Talk:Bakarkhani

Please don't replace "Bangladesh" with Indian subcontinent as the origin place without any discussion. We have already reached a consensus that the bread originated in Bangladesh according to the reliable sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note if it really does prove there's consensus for your changes, Za-ari-masen, I will supplant the second partial block (which still allows you to edit this article talk page, by the way) which I just applied to your account with a strong warning against further edit warring. It does seem as if the onus is on you to demonstrate that consensus has been actually achieved, though. El_C 15:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Even though it didn't existed before 1971 but this bread did? Makes no sense. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, please take a look at the thread above, Talk:Bakarkhani#Unsourced_POV_pushing_by_Gotitbro. Also, if you remember, I did predict in your talkpage that IPs and accounts with few edits would appear to reinstate the unsourced version and this is exactly what is happening. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather you prove it to me here, in this thread — which you are so far failing to do. El_C 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

pinging @UserNumber: who was the neutral participant in the dispute. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, this was the last comment of the thread after which UserNumber edited the article based on the consensus and none of the participants objected. That essentially makes it a consensus.Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen, fair enough. Now I just need you to demonstrate you understand how what vandalism is not applies to this dispute, after which you could be unblocked. Also, NavjotSR has concerns, which I would like you to address, as well. El_C 16:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: This was acceptable, what Username put, but Za-ari-masen went on replacing with Bangladesh here. Also, the sources listed state Sylhet region as an origin. Which is divided between both India and Bangladesh. Which Za-ari-masen also excluded, and removed the source. 2600:1001:B02E:E15C:61CE:670E:BF59:56F7 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, I fully understand what constitutes vandalism, if you still believe I'm incompetent about the policies I will again make thorough reads on those pages. What happened here is, IPs from the ISP are making the same unsourced POV edits even after discussions that made me feel like they were disruptive and not good faith edits. Perhaps, I was wrong. For NavjotSR, I would refer to the source from Banglapedia. If there is any confusion over interpretation of the source, I would refer to the discussion in the thread mentioned above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not fully understand it if you label this content dispute "obvious vandalism" — what is obvious to me, is that it is not obvious. As for NavjotSR, I would rather you two had a more substantive conversation. Please stop referring us to the lengthy thread above per se. — that is unhelpful. Summarize what you need to and/or point to specific diffs from that thread. I need more pointed, detailed and better-documented responses from you, overall. El_C 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, Banglapedia does not confirm the origin. It states the popularity, the other sources three sources mentions Sylhet region and Kashmir;^[1][2][3] Sylhet is divided between India and Bangladesh and Kashmir between India and Pakistan. 2600:1001:B02E:E15C:61CE:670E:BF59:56F7 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you even take a look at those Bengali sources? All of them are actually stating Bakarkhani is a dish from Old Dhaka complete opposite of what you are arguing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Old Dhaka and Sylhet region. It was created by Sylhetis, that is clear in the Bengali sources. Sylhet and Sylhetis are equally divided between India and Bangladesh. Plus, timesofindia states both Kashmir and Bengal. You are replacing with Bangladesh only, that is not true. We all agreed above. 2600:1001:B02E:E15C:61CE:670E:BF59:56F7 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The articles state that Bakarkhani is made and found in Old Dhaka and people who came from Sylhet District are involved in making the bread. The Sylhet District itself refer to the present-day Sylhet Division of Bangladesh, Sylhet region is a different thing. In any case, please refer to this post by UserNumber who himself first mentioned about Sylhet in this article. He states himself that only few sources mention Sylhet but Bakarkhani is widely regarded as dish from Old Dhaka. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, I already said that I was wrong in labeling them as "obvious vandalism", apologies if I couldn't make myself clear. As for the interpretation, please take a look at the posts by Ibadibam and Alivardi who were both uninvolved editors. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to evaluate the content. If you reach an impasse with normal talk page discussion, you might benefit from codifying the consensus through a dispute resolution request such as a Request for Comment. While the discussion takes its course, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed. I'm just not sure which it is at this time. El_C 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, You said "fair enough", I thought you agreed that there was indeed a consensus. Also, shouldn't this edit made by UserNumber after the discussion as an uninvolved editor be the status quo? And am I eligible to get unblocked after explaining my position? Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not unblocking you just so you revert again. I said "fair enough," but that did not mean all conditions were met. The status quo ante version would be the version before this entire dispute started, not just this latest iteration of it. El_C 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, could you please tell me what else should be done to meet the conditions? Do I need to explain anything specific? Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

