Talk:Sfenj

I want to raise a concern about the infobox and the opening of the history section. The infobox currently lists Al-Andalus as the place of origin, and the history section opens with "Sfenj originated in Al-Andalus." Both claims rely on two Arabic-language Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper articles (references 13 and 14), whose URLs are no longer accessible. Looking at the titles of those same sources, reference 14 translates as "Sfenj: Moroccan pastries coming to the table from the depths of history" and reference 13 translates as "The sufnajeen trade: an ancient Maghrebi profession on the path to extinction." The sources cited to support the Al-Andalus origin claim actually describe Sfenj as Moroccan and Maghrebi in their own titles.

On top of that, the history section has carried a reliability maintenance tag since February 2024. The article itself notes that the Marinid Dynasty, which ruled Morocco from 1270 to 1465, already knew Sfenj well before Al-Andalus ended in 1492. English-language reliable sources such as Serious Eats (2025) describe Sfenj as Morocco's well-known yeasted doughnut and treat the Andalusian theory as uncertain rather than established fact.

I am not suggesting we remove the Andalusian connection from the history section entirely. That discussion belongs there with proper attribution. What I am questioning is whether the infobox, which presents a single place of origin as a settled fact, should say Al-Andalus when the sources cited do not actually support that claim and the article's own content tells a more complicated story.

Should the Sfenj infobox field "Place of origin" be changed from "Al-Andalus" to "Morocco" or "Maghreb", given that the cited sources are inaccessible and their titles describe Sfenj as Moroccan/Maghrebi? Bohosquare1 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed change. The earliest known recipe of Sfenj (known as "Isfanj" back then) dates back to the 13th century (written by the Andalusi scholar, Ibn Razīn al-Tujībī).^[1] There are other sources (not the best, but certainly better than what's in the article) that mention its Andalusi origin.^[2][3] It goes without saying that it has evolved since then (like very doughnut out there), but that doesn't change its origin; and besides, we're not describing it as "Andalusian", we acknowledge the fact that (nowadays) it's Maghrebi in the first sentence. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for engaging on the content. A couple of things worth looking at more closely though. The Ibn Razin al-Tujibi cookbook you cite as ref 1 has the full title "Best of Delectable Foods and Dishes from al-Andalus and al-Maghrib." The author fled Murcia during the Reconquista and wrote the cookbook in Tunis around 1260, drawing on both Andalusian and North African recipes. So a recipe for Isfanj appearing in that book doesn't tell us it was Andalusian in origin, it could equally have been a North African recipe he was documenting. The book itself covers both culinary traditions together.

  The third source you cite, the Murad (2024) Academia.edu paper, actually says in its text that "Isfanj survives today across North Africa (Al-Tujibi and Newman 181); they are known as Sfenj in Algeria and Morocco." That's your own cited source describing Sfenj as a North African survival, not an Andalusian export.

  You also say the article acknowledges it's "nowadays" Maghrebi in the first sentence, which is fair, but the question here is specifically about the infobox "Place of origin" field. That field is supposed to reflect where something comes from, not where it spread to. Given that the two sources currently cited in the article for that claim are both inaccessible and their own titles describe Sfenj as Moroccan, I think there is a genuine sourcing problem with the current infobox text regardless of what the better sources might eventually say. WP:V Bohosquare1 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the infobox "Place of origin" field for Sfenj be changed from "Al-Andalus" to "Morocco" or "Maghreb"? Bohosquare1 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Four days on, and you've raised another RfC, your third on this page. What has happened since the last one was terminated that now justifies another? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Note: I opened the collapsed section and see the process has not changed.

This is an editing issue. When there is no perceived emergency, bearing in mind that a discussion "doesn't really need a 30-day RfC", some of us do many things and get involved, personally or Wikipedia-wise, in things that may be time-consuming. Four days is not an abnormally long time to wait for some reply. We are all (mostly) volunteers. When the other potential remedies are skipped, like when a contentious edit is reverted, a suggestion is disagreed with, or is not given immediate attention, there are other options. RFC's are time-consuming.

I did see an issue. The Requesting other editors' help for content disputes section adds confusion that should be dealt with. The "Requests for comment" subsection has two more subsections below it. One is "Third opinion," and the other is "Dispute resolution noticeboard". That subsection states that Disputes are sometimes referred to a more appropriate venue (such as Requests for Comment). This really should be the last sentence. An RFC should be the last option per the opening paragraph, Many disputes can be resolved without external input.... I will bring that up there.

It seems to me some confusion could be where there is an issue. I don't know (just surmising), but this is ill-conceived at best, certainly improper, and should be withdrawn or closed. If the initial opposing editor does not reply, then seek alternatives. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Fair question. The previous RfC was closed because the statement wasn't brief and neutral. This one is a single sentence. The talk page discussion has been open since 1 March with M.Bitton's oppose on record, so it has had time to develop normally. That felt like enough to try again with a properly formed RfC Bohosquare1 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is a factual dispute about the place of origin (e.g., two countries bickering over who "really" invented it), then that line should be completely from the infobox, and both claims explained in a paragraph or two of written text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and that would be a real improvement here. The two sources currently cited in the article for the Al-Andalus claim are both dead links, and their own titles describe sfenj as Moroccan and Maghrebi. The article also notes the Marinid dynasty in Morocco already knew sfenj before Al-Andalus ended in 1492, so the origin story is genuinely complicated. Removing it from the infobox and laying out the different claims in the article body with proper sourcing would be much cleaner. Bohosquare1 (talk) Bohosquare1 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)