Talk:Roti

Due to edit warring, I just reverted to the 17:42, 25 January 2018 version, I also removed all mention of origin. Please only add origin content that all can agree on. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Really appreciate it. Both sources are not reliable, neither the cook book or that random blog. Until a reasonable source is found, keeping origin out is a good idea. (2600:1001:B027:C196:C91B:8535:3CB8:1C87 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

I found an article in the Indian Express newspaper which was precisely about the origin of roti (see http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food-wine/food-story-how-indias-favourite-flatbread-roti-was-born/). It mentions that roti either originated in ancient Persia, East Africa or in the Indus Valley at the time of the Indus Valley Civilisation. An IP user has reverted this edit 4 times but strangely enough accuses me of edit warring. This IP user has no sources whatsoever for their preferred version of this article. - Takeaway (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A lifestyle blog is not a source. I can write some junk on Indian Express or Huffington Post tomorrow. (2600:1001:B027:C196:C91B:8535:3CB8:1C87 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Please go ahead and then we might have a source for your, as for now, unsourced preferred version. - Takeaway (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Areas which you dispute and those that are unsourced, remove it. Don’t add junk. (2600:1001:B027:C196:C91B:8535:3CB8:1C87 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Please come up with a reliable source instead of only using value judgements. And also, it was an article in a newspaper so please don't lie by calling it a blog. - Takeaway (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

At least now, the recent nationalistic edits have been reverted too, which was my intention all along. - Takeaway (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You two do realize of course that maybe 8,000 years ago people were grinding flour into basic dough and making flat things to throw onto the fire. Roti! Where? Who knows. Maybe Iraq. Anyhow, the point is, can any source really know what it's talking about? It didn't pop into existence one day in one place, right? Maybe consider writing about the origin that way. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed what I was trying with the ref I had found which was precisely about it being fairly unknown and which stated different probabilities. Unfortunately, the anononymous editor reverted it back to their preferred version 4 times. - Takeaway (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not what you were trying to do. The word Roti is derived from Sanskrit. However, that blog is not acceptable, especially, when you mentioning Persian or other origin. (My phone died, sorry about the delay) (2600:1001:B012:429C:99E7:B605:3C6F:E5D (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

It wasn't a blog, no matter how often you repeat it, but an article in an Indian newspaper. - Takeaway (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's move forward.

So, can both sides respond to the following:

• Unless an agreeable source is found, no content identifying a particular country should be in the article.

• Should the article contain content to compensate for a country not being named? Maybe something saying that no sources can be considered an authority, or that the definition of this bread is too broad to nail down any specific origin? (This could stop drive-by additions of their preferred country.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The newspaper article, that I provided as a ref, actually makes some sense. Perhaps people should actually read that first instead of resorting to knee-jerk reactions. - Takeaway (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If just one person rejects the idea of no ref and compensating content about why, then that idea is dead. Takeaway wishes to push for the ref. If he wants that ref in with the content it supports, then I guess consensus here is needed to do so, otherwise it should stay out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, do you want me here as an admin (neutral) or an editor (with an opinion about who is right). So far, my contributions to this matter could be seen as either. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer you here as an editor. It would seem that there's more need for a non-partisan editor than a neutral admin of which there should be heaps; whereas for this subject, non-partisan editors are probably rare. At least, you are non-partisan in this content dispute aren't you, meaning neither pro-India nor pro-Pakistan? - Takeaway (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm here as an editor.

For the record, I'm pro-India and pro-Pakistan. I'm basically pro-everything except that I'm anti-Hitler, anti-marmite, and the other understandable antis.

Let me read the source more and comment.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

First, there is a grammatical error in the article: "...How true this story is debatable because around the Independence War of 1857, the Chapati Movement had made the British wary of the dish...".

Furthermore, we have two articles at Wikipedia: Chapati and Roti. It seems that chapati is a subset of roti. She titles the article How India’s favourite flatbread Roti was born. She uses the terms interchangeably without explaining any difference. She concludes with "...Do we really know when did chapatis originate? Well it’s still debatable...". That, by the way, should read "Do we really know when chapatis originated?", but that's another matter.

For a "...senior writer with over 13 years experience...", I'm surprised at this. It doesn't destroy her article's credibility, but it dings it.

The bottom line for me right now is that the article talks about AD not BC. The origin of the roti in name can possibly be traced, but the object itself has been around for millennia. I suggest that we could explain this to readers somehow. We could even use that article as a reference to support the word "debatable", but it is probably best not to use it at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Indian subcontinent acceptable per this source?^[1]

I'm afraid I cannot view google books. I'm in China. Google is blocked here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Yes the source says Roti Originated in India.Here are some other sources of origin of Roti

Roti originated in Indus Valley ^[2]

Both forms have been found in Indus Valley ^[3]

Anmolbhat (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anmolbhat. Let's see what Takeaway's view is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak and Anmolbhat, and sorry for the delay. I'm happy to see the two new refs appear which seem more reliable than either the cookbook or the newspaper article (the latter does mention events from before AD as it mentions the Harrapan Culture [=Indus Valley Civilisation] of 3000-1300 BCE), and that both new refs name the Indus Valley civilisations as the origin of roti. On page 692 of the Oxford Companion to Food, it reads "The origin of roti, in the wide meaning of Indian breads, can be traced back 3000 or 4000 years, to the arrival of the Aryans in the Indus Valley." The Indus Valley Civilisation was located in what are now parts of Afghanistan, nearly the whole of Pakistan, and northwest India. I'd suggest rewriting the article in such a way as to reflect this. As to if the Aryans were involved as that ref mentions, this ref seems to mention the Indus Valley Civilisation as already having breads resembling roti prior to the arrival of the Aryans. - Takeaway (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. If you two can agree, please feel free to modify the article. I'll just watch at this point. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Let’s stick with the reference. Not add beyond it. They reference clearly mentions it as an “Indian bread”, putting the origin on India or Indian subcontinent as Anmolbhat suggested is proper. I support putting Indian subcontinent just as Anmolbhat. (2600:1001:B00D:3291:9D83:FD7:7F0B:AD39 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

Hey there everyone. I found another source mentioning roti as of Indian origin.^[4] And everyone seems to be satisfied with each others argument. So should I proceed to update the origin.

Thanks !!!Anmolbhat (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would think that the Oxford Companion to Food would be the source to use, especially over cookbooks which only seem useful if all else fails. On page 409 of the Oxford Companion it reads `India` used to refer to the whole subcontinent, whereas now it refers to the country called India, occupying most, but by no means all, of the subcontinent. The most important early centres of agriculture and civilization generally were in the Indus Valley, now mainly in Pakistan. If "India" is used as the origin country of this dish, then it would be linked to the country called India. Also, if this would be seen as originating in Indian cuisine, again it would refer to only the country as nearly all articles here in Wikipedia have been carved up along present-day border lines which of course never existed during the Indus Valley Civilisation 1000s of years ago. Instead, South Asian cuisine would seem better in this case as it is less tainted with nationalism from either side and more true to the origins of roti. - Takeaway (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Indian Subcontinent would be better. Because every source mention either Indus Valley Civilization or only India as place of origin. So mentioning whole South Asia is of no use. Anmolbhat (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Anmolbhat is correct. Indian Subcontinent is most appropriate. Our responsibility as editors is to use the source, we write what our source state, not our POV. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

Here is an example of a menu from an Afghan restaurant here, roti is not a staple in broader South Asia. It is mainly a staple in the sub-region of the Indian subcontinent, among the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan peoples. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

Am I reading something different from you people? I had gathered that South Asia and Indian subcontinent are often used interchangeably. If there would be a difference, it would be that Afghanistan normally is not included in the Indian subcontinent whereas it often is included as a part of South Asia. Seeing how parts of what used to be the Indus Valley Civilisation now lay in Afghanistan, it would seem to me that South Asia would be more appropriate. - Takeaway (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier. Every source mention Either India or Indus Valley Civilization. None of the sources mention South Asia. So we should write what sources are mentioning. Writing South Asia can be seen as WP:OR. So Indian Subcontinent is accurate , neutral and better. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Indus Valley is mainly located in the Indian subcontinent. You are putting an undue emphasis on Afghanistan. 406 major sites are in Pakistan, 616 major sites in India and 2 major sites in Afghanistan.^[5]
2. Again, check any Afghan menu, roti is not part of their staple. It is a staple in the Indian subcontinent.
3. As Anmolbhat mentioned, South Asia can be seen as WP:OR, as none of the references above mentions it.
4. I think it is clear, Indian subcontinent is most appropriate. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

It seems that everyone is at least clear on roti's origin in the Indus Valley Civilisation. As for calling it exclusively an Indian bread as some cookbooks do, it should seem now too that all agree that it is equally a Pakistani bread and that adjective "Indian" can only be viewed in the way mentioned on page 409 of the Oxford Companion where it reads `India` used to refer to the whole subcontinent, whereas now it refers to the country called India, occupying most, but by no means all, of the subcontinent. The most important early centres of agriculture and civilization generally were in the Indus Valley, now mainly in Pakistan. I can't help but think that most of you insist on using Indian subcontinent instead of South Asia, even though these terms are often used in interchangeably and even though the article on South Asia is much more informative, just because it uses the word "India" in it. There is an article called South Asian cuisine but I would think you wouldn't want to be linking that either, even though there is no such article for "Indian subcontinental cuisine" just because it doesn't mention the word "India" in its title. Does it seem strange that I feel that there's a nationalistic agenda being pushed here? Or can you truly state that I am wrong in thinking that? - Takeaway (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Takeaway: Please don't accuse me of being nationalist. We should stick to sources and we should avoid WP:OR.The term South Asia is pure WP:OR. While India or Indian Subcontinent is more accurate and is verified by 4 different sources. And FYI majority of the sites of Indus Valley Civilization are in India as already mentioned by @Highpeaks35:. See on page 137 Anmolbhat (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think cookbooks should be taken too seriously as a reliable source. I had to ask about nationalism because I've encountered too much of it here in Wikipedia, even on relatively trivial subjects as food stuffs. I do not agree with calling this food item Indian, so please come up with something else. I'm ok with linking this to Indian subcontinent even though it only contains a shadow of the info that is on South Asia. And how about a link to South Asian cuisine seeing how both Pakistan and India are also in South Asia and it being the best possible article to link this to seeing that there is no article Cuisine of the Indian subcontinent? - Takeaway (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not get you anywhere Takeaway. I think the consensus is clear and verified by multiple sources, we should change it to Indian subcontinent. @Anmolbhat: please move forward, with the Indian subcontinent. @Anna Frodesiak:, kindly let us know if you have any reservations. It seems like all Takeaway has is personal attack at this point.(Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

I have a question. Have any of you actually looked on google for anything other than "India" + "roti"? Have any of you actually tried to search for "Pakistan" + "roti"? A lot of results show up if you do. Isn't it strange that all I get to see here from all of you are results for the former, and never the latter. Why is that? - Takeaway (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I will not entertain your whataboutery and personal attacks any further. I think we have a consensus with facts and sources, you have none. Once @Anmolbhat and Anna Frodesiak: respond, we will move forward. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

• 1. Takeaway, please do not accuse people of being nationalistic. That is not appropriate or helpful.

• 2. It seems that all the sources that can be found have now been presented here. If there are more, now is the time to provide them.

• 3. Maybe it is a good idea to find out if an overwhelming number of people prefer one thing over another. A subsection asking for preferences may be a good plan. If that fails, an RfC or refraining from stating the origin may be best.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There not having been shown any results ever by any here for a search on "Pakistan" and "roti" is what makes me doubt the NPOV of this discussion; because if one would do a search, so many results would show up stating that it is (also) a Pakistani bread. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet. Give me a sec and I'll post some. - Takeaway (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Some sources mentioning roti as (also) a Pakistani bread: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

This discussion so far has established that:

1. Roti originated in the Indus Valley Civilisation in present-day northwest India and Pakistan.

2. It is a bread from India as well as Pakistan. That it is often referred to as an Indian bread can be easily explained as a "pars pro toto" per the Oxford Companion to Food ref here above which states that "India" often means "Indian subcontinent" (although my preference goes out to the more neutrally named and more informative WP article South Asia) and not exclusively the country India. Calling it only "Indian bread" would suggest to many that it would indeed be originally from India alone and nowhere else.

I would suggest not calling it "Indian bread" as many here above would seem to prefer but "a flatbread from India and Pakistan". A larger percentage of the people in Pakistan than in India would go hungry if suddenly roti's would disappear from the face of the earth. It is that central to Pakistani cuisine. - Takeaway (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is not whether it is Indian Bread or Pakistani bread. The discussion is on Origin and the term to be used in it. While Takeaway is justifying their WP:OR Highpeaks35 and I have provided 4 different sources for our term. And majority of Takeaway's sources are unreliable and WP:OR. Anmolbhat (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who originally came up with the Indus Valley Civilisation origin for roti. And if the discussion wasn't about Indian bread or Pakistani bread, then why did I read a few times here above in this discussion that it should be called an Indian bread but never once that it should also be called a Pakistani bread? - Takeaway (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said it should be called Indian bread nor Highpeaks35 did. Only that anonymous IP and you did. The term Indian bread has been used 9 times on talk Page in which you used it 7 times while I used it in last comment and IP guy used it one time.@Anna Frodesiak: I don't think Takeaway has anything more logical to say rather than diverting discussion.I would recommend to end discussion and allow me to update the origin.@Highpeaks35: do you want to make a comment. Anmolbhat (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we list all the choices?

• Indian subcontinent
• Indian subcontinent including Pakistan
• India and Pakistan
• India
• Pakistan
• Uncertain origin

Others?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on origin, such that "Uncertain origin" is preferred, then perhaps at least we could describe the origin as "South Asia"?

Thereby we would be clear that it definitely did not originate in Japan, Australia, Israel, Turkey, Poland or anything like that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility, and sticking to close to its Indus Valley Civilisation origin, would be:

• Northwest India and Pakistan

- Takeaway (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent covers everything:

1. the sources (which is paramount)
2. Present-day Northwest India and Pakistan never existed before 1947, Roti came into existence long before 1947.
3. Word roti is Sanskrit.
4. IVC is mainly located on the Indian subcontinent/Indian plate. That geography existed before those modern states. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

Takeaway has provided no acceptable source. Page 692 of the "Oxford Companion to Food" should have ended this. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

Indeed, Indian subcontinent should "cover everything". It includes too much as it also includes peoples and regions of India which up to this day don't even consume rotis, which, here above, was a reason for some to not want the neutral designation "South Asia". And if roti was eaten in IVC before the advent of the Aryans, as this research states, the original word used for it would have been a (proto-)Dravidian word and not a (later era) Sanskrit word. What I suggested was to mention that the origin of roti can be found in the Indus Valley Civilization in what is now present-day northwest India and Pakistan. Perhaps Highpeaks35 would also want to criticise Anna Frodesiak for their suggestion to include the names of present-day countries? - Takeaway (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting titbit on the consumption of roti in IVC regions can be found in this article which states that the further south one goes (as in present-day Gujarat) the evidence suggests that roti was (at least) eaten there less than further north. Perhaps this too could be included? - Takeaway (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian subcontient is the most proper, as such, I am resting my case. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

@Anna Frodesiak: This is not going anywhere. We provided references from legitimate sources, explained our reasoning, and several editors agree except Takeaway. Unless, you can be the final arbitrator and end this. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

Hi everyone. To remind you all, I am here as an involved editor, not an admin, therefore should have no final say on anything.

I listed possible choices as suggestions. Please feel free to make your own suggestions. I see no consensus at the moment. If anyone thinks that a particular item will produce a nice list of "Support" and very, very few "Oppose", then considering formally suggesting it to see.

Let's see if this all ends in no consensus. Then, we can decide on either RfC or accepting the article the way it is, i.e. with no origin stated.

Does this sound okay?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Indian subcontinent for origin per "Oxford Companion to Food". (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

• Support Indian Subcontinent for Origin. Term that it itself a Hindi and Sanskrit word. Term other than this is WP:OR and this term is backed by 4 different sources. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Indus Valley Civilisation (present-day northwest India and Pakistan)" as the most precise definition of where IVC is located per the IVC origin refs. 13:19, 3 February 2018 Takeaway

• Support India or Indian Subcontinent. Please don't do WP:SYNTH. — MapSGV (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Navneet kaur006 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gurnaaz11.

— Assignment last updated by Gurnaaz11 (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was this removed? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)