Talk:Biryani

Pilau - II

Pilaf was first described in the 13th–century, not 10th–century as this article claims. So I want to replace the first paragraph of history section with this:

Kitab al-Wusla, an early 13th–century cookbook authored by Ibn al-Adim of Aleppo, provides the first clear recipe for a dish resembling modern pilaf, utilizing a base of rice, meat, chickpeas, and garlic.

The last source summarized it well citing the food historian Charles Perry. I am quoting the footnote:

Charles Perry, for example, notes in a letter of 2 January, 1994, to PDB that pilafs appear late and then only in the eastern Arabic world in the thirteenth century cookbooks Kitab al-At imah al-Mu'tada and Kitab al-Wulsa ila al-Habib. Since pilafs are not mentioned in the tenth century Kitab al-Takibh, and were unknown in Muslim West until much later..

The Oxford Companion to Food says the same:

The first descriptions of the pilaf technique appear in the 13th-century Arabic books Kitab al-Tabikh* and Kitab al-Wusla ila al Habib, writ- ten in Baghdad and Syria, respectively

*This isn't the 10th–century Kitab al Tabikh but Kitāb al-Ṭabikh fī al-Maghrib wa al-Andalus fī ʽAṣr al-Muwaḥḥidīn from the thirteenth century.

However, when I tried to insert this content on the article about Pilaf, my edit was reverted by @Fowler&fowler (although they didn't provide me any valid reason for the removal of this content), and my two attempts to discuss them on the talk page of that article were ignored. Hu741f4 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the existing source (Gary Paul Nabhan) should be removed. According to him pilaf dates back to fourth century BCE. He claims that Avicenna provided the first description to prepare pilaf, but without citing a primary source or a food historian. He even went on to describe Avicenna as the "father of modern pilaf." In short, he is contradicting all these reliable sources. Hu741f4 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know why that was reverted over there, not having checked those sources or studied the editing context, but three things stand out: the use of 5 sources for one claim always arouses suspicion; page numbers are lacking, always a bad sign; and Davidson is in there twice, which looks strangely careless for what purports to be a carefully-prepared edit: it's not even clear if the Davidson refs are meant to be to the same entry or two different entries, as they are neither named nor given page numbers. In short, this doesn't look quite right, and at best it needs to be revised thoroughly. Also, if there is disagreement over there, it would be far better to reach consensus over there first, rather than to create a contradictory narrative in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

1)Having 5-6 sources for the same content seems suspicious, but there is no Wikipedia policy that states such an edit should be rejected. However, if that is the issue, I have removed two sources, which I copied from the first source, for the same claim.

2)Source 1 is by R. N. Spengler, who is a research leader at Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. There is no need for a page number as the link will take you directly to the article. It says, "Another of these cookbooks, the Kitab al-Wusla written by Ibn al-Adim of Aleppo, who lived in Gaza and Egypt, and wrote the book in the early thirteenth century, provides the first clear reference to a pilaf-like dish, with rice, garlic, meat, and chickpeas." I have added page numbers for the other two sources. The page number for source 2, The Oxford Companion to Food, is 624. The page number for source 3 (Charles Perry) is 71.

3)Davidson is there only once, not twice.

4)All these sources are high-quality, reliable sources that fit the Wikipedia policy WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The first source is R. N. Spengler, who is a research leader at Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. The Oxford Companion to Food is the strongest source here, and Charles Perry is a reputed food historian. Both of these sources have been cited in other reliable sources (see WP:USEBYOTHERS). Food writer Ghillie Basan who I didn't mention earlier says the same.

5)The existing content about Avicenna has one source, which is contradicted by these. It must be made clear why Gary Paul Nabhan should stay in this article, but R. N. Spengler, Charles Perry, The Oxford Companion to Food, Ghillie Basan should be rejected altogether.

6)When and where the first clear description of pilaf appeared must be mentioned in both articles. I found no other reliable source for the claim that Avicenna was the first to give a recipe for pilaf, and is described as the father of pilaf. Hu741f4 (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Nabhan is an ethnobotanist, and his book is a reliable source so there is no good reason for removing it; the other scholars may simply not have read Avicenna, so it cannot be assumed from their silence that they have checked it and found Nabhan to have falsified the claim; far more probable is that they didn't look. If the word "first" is the issue then let's remove that: that Avicenna mentions the dish doesn't automatically guarantee that he's the first, though it appears to be the case.

By the way, Davidson appears twice (as separate references [2] and [4] in the list as it is now; [2] now has a broken page number text attached). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't "first." The issue is Avicenna. In which book did Avicenna mention a pilaf-like dish? Since Nabhan contradicts all these reliable sources, per Wikipedia policies WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, it should be removed, or mentioned with attribution or in a note. But I understand your concern. We can leave this article as it is until we reach a consensus on the article about pilaf. Hu741f4 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Definitely obtain consensus over there; this article is not the place to determine how another article should be written. There is no suggestion that Nabhan is a fringe author, and if the claim is correct it is beyond question WP:DUE as it is highly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

We can still discuss it here because the content in question is also there in this article. What about Oxford Companion to Food, Charles Perry, Robert N. Spengler, Ghillie Basan who are contradicting Nabhan?? They are all high quality reliable sources. Nabhan is just one author (minority). As per WP:DUE

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,

It should also be noted that Nabhan isn't citing any primary source to support this claim. Hu741f4 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is significant, but we'll wait and see what the consensus is over there. The "tiny minorities" text does not apply to individual scholars or we'd never be able to report scholarly findings at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There is already a consensus there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilaf&diff=prev&oldid=1359406273 Hu741f4 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion over there seems to have been even more shambolic than over here, but since Fowler&fowler seems to be saying (in an edit comment!) that there is a consensus, I guess we can take it that one exists. I presume the general feeling is that Nabhan is quoting a popular belief rather than using any scholarly source; let's hope they hadn't been reading Wikipedia. I'll remove the claim, but FFR this is no way to proceed, either on this page or anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)