Talk:Ras el hanout

In the article article is written although some purists insist that it must contain exactly 12 items. The French article says traditional recipes consist of 24-27 ingredients (la recette traditionnelle du ras el hanout varie entre 24 et 27 ingrédients), the Germans say etwa 25 verschiedene Gewürze and our Spanish colleagues say una mezcla de hierbas y especias (entre 4 y 30). The article definitely misses a source for the statement about the purists. Anyone who can help? Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added a {{citation needed}} tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, in UK English this expression, used as an adjective, is universally understood to refer to pornographic publications, as that is where they are kept in newsagents' shops. I followed the link for an explanation and was pleased to discover that it means something quite different in the world of US cocktail bars. Not sure exactly how to accommodate the different shades of meaning, as the explanation of the etymology clearly will help the US reader a good deal, while possibly confusing the UK reader. Sjwells53 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AZSH: When you revert someone's edit, make sure you only revert the part you're objecting to in the edit summary. Obliterating everything and reintroducing WP:OR in the process is unhelpful at best.

Since you seem to have an issue with the part that says "it is particular to Algeria" (even though it's attributed to a reliable source that, unlike the others, is written by someone who teaches food studies in a university), I have removed both it and the the part that precedes it. That way, all is left is neutral content. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can't imagine what that author had in mind when writing that it's "particular to Algeria", but either, her credentials notwithstanding, she's ignorant about the use of ras el hanout outside of Algeria, or she has a "particular" understanding of what the word "particular" means. Either way, I'm sitting here with my two Moroccan cookbooks. One of them is by Paula Wolfert, who goes on about many uses of the spice mix in Moroccan dishes and cites Moroccan cooking specialist Christine Benlafquih, "Some Moroccans use it almost daily in their cooking." The other is by Moroccan chef Mourad Lahlou, who devotes four pages to it, beginning "The most fundamental, defining flavor and aroma of Moroccan cooking comes from the country's 'national spice blend,' ras el hanout." He also tells us that "Serious Moroccan home cooks make their own personal ras el hanout blends ...." It may be used in Algeria as well, but be assured that it's by no means particular to it, at least not in the sense that that phrase conveys to me! Largoplazo (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Largoplazo: It would be interesting to know what you think of the article in its current form. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think removing a sourced passage that's been there for 4 years will help improve the article.It is also already neutral as it uses north africa instead of Morocco for the origin(source: Duruz, J. (2016). Ras el Hanout and Preserved Lemons: Memories, Markets and the Scent of Borrowed Traditions. In I. Banerjee-Dube (Ed.), Cooking Cultures: Convergent Histories of Food and Feeling (pp. 201-223)).For the picture it has been added by GeoTrinity, what's wrong with it?--AZSH (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is a work in progress. When content is challenged, it is up to the one who wants to keep it to justify its inclusion. Poor excuses such as "it's been there for 4 years" won't do. Can you give me a good reason why the The mix is generally associated... should be kept ?

The first sentence is properly sourced. Why do you keep removing it ?

Someone clearly misrepresented the source about the Cantharides. I corrected it according to what the source states. Why do you keep reverting it ?

The picture is promotional, that's what's wrong with it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

can you give me a good reason to why it should be removed then? All I see is that you're just trying to delete a sourced passage because you don't like it. + we are also not here to make articles "more neutral" than they already are just to please some people. the mix is used heavily in moroccan cuisine way more than in other north african ones.

north africa is enough it already includes all the countries cited, moreover there are other north african countries which use it and which are not cited.--AZSH (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The reason is simple, it adds no value to the article and it's confusing.

If other countries use it, cite them with an appropriate source.

What part of what I said about the image don't you understand ? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

and deleting it will add value? there's nothing confusing about it. when you say ras al hanout you automatically think of moroccan cuisine.

north africa is enough i told you. no need to cite all the countries.

I don't see any problem with it. --AZSH (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do not delete sourced content (just because you don't like it) and do not under any circumstances introduce an image that advertises a company's product. M.Bitton (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

you should say that to yourself first.

your edits are useless. north africa includes the countries cited plus those that are not. lybians for example use it also. ^[1]

i don't see any advertisement. the more pictures there are in an article the better.--AZSH (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

north africa includes the countries cited plus those that are not. That's exactly why I'm opposed to it's use. It's too broad a term that includes countries such as Libya, Egypt, Mauritania and even Sudan; countries that have no history of using Ras al-Hanout in their cuisine. The reliable source that we have and the only one that goes into details about the spice mix defines Ras al-Hanut as "a spice mix found in varying forms in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco."^[2] I have yet to understand why you want to deviate from this.