On further consideration, I would rather see the discussion progressing further a bit before allowing either you or the IP the ability to edit the article, so as to avoid further edit warring on the part of either one of you. El_C 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a mistake. I was incorrect to state Greater Sylhet as the source which I referenced talks about Sylhet District in particular (which previously included the Moulvibazar District and parts of Habiganj District and Sunamganj District, now known as Sylhet Division) and not the greater region (known as Greater Sylhet) surrounding it, and so this shows that Bakarkhani is very much a Bangladeshi origin bread and not Indian. There is not a single piece of evidence to show that its origins lie in modern-day India.UserNumber (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Can you take a look at the history of this talk page and continued suppression of RfC by UserNumber? I am not willing to edit war over this but I know UserNumber is totally wrong here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. UserNumber, please don't make up rules on-the-fly. El_C 17:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There are many references added to cite the fact that Bakarkhani originated in Old Dhaka during the Mughal period in modern day Bangladesh. Do not remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.117.204.58 (talk • contribs)

@Kmzayeem: Your misleading edit summary has failed to change the fact that RfC was closed as no consensus, which means we are supposed to retain the pre-RfC version.

Banglapedia is unreliable, source. TBSnews copied the sentence from Wikipedia's version of that time.

These sources are not reliable than the Times of India.

Now let's take a look at scholarly sources:

• J Inder Singh Kalra, Pradeep Das Gupta. Prashad:Cooking with Indian Masters. Allied Publishers. p. 129. A rare leavened Indian bread, Bakarkhani is a popular with the Muslims of the Deccan.

• Jyoti Prakash Tamang. Ethnic Fermented Foods and Beverages of India: Science History and Culture. Springer. p. 238. Bakarkhani is another traditionally thick crispy-layered Kashmiri flatbread similar to puff pastry in appearance. Historical accounts have suggested that bakarkhani belongs to the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent and is believed that this Mughlai bread has been originated from the Central Asia and arrived to the Indian subcontinent as part of Mughal dynasty.

It seems scholars don't want to make a mention of an "Old Dhaka" or a "Bangladesh".

The version, which has been restored by me, Gotitbro, Aman.kumar.goel is clearly in line with these scholarly sources. This is why I would urge you to stop with the misleading edit summaries and edit warring. Additionally, I am giving you an opportunity to self-revert since your edits right now. NavjotSR (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@NavjotSR: I'm not sure which edit summary you found misleading. You are reverting edits arguing there is no consensus, if you want to revert to a stable version, this was the version before the RfC, this was the version at the end of the RfC, none of which matches the revision you are reverting to. As for the sources:

• Banglapedia is a reliable source and I don't see any decision/consensus claiming it to be unreliable. A blanket statement like "it's unreliable" doesn't help, you need to prove why it is unreliable.
• I don't see any similarity between TBSNews and the version you linked. TBS: "This dry and crispy delicacy is a traditional breakfast item that originated from Old Dhaka", the earlier revision of the article: "Bakarkhani or Baqarkhani (Bengali: বাকরখানি), also known as bakar khani roti, is a thick, spiced flat-bread originating in Old Dhaka, East Bengal (now Bangladesh) during the time of Mughal rule and now eaten throughout the rest of the Indian subcontinent." Doesn't look copied in any sense. The source was rather added by LucrativeOffer.
• The Tamang source is WP:CIRCULAR, it has been already discussed by Za-ari-masen and myself in the RfC above. It has been copied from this revision: "also known as bakar khani roti, is a thick, spiced flat-bread that is part of the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent. This Mughali bread travelled all the way from the Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent during the time of the Mughals"
• Kalra & Gupta is a Cookbook, not a WP:RS.
• TOI is not reliable enough per WP:TOI.
• The most reliable scholarly source here is "Ray, Utsa (2015). Culinary Culture in Colonial India. Cambridge University Press.", which refers to Bakarkhani as a food unique to Dhaka and says, "The pride of the place went to Bakarkhani bread which, like Babarsa of Khirpai, became conjoined with the memory of the gastronomic culture of Dhaka." pp.212,213.
• In "Prakash, Jamuna; Waisundara, Viduranga; Prakash, Vishweshwaraiah (2020). Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in South Asian Countries. Elsevier Science", the authors note, "Bakarkhani gives Old Dhaka a unique and distinct culinary identity".
• There are several other scholarly sources added by UserNumber from notable historians like Muntasir Mamun, Nazir Hussain, Hakim Habibur Rahman and others which sufficiently prove that the bread originated in Dhaka. I would urge you not to remove these reliable sources and the content cited by them just because you don't like them. I would also urge you not to throw false accusations on other editors next time. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Which 'reliable sources' are you even talking about? You have zero reliable sources to support your information. Your edit summary was misleading because you are trying to throw false impression that we need consensus to the version that goes against your POV, when it is the actual status quo.

Just because you deny seeing the obvious ripping off, still, anyone can tell that TBSNews (unreliable source) copied from the Wikipedia version of that time. See the dupdet report that makes it rather obvious that the article was written after reading this wikipedia page.

