talk page, has not provided any links to an RfC, Dispute Resolution, or prior Talk page discussion that establishes a consensus to "freeze" the article's current state or reject new scholarly information. A long-standing version of an article does not equate to an immovable consensus against future improvements (WP:OWN).
• Inconsistent Source Rejection: Fowler&fowler themselves recently used this exact same Spengler source to expand the article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359625899 ). Yet, when I attempted to use the same source to add the specific historical timeline regarding the dish's origin, they reverted it.

Hu741f4 (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A long-standing lead enjoys implicit consensus because editors have chosen to leave it alone. Moreover, the stable lead of six years (since early February 2019) was established after a good bit of debate. So it enjoys a measure of explicit consensus. At the very least, it is the stable version, the version admins will revert to in case an edit war breaks out.

Now to my interlocutor's edits: The study from the journal Rice, which they propose to use for adding one sentence, provides some context for the history of intensive irrigation and rice dispersal in West Asia. However, I have concerns about using this source to overhaul the stable lead and history section.

1. Reliable Sources and Due Weight (WP:RS and WP:DUE)
   1. The article currently relies on broad-scale, high-quality tertiary and secondary food history texts, such as the Oxford Companion to Food and the Cambridge Companion to Food and Drink. These sources are explicitly written by culinary historians to synthesize decades, if not centuries, of evidence. They assign appropriate weight to competing regional claims.
      1. Please view the list of sources that were being used on 10 February, 2019: Talk:Pilaf/Archive_1#Fowler&fowler's_sources
   2. On three days, April 29, 2026; May 6, 2026; and May 15, 2026, user:Hu741f4 made significant edits to this article. Here is the diff for their cumulative effect. I note a few things:
      1. Whereas the archaeological paper in Rice is highly reliable for botany and agricultural history, its brief section on the spread of rice dishes is a tangential mention in a specialized scientific journal. Elevating an aside from a botanical/archaeological paper to definitively declare a "Persian origin" in the lead—while overriding established culinary reference works—violates WP:WEIGHT.
      2. The stable version’s focus on the Abbasid Caliphate accurately reflects the consensus that pilaf evolved through a broader regional synthesis of techniques.
2. Manual of Style for Leads and Cookbook Content (WP:LEAD and WP:NOTCOOKBOOK) Per WP:LEAD, the lead section must remain a high-level summary of the article's most critical details. Introducing a specific historical recipe—let alone crowning it the "first credible" one—at the very outset of the article clutters the overview. Furthermore, Wikipedia is explicitly not a manual or culinary guide (WP:NOTCOOKBOOK). Specific historical recipes belong, if anywhere, in the body of the history section, not upfront in the introduction.
3. Proposed Compromise:To respect the six-year stable version of the lead while still incorporating the new scholarship, I propose the following:
   1. Leave the Lead Intact: Retain the current, stable overview of pilaf as a regional technique that proliferated during the Abbasid Caliphate.
   2. Add to the History Body: We can integrate the Rice journal findings into the latter half of the "History" section of the article body. We can note that archaeologists link the rise of the dish to the development of intensive irrigation methods in West Asia during the second millennium, without framing it as a definitive or exclusive national origin.

I look forward to hearing other editors' thoughts on keeping the lead focused on the established culinary consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with F&F that this information should be added to the article, but most likely in the History section, although I do agree with Hu74SoOnAndSoForth that the article he's citing appears to be a plenty good source. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, where exactly HU wishes to place the Spengler claim.

Separately, I am as, or more, interested in reading the validation for F&Fs idea that somehow the passage of time adds empirical weight to the value of the present edit. I don't dispute using a word like "stable." Nor do I disagree that this version would be the one reverted to. What I'm more skeptical of is any notion of "implicit consensus." Does this notion appear somewhere on Wikipedia? (The question of explicit consensus, which of course is temporal, will be demonstrated by this RFC.) JerryGraf (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Implicit consensus is not Wikipedia policy, of course. But essays do refer to it, e.g. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or WP:Pocket consensus.

My view of what has happened is this: The recent addition suggesting pilaf was first described by a 10th-century author and created by a Persian scholar relies on an oversimplified reading of a secondary source citation. Archaeobotanists like Spengler et al. and authors Nesbitt et al. do not establish 10th-century Persian origins; rather, they reference earlier, possibly pre-Islamic culinary traditions, making recent edit claims historically inaccurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are Nesbitt et al:

"Kitab al-Wusla is the most important for our purposes as it expressly refers to certain dishes which resemble what we recognize as pilaf: one is described as “Indian rice” which is described as being cooked in a copper pot with two and a half times the quantity of water compared to the rice; others refer to the addition of meat, fat, chickpeas or pistachios, and sweetened at the final stage with sugar and rose water.