lybians for example use it also. Just because a chef mentioned Libya in passing doesn't mean that they do. You will struggle to find a single Libyan authentic recipe that calls for its use. They have their own spice mix called "Hararat". The same goes for the Egyptians who uses a couple of spice mixes, namely Dukkah and Buharat.

i don't see any advertisement. the more pictures there are in an article the better. The picture clearly advertises the French company "Mosaique". The caption is also WP:OR as the packet doesn't say where the content is from and on their website, they state that their spices come from India and Spain.^[3]

With regard to the part that says "The mix is generally associated with Morocco, although neighboring North African countries use it as well": I have an issue with it because a) it adds no value and it's confusing (generally associated by whom?) and b) it makes it look as though the mix is Moroccan, even though nobody knows when or where it originated from. Prior to my first edit, I had noticed that two IP editors who tried to change it had been reverted.[1][2][3]. That's why I proceeded the way I did, by adding sourced content that neutralises it (the reliable source that I added, regardless of how its content is interpreted, makes it explicit that describing the spice mix as Moroccan is misleading at best). When you objected to its inclusion, I removed it and the sentence it was meant to neutralise; a sentence that you insist on keeping.

@AZSH: As a way forward, I suggest we request a WP:THIRD opinion using a neutral description such as "Disagreements related to the introduction, as well as the use of an image". Either of us can make the request. Let me know which you prefer. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Lybia and Mauritania they use it like I said, and I know that very well, but of course not as much as in Morocco. even in Egypt it's starting to be used.^[4]. Look at this random article in WP(juice) and look at the pictures used there. I also don't consider it an ad because there is no phone number, no website, no adress etc...For the origin of the spices of course some of them are from india or other parts of asia but the mix itself is Moroccan/North african. it's like english black tea, the tea used to prepare it originates essentially from China not from England. Regarding the last part, I have already answered that. the passage is clear and sourced. in other words the mix is mainly related to Moroccan cuisine even though it spread to other north african ones.

if you want to request a third opinion go ahead. no problem for me.--AZSH (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

With regard to the intro:
In Lybia and Mauritania they use it like I said, and I know that very well. No, they don't. Like I said, you won't find a single authentic recipe of theirs that calls for its use.

even in Egypt it's starting to be used. In a globalised world, it's "starting to be used" everywhere, just like everything else; nonetheless, there are only three countries in which it's considered a major spice mix, namely Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco ("The Oxford Companion to Food"^[2] and "The new Larousse gastronomique: the encyclopedia of food, wine & cookery"^[5] do not associate it with any other country).

With regard to the image:
Look at this random article in WP(juice) and look at the pictures used there. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Garam masala article is a good example on how it should be done.

I also don't consider it an ad because there is no phone number, no website, no adress etc. 1) It took me less than 10 seconds to find their website. 2) There's nothing special about that company for it to be advertised on the world's largest encyclopedia. 3) If we were to allow this, we'd be in no position to prevent other companies from plastering the article with images of their products.

For the origin of the spices of course some of them are from india or other parts of asia but the mix itself is Moroccan/North african. The caption of the image is 100% baseless original research. 1) Nowhere in the packet or on their website^[3] does it mention where the mix is from, though it says all spices are sourced from India and Spain. 2) Their cheap and nasty mix, which contains curry powder and cornstarch/cornflour (farine de maïs), is not even representative of the proper ras el-hanout.

With regard to the last part:
Regarding the last part, I have already answered that. the passage is clear and sourced. At the risk of repeating myself, there is another passage that is reliably sourced and that you removed because it contradicts the one you want to keep.

the mix is mainly related to Moroccan cuisine even though it spread to other north african ones. That's a baseless assertion and the root cause of the issue. Nobody knowns or even claims to know the origin of the mix.

Rather than keep going around in circles, I'll be requesting a third opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  3O Response: Hello! Non-binding opinions coming up.

Opening line: I don't think it wouldn't be inaccurate to call the spice mix North African even if that technically includes some places where it's not as common, however I agree it's better to be specific. I've not yet been able to find anything specifically linking it to Libya or Mauritania, and M.Bitton's sources are good, so I would either go with "the Maghreb," which sometimes excludes those two countries anyway, or just listing the three you mentioned.

Image: I don't think that having a logo in it automatically makes it advertising. Admittedly, it's a short article and with both images it's a bit cramped, but I vaguely feel that seeing it in two slightly different contexts is good, so I'm going to lean on the side of keep. (The caption, as I read it, just means it was bought in Morocco, and I'm happy to trust the uploader about that.)

