Talk:Pretzel

Reasons for changes

restoring lead of article that was unnecessarily deleted: Initially no information was deleted at all. The info in the lead was too specific. The lead is only supposed to give a general idea. If there is an extra paragraph for history it makes sence to put historical or background info there, especially if the background is disputed or unknown.

It is necessary to distinguish the pastries or breads made in the shape of a pretzel (and made from a whole variety of doughs and a whole variety of glazes and toppings) from the crispy pretzels as a snack. I changed my own contribution to make this clear and listed three types of pretzels. The first two cannot be considered snacks, at least not in the same sense as chips etc. Many of the statements about pretzels do not apply to all these kinds. The history section mainly applies only to the pastry with the typical pretzel loop, so it’s necessary to make a distinction.

There are respective “Brezel/pretzel” articles in many other languages; there is no reason to write what pretzel sticks are called in German or Hungarian in the introduction.

I decided to remove the paragraph about “earlier times”, even though it is sourced because it is too unspecific. In earlier times Pretzels were associated with superstitions and in Europe people wore them around their necks to scare away evil spirits. Pretzels also were hung on trees to cause them to bear well. Some thought that breaking a pretzel was like breaking a wish-bone; Breaking the pretzel ceremoniously would make a wish come true. I am very familiar with European history and never heard of this custom. That doesn’t mean it never existed, but it cannot have been important, certainly not wide spread and restricted to certain occasions. The “wish-bone custom” is totally unknown in Europe (at least continental Europe). A Dictionary of Gastronomy does not sound like a source to support such statements. If found absolutely necessary for the article, it should go under “miscellaneous”. I also find, the paragraph about Kepler is too much out of the way, but I left it. As proof that the pretzel shape is old it would suffice to mention it and put the rest into the sources section.Sundar1 (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted a lot of information, because the lead is supposed to be a summary, meaning that information that appears in the lead should also appear in the article. A one-paragraph lead is much less helpful than a two or three paragraph lead that contains information appearing later in the article. Additionally, many of your edits contain spelling and punctuation errors, which I fixed. please use "preview" to fix those things before saving. You also added a lot of information that's only verified by primary sources. See WP:RS for more information. The bulleted list in the lead is absolutely NOT an appropirate use of an embedded list. Leads are supposed to be prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

apart from the deleted section mentioned above i did not consciously delete any information. it has only been put in more suitable places. if you insist on putting more info into the intro, be my guest and add it. but be so kind and do not delete any of mine. it is all sourced and unless an info is disputed wikipedia is not that picky about sourcing. actually i used most sources that you used yourself. i have a reputation of sourcing every word if need be. there is no policy i know of that a bulleted list cannot be in the lead. you are also free to correct absolute spelling mistakes if unacceptable.Sundar1 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: Wikipedia is very picky about sources; some editors are more picky than others, like me. Please read the guideline on reliable sources. Many of your sources are German language (and are not marked as such), making it difficult to verify any of the information. I have a rudimentary understanding of the language, but please note that English language sources are preferred if possible because this is the English Wikipedia. Regarding the list in the lead, see WP:EMBED. "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". That message is present on every single editing page. It's also considered better form to discuss before making changes, rather than making sweeping edits and then putting information on the talk page. Discuss first before making further changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

my first edit was small and without deletion of any info. therefore i do not consider the change “sweeping”. nevertheless i should have explained it the discussion page. even my following edits i would not consider “sweeping” because i only deleted very little info. in this case i explained it in the discussion page to which i yet await a response.

yes, english sources are preferable but non-english ones are acceptable. english wikipedia would be very poor if only english sources were used. i suppose that’s why your article is so “balanced” because you only use english sources.

sources of my edits are all given and don’t have to be put after every word.

A pretzel is a bread pastry of Medieval European origin (some accounts say Italian or French[1][2][3]) that has the shape of a three looped knot or twisted braid. Pretzels are either soft or hard. Hard pretzels have evolved into a variety of shapes from knotted loops to straight "pretzel sticks". The pretzel dough is made from wheat flour, water, sugar, and yeast, sprinkled with coarse salt. Hard pretzels are typically glazed with lye and salted.[4] To avoid confusion, the Germans call these Laugenbrezel, or lye pretzels.

This intro contains numerous mistakes and is very confusing:

• pretzels are not all the same shape.
• the dough is not always the same, there are many different kinds
• soft pretzels are also often glazed with lye and salted
• germans don’t call hard pretzels laugenbrezel

therefore my into is more clear and logical. one has to assume that a reader knows nothing about the topic, so i cannot start a sentence in the lead with “hard pretzels …” before explaining what kind of pretzels there are.

unless you can explain why your intro is better and you insist on these mistakes i will put my edit back in place.Sundar1 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Lead sections are supposed to be written in prose. Your version was a list with "bullets," and it was more in the style of a disambiguation page than an article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As to your comments about sources, if a statement is likely to be challenged, then it needs to be sourced, regardless of whether references need to be tagged and duplicated. The only items marked with {{cn}} tags are those which I found likely to be challenged. Germans calling hard pretzels "Laugenbrezel" was copied from your edit, so don't blame others for that error. If you have further information that you want to add to the lead, I have no issue with that, as long as it's formatted properly (in prose, no lists) and is reliably sourced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm very sorry to see that you are basically hiding behind format, pointing out do's and don'ts that are nowhere written in stone. my main interest is the content of my additions and changes, not the format. i'm not particularly hung on the list but in this case find it very helpful. it reflects the evolution of the pretzel and the history paragraph should actually be based on it. putting it in prose would make it difficult to understand this development, as is the case in the previous version. how is one to see the connection between a medieval soft and looped pretzel with a pretzel stick? if you are so bent on using prose, i suppose it would have been much more constructive to change the list into prose instead of insisting on the old unclear lead full of mistakes. actually, it is much more inappropriate to put historical info into the lead and mention that it is not backed by sources in the same breath.

