Talk:Boyoz

Recent edits

@EnglishCSMajor: Contrary to your claims, you had not edited the article previously, and when you made your first edits, you did not add anything new ("...sources agree on" even though there are no sources that say otherwise/disagree + overly verbose phrasing, such as "where they introduced the pastry to İzmir's urban culture". Really?). The only addition that could be considered "new" and useful is the sentence regarding the word's etymology, and even that is incomplete information/partially incorrect.

Also I removed "Nathan, Joan. King Solomon's Table." and the other ref "Marks, Rabbi Gil. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food." (since only the source's name was listed and there was no other information regarding verification, such as a page) and added the other sources instead. Regarding "Life & Legacy: A Window into Jewish Life Across the Islamic World", I never removed it. I just moved it to the relevant section. Now that you (hopefully) understand the situation, you need to explain the reasons behind your edits. ภץאคгöร 18:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Why did you completely remove my comment? Re-pasting it here:

"I left a message on your talk page, but I'll copy paste it here.

In the edit history I quite literally corrected myself https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=1346913251&oldid=1346912859 and said I meant the Encyclopedia of Jewish foods, which you clearly missed. Also, I have not removed a single reliable source. If you could actually point to me which source I have removed, that'd be great. On the other hand, you removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=prev&oldid=1343346335) both the Encyclopedia of Jewish food by Mark Gills and a recent 2023 academic source "Life & Legacy: A Window into Jewish Life Across the Islamic World", citing them as "unreliable." In what way are these sources considered unreliable? Also, why do you keep altering it to say 'heritage' when the sources (that even you added) explicitly say the word 'origin?' Please stop disrupting the article. I clearly added my reasons for reverting your edits, but you haven't provided reasons of your own beyond saying "incorrect info + verbose" when the info is quite literally correct and shorter.

If you could address any of these points that'd be great."

I readded The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food and cited the relevant food in the search. Also, you do realize that you’re the one who replaced the “Virtually all sources” into "Many sources agree on", right? Anyone can check the edit history. Why are you blaming me for an edit you made yourself?

You still haven't explained why you keep altering the wording to say 'heritage' instead of 'origin,' even when the sources explicitly say "origin", or why you keep insisting on removing Sephardi Jews as its creator from the info box. I already addressed that Sephardi Jews is an ethnic group, not a religion per your removal earlier, and yet you keep removing it without explanation.

There isn't really a need to explain any of my edits, as my edits are just a reversion of yours. None of the material I added was new besides the brief Spanish etymology. Also, if you could point out which reliable sources I have removed as you accused me of earlier in the edit history, that'd be great. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you refuse or fail to provide any valid reason for your edits, or to address the valid points I raised above, I will clarify once again what you mentioned. The page revision will remain unchanged...

I did not "miss" the Encyclopedia of Jewish Foods; I found it amusing that none of your edit summaries were accurate, and that even the source name you claimed to have added was incorrect.

We are already covering the entire Origin section, thanks to me, and "origin" is not a direct quotation that must be taken verbatim from the sources. The heritage-versus-origin dispute you are trying to force into this discussion is probably the most pointless of your claims. You should first focus on the more serious problems with your edits. If you are truly fixated on the word "origin", I or anyone else can change it at any time. It is not an issue.

I did not claim that it was a religion. You know religion is one of the attributes that ethnicities share, right?

And no, stop right there. If you continue claiming that I wrote "agree on", which I obviously did not, this discussion will turn into something else. "Virtually all sources" was poor wording, and your addition of "agree on" was poor as well, as I already explained above.

You removed the expanded etymology sentence with the Nisanyan reference. Twice. ภץאคгöร 08:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your points. Mind explaining why you went ahead and erased my reply from the Boyoz Talk page earlier? And none of my edit summaries were 'incorrect.' As I said, the one mishap I made was calling it Oxford rather than Encyclopedia, which I immediately corrected in the next edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=1346913251&oldid=1346912859). Whether you indeed missed this or simply decided to ignore it just when you replied your passive agreement comment a couple hours later, who knows.

Also, origin is indeed a phrase that should be written. If you go on practically any other food article, its standard practice to write the food's origin... since thats where it originated from. If it wasn't an issue in the first place, then why do you insist on changing it from the source's wording?

Also, you did call it a religion. Nice try. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=1343346335&oldid=1336994952 So what is your reasoning for removing Sephardi Jews from the info box again?

As for the "Virtually all sources agree on", why are you shifting the agreement to say there is a suddenly an issue with using the word 'agree?' Because you did alter the phrasing from "all" to "many" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=1343346335&oldid=1336994952), and yet now in your reply above you're saying "even though there are no sources that say otherwise/disagree"... right, so why did you change it? And please, let's not pretend that using the word agree is suddenly a poor standard of writing.

As for the reliable sources removed, you did not insert the Nisanyan reference until the edit warring begun (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyoz&diff=1346864738&oldid=1346795468). I have zero issues with keeping this in. The original source, Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity, wrote "The word boyoz comes from the Spanish bollos, the plural form of bollo, which refers to several different kinds of baked products or starchy buns". Now, whether this source is more accurate than Nisanyan, either way, both can be included. That's not really the issue here. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to explain again but here we are. Let's not talk about your edits...

Edit conflict. Your message was deleted because I published my changes at the same time as your message. I did not mean to remove them. I did, however, mean to remove your message from my talk page, and you are expected to follow the rules for editors' talk pages. You cannot ignore them and act arbitrarily. And your edit summaries are incorrect. Read what I provided above.

There is no meaningful difference between the words "heritage" and "origin" here. I wrote the Origin section, not you. It is absurd that you are attacking me over that wording. If I change it to "origin", what exactly do you intend to argue then?

"Nice try"? "You know religion is one of the attributes that ethnicities share, right?", I wrote. Ethnic groups can also be religious or ethnoreligious groups. Describing it as an ethnic group does not change the fact that they may also be defined by religion. So I am not sure what the issue is here.

The problematic part was your addition "agree on" even though you didn't mention or include the opposite. This is purely a readability issue and seems to imply that there are disagreements. There are not. "Virtually all sources" was a very bold claim, one that can not be proven with only a couple of sources. That's why I rewrote it as "Many sources associate...", you changed it to "agree on". The problem isn't that the word is poor (it's not), it's how you use it. It did no improve what was already in the article.

After I added the Nisanyan reference, you still reverted it. The fact remains that you removed it. What is your point here? ภץאคгöร 19:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, coming in from the ANI thread. Just so I can get associated with the discussion, the crux of the argument is summarized in this diff, correct? Tessaract2 (hello) 19:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Not really, but it does address a few of the points the other user mentioned, yes. ภץאคгöร 19:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, since the editor's focus on this article was solely on the word "origin" and the parameter, not their edits, I've made the small edit. ภץאคгöร 19:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bit messy, but from what I can tell the current diff (this one) appears to be the highest quality version. If you two weren't arguing in the edit summaries and edit warring over the origin thing which, for the record, I do think is better than the heritage version it'd look downright collaborative. Job looks done. Y'all should step away for an afternoon snack, methinks. Tessaract2 (hello) 19:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I just got around to reading this right now. Thank you for getting involved, I’m glad the origination and parameters finally got restored <3 I have no more issues with the article. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I am likewise pleased that none of the other problematic additions were accepted, except for these two (one of which was in the article previously anyway). ภץאคгöร 20:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Lol. None of the edits were problematic. Let it go, you don’t always need to have the last word. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

"Lol", indeed... ภץאคгöร 23:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Try to be civil and refrain from making snide comments next time. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a spade. What you were doing and trying to add was wrong and that was stated. Being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, you were not as well. There is no point of replying here since you have not talked about improving the article. ภץאคгöร 18:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it's called being obnoxious. Repeatedly drawing attention to a simple mishap [1] [2] (that I corrected not even a minute later) is nonconstructive behavior. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I literally linked DBO above for your behavior. Move on. This is the article talk page... ภץאคгöร 20:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

And all I did was point out how DBO was far more applicable to your behavior than mine. But you're right that this is the article talk page, so I'll end it here. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: Please don’t throw accusations of AI around lightly, since the wording (especially the word “introduced”) is taken from the cited sources. But since your edit is practically just a more verbose version of mine (which you’ve previously complained about verbosity before…), I don’t have much issue with it. EnglishCSMajor (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)