Language desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 6[edit]

Origin[edit]

This is going to be an interesting discussion. In the article salchipapas, a user is arguing that the sources I present do not attribute the origin of a plate to Peru. He argues that the sources should especifically use the word "origin". Yet, from my understanding of the English language, the word "origin" is not required to establish the origin of something. For example, when you call someone a Brazilian, you are refering to that person as having originated in Brazil. Similarly, when you state that someone is "from Brazil", you are stating that the person originated in Brazil. In both cases, the word "origin" is not used, but the concept is understood. Well, to be more direct, here are the specific references in discussion:

Charles Frazier: "Whether in these nack bars or in one of the many steet stalls throughout Lima, try salchipapas, a Peruvian fast-food mixture of French fries, sliced sausages, and a variety of sauces ranging from mild to firey".
Dan Perlman: "salchipapa - french fries with bits of sliced hot dogs mixed in, street food from Lima (Peru)".
New York Magazine: "French fries adorned with sliced hot dogs that turns out to be a straight-from-Lima street food called salchipapa"

What are your opinions?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the discussion is whether to use this version of the article or this one. The discussion can be fully read here for further information and additional sources. However I consider this a problem of neutrality more than language usage, I do believe that if an article will dedicate a section speaking about the origin and claim that this origin was exclusively and without any doubt from a specific place, the reference used should be about this topic and provide an explanation of this origin. Otherwise and adding the fact that there were other references listed that made the same comments about the consumption of this dish in other countries, I consider it’s an inappropriate usage of those sources, which I also should point out aren’t verifiable because the link doesn’t point to those phrases. That’s my opinion, hopefully someone can give us a hand. Best regards. 190.129.63.177 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this and started to read the discussions. You'll resolve this as you do more research--I'll bet you could find references buried in the archives of Peruvian newspapers and magazines that would help determine where and when salchipapas first became popular, or at least narrow it down. (Better than thin sources in English, especially if they were written by outsiders.) In the meantime, I would say avoid the words "origin" or "originate." (Both of you, by the way, seem to dislike accent marks! Pls. see the Spanish article.) SeoMac (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, neither of the three sentences you quoted prove decisively that the dish has Peruvian origin (that is, that it was invented in Peru). All they say is that the dish is currently part of Peruvian cuisine, just like chorizo is part of Mexican cuisine despite originating in Spain, or kettlebells are strongly associated with Russia (even though their true origin is controversial, and Scots played curling with kettlebell-shaped rocks with handles about 50 years before the first mention of a kettlebell in Russian literature.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No other source has been brought up that disputes that the plate is Peruvian. Also, The IP has his facts wrong. Up to now he has brought up no source which makes the same direct claims as the 3 sources I have provided. In other words, no source claims that this is "a Bolivian plate" or "from Bolivia". I'd alsolike to add that I found a source talking about the origins of recipes and have posted it in the article's talk page (Talk:Salchipapas). It just confirms what these three other sources were presenting. The third opinion reviewer also agreed that the sources define the plate as of Peruvian origin.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "plate", do you in fact mean "dish"? They're roughly synonyms in general, but not in the sense I think you mean. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I’m the IP who previously participated in this discussion; I decided to make an account to ease the communications. Thank you very much for all the feedback I think all your opinions are helping me to think about a solution regarding this article. I’d like to bring a question to the board Marshal already dismissed them, his arguments can be read here and here I brought some sources to expand the article but I want to check two of them and see what others think [1] and [2] they say:

The most profitable and frequent activity for them was the cooking and commerce of “typical” foods of the regions of Bolivia from which they were native, such as faux rabbit, soup, broaster chicken, salchipapas, silverside, shad, pork rinds and empanadas salteñas, which…

The other one says:

The Kingdom of the Salchipapa: Bolivia is known among other things for the abundance of aliments and vegetables. Few months ago, within the framework of the national encounter of the tuber, the potato producers of Villazón exposed their variety in Tiwanaku, “which is the potato culture”, explained the archeologist Hugo Avalos, a tuber scholar and of the tiwanakota race roots. Thus the region adheres itself to the celebrations which are being carried out for the potato worldwide. In the celebration it was exposed from the legendary “ajawiri”, passing through the “imilla” potato, the “waycha”, the “revolution” and the “khati”, to the new variety “desirée”. From this tuber, like it couldn’t be otherwise, it’s born one of the specialties that fascinate children and adults: the salchipapa. Prepared with fried sausages, French fries and all the seasonings available, the passion for the salchipapa doesn’t have equivalent here.