yes indeed - you write, when a source is likely to be challenged. apart from your grabbing any straw to defend the present lead, i saw only a very small likelihood for my editions to be challenged. they are not exactly what one would call "doubtful" or "debatable" in order to attract a higher degree of scrutiny. whatever it may be, my additions are all sourced and i do not see an issue here.

i can humbly say that i'm an academic and i've been writing in wikipedia for quite a while; i've never come across the argument against entries, that their sources are not english. that's the poorest argument i've ever read; it's unprofessional to say the least and also a non-issue here. english sources are preferable, that's all.

i possibly make mistakes but i did not write that germans call hard pretzels laugenbrezel. i wrote that they call the "second type" laugenbrezel.

so far, you have not brought forth one single argument against the content and, again, you are hiding behind formalities and not responding to the listed mistakes.Sundar1 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content of what you wanted to add. If there are facts you want to work into the article, you can do so, but you can't front-load it as you have.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

correct content and clarity of the lead is the major issue for me - your major issue is obviously something else. what do you mean by front-load and why can i not front-load?Sundar1 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, not a list. It is supposed to sum up what is elsewhere in the article. So what I was suggesting is that if you feel certain points aren't covered, you need to place them within the body of the article with proper sourcing. I'm not trying to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia, simply suggesting that it be put in properly. I didn't even examine carefully what you were trying to add from a content perspective. My comment was totally concerning form, not content. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

i very well know what a lead is for. i also never wrote that you're trying to keep info out. i wrote that you are defending the present lead, meaning you are trying to prevent changes. if a term, like pretzel, can refer to several different things, then why does it not make sense to use a list in order to point that out from the very beginning and to avoid confusion? and where does it say a list cannot be in the lead? besides, i said from the very beginning that additional info can be added. also, you totally ignore, that the present lead contains a number of mistakes and is confusing.Sundar1 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for the format of the lead and WP:EMBED for policies regarding embedded lists. That is why there should be no lists in the lead. This is not a disambiguation page; it is an encyclopedia article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

the major purposes of the lead are fulfilled and it doesn't say anywhere that there cannot be lists. the list can very well be turned into a sentence, if it makes you happy, all you need to add is the word "and". but this will just make it harder to read, that's all. Sundar1 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:EMBED says that "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." While this is not a "list of links", the principle still applies. The lead is meant to be "a concise overview of the article" (from WP:LEAD), meaning that explanatory prose is necessary here. If there were a disambiguation page about pretzels, you could go on your merry way with the bulleted list; however, this is an article, not a dabpage, and not a list. MOS:BEGIN, a subsection of WP:LEAD, says that "[the] first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific." Note the words "opening paragraph"; not introductory list. A lead is built from paragraphs of prose. I challenge you to find any featured content or good articles which use a similar format to the one you are proposing. Even featured lists do not use lists in their leads; this link will give you 32 good examples of that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

here's what's still wrong with the lead

it does not unambiguously define the topic for the reader and some statements are simply false.

A pretzel is a bread pastry of Medieval European origin (some accounts say Italian or French[1][2][3]) that has the shape of a three-looped knot or twisted braid. if this was the german wikipedia this statement could be considered correct because the germans differ between pretzels and pretzel sticks and have different words. this is not the case in english. since this statement neiter applies to the lye pretzel nor to the various pretzel sticks, it is wrong.

Pretzels are either soft or hard. Hard pretzels have evolved into a variety of shapes from knotted loops to straight "pretzel sticks". this statement is confusing. indeed, pretzels are either soft or hard. but where is the connection to the medieval pretzels? hard pretzels have no immediate relationship with the medievel ones which were only soft and not glazed. hard pretzels evolved only from the lye pretzel.

The pretzel dough is made from wheat flour, water, sugar, and yeast, sprinkled with coarse salt. this statement is also wrong because it only applies to lye pretzels and pretzel sticks; even for these there are different ingredients, e. g. malt and no sugar. what about all the other pretzel kinds?

Pretzels are used in southern German-speaking areas in certain customs and Christian holidays.[4][5][6][7] only one of the three types is used as such, not the lye pretzels and not the hard pretzels.

The pretzel is popular in southern Germany and adjoining German-speaking areas as a variety of bread, a side dish or a snack. only the soft lye pretzel is considered a variety of bread and used for a side dish or a snack.

i do not agree with your interpretation of wikipedia or whatever other rules, although i did have in mind to change the list into prose which easily can be done. the purpose of the lead is absolutely clear and can be fulfilled in different ways. whatever is most suitable should be applied and in most cases indeed pure prose is used. there are many wikipedia articles with numbered or bulleted lists and the reason for an article to be “featured” certainly is not because it doesn’t have such a list in the lead. so far i found no article in which a list in the lead has been critisized.

we happen to be dealing with a term that refers to at least two different things: a looped pastry and a pretzel stick. at first glance they have nothing in common. then there is the lye pretzel which connects the two. the lead you are defending does not address this important aspect or make it clear. perhaps it should be considered to to break this up into at least two articles: pretzels (referring to all soft types including the lye pretzel) and pretzel sticks and their varieties and list them in the disambiguation as such. as long as this is not done the differentiation is necessary in the lead and that’s best done with a list.

i changed the bullets to numbers which even better reflect the development. yet, if you are so upset about the list, you can easily drop the numbers, only need to add an “or” and, voilà, there’s your prose. but, of course, as i wrote before, we know that is not the real issue, is it?