"In summary, these cookbooks describe a number of specific dishes involving rice. One has an Indian association and many have Iranian affinities or names which suggest that these may belong to a longer pre-Islamic culinary tradition centered in Iran and Mesopotamia (the latter was the seat of the political capital and at the cultural heart of Iranian empires for over seven centuries before the Islamic conquest). The care expressly taken to prepare the rice by washing and occasional references to steaming suggest that the principles of pilaf—namely a non-mushy dish whereby the individual grains remain separate (mufalfal)—were already well understood by the medieval period and possibly earlier.

------------------------

For my purposes, the more important thing about the recipe(s) is that the cooked grains do not adhere (something that is a part of our definition in the lead sentence). Rather than referencing that, which a novice reader will find helpful, my interlocutor has attempted to turn this into certainties about geographical origins or time periods. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

PS user: Hu741f4 I can propose this: Let us add one sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the current lead, "Some medieval West Asian recipe books describe precise techniques for cooking separate-grained rice (mulfalfal), suggesting that the principles of cooking a pilaf were well understood by then." We can cite it to Nesbitt et al, pages 318–319. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I am simply seeking to add the statement: "Dishes like pilaf originated only within the past 1,000 years." That is why I opened this RfC. This straightforward point is neither controversial nor contested by other sources, and the edit does not suggest that pilaf was first described by a 10th-century author. Hu741f4 (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not true. See below the expanded version of the reference Spengler et al cite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And we can add a slightly expanded version to the history section's end:

"Four 13th-century cookbooks expand historical rice recipes, describing combinations such as spiced yogurt with cumin, and garlic meat stews with spinach and chickpeas. Most notably, the Kitab al-Wusla attributed to Ibn al-'Adim of Aleppo details early pilaf-like dishes. These include "Indian rice" boiled in precise water-to-rice ratios, and meat variations enriched with fat, chickpeas, or pistachios, ultimately sweetened with sugar and rose water.

According to Nesbitt et al, pages 318–319: 'The care expressly taken to prepare the rice by washing and occasional references to steaming suggest that the principles of pilaf—namely a non-mushy dish whereby the individual grains remain separate (mufalfal)—were already well understood by the medieval period and possibly earlier.'" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This is as far as I go. All the best to you in this RfC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Food historian Charles Perry says the same:

"he postulates that the pilaf was an eastern Arabic, "post-tenth century innovation."^[3]

, which is same as saying pilaf originated within past 1,000 years. So what R. N. Spengler stated:

The pilaf or other rice-based dish that exemplifies many Central and southwest Asian cuisines probably only originated over the past millennium.

is corroborated by other sources. Hu741f4 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Thanks so much for the reply. On the merits of this, I agree that elevating what appears to be a tangential aside from a botanical journal over the Oxford Companion to Food, and the Cambridge Companion to Food and Drink seems like a real due-weight problem. The proposed fix (leave the lead, add to the body) seems very reasonable. JerryGraf (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• I was pinged above. Without getting into the content dispute. The WP:ONUS is certainly on the editor seeking an alteration of WP:STABLE content. Consensus also does not only come through the way of formal discussion mechanisms, it can be implied or effective. Tertiary and secondary sources will be preferred over primary ones like academic journals publishing original research (a somewhat related case, I remember, was certain editors trying to credit the invention of the wheel to Serbia etc. based on a single academic paper). Lastly, this is a badly formed RfC which is apparently unnecessary, resolve disputes through discussion; RfCs are not an alternative for it. This is frankly a very minor contention, rather than engage in WP:LEADFIXATION, develop your content in the body first. Gotitbro (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Happened to also read the related discussion at Talk:Biryani#Pilau - II, the citation of WP:FRINGE there and in the edit summary here by the RfC opener is incorrect. You would need RS explicitly saying this to be the case (also minority views [which too would need to be supported by RS for a label as such] of course =/= fringe). Please be careful when citing any enwiki policy. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I imported that content from this article. Fowler&fowler added that content to this article after a discussion. Hu741f4 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Some editors have made a few good points, and I agree now that ethnobotanists (Nabhan, Nesbitt, R. N. Spengler) are not good sources for culinary history, especially when they contradict food historians like Charles Perry. These sources aren't reliable in the context of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for the history section of this article. Hence, I am closing this RfC and this entire discussion. I have decided not to add R. N. Spengler at all. These sources are good for agriculture or agricultural history. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)