User talk:Foudel

Spamlinks

I'm afraid the links to mediterasian which you have added are pretty much the classic case of spamlinks. You are a new user whose only edits have been to add links to one particular site, and a reasonable inference is that you have some particular connection to that site.

There's nothing particularly wrong about the mediterasian site, but it is not an essential authority on its topic. If we were to link to mediterasian, we'd have to link to dozens or perhaps hundreds of equally relevant recipe sites, but Wikipedia policy explicitly says that Wikipedia is not a Web directory. We welcome you to be a constructive contributor to the content of Wikipedia, but you should know that self-interested edits are frowned on. At this point, I think most editors would agree that it would be inappropriate for you to add any more links to Mediterasian (or write an article about it). --Macrakis 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised you persist in adding links without bothering to reply to this explanation of why they were removed. That is discourteous at best. --Macrakis 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding on my Talk page. I'm happy to hear you've contributed substantively to many articles. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that there are too many links to mediterasian, and that they can fairly be characterized as spamlinks, that is, links expressly designed to improve the pagerank of the target site rather than selected by impartial editorial judgement:

• According to Yahoo, 43 of the first 50 incoming links to your site come from wikipedia.org; similar results from Alexa. That is not normal.
• Many links are from xx.wikipedia.org where xx is not English, and your content is in English. This is not a priori bad, but does show a pattern....
• I see no reason to believe that your content is among the best on the Web on the given subjects, and anyway Wikipedia is not a Web directory.

Your arguments that "The Greek recipes link was actually the first ever external link on the Greek cuisine page" and "the link you removed on the Mediterranean diet page has similarly been there since 2004" are not relevant. Just because no one noticed the linkspamming pattern before, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be noticed now.

As for your various good reviews, that's all very nice, but first of all, they (and also your home page) focus on nutrition, not on the cuisine. Secondly, the very title of your site, Mediterasian, and the home page text show that you're promoting an original take on these cuisines. When an encyclopedia reader (as opposed to a cookbook reader) reads about Moussaka, he or she would like to know about its history, about its ingredients, perhaps even about its nutritional attributes, but doesn't expect to be directed to sites with their own (perhaps very tasty and very healthy) interpretations.

Good luck with your site and your new book. --Macrakis 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciated your explaining on my Talk page, but now I see that you went ahead and put your links back without waiting for an answer. Sigh. Tell you what. If you don't want to be perceived as a spammer, I suggest that you choose one page where mediterasian is particularly relevant, say Mediterranean diet, and I will support a link there as long as you don't try to stuff the rest of Wikipedia with links. --Macrakis 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

mediterasian.com

Hi, I saw you are reinstating links (that have been there for a long time) and I saw the discussion above, and on the talkpage of User:Macrakis. I see you are involved in this site, you are a maintainer ("We've spent thousands of hours developing our site, and give away all the information for free (the site is also advertisement free)"). That would be a conflict of interest. I presume that the links were removed per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL (and others may have to see the same faith). If your site provides specific, unique and notable data, it may be suitable as a reference, otherwise I am afraid it is not (if you believe it is a viable external link, please discuss readdition on the talkpages of the pages the link should be added to). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Foudel, you say "Every link to our site through Wikipedia is on a page I've personally helped write...they are relevant and helpful links." Well, I'm glad that you aren't hiding the fact that you added these links yourself. Thank you, Beetstra, for the specific link to WP policy -- I should have mentioned that earlier. To be completely clear, the policy says:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.WP:EL

Best, --Macrakis 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hummus

Foudel, thank you for your friendly message. I'm glad you've realized that the reaction of multiple Wikipedians needs to be taken seriously....

Please go ahead and suggest a link to your hummus page on the talk page, but I am afraid I will not be able to support its inclusion in the article, for three reasons:

If there are recipe links at all, they should be to a site that has some claim to be a specialist in the topic, not a generalist in Mediterranean and Asian cuisine, which covers most of the population of the world.

Since you are essentially a nutritional, not a gastronomic specialist, you presumably choose and adapt your recipes to suit your nutritional goals, not to record the authentic, traditional cooking of the regions: though Pakistan is indubitably Asian, Pakistanis are also heavy meat eaters (and let's not talk about butter ghee...); Iraq's traditional cooking fat is sheep's tail; Emilia-Romagna's traditional cooking fat is lard; Okinawans are large consumers of lard (and also lots of fresh vegetables, etc.).

In the particular case of the Hummus page, though your recipe seems fine (but you can find the same one at a gazillion sites), the descriptive text is incorrect and unauthentic. It reads:

Hummus is a creamy puree of chickpeas and tahini (sesame seed paste) seasoned with lemon juice and garlic, and is a popular spread and dip in Greece and throughout the Middle East. Hummus can be served as part of a meze platter; with bread or vegetable crudités for dipping; as a spread or filling for pita, lavash or Turkish pide bread; or as a tasty, creamy alternative to butter in sandwiches. A spoonful or two can also be added to Middle Eastern or Greek-style pilafs and stews to add richness.