i re-introduced the three pictures in the lead because they cover the three basic types of pretzels. aslo, galleries are quite common in articles and there is nothing wrong in keeping this one. indeed, some of the pictuers are too much but pictures of non-lye pretzel varieties must stay. b.t.w., i think “important points in american pretzel history” is a joke. happy new year. Sundar1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your disparaging comments about the work of others is not appreciated. If you feel that further explanation needs to be made as to the difference between types of pretzels, by all means create a "Types of pretzels" section. The writing that you continue to introduce is stunted and have numerous corrections that need to be made. You have continually reverted to earlier versions that do not contain the corrections which I have now had to make multiple times. The discussion page is not being properly utilized, in that you are making large-scale edits in the midst of a dispute instead of discussing first to reach a consensus. The multiple images in the lead and other additions throughout the article make the article ugly, crowded, and creates multiple bunching issues. The gallery is unneeded; see the image use policies for galleries. As to the list in the lead, it's simply wrong. You say that you have found no article where lists in the lead have been criticized; that is because such leads do not, and should not, exist. I am concerned that we've passed beyond the limits of good faith here, as you seem to be simply reverting to error-filled versions when you add information. You haven't addressed any of the concerns that other users have raised about your edits here; you've merely stated that no one is addressing your concerns. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

pointing out mistakes, which you refuse to acknowledge, is not disparaging. you obviously have a false idea about wikipedia. i made an effort to explain why your lead has many errors and is confusing if not misleading. you keep pointing out rules that do not exist or for which exceptions are certainly possible. you yet have to point out one factual mistake in my editing. instead you indulge in pointing out non-existent rules, spelling and grammar mistakes.

we also need not talk about aesthetics before the content is right and, after removing a number of photos the article certainly isn't crowded. as to galleries as such, they are permitted if they help understand or explain the article – this is the case. we can still discuss the necessity of the one or other picture in it. as to the pics in the lead, i insist that they stay, as well as the listing of the main different types of pretzels – otherwise the article will have to be split which i’m quite prepared to do. besides, there are many wikipedia articles with lists in the lead. indeed, they are the exception but make sense as in this case.

you will have to explain, as i did, why my list is wrong (apart from rules and aesthetics). the discussion with you and perhaps one more person doesn’t qualify as discussion underlining the correctness of your edits or arguments. you have quite a nerve writing about concerns of “other users”. so far there was only one other one and he has not responded to what i answered. so which “concerns” have i not yet addressed, unlike you?

the additional editing i did in the article was necessary because of the changes in the lead, which i explained ad nauseam and which you ignore. as far as i can see i made sure that no information was lost. i also tried hard to include your recent corrections and possibly forgot one, although i don’t know which. the greek monasteries are sourced and not any worse than a number of others statements in the article. i have the impression you never bothered to read the whole article.Sundar1 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"i think “important points in american pretzel history” is a joke" - This is not pointing out mistakes. It's a direct insult to the work of other users who worked on this article. I do not have any "false ideas" about Wikipedia; I know what it is and what it's for. I also understand its policies and guidelines, something you seem to want to overlook. You have made numerous large-scale edits in this middle of a dispute without discussing first and working toward consensus. "Insisting" that things stay your way is an example of tendentious editing. I have already explained why the three images in the lead are a problem, but I will gladly do so again: they are ugly and crowd out the rest of the article. You have also combined many small unrelated paragraphs into large, less readable paragraphs, and inserted large amounts of images that do not increase the reader's understanding of the article. The gallery in this article is absolutely superfluous. I explained above, pointing to the image use policy for galleries, but you continue to re-insert this unnecessary information. You also continue to use the word "fest" in an unacceptable way. The use of the word "fest" in English like it is used in German is archaic. I have attempted time and time again to fix these errors but you continue to re-insert them.

If you want to discuss errors to specific parts of the article, do so before making sweeping changes. Your bulleted list in the lead is not an exception to WP:LAYOUT, which is part of the Manual of Style. I am reinstating the prose lead. If you have issues with it, discuss on the talk page before re-inserting your preferred version. I still have no idea what issues you have with it, because all I have done is restore sourced information that was previously there, as well as keeping some of the information that you inserted in a less-wordy fashion and removing information that is not relevant to the lead as a summary of the article.

Additionally, please use the preview button to check your edits before saving them. Now I have to go back through and remove all of the spaces before your references. See the Manual of Style. I also restored the copyedited version of the "German-speaking countries" section. Please do not revert to the earlier version, because no information has been changed or lost. I have simply corrected your numerous spelling, capitalization, and formatting errors. Please keep in mind that German and English syntaxes are different and that all foreign words must be italicized. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

flies and elephants

three images in the lead are a problem….. they are ugly and crowd out the rest of the article. You have also combined many small unrelated paragraphs into large, less readable paragraphs, and inserted large amounts of images that do not increase the reader's understanding of the article... The gallery in this article is absolutely superfluous.. You also continue to use the word "fest" in an unacceptable way.. I have attempted time and time again to fix these errors but you continue to re-insert them

i find it very hard to respond to this kind of argumentation that has little to do with content which should primarily be discussed. there is nothing ugly about the pictures and they aren’t crowding anything. i’m sorry, but such a paragraph on american pretzel history and a list of for “american pretzel history” in a general article on the pretzel is a joke. where would we end, if i added a corresponding paragraph for the pretzel history of other countries? you can argue about one or the other picture in the gallery but as a whole it is not superfluous and certainly not “absolutely” superfluous. in my last edit i did not use the word “fest”. as i explained the last time, i took pain not to delete your spelling and grammar editions. it’s possible that one or the other escaped my attention but your statement “time and time again” is unwarranted.