Bit at the end: A Google search for "Ras el hanout ____" gives ~400,000 results with "Morocco", ~300,000 with "North Africa", ~150,000 for "Tunisia" and less than ~100,000 for anything else, and most – though not all – sources on Google books either describe the mix as Moroccan (rather than North African), or seem to associate it specifically with Morocco. It's maybe worth tempering these points with the fact that Moroccan cuisine is by far the best known out of North Africa (and so likely to be at least somewhat overrepresented), but I still think there's something there. The line itself, however (about the mix being "generally associated with Morocco"), doesn't seem to be directly backed up by the source.^[6] I was thinking maybe, to reflect the idea, we could instead throw in a line from the source Largoplazo gave, even if it's a bit poetic, like

It has been called the "most fundamental, defining flavor" of Moroccan cuisine and the country's "national spice blend."^[7]

(If we list the countries Morocco should be first at least.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 05:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.

Image: If the image is to be kept, then the caption should either be be removed or changed to something that is verifiable, such as "package of ras el hanout from France" (get rid of the "typical") or simply "package of ras el-hanout".

Bit at the end: The line itself, however (about the mix being "generally associated with Morocco"), doesn't seem to be directly backed up by the source. In other words, the controversial statement is original research. It obviously needs to be removed.

As for your proposal concerning the introduction of new content (which is another issue altogether, and that I'll only address briefly here): a) Google hits mean nothing. b) If the mix was strongly associated with any of the three listed countries, reliable sources such as "The Oxford Companion to Food" and "The new Larousse gastronomique" would not hesitate to declare it (they don't for a reason). M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't fully agree with ReconditeRodent propositions, but if it's going to help solve the problem then I am fine with it.--AZSH (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Verifiability doesn't apply to aspects of images for which you'd have to have been there to know for sure – we can't assume the uploader lied for no reason. Incidentally, however, we do have another image of a slightly different variety of ras el hanout which might be good instead. Thoughts?

@ReconditeRodent: The caption of the image is treated like any other content. If indeed the uploader bought this packet from Morocco, that would mean that Morocco imports "ras el-hanout" from France. Do you really think that's the case? And if it is, what would that say about the importance of this spice in Morocco?

The other image looks fine to me.

What a Moroccan chef/restaurateur has to say about this spice may or may not belong in the Moroccan cuisine article, but it does not belong in this one. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@M.Bitton: : Reverted further back. AZSH's edit removes a source, don't see how this can be legit. It reminds me of another disruptive editor, i'm sure you know who i'm talking about, since this AZSH sounds quite similar (POV pushing, when it comes to Morocco).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

the only disruptive editor I see here is you. when we finish discussing we will edit the article. we don't need you for that.--AZSH (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Wikaviani:I know exactly what you mean. I would have opened a SPI had it not been for the fact that IP addresses are only kept for a short period of time. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point and agree with you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@AZSH: : You don't own anything here, So you keep edit warring and removing sources that you don't like uh ? In addition of baseless accusations of "trolling" ? Your edit removes sourced content, and as far as i can see, without any consensus. If you fail to provide a legit explanation for it, i'll reinstate the sourced version, per WP:VER.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

stop edit warring I told you. leave this section as clean as possible for the discussion. --AZSH (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Stop edit warring i told you" : You don't have any order to give me AZSH, provide a legit explanation for your removal of sourced content, or prepare for a report to administrators.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

leave this section clean. if you have questions regarding the article open a new one.--AZSH (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@AZSH: So you don't have any legit explanation for your sourced content removal, right ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

move all your comments and questions that are not related to the subject to another section.--AZSH (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, this section is the relevant one, instead of babbling, just provide the legit explanations for the removal of a high quality source (Oxford) from the article, or, prepare for a report. This is the last time i ask you to provide a legit explanation.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

no it is not. --AZSH (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

C.FredI have read all the discussion and I really don't feel there is a consensus. I also do not approve the modifications made by Mr.Bitton Jamaru25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although, at the moment I'm willing to support both listing the countries instead of using "North Africa", and removing the "association" line, I think we should hold off on both those changes until we've settled these two things:

@AZSH: Are you okay with the replacement image? While I don't think there's a problem with the first one, for a mix with such variable components I think it would be good to show variety.

I don't see any reason to why the first one should be deleted. also I don't see why the uploader would lie about something like that.

there are multiple articles in WP that are illustrated by the same type of picture. no one is complaining about them being ads or whatever.

Rice flour, Cola, English tea etc...--AZSH (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just for space constraints. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Wikaviani: Are you (if not M.Bitton) okay with the replacement line I suggested? I think it's a nice line, and gives us an impression of the spice's importance within Moroccan cuisine. (I'm assuming you want it, AZSH, but feel free to correct me.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oppose because it would convey the wrong message about the importance of the spice mix within the cuisine of the other two countries. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose per M.Bitton.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

What an interesting opinion from Wikaviani. do you really need to ask someone to help you out in a small discussion like this one? Surprisingly, these two have never ever made any edit to this article nor ever participated in any discussion about it. But we see them now posting at the same time and of course they all agree to the opinions of each other.

let me remind you that this is how the article looked at the beginning.