Just because you are convinced that Banglapedia is reliable, doesn't mean it become reliable. I am citing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Banglapedia again which proves that Banglapedia is unreliable.

"Culinary Culture in Colonial India" does not say that Bakarkhani originated in Dhaka. This source say "Bakorkhani a thick and spiced or nonspiced baked flatbread gives old Dhaka, a unique and distinct culinary identity". It only say that Bakarkhani is significant in old Dhaka. None of these sources are favorable for you.

There is absolutely no comparison between this revision and the publication by Springer which is very reliable. Why would a scholarly publication of 2020 copy from April 2019's version? Or you are making false allegation of WP:CIRCULAR only because this Wikipedia article was once aware of the "historical" information that the book has cited? You make no sense.

Do you even know who is Jiggs Kalra? He was an acclaimed writer on food. Just because you are demeaning the scholarly publication as "cook book" but upholding unreliable sources like Banglapedia and TBSnews for the sake of POV pushing, it doesn't become unreliable.

You have still failed to prove that why we should be reverting to your POV version when RfC ended with "no consensus".

When talking of origin, and actual prevalence, we need to either re-write the lead per this source or just keep the version pre-RfC which was this. NavjotSR (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I am also finding your claims to be dubious that "if you want to revert to a stable version, this was the version before the RfC, this was the version at the end of the RfC". RfC started on 11 March 2020, 18:00 UTC), and ended as "no consensus" that means the stable version on 11 March 2020, 16:12 UTC) should remain restored with regards to the information that is being disputed. Ping @El C:, the page protecting admin to clear this. NavjotSR (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Again, TBSNews is not copied from anywhere, just showing a dupdet report doesn't mean it is copied, did you even take a look at the report yourself? The only matched phrases are names like "nawab siraj ud daulah", "agha baker khan", "khani begum", "old dhaka", "joynal khan" etc. It doesn't mean the source is copied from Wikipedia.
• You're just showing an inconclusive discussion on Banglapedia, and did you even read the responses of the people there? Where is a decision/consensus? Banglapedia is still considered a reliable source.
• The Tamang source is clearly WP:CIRCULAR, the writing style gives it away, consider this,

Tamang: "Historical accounts have suggested that bakarkhani belongs to the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent and is believed that this Mughlai bread has been originated from the Central Asia and arrived to the Indian subcontinent as part of Mughal dynasty."

Wikipedia: "This Mughali bread travelled all the way from the Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent during the time of the Mughals."

Tamang: Bakarkhani is made from flour, semolina, sugar,....

Wikipedia: The chief ingredients are flour, semolina, sugar,....

Even the serial of the ingredients are kept in tact. The Tamang source even doesn't cite any references, I'm not sure how you call it a "scholarly" source.