I still have no idea what issues you have with it i have clearly explained what is wrong with it and will not repeat myself.

all I have done is restore sourced information that was previously there, as well as keeping some of the information that you inserted in a less-wordy fashion and removing information that is not relevant to the lead as a summary of the article

i can add to the list of mistakes in the lead that sourced information in the lead is taken out of context and therefore misleading and wrong. the sources talk about different kinds of pretzels and recipes, salty ones and sweet ones. the recipes for sweet and salty pretzels have little in common. the info you removed explains the relationship between the pretzel types and is necessary to understand the article.

You have also combined many small unrelated paragraphs into large, less readable paragraphs…which would these be?

less-wordy fashion.. have simply corrected your numerous spelling, capitalization, and formatting errors….no information has been changed or lost you have pointed this out numerous times but i’m afraid you will have to live with these shortcomings. no use to keep pointing your fingers at them. and, coming to think of it, i don’t see why i should bother checking my writing for american spelling, which i am not familiar with. i will leave that up to you, too. you did drop a lot of info which i put back. else, i left the section “german-speaking countries” the way you put it.

Please keep in mind that German and English syntaxes are different ...no kidding

indeed, articles in foreign languages are available. i more consider this section as an invitation to other readers to add info on the pretzel in their country. it will be no sacrilege to keep it in.

unless you come forth with factual problems or strict rules that i’m unaware of and unless you explain the factual correctness of your lead, it cannot remain as it is. my edits may not confirm 100% to the rules, they way you see them, but at least they are factually correct, logical and clear.Sundar1 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you feel the need to keep making a brand-new section each time you have a response here, and since you feel that you need "hard-and-fast rules" (which Wikipedia does not have), I'll try to address each of your points one by one:

• The images in the lead are a clear violation of WP:LAYOUT#Images. "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place... Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in... When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers."
• The gallery is superfluous per WP:IG. "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject... However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." Since most of the images are available on Commons, and since there is an inter-wiki template linking to the Commons gallery on the pretzel, the image gallery in this article can be removed.
• "in my last edit i did not use the word “fest”." - Then why did I have to remove it again, from a section that I know I repaired before?
• "but your statement “time and time again” is unwarranted" - It is not; I have had to make identical reversals of punctuation and spelling errors a minimum of three times.
• "i’m afraid you will have to live with these shortcomings" - I absolutely will not have to live with these shortcomings. It is the responsbility of the editor making changes to make sure that his work is correct. Forcing others to clean up after you is inconsiderate, and frankly, I consider your statement extremely rude.
• "i more consider this section as an invitation to other readers to add info on the pretzel in their country." - This invites vandalism and random collections of indiscriminate information; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE for more information on this topic.
• "at least they are factually correct, logical and clear" - Several of the edits that you continue to make are neither of these things. At least one item isn't reliably factually correct because you've sourced it to a mirror of the German Wikipedia! See WP:MIRROR and the guideline on the reliability of sources. The format of the lead isn't logical because it doesn't follow the established format for articles on the English Wikipedia. "Clear" is a misnomer, as you've already said above that editors will "have to live with these shortcomings", like your unnecessary duplication of references (which is in violation of WP:Citing sources) and your unwillingness to preview your edits to ensure that there are no spelling mistakes, punctuation errors, or spaces before your references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes that I listed above based on those policies. I have changed the lead to prose and fixed the errors therein while maintaining as much information as possible. I did reformat some references as was necessary per WP:CITE, and removed references that I had originally inserted which were later placed somewhere that didn't relate to the information they verify. The only information I removed, besides the gallery and "other countries" section per the guidelines outlined above, was the "Palm Pretzel" sentence, because it was sourced to a mirror of the German Wikipedia. Please do not re-insert that statement without a reliable source. Hopefully what remains is an acceptable compromise.

As to your concern that the timeline is "a joke": I actually agree with you, even if I think the way you went about saying it was rude. If you look back to the earlier history of this article, it was only a timeline and nothing else. It's come a long way since then, but in the discussion that occurred when the original timeline was removed in favor of prose, it was decided that keeping a reduced timeline was desirable for most of the editors that participated in the discussion. If you think that section is superfluous, then go ahead and remove it, but I will not do so because of that earlier discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

finally we are getting somewhere. although i see absolutely no advantage in putting the list into prose, if it satisfies your need to follow some non-existent rules – i can live with this solution. as to all the other “rules” or “policies” that you quote in your last response, not one of them is written in stone and not one of them is an absolute must. there has been no violation and certainly no “clear” violation of rules. and it is not me in need of any hard-and-fast rules, but i stick to them when they exist.

but you couldn’t resist changing the information in the lead and therefore it still contains mistakes. for the first two kinds of pretzels it is an absolute condition that they have the “pretzel loop” in order to be a pretzel. therefore it is not sufficient only to add further down, that the first two have this shape in common. (actually, a pretzel can be made of anything: straw, wood, clay etc. if it has the right shape, it’s a pretzel) therefore it doesn’t matter for the first type whether it’s soft or hard. so the lead still needs some changes like this:

A pretzel can come in several forms: a bread or sweet pastry shaped in a three-looped pretzel knot made for consumption within a few days; a bread pastry made from wheat flour, water and yeast, in a three-looped pretzel knot, glazed with lye and sprinkled with coarse salt, soft inside, usually about hand-sized and made for consumption on the same day; or a party snack with the same ingredients, but thinly shaped in various forms, baked to a crisp and very durable when stored in an airtight environment. The first two types have the typical pretzel knot in common. The second and third types usually have similar flavor profiles due to the inclusion of lye and salt. All three types have different backgrounds and purposes. To avoid confusion, Germans call the second type "Laugenbrezel" (lye pretzels). plus the two other pictures

the magic word about pictures in an article is “overwhelm”. there is no definition for this word in this context and i have enough wikipedia experience to have an own idea, when an article is overwhelmed. in this case i do not agree with you. instead, i find it absolutely necessary to cover all three kinds of pretzels with a picture. it’s beyond me how they can be considered ugly and not appropriate, but better pics can always be found.

Images should ideally be spread evenly… here the magic word is “ideally”. this ideal very often cannot be fulfilled and always is second in line to factuality, clarity and logic and, of course, where a pic makes sense.

careful not to stack too many of them within the lead,… the magic words here are “not too many”. this clearly indicates, that more than one picture can be imagined. “too many” also indicates, that there can be as many as necessary. again: no rules!

the gallery contains pictures of things mentioned in the article: stands, street vendors, bakery emblems etc. so it's not “superfluous” and certainly not “absolutely” superfluous. besides, the gallery was already there; i only changed the pictures to ones i found more suitable. again, there is no rule against the gallery and even if it only adds a little info it is ok if it stays.

already on 31. december i used the word “festival” and not fest. you can check it out.

again you are making up a rule that does not exist. there is no rule against the shortcomings of contributers and of course you will have to live with them because you have no other choice. unless someone’s english so bad that it’s hard to read or leads to misunderstanding, it would never cross my mind to be so rude and to keep shoving his nose into it. i have edited many contributions by east indian, nepali or other contributers because of poor english without a word. according to “your rule” these people would not be allowed to contribute. my english is not bad and certainly sufficient to contribute quality edits in wikipedia. fortunately it is not very often that english speakers, so far only americans, think they have to point out how poor my english is or how many mistakes i make. it’s water off my back. i have always welcomed other editors improving my edits if necessary. i already wrote that i always take pains to include these corrections and skip them only by mistake (unless the improvement included a change of content). you are not forced to do anything on wikipedia – that’s another one of your mistakes – least of all to “clean up after others”. you have a nerve to talk about being rude. the echo always is a response to your call.

This invites vandalism and random collections of indiscriminate information… this is another example for what i just wrote and for the way you see wikipedia. you do not own it and you are not a watchman for keeping unwritten rules. there is no reason to believe that vandalism is invited. this article very much needs additions from other countries. although i assume that most of the info is covered when talking about germany and the u.s., pretzels do exist in other countries.

the mistakes that you constantly were “forced” to correct had absolutely no negative effect on the comprehensibility. the edits were and are absolutely correct, logical and clear. as to the source for the palmbrezel: there are sufficient other ones. even if there weren’t, there is no reason to delete before giving some time.

as to the section about the american pretzel history including the time line: i’m not sufficiently concerned to erase it and do not consider it worth the trouble. it doesn’t hurt anybody and i find it has more value as a reflection of what some people regard as important info. why shouldn’t other readers have a chuckle, too. i suppose you’ll also find this “rude”, but i’ve had my experiences.Sundar1 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To address the concerns of the things you put back in the article and things that you addressed above:

• "Images should ideally be spread evenly… here the magic word is “ideally”. this ideal very often cannot be fulfilled and always is second in line to factuality, clarity and logic and, of course, where a pic makes sense." - Actually, the "ideal" is fulfilled now; images are evenly spaced and properly illustrate the article. So there's no need to change them and add more images creating overcrowding.

there is no overcrowding; that's only in your very own imagination.

• Obviously you didn't read what you commented on here, because I just said that there isn't overcrowding now, and you're claiming that I did. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "but you couldn’t resist changing the information in the lead and therefore it still contains mistakes." - I did not change the information in the lead! I re-worded it to be more clear. The "pretzel loop" means absolutely nothing without a context of what a pretzel loop is. That is why I changed it to "the three-looped knot shape", which is what I assume you meant by a "pretzel loop", a phrase with literally no meaning to me. Saying that I "couldn't resist" is what makes me read your words as rude, because it sounds to me like you think I'm out to get you, which is not the case. I am here to write an encyclopedia, as I hope you are as well.

you did change the info in such a way that the definitions do not apply anymore. where is your wording more clear than mine? i pointed out why your definitions are not correct and i did not point out the pretzel knot. if you read more carefully you would notice that. and you simply ignore the points i pointed out. why did you not comment on my suggestion for the lead above? that leads to my assumptions that you're just changing things as a matter of principle which i still believe. i expect your comment on my suggestion, otherwise i will correct the mistakes as written above.

• This statement is just patently false. What changes did I specifically make that changed any definitions? I simply re-worded it so that your writing is clear to all English speakers, which it was not before. The only "changes" that you suggested is changing the "three-looped knot shape" back to the "pretzel knot" and re-inserting the two images. The three-looped knot shape is simply descriptive, which is something that can be seen in the image and is now illustrated, where "pretzel knot" is not descriptive and tells the reader who doesn't know anything about pretzels nothing. I've already made my views known on the images. As I mentioned, the images are not crowded now, but adding the others into the lead makes the article look ugly from the start. It's bad enough on my widescreen monitor at home, but I've viewed it on a standard 1024x768 resolution monitor as well and the lead images are pushing down all of the images from later sections, creating bunching and crowding issues. They are not helping the goal of building an encyclopedia. Any edit that doesn't work constructively toward that goal simply doesn't help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The gallery is still unnecessary. That is why there is a link to Commons. You're completely overlooking the value of the Wikimedia commons and overvaluing the purpose of a gallery in this article. Unless you can provide an encyclopedic rationale for why it should be included, I'm removing it based on the fact that it doesn't add anything encyclopedic to this article.

the gallery is not unnecessary and i explained that it contains pictures of things mentioned in the article. actually, i see the purpose of a gallery to avoid an overcrowding of an article.