As the Wikipedia article correctly says (with sources), hummus bi tahina is specifically a Levantine dish (the region of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine), and is unknown in Greece. It is certainly eaten elsewhere in the Middle East where it has been brought by Lebanese restauranteurs (but is not a traditional part of, say, Yemeni or Persian cuisine) and apparently was introduced to England by Cypriot restauranteurs (hence the perception that it is Greek -- see article in Oxford Companion to Food). The suggestion to use it as a substitute for butter in sandwiches sounds delicious, but I don't see what it has to do with authenticity. The notion of adding it to "Greek-style pilaf" is, um, peculiar -- we (Greeks) might well add whole chickpeas to a pilaf, but hummus bi tahina? In short, the existing information on the Wikipedia Hummus page is more reliable than your page, so why should we point to it?

I realize that this all sounds rather harsh, but I would rather you understand the basis for my judgement. I really have nothing against the dietary advice you give, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it.

Sincerely,

--Macrakis 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the wiki cookbook is a terrible source, and about.com not much better. The NY Times is simply reporting that there is a Greek restaurant in Connecticut that serves hummus, which doesn't tell you much -- there are Japanese restaurants that serve Baked Alaska, and for that matter plenty of restaurants in Greece which will serve you Wiener Schnitzel, which hardly makes it Greek cuisine. If it does, the Mediterranean and Asian cuisines surely include McDonalds' hamburgers and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

You deny that you choose and adapt your recipes to suit your nutritional goals. Perhaps you don't adapt them, but surely it's not a coincidence that you don't have recipes for the famous Provencal dish Boeuf en daube (too much meat), the famous Greek/Turkish dishes souvlaki/shish kebab and kokoretsi (fatty innards), the famous Greek/Turkish baklava (too much butter and sugar), etc. All legitimate choices for nutrition, no doubt, but not a solid reference source for Provencal or Greek cuisine.

Now that I've spent a little more time (too much time!) on your site, I see other peculiarities. You mention something called "Falafel kebab (gyro)", which is hard to make sense of. Gyro is the Greek name for vertically roasted meat, the Turkish doner kebab. They are now often made with chicken instead of red meat, sometimes even fish, but I don't know how you could make a falafel gyro -- falafel is always deep-fried. Maybe this is some sort of New Zealand invention.

Anyway, enough of this. I think you understand both Wikipedia's policies about self-linking better and my perspective on your site. --Macrakis 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the about.com site, sorry, it's not bad.

we don’t say that hummus originated in Greece,

But you list it under "Greek recipes" and say your recipes are "authentic".

only that it is popular in Greece (and has been for many generations).

As a child, I never saw hummus in Greece (and I am not that many generations old :-) ), though it does appear on meze assortments now. And it's interesting to compare it to other foods. For example, χάμπουργκερ gets 13000 hits on Google, while χούμους gets only 932. Χάμπουργκερ is listed in the Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (1998), χούμους is not. Surely you would not include "authentic χάμπουργκερ" in your Greek recipes section? (Besides its nutritional properties...)

I wrote to the editor of the about.com site, and here is her response (the ellipses are in the original; I haven't changed a word):

Thanks for writing. You know, in all the years I've lived in Greece I've seen it served in a restaurant twice... but have had it in homes. The origin seems to be more generally middle Eastern, and certainly interest in it increased during and after the influx of Lebanese... however, it was certainly around long before then.

I included it in the site because so many people have become familiar with it (outside of Greece) from Greek restaurants... and because I love it. I lived in Thrace for a few decades before moving to Crete, and up there, tahini with anything and everything is a favorite... so chickpeas just fall into that wider scope... grin.

So she agrees with you that it was around long before the Lebanese civil war. On the other hand, the reason she includes it is because of its popularity outside of Greece.

So gyros are typically served with pita bread and vegetables as a sandwich -- and not simply as pieces of roasted meat as you contend.

Gyros (Greek 'turning') and shwarma (Arabic < Turkish 'rotating') are alternate names for the Turkish döner kebab 'turning roast', meat roasted on a vertical spit. These can be served on a plate, or in a pita-bread sandwich, which for short is in turn called gyros or kebab. Many other things are served in pita-bread sandwiches, including falafel, plain hummus bi tahini, shish kebab/souvlaki. It may well be that in New Zealand, the word kebab has taken on the meaning "pita-bread sandwich" (of anything), I don't know. I also don't know what is meant by "falafel kebab"; is it just falafel in pita bread? or falafel + gyros in pita bread?

Best, --Macrakis 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)