• Jiggs Kalra is a restaurateur and media personality, not a scholar. The book you are quoting is a cookbook which is not a scholarly source. If you're struggling identifying WP:RS or WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I'm here to help.
• When you say 'Y' is unique to 'X', it means Y is only associated with X. By saying Bakarkhani is unique to Dhaka, Ray and Parakash et al. are basically reinforcing the argument that Bakarkhani originated in Dhaka. Ray, quoting Habibur Rahman, even says that Bakarkhani was not even found anywhere else than Dhaka during the colonial period.
• WP:POV occurs when you push fringe theories/claims over the majority. Here, the wide majority of the reliable sources associate Bakarkhani with Dhaka, not the other way round. And you cannot hijack the article by saying "get consensus first" every time someone adds content to improve the article, that's WP:STONEWALLING. I don't see any reason why content cited by reliable sources be removed only to be replaced by unsourced/poorly sourced content. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Your dishonesty is appalling. This report shows more ripping off including "in love with a dancer" which you have intentionally ommitted. It is irony of you to cite WP:SCHOLARSHIP when you rely on unreliable sources and disregard actual scholarly publications by Allied Publishers and Springer Publishing to be unreliable. You need to work up on your poor language and understanding skills and stop wasting time of others. NavjotSR (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the actual status quo per discussion above. You are free to convince community that Allied Publishers and Springer Publishing are unreliable but that will only land you in deep waters. NavjotSR (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edit have been reverted for causing disruption, Cambridge University Press, Elsevier Science, TBSNews, Banglapedia are all reliable sources and removing them just because you don't like them is WP:DE. As discussed earlier, Kalra source is a cookbook and Tamang is WP:CIRCULAR, neither of them are WP:RS. Neither you have proven (or reached consensus) that your preferred version is the status quo. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Kmzayeem, you are very wrong with your lousy analysis of the information. Springer is the most reliable source of all that has been mentioned here. If you are not willing to write the lead per that source then you should at least stop pretending that RfC ended in your favor. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if academic world would consider Springer to be more reliable than Cambridge University Press. In any case, I would rather judge based on the content rather than publisher. The Springer source written by Tamang is a proven WP:CIRCULAR as discussed above, it doesn't even contain any references so surely not a scholarly source as it is being claimed here. On the other hand, the sources by Utsa Ray and Parakash et al. are proper scholarly sources. Somebody needs a very strong explanation to remove them, else it's a plain WP:DE. And I have never claimed that RfC has gone in "my favor". The point is if you want to revert to a previous version claiming status quo, you first need to prove that the version is indeed the status quo. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I will comment that the issue with assigning specific areas to foods with broad geographic regions is that the specific area does not/did not exist. Most of these dishes arose independently within different regions (biryani, pilaf etc. come to mind). The same appears to be the case here, the sources referring to Dhaka (incl Banglapedia) are focusing on that regions variant not the food as a whole [which is also clear from the WP:CONTEXT in that they talk specifically about Dhaka]. Levantine/Middle-Eastern and Indian/South Asian food presents this problem in that there are multiple claimants, all true but none exclusive as well. Bakarkhani etymologically points either to a foreign origin or an origin with the old elite in Mughal India and later (the word itself likely a corruption of some ar, tr or fa term [maybe even a nobleman]), see Shakespeare, Platts and Fallon. The fact that this word is found in early Hindi-Urdu dictionaries makes the case even less likely that the dish spread from Dhaka to other areas (most of the Bengali dishes became popular in other regions during the late British/post-independence era). This is compounded by the fact that I was not even able to find the bakarkhani in any of the prominent Bengali dictionaries at DSAL. There is no issue in specifically mentioning that the dish is popular in Dhaka/a variant exists there but to inflate that with the whole dish itself and giving it utmost prominence appears to be a case of ethnic/territorial nationalism. In the end this is a dish on which hardly any in-depth research exists (not surprisingly as it has not yet found currency as a diaspora cuisine) and assigning, attributing, negating and piling on about RS which are little themselves is not going to help a case for assigning specific origins to a dish. Much Ado About Nothing indeed. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• I received a notification from here. I do not know what the dispute is about. There are indeed many references given in the article and they appear to be reliable sources. Although the article may need a copy edit for its prose. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Then why you are edit warring? NavjotSR (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kmzayeem, you can say 1000 times that Tamang is a proven WP:CIRCULAR as discussed above but it will never become a "circular" reference and prove your presence to be disruptive. Cambridge University Press does not support your version as actually discussed above. If you are willing to judge "based on the content" then why you are misrepresenting sources? Publisher is after all important and cannot be ignored.  The "status quo" version, as already described, is the one that existed before the RfC as it always happens. I am not telling you anything new with regards to this matter. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Kmzayeem that this book is an unreliable source. I had already explained that the description of Bakarkhani in the book is strikingly similar to this version of the article which gives an impression that the book relied on Wikipedia as its reference. Despite repeated explanations, trying to refer to an unreliable source to push a POV clearly suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, the dispute here started when Highpeaks35 and his socks began attacking the article and the pre-dispute version is this, so this one should be restored if we are talking about status quo. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no similarity between the book and any of the Wikipedia version. You haven't even cited any exact sentences it copied. Instead of resorting to outright false claims you are free to make your case at WP:RSN. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you actually want to discuss a "pre-dispute" version then this version is the right one. Not the one you cherrypicked in middle of the dispute. This version is also supported by Springer. There are no sources that support origin as "Bangladesh". I see the importance of Banglapedia was reduced because it say Afghanistan to be the origin and irrelevant quotefarming was done by Kmzayeem on lead to distract further from the actual origin. When you will talk about it? NavjotSR (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this edit? If there is none, then do not revert. LucrativeOffer (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no fault so far identified in that version. There was RfC too which made no conclusion as to which version is right thus the version at the time of RfC is being retained. But when talking of your version, there is no support for a "Modern Day-Bangladesh" or "Old Dhaka" origin by reliable sources. thus you should not be restoring such a problematic version. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel I can see the RfC was held on 11 March 2020 but the version you are restoring is from 12 December 2017 as NavjotSR showed, or can you tell me which version you are restoring? I can see a lot of issues with the version you are restoring, for example, the reference doesn't support the claim that "This Mughali bread travelled all the way from the Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent during the time of the Mughals.", there is no mention of "Central Asia" or "Indian subcontinent" in the source. So that's a misrepresentation of sources. LucrativeOffer (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lucrative offer: Yes the pre-dispute version was being restored and the text about Central Asian origin is backed by the Springer source. If you want to restore 11 March version then I am fine with that too. See the latest edit of mine which completely removes the information that is being disputed here. I hope you are fine with this. NavjotSR (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@LucrativeOffer: You are as usual misrepresenting sources. On this edit you are trying to tell that the cuisine is confined to Old Dhaka when the source does not say that. NavjotSR (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@NavjotSR: The source says it's from Old Dhaka so that is what I wrote. Definitely not confined to Old Dhaka. If you followed my edit, I didn't restore The Business Standard source after you removed it as it is being disputed and I can also see the Springer source is also being disputed. So let's avoid these two disputed sources till we have a consensus. On the March 11 2020 version, hmm, I do see some issues with that version as well so I can partly restore the version and partly reject. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious why you won't agree with restoring 11 March version because it shows outright disagreement with your version. You can't say this item is from Dhaka, Bangladesh because it originated in Afghanistan or central Asia. "from Old Dhaka, Bangladesh" is clearly misleading and you would need reliable sources to prove that this item has nothing to do with Central Asia or Afganistan if you want to limit the origin to Bangladesh which never existed before 1971. Why you are removing mentions of India and Pakistan on lead? Bangladesh wasn't sourced either but you sourced it. Same you could do with India and Pakistan which you didn't. Can you describe why? NavjotSR (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I said I can restore 11 March partly but not entirely because it has the same issues, I cannot restore a version that misrepresent sources like you did. There is no source that says it originated in Afghanistan or Central Asia so saying that would be original research. I wrote "from Old Dhaka" because that is exactly what the source says, there is no misrepresentation. Your words sound hilarious, you are asking me to bring reliable sources for you to support your claim, that is funny. LucrativeOffer (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Banglapedia said Afghanistan which you removed weeks ago. Why you are pretending to have gained consensus for your edits when? Nobody asked you "to bring reliable sources for" others but pointed out your obvious POV pushing that you will remove anything that does not match with your POV while you will resort to even unreliable sources if you have to push your POV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"I said I can restore 11 March partly" Then how it would comply with WP:STATUSQUO? You can't cherrypick parts of the version just because the overall version disagree with your broader POV. You are already aware of Banglapedia and Springer which say Afghanistan or Central Asia to be the origin of the item yet you are denying this. If you are really this supportive of sourced content, then one needs to imagine the impossible that you would be having no problem if these two sources or at least Springer has been added on the lead and the lead has been written to match it. Or it just your excuse so far to distract others from highlighting your misrepresentation of sources? It is easy to find sources supporting the presence of the item in Pakistan and India Yet you retain unsourced mention of Bangladesh and sourced it, but reverted 2 times to remove the obvious locations that could be referenced easily. How can a person not agree that you are only edit warring to promote a narrow POV? NavjotSR (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is not an excuse for misrepresentation of sources which you are doing. Anything that is unsourced should be removed per WP:OR. Banglapedia says "Original home of this bread or biscuit is Afghanistan or beyond", there is no definite answer which means the source is dubious about the claim. Rather it confidently says, "Until very recently, it was a food-product peculiar to Dhaka city" which means Bakarkhani was only found in Dhaka until recently. I do not know why you want to remove the latter claim but include the dubious comment from Banglapedia. Please see WP:NPOV. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never misrepresented any sources. You are the one falsely claiming "Old Dhaka, Bangladesh" to be the origin of this item by citing dailystar. WP:STATUSQUO is being evoked because you are not willing to entertain information from reliable sources. If you can't comply with status quo or a compromise that I did here then you are absolutely here for nothing but pushing your narrow POV. If "Anything that is unsourced should be removed per WP:OR" then why you didn't remove Bangladesh? You are supposed to be adding the sources by restoring mention of Pakistan and India now since you have been provided sources than misrepresent WP:NPOV which you certainly don't understand. If you find the "dubious comment from Banglapedia" not aligning with your narrow POV then you should already provide sources that debunk Banglapedia. If you think Banglapedia is not reliable then you can stick to Springer instead but your misrepresentation of news sources isn't justifiable. NavjotSR (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You cannot evoke anything to publish original research here. I'm always welcome to any information from reliable sources but the sources you are bringing to publish your POV are not reliable, that is the main argument. Reliable sources like The Business Standard quite clearly state that Bakarkhani originated in Dhaka but I came to a compromise and not using the source, instead wrote Bakarkhani is from Old Dhaka. You are not even willing to take that but instead parroting WP:STATUSQUO with full of misrepresentation of sources. 11:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucrativeOffer (talk • contribs)

That is utter nonsense because I haven't done any "original research". You are the one confining this item to Bangladesh which did not even exist before 1971 and rejecting every other information that contradicts this narrow POV of yours. Springer is the highest quality reliable source available here. But you don't want to use it because it disagrees with your narrow POV. How can you write "Bakarkhani is from Old Dhaka" on the lead when it originated in Afghanistan or Central Asia? You are just pushing your narrow POV here and not complying with the reality. NavjotSR (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote "Bakarkhani is from Old Dhaka" because the sources (, ) say so. The Business Standard is the highest quality reliable source available here. But you don't want to use it because it disagrees with your narrow POV. LucrativeOffer (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And it is factually wrong because it originated outside Bengal region. What about unsupported "modern day Bangladesh" that you have been re-adding? It is not supported even by any of these sources. It is a pretty no-brainer that https://www.tbsnews.net does not hold a candle to Springer, Allied Publisher or even Banglapedia when it comes to reliability. You are just being outright disruptive by mimicking my argument that still stands. NavjotSR (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

NavjotSR, when multiple editors explain to you multiple times why the Springer book is an unreliable source with exhaustive evidence, you should at least stop harping on about pushing that source on the article to not be disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no "exhaustive evidence" provided to support your POV. Don't cite "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" just because editors are not interested in agreeing with your absurd view that Springer is unreliable source. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any explanation behind removing these two sources

• Ray, Utsa (2015). Culinary Culture in Colonial India. Cambridge University Press.
• Prakash, Jamuna; Waisundara, Viduranga; Prakash, Vishweshwaraiah (2020). Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in South Asian Countries. Elsevier Science.

There is no chance of misrepresentation since I have quoted the sources verbatim in the article. --Zayeem ^(talk) 02:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Your quotefarming on lead to push a Dhaka origin is clearly WP:UNDUE. Why you are adding it on lead while ommitting the fact that it originated in Central Asia or Afghanistan and is also prevalent in India and Pakistan?NavjotSR (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting one sentence and two phrases from two sources is not WP:QUOTEFARM; I'm willing to paraphrase but my experience suggests the POV editors here would just reject it as misrepresentation. I'm not "pushing" anything, WP:UNDUE would be forcing one viewpoint of Central Asia based on a single source and rejecting all the other sources that talks about Dhaka. The source you added itself says, "Bakorkhani, only a sweet memory now" in India, surely not so much prevalent as you think. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It is quotefarming when you are adding quotations from 3 different sources to push a narrow POV. You are clearly POV pushing by ignoring the origins from Central Asia and Afghanistan and prevalence in Pakistan and India. "But today, only its memory remains, says Nawab Shah Alam Khan," is the actual quote, opinion of a single person contrary your cherrypicking. It is also funny that you are citing Times of India after rejecting it as unreliable. NavjotSR (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The only narrow POV here is the Central Asia origin fringe theory that you are trying to promote based on a single source (which too is of dubious reliability), I have said it before and won't repeat it. --Zayeem ^(talk) 02:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The "narrow POV" is that you are trying to restrict presence of it to Dhaka. It is not a "fringe theory" but a mainstream view even accepted by Bangladeshi sources... "Then came the Mughal Sultanate period when the Turks, Persians, Arabs, Afghans, residents of parts of the central Asia came along with bakarkhani". It is apprarently not that popular in Bangladesh like you are trying to show. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't say it originated in Central Asia, but had influence from migrants from different regions to the city. This source says Bakarkhani is endemic to Dhaka, this source says it originated in Dhaka. This source says "bakarkhani at bakeries are a common sight in Old Dhaka". I appreciate your huge but unsuccessful efforts in digging google to push your POV but with much little effort, one could easily understand why Dhaka is more prominent than any other regions for bakarkhani. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It says "residents of parts of the central Asia came along with bakarkhani", which means they came with the cuisine. If it was just about "influence from migrants" then the source would say "residents of parts of the central Asia came along with predecessors of bakarkhani" or "residents of parts of the central Asia came along with cuinsine similar to bakarkhani". Being a "common sight" isn't same as being the origin. Cricket is most popular in India, but doesn't mean it originated there, nor we will nationalize cricket in favor of India at Cricket the way you are doing with Bakarkhani. But since you are doing this, it is called POV pushing. This large Dawn article about Bakarkhani makes no mention of a 'Bangladesh' or a 'Dhaka'. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source, the sentence also includes "Turks, Persians, Arabs, Afghans" and "residents of parts of the central Asia", surely Bakarkhani cannot originate in multiple places at the same. The only reasonable interpretation is that Bakarkhani originated in Dhaka with influences from Turkish, Persian, Arab and Central Asian cuisines. Your analogy of cricket is ludicrous, there is no reliable source that claims cricket originated in India but there are multiple reliable sources which say bakarkhani originated in Dhaka. --Zayeem ^(talk) 21:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

No one needs your interpretation which is WP:OR and not supported by any sources. You have to focus only on "residents of parts of the central Asia came along with bakarkhani" which is very clear. There is no reliable source saying that Bakarkhani originated in Dhaka, and even Banglapedia say it originated in Afghanistan. Now instead of edit warring to forcefully impose your quotefarming spam which you added without any consensus you need to welcome the constructive edits and read WP:STICK. NavjotSR (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This source clearly says Bakorkhani originated in Dhaka. Banglapadia says Bakorkhani is "peculiar" to Dhaka while this source says Bakarkhani is endemic to Dhaka. Removing Dhaka from the lead would be a blatant POV. I have told you before, follow WP:IDHT. Also the quotefarming claim in your edit summary doesn't hold anymore since you kept the the exact "quotefarming" yourself in a different section. Za-ari-masen (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM happens when "the quotations dominate the article or section". As I see, out of the 150 words in the lead, 15 are quotations, this is not an overuse. Za-ari-masen (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"peculiar" and "endemic" does not mean "origin". WP:QUOTEFARM notes that "Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." I agree that many reliable sources about the subject make no mention of Dhaka. You need to wait and gain consensus and avoid making subjective and dubious edits to lead. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is your belief but facts disagree. For tbsnews.net, read above messages which prove that it was copying Wikipedia, thus not reliable. It is fine to remove Dhaka from lead because, as noted above, it is on verge of extinction there and there are numerous articles about Bakarkhani outside wikipedia who are doing without mention of a Bangladesh or a Dhaka. Unless there is evidence that a description about Bakarkhani is impossible without the mention of Dhaka/Bangladesh then only you should be restricting the presence to Dhaka on the lead contrary to WP:NPOV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I already this source which says "bakarkhani at bakeries are a common sight in Old Dhaka" so how is it in extinction? If sources say Bakarkhani is endemic/peculiar to Dhaka or the "pride of the gastronomic culture of Dhaka" then Dhaka is clearly more prominent than any other region. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The cookbooks in question:

• J Inder Singh Kalra, Pradeep Das Gupta. Prashad:Cooking with Indian Masters. Allied Publishers.
• Sumayya Usmani (2017). Mountain Berries and Desert Spice: Sweet Inspiration From the Hunza Valley to the Arabian Sea. Frances Lincoln.

Cookbooks are the books where the content is focused on the recipes of the dishes. These are mainly instruction manuals and they don't have any academic or journalistic value. --Zayeem ^(talk) 02:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:BLUDGEON and stop rehashing same POV. You need to cite policy, none of which supports you. Frances Lincoln, and the book by Jiggs Kalra (Allied Publishers) ​are WP:RS. NavjotSR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/sources#Cookbooks advises that, "In general, [cookbooks] are fairly good about description, though they can be idiosyncratic and provincial, being unaware of food habits outside their authors' neighborhood ... Cookbooks are generally very weak for history. Very rarely have the authors consulted serious sources, and they tend to repeat legends and folklore freely". The authors of these two cookbooks are not food historians. For the question of origin these books are, to use a technical term, crappy sources. You're welcome to ask at WP:RSN if you don't believe the collective experience of WikiProject Food and drink. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see if it is being used for "question of origin", but only for noting in infobox that Bakarkhani is also significant in India and Pakistan. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ethnic Fermented Foods and Beverages of India: Science History and Culture by Jyoti Prakash Tamang

As discussed above, this is not a WP:RS because it's WP:CIRCULAR, meaning the book used a Wikipedia article as its source of information. It is proven by the similarity between the book and the earlier revision of this article.

• Evidences:

Tamang: "Historical accounts have suggested that bakarkhani belongs to the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent and is believed that this Mughlai bread has been originated from the Central Asia and arrived to the Indian subcontinent as part of Mughal dynasty."

Wikipedia: "... that is part of the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent. This Mughali bread travelled all the way from the Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent during the time of the Mughals."

Tamang: Bakarkhani is made from flour, semolina, sugar,....

Wikipedia: The chief ingredients are flour, semolina, sugar,....

The book contains grammatical errors and doesn't cite any reference, neither have any in-depth analysis, suggesting the book doesn't have any scholarly value. --Zayeem ^(talk) 02:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Springer is a reputable scholarly publisher, and editor Jyoti Prakash Tamang is a respected academic in the field of fermented food. Although it is always possible that one or more of the team of authors of the chapter plagiarized Wikipedia without anyone noticing, that's a serious charge that calls for strong evidence. The poor grammar (e.g. "has been originated from the Central Asia") could be indicative of slipshod editing, or it could just be that no one involved speaks English as their first language.

I haven't waded through all the discussions in prior sections, but the evidence of circularity presented here is tissue thin. In the first example given, the text isn't all that similar. In the second example, only three words are repeated. It's extremely common when writing about foods to list ingredients in order of volume or weight, so if everyone agrees that the main ingredient is flour, the next greatest ingredient is semolina, and the third greatest ingredient is sugar, then many many sources will list them that way. The remainder of the source paragraph bears no resemblance to the old Wikipedia article that I can see at all. There are no inline citations in the chapter's paragraph about Bakarkhani, but there are about 75 general references at the end of the chapter. There's also a "Further Reading" link to Collard greens, suggesting that if any of the authors had copied Bakarkhani, they would have listed Wikipedia as a source.