• You haven't explained how it's encyclopedic. That's the requirement, regardless of what you see its purpose to be. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "Pretzels in European countries" section is, as I said, non-encyclopedic. Besides the grammar mistakes, it's rendered irrelevant by the interwiki links to other languages. It's also indiscriminate information, prohibited per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thus, I'm removing it as well per WP:What Wikipedia is not.

again you mention minor grammar mistakes which you are welcome to correct. and again you twist guidelines into absolute rules that do not exist. this section is absolutely necessary and will have to be expanded. therefore it will stay as a start, even if it may not be perfect. you are supposed to give time for development and you are welcome to add a respective tag.

• I am not twisting any guidelines; as I see it, you are choosing to ignore them. Just so you know, there are no absolute rules on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that you can just ignore them. Ignore all rules doesn't mean "do whatever you want". It means ignore a rule if it stands in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Here, these additions are not improving the encyclopedia; rather, they are creating targets for potential harm. If you view some of the featured articles and good articles from WikiProject Food and Drink, of which this article is a part, none of them contain a "[food item] in other languages" section. See also Apple (GA), Beer (GA), Coffee (GA), and Saffron (FA). These are all community-honored examples of what this article should eventually look like, because the goal for all articles is featured content. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing a more reliable source for the "Palm Pretzel". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

you are free to interpret guidelines as absolute rules for your own purposes but cannot enforce them they way you are trying to do. unless you happen to know a real rule, all you can do is make suggestions. most of your suggestions have been matters of taste and the romans already knew that taste cannot be discussed. Sundar1 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sundar, I believe that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that WP:IAR means that you can do whatever you like because there are "no rules". That's not what IAR means. All Wikipedia guidelines state that they are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I haven't seen any justification, especially not based on policies, guidelines, or even essays, that would convince me that an exception is necessary in this case. I have provided several policy-based arguments for the removal of this information; you have been unable to provide policy-based justification as to why this information should remain. Thus, I'm going to ask other editors for a third opinion so that an external viewpoint from another editor can determine a better course of action. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

killervogel (nomen est omen?), i have no problem with rules; i just don't make any up to throw stumbling stones into the edits of others. your problem is of quite a different nature: absolute exaggeration, as, again, can bee seen in the abundance of tags you now put in the article. it's for that very reason i titled this section "flies and elephants". if you want to see your definition changes, just take a closer look. i will correct the mistakes soon.Sundar1 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will ask you to refrain from being uncivil and making veiled personal attacks as you did with your "nomen est omen" statement. Whether you intended it to be that way or not, you erred on the side of overzealousness. Your title of this section means nothing to me, and I only tagged where I believed there to be issues. Two irrelevant sections are now sitting in this article, but at least now someone else might look at them and realize that they don't belong. I have no idea what you mean by "definition changes". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Though there is no inline template for it to be tagged, the "names" of pretzels in another language are totally irrelevant to this article. This is not the German Wikipedia. German names for pretzels belong there, not here. I'll wait for an outside editor to offer a third opinion on this as well, since you seem to just want things your way without defending them with any policies or guidelines. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi. To begin on the third opinion, please provide a single sentence that summarizes the dispute as you see it:

• Now that the content disputes have been mostly resolved, the dispute revolves around wording in the lead, the inclusion of what I believe to be indiscriminate information that's redundant to the interlanguage links, and the relative encyclopedic worth of the photo gallery. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• (statement)

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should go ahead and offer some comments since it's been so long.

• The tagging on this article is excessive. Tagging is not a substitute for getting consensus.
• I suggest the material in "Pretzels in other countries" may well be appropriate, but not as it currently exists. It should either be fleshed out as a detailed analysis of the regional differences or integrated into relevant sections and eliminated.
• I think the lead is a little confusing and difficult to understand. It may be useful to define the universal attributes of all types of pretzel first (baked, flour, yeast dough, etc), before starting to explain variations. The first sentence should answer the question "What makes a pretzel a pretzel?" or "What is a pretzel?". Diving straight into variations fails to define the basic commonality in attributes.
• I think a few of the photos in the gallery add little encyclopedic value and need more context. I don't think that the gallery is entirely inappropriate or excessive, but I would try to integrate the best of those images into the article itself along with some context that makes them more valuable for the reader.

Hope this helps Gigs (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As to the lead, I'll try to do some re-arranging based on your comments (which I agree with); hopefully they won't simply be reverted. I'll remove some of the tags, though all of them still apply. The tags weren't being used as a substitute for finding consensus; they were a stopgap because the discussion was becoming unproductive and a lot of senseless reverting was being done by both sides, myself included. I agree with your assessment of the "other countries" section, which is why I was trying to remove it to begin with, and similarly with the gallery. Hopefully Sundar1 will join this discussion. Perhaps when I start making some of these changes, he will return. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• i agree with gigs’ comments except for one major problem: there is no universal attribute for a pretzel in english. in german one can at least say: a pretzel is anything shaped with the typical pretzel-loop. the only common denominator in english is "baked" and "flour" which is very meagre for a lead. that's why i introduced the list in the lead which killervogel absolutely objects to for formal reasons. the present lead is not only confusing but still contains mistakes. i would very much like to read gigs' opinion on the version with the list in the lead.
• as to the pretzel in other countries, getting "fleshed out" ist the very reason i put that section in (and explained it in the discussion page). one cannot write about germany and the u.s. and completely ignore other countries. but killervogel sees it as an invitation to vandalism. he now sees gigs' comment as an approval of his deletions. i don't. the only acceptable solution is to tag it with an invitation to improve that section.
• after all this discussion it is very surprising to read that killervogel agrees with gigs' comments. putting more pics into the article so far was an absolute no-no. a gallery was considered absolutely inappropriate. in addition, reading his response, to me it looks like he is misinterpreting gigs' comments.
• killervogel already proceeded with changes and asks others to first discuss.