It’s just a rough translation of what both references say about the Salchipapa, but correct me if I’m wrong but I consider at least these two sources go in the same line as the previously ones used to claim the origin in Lima, Peru. Of course I would never even consider to switch from a biased version to another biased version, I still consider these sources are as vague as the rest but I think they do contradict somehow what was stated before. So I think at least instead of fighting whether the plate is originated in which country it’d be more adequate to say "it’s an Andean dish" as it seems that most sources speak more about its predominance in the Andean countries even though apparently in Mexico is quite popular [3]. This is a question for the board as Marshal already answered me but I really don’t consider that the sources previously quoted are more reliable than these ones, what I think is that so far there isn’t any scientific study conducted about the origin, most sources talk briefly about them while describing the cities or tourism but nobody focused their research in trying to determinate where and how they were originated, so since there isn’t a study claiming that the wiser thing to do is to avoid taking this as an indisputable truth use a more neutral language and focus on the material we have. Waiting for your feedback, sincerely Teberald (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language board doesn't deal with such a long drawn-out situation.

In any case, as I told you before, the "Kingdom of the Salchipapa" source is saying that salchipapas originate from "the tuber". I am sure that by "tuber" they mean potato and not Bolivia (though, arguably some countries do look like tubers).

The source about "typical foods" is not conveying the message you think. In its list, it mentions that soup, pork rinds, and empanadas as typical of Bolivian cuisine. That certainly is true, but at no point is the source claiming that these items actually are Bolivian. Soups are also typical in Peru, and in Italy they are the bomb, but soup itself does not originate in either country. What that source does demonstrate is that "Salchipapas" is part of Latin American cuisine; however, the origin remains Lima, Peru. As I wrote before, that is an extremely accurate association (not just "Peru" in general, but "Lima" especifically as mentioned by two reliable sources). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I wrote clearly before that the question was directed to the rest of the board as you expressed already your opinion. Which I also linked to provide other editors all the information necessary. I'll leave you a comment though in the article talk page. Thanks Teberald (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is more complicated than I thought. After some digging, it appears to me that, by the mid-1980's, salchipapas were already common in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and possibly parts of Colombia. Of the first three, Peru has the largest population and it sees the largest number of tourists, and that would explain why it's most commonly associated with salchipapas - even if they weren't invented there. Their true place of origin remains unknown. --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and research, I guess for now there isn't enough information to expand further in the topic. But seems that we compiled what could be compiled about the subject for now. Thank you all again for your feedback, it seems quite a helpful community in here. Best regards. Teberald (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerant, it would be great if you could please provide sources to your statements. Otherwise, you'll be providing ideas without foundation that in the long-run can cause problems for the article. I have found no source which claims that "their place of origin is unknown", but sources do exist which state that "Salchipapas are from Peru". From my understanding of the English language, the last statement defines the place of origin as Peru. I find it hard to believe that no native English speaker can provide their input on this subject. In any case, thank you for taking the time to research the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin as a Swedish given name[edit]

I asked this question here some time ago, and thought maybe some Swedes can shed light on this? There is a recent fashion of naming boys Alvin in Sweden. The question is, is this merely the American name Alvin imported via pop culture of some sort, or is there a historical Swedish name Alvin? Any known bearer of this name in Sweden alive before the 20th century, or indeed before 1970 or so? --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a swedish site giving some bakground on this [[4]]. According to the site, the name dates back to the German name "Albion" and has been used in Sweden since the 16th century (at the time spelt as "Alffwin").DI (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a Swedish name and an English name since berfore the ancestors of the Swedes and the the English split some 1600 years ago. It's probably just a resurgence of a historical name. Name poularity is often cyclical. Your English theory is unlikely, as the name is rather rare in English. Unless there has been a extrordinary interest in chimpmunks in Sweden recently. I saw you asked about the surname "Alvin" in Sweden and found few bearers. This is not surprising, since this is not how Swedish names are usually formed. Try Alvinsson/Albinsson, and you'll find a lot more. Here's some info on etymology: [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the States, "Alvin" peaked in popularity in 1920s at #71 among all boy names, and by now it's quite rare (the chipmunk blip was insignificant). [6] This site: [7] says that "Alvin" is far more popular today in Sweden (but not in Norway) than it has ever been in the U.S. (8 boys per 1000, as of 2009). [8] also shows 8 Alvins and 11 Albins per 1000 newborns. "Albin" was more more popular than "Alvin" both in 2007 and 2008 and that must be the "original" spelling of whatever it was that influenced the resurgence of that name. Which could be something as simple as a pop star or a soccer player named Albin.

Per Albin Hansson was a famous Swedish politician in the first half of the 20th century (apparently as famous in Sweden as Franklin Delano Roosevelt is in the U.S.), he's been dead since 1946, but maybe his name got back into the baby name lists recently for some reason.--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wiki article on the first name Albin: Albin (given name). "Albin is a masculine Polish, Scandinavian, and Slovenian given name, from the Roman cognate Albinus." Here is the list of notable Swedish people named Albin. This name has been steadily popular in Sweden as far back as http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/ has data: [9].--Itinerant1 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is so poplular, in fact, that entirely new and highly original spellings have been devised for it! See Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be at all surprised if "Alvin" plummeted in popularity in the US after Alvin and the Chipmunks came along in the late 1950s. Just like the name "Elmer" was once pretty common, but thanks to Elmer Fudd, it's almost unheard of now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of Alvin Maker come to mind. Dru of Id (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]