Talk:Lavash

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Raffi kojian-lavash-103115742.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Restored origins

I have restored the place of origin information and all sources attributed, as this was removed without any discussion. I have also removed the recent "Azernews" source because the author seems to neither have credibility nor qualifications to be considered reliable. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for making these changes without a discussion; I should have been more careful, especially since it is a contentious topic. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say information was removed—I did not remove any information; I added more information. The statement that you have restored lists Armenia and Iran. My edit included both of these, as well as a few other countries. This reflects a sourced statement that I added to the history section, and I think it is more neutral.

If you think the "place of origin" statement needs to include citations, I disagree. I believe this is WP:Citation overkill for two reasons: information that is in the body does not need a citation in the lead, and most of the sources cited did not actually verify the information. (Most of the sources are irrelevant; they make no claim about the origin. Serna-Saldivar 2012 is the only one that says it originated in Armenia. Karizaki 2017 is the only one that says it originated in Iran; however, it attributes the claim to the Encyclopedia of Jewish History, but I checked that encyclopedia and it DOES NOT verify the statement.) These citations are not adequate for verification of the narrow statement. Therefore, we should include the broader statement (listing more countries), or we should remove the statement entirely.

As for AzerNews, I think you are right. I added the source without adequately assessing its reliability; I only checked that it was a legitimate publication, without checking that it was considered credible. It is not reliable enough for historical information, so I should not have included it. Thanks for pointing this out. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The origin information you changed to include additional countries does not have the WP:DUE weight that Armenia/Iran has; hence I restored it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think including Armenia and Iran is due weight? As I explained above, I don't think there are any reliable sources for the Iranian origin, and there is only one source supporting the Armenian origin, but this is from a food scientist, not a historian. From my research, the only historian who lists a region of origin is Gil Marks, who states the origin as the Middle East.
Perhaps it would be best to simply list the region of origin as "West Asia", as this would not place any undue weight. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ken Albala, Darra Goldstein, and Sergio Román Othón Serna Saldívar are all food historians and Peter Reinhart is a respected educator. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither Albala nor Goldstein states that lavash originated in Armenia. Serna-Saldivar does state this, but he is a food scientist, not a historian, so he is not situationally reliable. Reinhardt makes the statement, "Lavash, though usually called Armenian flatbread, also has Iranian roots." This does not quite say that either of these countries are the origin; it's a slightly different statement, and we would need a source that makes a much more direct statement to include it here. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary calls lavash of Armenian origin, as does the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This statement would need a secondary source that is reliable for historical information. A dictionary is not written by historians. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you contested 2/5 sources only, and some dictionaries can be reliable sources. This essay implies some dictionaries are reliable. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your reading of the linked essay. I note the part of the essay that says dictionary definitions are not necessarily precise; I believe the dictionaries at question here did not put too much thought into the specific detail of the origin. And, as I mention above, most of the five sources are irrelevant; they make no claim about the origin. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 08:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Sergio O. Serna-Saldivar (2012). Cereal Grains: Laboratory Reference and Procedures Manual. CRC Press. p. 217.

I’ve yet to hear a policy based explanation how this source is unacceptable. It passes WP:RS pretty clearly; a reliably published secondary source written by an academic no less. Please explain to me which policy on Wikipedia says this source is unacceptable here. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I addressed this above; Serna-Saldivar is a food scientist, not a historian. He's a leading expert within his area of expertise—the chemistry of corn products such as tortillas—but this is a very different subject. Per WP:Context matters: "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." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the turkish translation

@Boublub thou said „for clarification“ when adding the turkish translation, but what does it clarify and what does it really add? By that logic we could also add the kazakh, kyrgyz, turkmen, uzbek and other languages, the translation section is to show the translation of relevant languages of countries where the dish originates, like here it being Armenia and Iran (with there also being proposed etymologies of lavash coming from proto armenian, or it being transmitted to most languages through Persian) Klöterisch (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC) blocked sock of Əzərbəyəniləri Aintabli (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that Turkish is irrelevant; the etymology section mentions that the word partly entered English from Turkish. That being said, I think the best option is to remove the transliterations from the lead paragraph, to avoid any bias. The same information is already in the etymology section, and its inclusion in the lead sentence is a bit cluttered. According to MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, this means it should not be in the lead. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)