The pretzel is a baked bread or pastry product made from a dough usually containing wheat flour, yeast, salt, and water.

as i wrote before, this common denominator is wrong. it only applies to certain kinds of pretzels. not all pretzels use wheat flour or yeast and even less so, salt. besides, where does the “pretzel-loop” come in? lots of pastries are called pretzels only because of the typical loop.

One sort is a sweet pastry made for consumption within a few days; these may contain sugar or other sweet ingredients, and may be coated in cinnamon or various glazes. These pretzels are often soft, so their doughs are usually risen and proofed like bread.

this is supposed to cover all sweet varieties. these are not all made with yeast and only some kinds are risen. why is cinnamon mentioned separately? there are so many possible coatings.

The second pretzel style is usually glazed with lye and sprinkled with coarse salt, usually about hand-sized and made for consumption on the same day. These pretzels can be soft or hard, depending on cooking times and the amount of moisture in the dough. This type of pretzel can also be made without yeast and shaped or extruded into various forms, such as sticks or squares. To avoid confusion between the two styles, Germans call the second type "Laugenbrezel" (lye pretzels). Lye pretzels are popular in southern Germany and adjoining German-speaking areas as a variety of bread, a side dish or a snack.

this is supposed to cover all non-sweet varieties including the sticks-varieties and is totally confusing. “hand-sized and made for consumption on the same day” only applies to the looped, soft kind. The use of “style” and “type” is confusing. “this type of pretzel”- which type is meant that germans call laugenbrezel? certainly not any of the hard kinds.

The crisp hard pretzels originated in the United States and have become popular in many countries.

another field of killervogel’s beloved exaggerations is the excessive tagging with citation-tags.

• there is no reason to be so quick about deleting the section “other countries”. neither did gigs say it was unnecessary nor does one single comment justify any such action. that gets an immediate revert. as to gigs’ suggestion to integrate the material into other sections, i wonder which ones these should be. if there is a section for germany and one for the u.s. there can very well be ones for other countries. since pretzels are much less popular in other countries, i figure one section covering all is sufficient, at least as a start.
• i'm still awaiting to read what was wrong with my proposed lead, apart from being a list.Sundar1 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've already explained what was previously wrong with the lead, and as you so eloquently sidestepped before, "I'm not going to explain myself again". I am growing weary of your attacks on my editing, Sundar. Facts that need references are to be tagged. I'm not just going to ignore that. If you have referenced prose to add, please do so. The fact is, there are many more sections that need to be added to this article; for example, "Types of pretzels". However, you only seem concerned that your "proposed version" is what is used, rather than working toward consensus. You haven't been willing to compromise on anything; it appears that you just want what you want. I find that attitude unconstructive to building an encyclopedia because it demonstrates an unwillingness to work cooperatively. Most of the information that has been inserted in the lead needs to be in later sections that don't exist yet anyway. I would be interested to know how you think that I am "misinterpreting Gigs' comments". He has said that "I think a few of the photos in the gallery add little encyclopedic value and need more context." You have not provided the aforementioned context. I have also not said that "putting more pics into the article so far was an absolute no-no", as you claim. What I did say is that the images you added were crowding the article and creating bunching issues. The reason behind this is the fact that the amount of prose in this article is actually fairly small. An image is not a substitute for explanatory prose. If you have an image that is appropriate for inclusion in the article, that's great, but if it bunches things up and makes the article ugly, then it's not needed. For example, a one-paragraph article should not have six or seven images because it's crowded and creates bunching. With an article of this size and in paragraphs of this size, one image every second paragraph is more than enough because the images take up so much space. If you view the article now, you'll see that this is generally followed. The "History" section has five paragraphs (two of which are minimal and should be combined) and two images that illustrate elements that are discussed. The same is true of the "German-speaking countries" section: it has five paragraphs and three images, all of which are relevant to the context in which they appear. The "Speyer" image appears next to the text about Speyer, and the "lye breads" image appears next to the paragraph discussing the various lye pastries. The New Year's pretzel tradition is mentioned, and a New Year's pretzel is shown. These are all great, but unless there is more prose, more images are a serious aesthetic issue. WP:LAYOUT#Images states: "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained what was previously wrong with the lead...read carefully: i asked "... apart from being a list".

Facts that need references are to be tagged. again, one of your absolute rules.

there are many more sections that need to be added to this article; ...yes, that's true, but this one presently is the most obvious because of the heavy balance on the u. s. and germany. besides, there's nothing wrong in allowing time for development. therefore it can be tagged.

attitude unconstructive to building an encyclopedia because it demonstrates an unwillingness to work cooperatively .... who's calling the kettle black? in not one of your responses you have mentioned any of the mistakes i pointed out.

He has said that "I think a few of the photos in the gallery add little encyclopedic value and need more context." You have not provided the aforementioned context. .... yes, he said "a few" photos, not all of them, which you want to delete, and he said "need more context", not delete. i pointed out the context of at least three of the pics in the gallery.