The source may not be the only viewpoint, or even the mainstream viewpoint, but in the absence of persuasive evidence of circularity, it should be taken seriously. It's too early for meaningful citation counts of it, and perhaps for reviews of it, but 128 WorldCat libraries hold it, suggesting that university research libraries believe it has scholarly value. One could backtrack what it says about Bakarkhani through the 75 sources it cites to see how widespread its view is and how reputable other sources that hold the view are. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't copied Wikipedia. While it is obvious that it didn't copied Wikipedia to mention the origin from Central Asia, the other sentence from the book is:"Bakarkhani is made from flour, semolina, sugar, sourdough, clarified butter, poppy seeds, etc." while Wikipedia page said "The chief ingredients are flour, semolina, sugar, molasses soaked in saffron,  poppy or nigella seeds, salt, and ghee (clarified butter)." Both are totally different.

Even if you repeat your rejected POV for another 1000 times, it will still remain rejected. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:, I don't deny that Springer is a reputable publisher but how reliable is the book itself? The grammatical errors, no matter if the authors were native English speakers or not, not only indicates the poor language skills of the authors but also a lack of editorial guidelines/policies on proof reading/reviewing. How reliable is a book without proper editorial policy? Given this situation, does the reputation of the publisher hold any value in this case? The authors may not declare Wikipedia as a reference but it's possible they used this article as a source and nobody noticed given the lack of editorial policy, the close paraphrasing (i.e. the Mughlai cuisine of the Indian subcontinent) doesn't look like mere coincidence. Also, if I'm correct Worldcat libraries hold non-scholarly books as well, or is it restricted to scholarly sources? --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no close paraphrasing. No uninvolved editor is going to see the "close paraphrasing" that you think you see. In my experience of publishing, proof reading is done by a completely separate group from those who do fact checking and research review. Poor grammar is really only proof of poor grammar. The primary way of identifying an academic work is by publisher and editor/author, but you can also tell a lot by looking at what libraries hold it. Non-academic works are held almost exclusively by popular libraries, such as your neighborhood public library. Academic works are held overwhelmingly by university libraries. Asserting that this book has no scholarly value is disagreeing with the librarians of: McGill, MIT, Princeton, Simon Fraser University, Stanford, University of Chicago, University of Glasgow, University of Groningen, University of Manchester, University of North Carolina, University of Wisconsin, and on and on. The book may not be authoritative on this topic, but it's reliable. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still concerned about its unprofessional writing style but your suggestion of looking at the libraries holding the book is quite convincing. I now agree that the book is reliable but also note that it is not authoritative on this topic. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I said before too, Springer is the most reliable source of all that has been mentioned here. Your objection to the source that "it is not authoritative on this topic" makes no sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is trash for the intended use. This book is aimed at those studying biotechnology, food technology, etc. and not a single involved figure has any training in history.

As long as you are sourcing the constituent ingredients, method of preparation, involved microorganisms, enzymes etc. from Tamang's work, I have no issues. However, on the aspect of culinary history and circulation, this work is not reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This photo appears to depict baked bakarkhani on baking sheets, not within a tandoor. Am I missing something? Has the photo been changed but the caption not revised? Julietdeltalima (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro again started editing warring after being blocked numerous for his battleground behavior focusing on this article. Can a experienced editor whom has expanded this article intervene? Thank you. Aaaas216& (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"Numerous" means "many, very many, great in number". Gotitbro was blocked once for edit warring on this article. "Again started editing warring" is another exaggeration. Gotitbro has made only one edit to the article in the past six months. One cannot say on that basis that they are repeatedly restoring their preferred version. Failing to assume good faith and casting aspersions are detrimental to Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment. They make it harder to reach consensus.

This RfC reached no consensus to state in the infobox that the "place of origin" is Bangladesh. For this reason, I've undone Aaaas216&'s edit, thereby restoring the infobox to a condition where it does not state a place of origin. If anyone believes there is a consensus among reliable sources regarding the place of origin, please discuss those sources on this page and reach a new consensus among editors before setting a place of origin. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add following informations regarding the Kashmiri Variant of Bakarkhani. However, I couldn't find any credible source to reference.

• Kashmiri Bakarkhani is much softer and has taste and texture similar to Lachaydaar Paratha.

• They're from eggs. EggsInfact, are a major ingredient of Kashmiri Bakarkhani.

• They're quite a popular choice for breakfast in both Kashmir Regions (Indian Administered and Pakistan Administered) Ibrahimkhizr (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)