Ras el hanout, also called Moroccan seasoning, is a popular blend of herbs and spices that originated in Morocco. The name means "top of the shop", and refers to a mixture of the best spices a seller has to offer.

There is no set combination of spices that makes up ras el hanout, but most versions contain over a dozen spices, including cardamom, mace, nutmeg, cinnamon, and ground chili peppers. Some recipes include over one hundred ingredients, some quite unusual, such as orrisroot, ground beetles, and rose petals. Usually all ingredients are toasted and then ground up together. Individual recipes are often improvised. The spice mixture is often used to flavor rice or couscous. It is often believed to be an aphrodisiac.'

compare it to what it is right now. so in my opinion it has already been "neutralized" to the maximum.

now, we're not going to keep discussing this subject for a year. the version proposed by ReconditeRodent is fine for me even if I don't totally agree with it like I said earlier. if you want to cite all the countries then fine even if lybians wouldn't like it but they can come here and express their opinions if they like. --AZSH (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The whole point of the line is that it doesn't actively claim anything about the spice's relative importance, just its importance within a particular (and entirely relevant) culinary tradition. If you can find a line about its reputation within Tunisian or Algerian cuisine then go ahead and add it. (Speaking of which, apparently the Tunisian variety is generally milder than the Moroccan,^[1] which is worth mentioning somewhere once the article is stable.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ReconditeRodent:That's exactly why I said "what a Moroccan chef/restaurateur has to say about this spice may or may not belong in the Moroccan cuisine article, but it does not belong in this one". A race to the bottom in terms of what label cherry picked chefs attach to a spice within their own country will ultimately be detrimental to the project. The spice's importance within the cuisine of all three countries is attested by the fact that it's an integral part of it, just like salt is. It's not like they have another mix that they automatically turn to for their national dishes, or that their local "hanouts" (shops) specialize in Garam masala.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the three issues that brought us here in the first place. The issue of the "association" line has sorted itself out (being original research, it needs to be removed). Would you please share your opinions regarding the other two (the image and the intro)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fine, fine, let's go ahead and take out the "association" line, change North Africa to "found in varying forms in ..." and replace the image (to show variety, not because it's original research). Apologies to AZSH – if you really want to get the line in you can go back to WP:Third Opinion, just be sure to mention that it's a separate issue. I'm washing my hands of this now. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done I have also a) corrected the Arabic transcription (the "alif" should be silent) and b) removed the "similar to the English expression ..." which is confusing (see Talk:Ras_el_hanout#Top-shelf) and unneeded since what "head of the shop" implies is already explained. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any consensus here. revert your edits please.--AZSH (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there is a consensus among all editors except you for M;Biton's edit. Your behaviour looks more and more like failure to get the point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

mr "I don't know anything but I agree" you should maybe take some time to read the discussion instead of wasting my time with your useless comments. --AZSH (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reverting what is legit? Ras el hanout is originated in Morocco, this country is the origin and also the name is originally Moroccan, the stupid part is that you're ignoring the origin and put NA instead?!! Are you alright with faking statements and falsifying the truth? Jamaru25 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies and the talk page guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

And you should not spread false informations in Wikipedia that will cause other people the confusion that's you should accept some facts that are real and global that doesn't need sources to prove it. Jamaru25 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

"you should accept some facts that are real and global that doesn't need sources to prove it" You really need to read our guidelines since it appears clearly that you don't understand how this site works. If you need any help to do so, please ask.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ras el hanout.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

M.Bitton, you reverted my sourced addition identifying Morocco as the spice's origin. Your reason was As extraordinary claim as the one that describes it as "specific to Algeria". Your irrelevant comparison of it to another claim aside, what do you find extraordinary about it? That it has an origin? That we might have evidence of what its origin is? That the point of origin could possibly be in Morocco? In what way is it so extraordinary that your sense that it is so supersedes the source?^[1]

Others, what do you think?

Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source attributes "originated in the Meghribi villages of North Africa" to SBS, and then attributes the claim "has its origin in North Africa" to Roden. In other words, it doesn't say what you claim it does. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Meghribi" doesn't mean "Morrocan"? Largoplazo (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. We use it all the time to refer to the people or the places that are related to the Maghreb. Incidentally, here's an edit (that I made 15 minutes ago) about the word "Maghrebi". Besides, SBS is not a reliable source when it comes to claims about history. I remember looking into this before and the earliest mentions of the mix that I could find date back to the 19th century (mostly describing what it is and what it's used for, but nothing about its unknown origin). M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply