Talk:Dolma

William Pokhlyobkin and Armenian origin

Not defending the usage of possible AI here, but the article itself is quite biased in my opinion. It keeps referring to the point that Dolma is very likely of ‘’Armenian origin’’ and that the Turks took it over from them, yet it provides zero evidence for that nor that the word Dolma has any Armenian origins.

‘’The origins of dolma, as suggested by The Oxford Companion to Food, likely stem from Armenian culinary traditions before becoming integrated into Turkish cuisine.’’- What is the evidence for this? Like there is zero explanation for this part nor any evidence.

And then this ‘’On the contrary, Armenians contributed to the cuisine of the Seljuk Turks, so many truly Armenian dishes later became known in Europe through the Turks as, allegedly, Turkish cuisine (for example, dolma).’’ - again, which historic documents confirm such thing? If this isn’t being biased, then I don’t know what else is.

The Armenian name Tolma does comes from the Turkish ‘’Dolma’’. Yet the artcile mentions the Armenian version as the following: ‘’In Armenian, the dish is referred to as tolma in Eastern Armenian and dolma in Western Armenian. The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means "grape".’’- again, this is a Armenian claim for the origin of Dolma (how are Toli and Tolma related and turned into a same name as Dolma?). There is no such coincidence that the name Tolma, almost the exact same as Dolma, already existed before it. Nor is there any such historical evidence before the Ottoman cuisine came to be known.

And later it confirms the name Dolma to be of Turkish origin, on the same page. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've spun this off into a new section, since the previous discussion was no longer productive. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The citations for an Armenian origin were added relatively recently. Reviewing William Pokhlyobkin#Controversies, I don't think we should treat this source as strictly reliable for factual statements. A sentence to summarize this would work, but I don't think the relatively lengthy quote is proportionate or due. Pokhlyobkin seems to have had a history of fabricating sources (huh) and the quote is an emotive and subjective claim.

Regarding the Oxford Companion to Food cite, from Google books it appears it includes dolma in a list of elements of Armenian cuisine "...toasted pumpkin seeds, roasted and salted pistachios, DOLMA (which according to some originated in Armenia and went from there to Turkey), basturma/pastourma, a pungent... etc." The source is not saying this is likely true, only noting parenthetically that it's 'according to some'. Well... okay. Lots of people say lots of things.

I would suggest that based on these sources, this should be at least rephrased if not removed. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The article required a complete overhaul. It primarily consisted of blog posts, YouTube links, various Turkish and Armenian food sites, and numerous other unreliable sources. I'd also suggest giving it extended-confirmed protection, as new editors frequently appear with the intent to alter this article's content. As for Pokhlebkin, he is a laureate of international awards and a well-known, widely published author. Criticism of his work concerns only the topic of vodka, mainly because, as a humanities scholar, he misunderstood some basic physical laws. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Being well-known and widely published doesn't automatically make Pokhlyobkin a reliable source. His article lists a few awards (being international is also mostly irrelevant) but none of them are sourced. Only one is (ostensibly) independently notable. If, for example, a reliable source explains what the Hugo Grotius Prize is and why it is significant to William Pokhlyobkin's legacy, please add it to that article. For now, to determine reliability, we can only go by what is supported by sources.

William Pokhlyobkin#Controversies covers a lot more than just basic physical laws. This source, cited at that article, seems pretty damning in describing how "Pokhlebkin's fabrications [had] been elevated to the status of legend" and says that Pokhlyobkin is no longer taken seriously by academics in the field. That book cites this review, which starts with "If you read this book, keep a bottle of strong vodka by your side to stun the more thoughtful parts of your brian." It gets less flattering from there. It is very much not just about basic physical laws. This is about fabricating or misrepresenting historical details and also "crackpot hypotheses", per that review.

You have also not addressed the issue of the Oxford Companion to Food citation. It does not appear to support the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Grayfell, I don't remember whether I had free access to The Oxford Companion to Food or not. Most of the information I added from this book most likely comes from the Russian Wikipedia. If you have an open-source version, please share it so we can double-check everything.

Regarding Pokhlyobkin, I've included positive feedback from Russian Wikipedia to highlight the monumental effort he put into his work. None of the critical sources point out inaccuracies in the sections on Armenian or Azerbaijani cuisines that he covered. I can also provide all the quotes and page references from Pokhlyobkin's books, which anyone can verify themselves. Pokhlyobkin is also widely cited in many Wikipedia articles.

As I understand it, the criticism in History of Vodka comes from another historian, David Christian (historian). Basically, one reliable source contradicts another, which happens in many similar situations. This shouldn't prevent the use of a reliable source in an article, as long as there is proper attribution and a neutral interpretation. Don't you agree? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Please be very careful when copy/pasting from other Wikipedia projects. Verify sources and make sure the added content complies with this Wikipedia's standard. You must also follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

As for proper attribution and such, sorry, I think that question is loaded, so I don't really agree. I don't think this level of detail provides a neutral interpretation, I do not think it is neutral to include an obscure, multi-sentence quote from a minority perspective. I would consider this a potential fringe source.

Putting monumental effort into a work doesn't make it inherently reliable. It appears we accept that criticism of Pokhlyobkin was not due solely to his poor understanding of basic science (which doesn't seem like much of a defense, to be honest). It was not only one historian who has noted these issues. I have already cited two works by different academic authors which cast serious doubt on the credibility of these claims. Even this contemporary review: JSTOR 24657298 of A History of Vodka, which accepted his underlying argument, still recognized that his sources were poor and many of his claims were outlandish.

Am I reading your comment correctly that you have not read the Oxford source, and instead copy/pasted it from somewhere else? Above I included a link to Google Books for that work. If you added the book without having read it, or have completely forgotten what it said after only a year, than we should remove it until someone who has read more comprehensively can verify it.

If the best sources you can find for this are one vague and misinterpreted passing mention and one controversial, prolific, and partisan writer, than something has gone wrong. There are many sources suggesting other origins. Ignoring them and only citing these two for the Armenian origin is, at best, damning with faint praise. Please find better sources for this claim.

Please also be mindful of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey user:Barseghian Lilia, will you respond? Please join the discussion. We've shared our concerns about the issues on this page and are requesting changes. It would be helpful if you continued the discussion. If you don't, I'll revert the edits. Haydi123 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your issue? Because I have an issue with your series of edits too which erase mention of Armenia. Pokhlyobkin is still a historian, and he’s not the only source for this. At the very minimum, we should a) add sources that state that the origin is hotly contested between Turkic and Armenian origins; b) add the Armenian etymology. See sources:

• "From toli ("grape leaf") and ma, meaning something like "wrapped" in Urartu, the ancient language of Lake Van proto-Armenians." - Anya von Bremzen, National Dish Around the World in Search of Food, History, and the Meaning of Home, p. 262
• A culinary conflict in South Caucasus

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Both of those sources look very useful. Pokhlyobkin's status as a historian is debatable, as he did not finish his dissertation due to his argumentative personality. 'Historian' can mean anyone who studies history, but it can also mean a position in higher education, which did not have when he wrote any of his works on cuisine. Anyway... My proposal is to remove the quote as unnecessary and instead summarize his position in a single sentence as the opinion of a Russian writer on food history. The Oxford Companion to Food reference doesn't seem useful, and it should be cut. I think the two sources you propose would be much more useful in explaining the argument itself. This would be a better foundation for expanding the article, which would contextualize Pokhlyobkin's position. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I've had trouble quoting this book, so I'd like you to comment on the reliability of this person's source. Please review the source this person cites to claim the word is Armenian. To summarize briefly, on pages 262-263, the author of the book speaks with an Armenian chief in Armenia. This user, however, thought this was a good etymological source. The same user also stated that Sevan Nişanyan was not a reliable source. Haydi123 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sevan Nisanyan is irrelevant in this discussion and his etymology website is WP:SPS unless proven reliable, per RSN discussion. Also I don't "claim" one or the other, I'm giving the Armenian explanation for the etymology per sources that was lacking here. Sources can have different explanations for the same thing. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell Thanks for your input. I'm a bit busy now, I'll give my thoughts on your comment later today. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell FYI one of the users opposed to the first source here so I found another one:

• The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content. [12]

Just leaving it here before I respond to you. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I will write the summary I wrote about this source here again: The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting." As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of stuffed. The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926), whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)." In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Moreover, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; That's my summary. Haydi123 (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This comment has been copy-pasted 4 different times. I'll respond in RSN for the sake of consistency (since it's source discussion) and to not waste everyone's time. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I also have a problem with your editing and the sources you provided. Have you read the source you gave me, claiming the word is Armenian? Let's read it together. Here's what the source says: Haydi123 (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Haydi123 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I read it, I literally quoted it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that modern etymologists don't discuss the etymology of this word. It's widely accepted as Turkish. Sources claiming the word is Armenian or Urartian are unreliable. The source you cited is a prime example. You haven't read your source, and you probably assumed we wouldn't either. The author speaks with an Armenian chef, who claims the word comes from Urartian, which the author disputes (which you quoted as the author's own opinion). Later, the same chef lists numerous dish names, claiming they're all Armenian (many of them foreign), and you share this claim as credible. I didn't know we were supposed to take seriously the etymological views of a nationalist Armenian chef at a Random restaurant. Haydi123 (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

If the author Anya von Bremzen, whose book has been Named a Best Book of 2023 by Financial Times, The Guardian, and BBC's The Food Programme, included it in her book, then she thought it was noteworthy. Certainly, unfounded accusations by a Wikipedia editor like yourself ("views of a nationalist Armenian chef at a Random restaurant.") are uncalled for. In any case, this is also not the only source supporting Armenian etymology, see below:

• The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

"If the author, Anya von Bremzen, whose book has been named a Best Book of 2023 by the Financial Times, The Guardian, and BBC's The Food Programme, included it in her book, then she thought it was noteworthy." First, the author is telling a story from her travels; she's not writing an article about the etymology of this word. Second, the author herself doesn't claim the word is Armenian; a chef she spoke with claims this, which the author disputes. The same thing happens with other food names, and the author disputes all of them. And you're sharing this book saying, "Look, this book supports Armenian etymology," that's the problem. I want other editors to read and comment on this source, and I'll wait for their response. Haydi123 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok so why do you keep ignoring the additional source I provided? I pinged you below. And do not split this discussion, it's visible to all users. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't even looked into that yet, and why are you trying to divert the topic? We're discussing why the first source you provided isn't reliable, but you're trying to divert the topic with another source without responding. I wanted to discuss the issue in a separate thread because I want it to be more visible and get more people involved in the conversation. But my text isn't showing up; I don't know if it's been shared. Haydi123 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Haydi123 You opposed to one of my sources, I provided another one even more recently published from 2025. How is this "diversion", I'm literally showing that other and more modern sources support Armenian etymology too and you do not respond to it. If you don't have valid opposition to my additional source then say so, I don't got all day. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I've responded to my other comments; read them. You've gone off topic because, while the reliability of the first source is already being debated, you're sharing another source I consider unreliable and prompting me to discuss it. I also think citing your first source as a source for etymology here was incredibly problematic. Therefore, I believe readers should discuss this action. Haydi123 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing I said here was off topic. I've heard your concerns in regards to the first source and provided a new additional source, what's "problematic" in that? Don't just throw around unfounded accusations. I heard your criticism, read the full quotes, and moved on to a newer better source taking into account your concerns - I haven't even used any of the sources in the article.

I strongly disagree with your "research" on the newer source though, but I won't respond to you because you can't stop splitting this discussion in multiple different places. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

"I've heard your concerns in regards to the first source and provided a new additional source" No, while we were discussing the reliability of the first source, you didn't properly respond to any of my writing. You initially presented your source as if it was credible, asserting things the source itself didn't claim, and claiming that the author had won an award, therefore, everything the author included in their book was true. I responded to all of these, but without properly responding to my comments, you sent me a second source and asked me to comment on it. I wrote a lengthy article explaining why I believe this source is also unreliable, and you're once again avoiding addressing my concerns: "I strongly disagree with your "research" on the newer source though, but I won't respond to you because you can't stop splitting this discussion in multiple different places". Therefore, I've shared these sources both in the discussion section of the dolma page and in this section, because I don't think a one-on-one discussion with you is helpful. I want more people to engage with the topic. Haydi123 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Haydi123 Here again, yet another source explaining Armenian etymology. This is the second time I'm pinging you.

• The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content. [12]

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting." As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of dolma. The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926), whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)." In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Furthermore, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; that's my summary. Haydi123 (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Haydi123 Do not split this discussion , it's not productive. Answer my comment here, what is your problem with the other source I provided?

Bridging past and present: exploring Cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting, 2025

Are you going to make more comments on it like the other one or are we done on this? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Regarding Journal of Cannabis Research source, it's BMC/Springer, but it's just a single half-sentence passing mention cited to Hrachia Acharian's 1926 Armenian Etymological Dictionary. This claim is contradicted by the 2025 dictionary cited in the second half of the same sentence. While Acharian is highly regarded, that dictionary is not flawless and age matters. The easiest way to handle this is with attribution, assuming someone who has access to it and reads Armenian can verify what it says. The cite to the Journal of Cannabis Research is too flimsy for any specific claims of etymology as a basic fact. It is not necessarily a bad source in general, but it doesn't seem useful here.

The von Bremzen book is more useful to document the existence of a claim by some Armenians that the word originated from the Urartian language (which is distinct from the Armenian language). The source itself is skeptical of this claim, specifically noting that "most people" believe it originated with Turkish. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. First half of the sentence explains what the Armenian version of the word means (tolma), second half explains it in other languages (dolma). These shows different explanations of the same thing in different languages, of course these explanations aren’t going to be the same as they’re unrelated languages, that doesn’t necessarily mean contradiction:

• The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli which means ‘grape’, whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means ‘stuffed’ in Turkish, which can be referred both to the wrapping leaves or their content.

You asked about reducing Pokhlebkin, I agree and propose the following (putting the quote as citation at the end):

• Culinary historian William Pokhlebkin maintains that dolma originated in Armenian cuisine and, after Armenians influenced Seljuk Turkish cooking, the dish spread to Europe where it was widely misidentified as Turkish. [Putting the original quotation here as citation]

The Oxford source is fine, it’s WP:RS and I don’t see a reason to remove it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're just going to brush-off what I'm saying, is there any reason to continue this discussion?

As I said, we have to evaluate all sources for how they are used, not just in isolation. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

In this context, the source is very week for any definitive statements of fact. This is not the article for "tolma". If we're going to connect this to a different word, we need a solid reliable source, not a passing mention in an obscure journal which is focused on an unrelated topic.

I've also already explained why saying he was a 'culinary historian' is potentially misleading. Further, "maintains" is loaded language. When in doubt "say" or some neutral synonym is better, per WP:CLAIM. This is a contentious source from an author with a documented history of unsupported claims and outright fabrication. We do not have to imply he must be wrong, but that doesn't mean he must be right, either.

The Oxford source should not be restored for this. That wording was, again, inappropriately loaded. That source doesn't appear to support the wording it was attached to, so it is not a reliable source in that context. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You suggested to summarize Pokhlebkin position in one sentecne, I agreed and gave you my proposal. If you don’t agree with it, by all means give your own proposal and we can discuss from there.

Tolma and Dola are the same dish, there is no seperate Tolma article and there shouldn’t be. They’re just different words (by one letter) to describe the dish in different languages (Armenian/Turkish).

If we're going to connect this to a different word, we need a solid reliable source, not a passing mention in an obscure journal which is focused on an unrelated topic

I have a problem with this characterization because we’re not connecting it to a different word, we’re explaining what the dish means in a different language (Tolma’s own meaning in Armenian, the same dish), not disputing Dolma explanation in Turkish. Because we’re not disputing anything and just providing simple linguistic explanation, why do we need a specialist source? If we were to dispute Dolma word saying that Tolma is the only way to describe, it’s more valid, etc, then yes by all means, we’ll need a specialist source equal or of better quality than the ones used for Dolma’s explanation. But I’m simply suggesting for the Armenian name of the dish to be explained and what it means, which this source is enough for imo. I checked and it’s already in the Etymology section explained with correct attribution to “in Armenian” (“In Armenian, the dish is referred to as tolma in Eastern Armenian and dolma in Western Armenian. The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means "grape".), so I have no further issues on this - but I would have a problem if you’re suggesting to remove it, do you? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, I'm really busy at the moment, but I'll try to find the time to provide a new, rewritten version of the history and etymology section based on the existing sources in the article, as they don't accurately reflect the information in those sources, including The Oxford Companion to Food. I also plan to add a section on the controversies involving Azerbaijan and Armenia, supported by WP:RSes, so moderators and other editors can see why this article is considered a contentious topic. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hey Woxic1589, are there any other sources in the article that you find unreliable? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. My main point is that the used sources are quite biased/one sided. It keeps claiming that Dolma is somehow of Armenian origin, but the name itself is of Turkish origin as the Armenian name has no such historical record of ever been used during that period (before the Ottoman cuisine came to be known). It basically tries to tell us that many Turkish dishes are of Armenian origin, yet it provides zero evidences, historic records, name origins etc. Its just very vague. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Woxic1589, etymology does not always indicate origin. Pokhlebkin notes that some dishes from Armenian and Georgian cuisines are common in Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkey, often under Turkic names, which makes it difficult to determine their true national origin. I think this is quite logical. For example, Armenian gata is known as kətə in Azerbaijan and Turkey, where it also has its own meaning (!): "layer." From an etymological perspective, it might seem that gata is more Azerbaijani than Armenian, but in reality, it's the other way around. That's the nonsense of etymologies in the region where I live. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that, but the sources used on this page claim that the dish Dolma already existed in the Armenian cuisine, but it doesn’t explain why the Armenian ‘’Dolma’’ uses the Turkish name instead of its original Armenian name (does that even exist?). And considering that ‘’Tolma’’ for sure is derived from the Turkish ‘’Dolma’’, it doesn’t provide us with any sort of a historical evidence that the Armenians were making ‘’Dolma’’ before the Ottoman era. It basically skips the Turkish/Turkic origin, and simply claims that many Turkish dishes with Turkish names, were of ‘’Armenian’’ origin without showing us any historical records, evidences. This just screams biased/one sided editing to me. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Grayfell left a comment, and I recommend you respond to them. They explained the issues well, but I wanted to add something.

"He was the author of over 50 books and a large number of articles, but most of his works were only printed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Because so many of his works were printed for the first time simultaneously, some speculated that "Pokhlyobkin" was a pen name of a whole artel of writers." Haydi123 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Haydi123 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wrong claims about the etymology

"In Armenian, the dish is referred to as tolma in Eastern Armenian and dolma in Western Armenian. The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means "grape"." This claim is absolutely false, yet it's consistently posted here. I've looked at the concerns about etymology on the dolma discussion page, and they all say the same thing. This claim has been reposted here for years, despite being false. It's been reported numerous times on the discussion page. All modern, reliable sources agree that dolma is a Turkish word. There's no debate about this; as this article states, the word is Turkish. I find the attempts to link this word to Armenian or Urartian malicious and nationalistic. Etymology is a serious field, not a toy. Haydi123 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't come both from Turkish dolmak and Armenian toli, yet the text was saying, in brief, "The word is from Turkish, except when an Armenian prepares it, in which case the word is from Armenian". That was a problem. Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Haydi123 (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we need to be an extended confirmed user to edit this page?

Do we need to be an extended confirmed user to edit this page? We've been discussing the omissions, inaccuracies, and unreliable sources on the dolma page for several days, and even longer. Several users have expressed concerns about these issues, and many agree that the errors on the page should be changed. I shared my views on this, but User:Barseghian Lilia hasn't responded to me, despite responding to users under the same post. He avoids addressing concerns about sources and biased opinions, and despite repeated complaints that the author, whom he presents as trustworthy, is unprofessional, he refuses to listen. I've been editing this page for two days to address these issues. I've deleted untrusted sources, corrected some errors, and also cited the book where the word first appeared. In short, I've made a number of changes, which you can see in the page history. Today, Barseghian deleted all these changes and re-added old and incorrect information. His reasoning is as follows: "reverting a non-WP:XC user (WP:GS/AA), please reach WP:CON in the ongoing discussion before making further changes". Haydi123 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected. That means you don't have to be an extended confirmed user to be allowed to edit it. The article, however, is also under general sections/being treated as a contentious topic. I don't see where, for this article, this is specifically called for, but typically there is a 1RR limit: having made an edit and having had it reverted, you need to leave it alone until there's a consensus in favor of your edit.

I haven't been following the discussion but if Barseghian Lilla thinks that "consensus" means that everybody has to agree, they're wrong. You should, indeed, read WP:CONSENSUS to find out what's involved in establishing that one has been reached. If you achieve that, then edit the article according to consensus. If Barseghia Lilla reverts after that, then they're being disruptive. On the other hand, of a consensus hasn't been reached, then, yes, you do need to leave the article alone with respect to the aspects that are under discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, that was helpfull. Haydi123 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you think these are good etymological sources?

@KhndzorUtogh gave me two sources while discussing the etymology of the word dolma. We were discussing the sources they gave under the "William Pokhlyobkin and Armenian origin" discussion page, but I want more people to see them and participate in the discussion. I think my previous post isn't showing up because it's too long, so I'll write a shorter version here. This is the first source they gave. Please read pages 262-263 very carefully. Let's discuss whether this source is a good one: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=PY33EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA262&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The second source they gave: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11780856/

Haydi123 (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I will share the summary I wrote about the second source here again: The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting." As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of "dolma". The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926), whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)" In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Moreover, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; That's my summary. Haydi123 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2026

~2026-68750-0 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Dolma is Armenian wish! It was never Turkish. Maybe sometime they made dolma, which belonged to Armenian cuisine. Check the history then write something

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mellk (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

To clarify and not let this become an "edit war", the anonymous user has been reverting edits and, I'm guessing accidentally, has been duplicating a paragraph.

Now, to explain my own edits, the Hanson source was removed as redundant. It does not back the sentence in which it was cited. In addition, I'll provide the quote from Roden which I added in my own words: "Their origin is not certain, though both the Turks and the Greeks claim them as their creation. They do not appear in the very early Persian and Arab manuscripts, but seem to have been known at the time of the Ottoman Empire, and were served at the lavish banquets of the Sultans. Perhaps they were developed at this time; but they may equally well have been adopted from the vanquished Greeks, who claim a rich culinary tradition stemming from their early civilization".

The source was already in the article, and gave a lot of detail to it, but it only did not include the part I highlighted. Hence, I added it. I also included the quote: "stuffed vegetables were obviously developed as a "court cuisine," invented and prepared for a rich and powerful leisured class to excite their curiosity and titillate their palates, as well as to satisfy their desire for ostentation", properly attributing it to the authors. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:GS/AA. You mustn't edit articles related to Armenia, Azerbaijan or both at any case, no matter what. I will revert those edits. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits (again)

@S.Sveh can you please explain your revert? You claim that the "first sentence appears to be WP:SYNTH as sources don't explicitly state dolma existed in the Byzantine period or the Turkish adoption from Greeks"... However the source which was cited clearly says:

Their origin is not certain, though both the Turks and the Greeks claim them as their creation. They do not appear in the very early Persian and Arab manuscripts, but seem to have been known at the time of the Ottoman Empire, and were served at the lavish banquets of the Sultans. Perhaps they were developed at this time; but they may equally well have been adopted from the vanquished Greeks, who claim a rich culinary tradition stemming from their early civilization.

Whereas Davidson (1983) says:

Byzantine koftathes were obviously what we refer to today by the Turkish word dolmathes.

So I don't understand how the "sources don't explicitly state dolma existed in the Byzantine period or the Turkish adoption from Greeks" as you said. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I've been busy lately so I haven't had the chance to respond.

I didn't revert your recent addition, I simply moved it into a more appropriate paragraph and rephrased it more accordingly to the cited sources as I believe it required both changes for the following reasons:

1) The sentence "The Turks might have adopted the dish from the Greeks, as it already existed in the Byzantine Empire" appears to be original research and synthesis.

Regarding the first clause ("The Turks might have adopted the dish from the Greeks"), the cited source by Claudia Roden states:

Dolma to the Turks, dolmathes to the Greeks, dolmeh to the Persians, and mahshi to the Arabs, stuffed vegetables are the great family favorites, the party pieces and festive dishes of the Turks, the Uzbeks, the Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, Lebanese, Saudi Arabians, and North Africans. Each country has developed its own variations. Their origin is not certain, though both the Turks and the Greeks claim them as their creation. They do not appear in the very early Persian and Arab manuscripts, but seem to have been known at the time of the Ottoman Empire, and were served at the lavish banquets of the Sultans. Perhaps they were developed at this time; but they may equally well have been adopted from the vanquished Greeks, who claim a rich culinary tradition stemming from their early civilization.

— Roden 1974, p. 298

From my reading of the text, Roden doesn't explicitly state that the Turks adopted the dish from the Greeks. In the passage "Perhaps they were developed at this time; but they may equally well have been adopted from the vanquished Greeks", the antecedent of "they" is stuffed vegetables, so the author is basically implying in a passive voice that the stuffed vegetables known in the Ottoman Empire were either possibly developed during this period or may have been adopted from the Greeks without telling us who the adopter is. Because the sentence "the Turks might have adopted the dish from the Greeks" introduces an unspecified adopter ("the Turks") and seems to combine Roden's discussion of the Ottoman Empire with the passive adoption, it appears to be original research and synthesis, which becomes an issue as Wikipedia is about attribution where "material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. For this reason I suggest rephrasing the sentence without identifying the adopter as "the Turks". Also, the accompanying citation to Andrew Dalby doesn't discuss the Turkish adoption at all, so I think this should be removed for this clause.

As for the second clause ("as it already existed in the Byzantine Empire"), the two cited sources by Rena Salaman (the chapter was written by her, not Alan Davidson) and Andrew Dalby also don't make that statement explicitly:

Furthermore, Pontian Greeks had a dish which they called koftathes - from the Greek verb kopto, to cut or to chop. These were, apparently, vine leaves filled with small pieces of meat; modern Greek keftethes or koftas in India and the Middle East are roughly similar types of hamburgers, some herby and others spicy, with or without sauce. Unlike these, Byzantine koftathes were obviously what we refer to today by the Turkish word dolmathes.

— Salaman 1983, p. 185

Where classical cooks had wrapped food in pickled fig leaves, thria, it seems to have been in late Roman and early Byzantine times that stuffed vine leaves were used in similar recipes, thus becoming the parents of modern dolmadhes.

— Dalby 1997, p. 189-190

Salaman links Pontic Greek stuffed vine leaves (koftathes) from the Byzantine period to modern dolmades, most likely to clarify that they weren't the Greek meatballs (keftethes) that we refer to today, but she doesn't explicitly state that dolma itself existed at the time. When Dalby writes that stuffed vine leaves used during the Roman and Byzantine periods are the "parents" of modern dolmades, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the modern dish "already existed" back then, just like how Latin is the ancestor of modern Italian without Italian having existed in the Roman Empire.

But I don’t think these sources should be used for making factual statements about dolma in general, as both Salaman and Dalby discuss Byzantine stuffed vine leaves in relation to dolmades rather than dolma, and the problem here is that the terms don't mean the same thing. In Western and Greek terminology, dolmades refers almost exclusively to stuffed vine leaves, whereas dolma denotes a family of stuffed dishes encompassing vegetables, leaves, meats, seafood and offal, many of which use New World vegetables that weren't even available yet during the Byzantine period. In this case, the sentence “as it already existed in the Byzantine Empire” is quite overgeneralized and thus appears to be original research, and might actually be misleading. Therefore I believe these two sources are best appropriate for documenting the early history of stuffed vine leaves during the Byzantine Empire and should at least be rephrased to better attribute to the sources.

2) The placement raises a weight concern.

The reason why I changed the placement of your recent addition was because it's supported by fewer sources compared to the Ottoman view. Since neutrality requires all significant viewpoints to be represented in proportion to their prominence, including prominence of placement, minority views shouldn't be given equal prominence to majority views per due and undue weight. The opening paragraph of the history section is currently summarizing the development of dolma within the Ottoman court cuisine, which is supported by several sources that specifically talks about the history of dolma and consistently discussed throughout the article. In contrast, Roden is currenly the only cited source who suggests a possible Greek origin to dolma, while Dalby and Salaman discuss Byzantine stuffed vine leaves restrictively in relation to dolmades, so it's less prominent than the Ottoman view.

Therefore, for proper weight and attribution to the source, I think that Roden's argument on the Greek origin would be better placed alongside other proposed alternative origins, such as the Armenian one, and I suggest the following rephrase while keeping the quotation:

"According to Claudia Roden, the dish may have been adopted from the Greeks, though she also argues that "stuffed vegetables were obviously developed as a 'court cuisine', invented and prepared for a rich and powerful leisured class to excite their curiosity and titillate their palates, as well as to satisfy their desire for ostentation."

As for the Byzantine sources by Dalby and Salaman, for the same reasons, I propose that they should be discussed within the overview of early stuffing practices during the Abbasid, Roman, Yuan periods with the following rephrase:

"According to Andrew Dalby, stuffed vine leaves that seem to have been used in recipes during the late Roman and early Byzantine times are the predecessors of modern dolmades. Rena Salaman argues that dolmades are the modern equivalent to the Pontic Greek dish koftathes, which were apparently vine leaves filled with small pieces of meat rather than the meatballs keftethes."

I hope this clarifies the reason why I made these changes. S.sveh (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue with Haydi123

Can we take action against the account? Tolma is not stuffed vegetable, it doesn‘t require a second look to see that it is wrapped in grape leaves or cabbage, nothing is stuffed. Sure, there is a variant where eggplant is stuffed, though that is not the typical Tolma that is referred to. I mean please just prepare some yourself and see how there is no stuffing action going on. This dish is also very well known in the Balkans, where it is also prepared by wrapping in exactly grape leaves, not any other, or in the winter in cabbage leaves. It is known as Sarma or Sarmale there, which can be seen as a Turkish word, though said Balkan countries have heavily added Turkish words in their dictionary after being their feudal slaves for hundred of years.

Therefore, the (backed by sources, no matter if you like them or not) Armenian claim that Tolma has ancient origins, is at least as viable as the Turkish one. We have to keep in mind that, like it or not, Turkey has a shameful history of claiming the foods and local cuisines and cultures of the peoples they conquered and ruled over as their own. There is no issue in calling them Ottoman, as arguably they were spread to their modern extent solely because of the Ottoman Empire, however connecting them to modern-day Turkey is a nationalistic stretch. Most dishes called Turkish are Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Kurdish and especially Persian in origin. This is not trying to dissect or discredit Turkish history, it is a nod to the simple historic fact that before Ataturk nobody really saw themselves as a „Turk“ more than as a religious association (against the Christian „old locals“). Yet, Turks do not wish to accept this, and haunt Balkan and Armenian pages. Haydi123 is one such person that works on Wikipedia to advance such aggressive actions. These are the same people that claim Lavash as irrevocably theirs.

You can cry bias whenever someone brings up facts you prefer to forget. Turkey is a country that depends on the cultures of others. Instead of honouring them, they claim it as their own. This is absolutely not acceptable in the modern day, where respect and brotherhood among nations is not an option, but a pretequisite to be seen as a normal nation. Turkey consistently fails this, and we don‘t have to play naive and ignore this. This behaviour is typical of nationalist Turks, and if Wikipedia is any serious site, it would make due with people pushing propaganda and aiming to silence local heritage and cumture.

Not an Armenian btw. ~2026-41939-79 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The distinction that some make between "wrapped" and "stuffed" approaches the pedantic for me. Leaves stuffed with a filling or a filling wrapped in leaves—I'm indifferent to which way the dish is described. Either way, it's something inside something else. Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)