What I did say is that the images you added were crowding the article and creating bunching issues....If you view the article now, you'll see that this is generally followed. ...well, then this also applies to the suggestion of gigs and you do not agree with him. that means the pics should stay in the gallery to avoid overcrowding.

my whole response was about content and again, you are only writing about form.Sundar1 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I am tired of your personal attacks, I am withdrawing from this discussion. I have exhausted all of my good faith toward your editing efforts. I am removing this page from my watchlist; feel free to destroy it at your leisure. Goodbye. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• the lead was absolutely correct and complete. details of pretzels are already explained in the main sections. changes will need to be explained. wikify or focus will not do. whatever is in the lead must apply to all pretzes and to all countries.
• listing the establishment of pretzel factories is not pretzel history. if others did that for other countries, wikipedia would become too small. factories are only interesting for certain accomplishments in which case i kept them in the article. also, there was no necessity to list all the factories in an extra section.
• as to the pictures, it is correct that some more are necessary in the lead to cover the major differences: pastry varieties, lye pretzel and party pretzels. it was vehemently opposed by killerbird. so i had in mind to add one picture with all three types in the near future.Sundar1 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

pretzel begining

Pretzels were first made by a monk form france in 162 A.D. he made them to look like childrens hands crossed praying and they called them little rewards.At first there were only soft pretzels the hard crispy one were made by accident a cook that was maning the stove fell asleep then they were hard and they thought they were ruinded but crispy hard pretzels were delicious now are made purposly and thats the story of pretzels begining.And the people who hate pretzels and never tried them you should try them they are delicious trust me i am not lieing so try them and think about how they were made and try making your own old time pretzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude36 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

turkish simit

turkish simits and the related pastries in the balkans are not pretzels, simply because they don't have the distinctive shape. perhaps there is a historical relationship. if that is the case there could be a section "related pastries", of course with sources explaining this relationship. else, why not write an own article on the delicious simts and their background?Sundar1 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

i see, there already is an article on simits, b. t. w. with no mention of the pretzel. so that's settled.Sundar1 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Brezelkrieg nonsense

The sentence "the German holiday Die Brezel Krieg where Germans have a baking contest to see who has the best pretzels." simply seems to be - wrong and a hoax.

1) The grammar / spelling is wrong:

a) "Krieg" (war) is male in the German language. Thus, the only correct phrase would be "Der Brezelkrieg".

b) "Brezel Krieg" is a wrong spelling, because, in the German language, compositions of two words are constucted in a way that both words which are composed are amalgamated into one word: Instead of "Brezel Krieg", "Brezelkrieg" would be the only correct spelling.

2) The word "Krieg" (war) is almost never used for a competition, as it has too negative connotations.

3) "Brezelkrieg" surely is not a (public) holiday in any German state.

4) I have been living in Germany for almost 40 years and never heard of such competition.

Thus, I will delete the sentence if no reference showing that a "Die Brezel Krieg" holiday does exist will be provided within two weeks.

--92.225.37.166 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

History

The history section contains the passage: The wedding phrase "tying the knot" got its start when a pretzel was used to tie the knot between two prominent families.[citation needed]

This sentence doesn't even make sense. It's using a circular definition. Apart from that, I had always been under the impression that the phrase "tying the knot" as relates to marriage came from the old tradition of handfasting. I am removing the sentence from the article. Tenmiles (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be fair to include the #1 most popular topping or 'sauce' on a pretzel, mustard, whether yellow or spicy or any other kind. Just a thought. Dave 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

"Brezen"

Sorry for my english, I am from Bavaria. Really nobody here calles it "Brezen". Everywhere inclusive all bakeries it is written as "Breze" or "Brezn". This is true for Old Bavaria (I don't have a clue for Frankonia) and Svabia. (Of course, anyone will understand you, if you ask for a "Brez*", indepently what you use for "*" 83.97.72.14 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you add some additional facts about Auntie Anne's starting in PA?

An editor should consider entering some factual snippets about Auntie Anne's history in Pennsylvania.

Might you add the following to Pennsylvania Milestones:

1988: Anne Beiler bought a market stand in a Downingtown, Pa. farmer’s market and began selling the Original Pretzel. Today, Auntie Anne’s Pretzels is the world’s largest soft pretzel franchise with more than 1,400 pretzel stores operating around the world.

http://www.auntieannes.com/AboutUs/CompanyHistory.aspx http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/Anne_Beiler_030408.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_F._Beiler

Also, can you consider adding the following under the United States:

Existing: Pennsylvania today is the center of American pretzel production for both the hard crispy and the soft bread types of pretzels.[30] Southeastern Pennsylvania, with its large population of German background, is considered the birthplace of the American pretzel industry, and many pretzel bakers are still located in the area. Pennsylvania produces 80% of the nation's pretzels.[34]

New: Lancaster, Pa. is also the headquarters of Auntie Anne’s Pretzels, which turned 25 in February 2013. Auntie Anne's bakers have hand-rolled approximately 1.7 billion pretzels over the past 25 years.

http://www.auntieannes.com/AboutUs/CompanyHistory/25-birthday.aspx http://www.auntieannes.com/aboutus/newsroom/newsroom/13-01-24/Soft_Pretzel_Icon_Auntie_Anne_s_Turns_25_after_Banner_Company_Year.aspx http://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/auntie-annes-twists-its-way-25th-country Thank you.WikiWikiJG (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The company seems hardly notable enough for this article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fix

Palmbrezel baked on Palm Sunday

Hafspajen (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretzel bread and pretzel buns?

Would you call those "pretzel croissants"?

Are pretzel bread and pretzel buns a fairly new phenomenon?

Also, this article really needs some serious copy editing to correct some of the conflicting info and verbosity. 76.173.142.15 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What pretzel buns are you talking about? Hafspajen (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For example, Wendy's had a pretzel hamburger bun for awhile and I think that Wienerschnitzel still has a pretzel hot dog bun. https://www.google.com/#q=pretzel+bun 76.173.142.15 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Took me a moment to figure out what a "pretzel bun" is, because to Germans, that sounds really strange. But no, those are not new in any way, see Lye roll. Rgds _{•  • hugarheimur} 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeasted / Baking Soda / Unleavened?

This lengthy article somehow manages to avoid the question, other than one passing mention of yeast. Are pretzels generally made with yeast, baking soda, or are they unleavened? This is so basic that it seems to be assumed and never explained. Reify-tech (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The German article says (without giving a source): "Eine Laugenbrezel besteht traditionell aus Weizenmehl (wheat flour), Malz (malt), Salz (salt), Backhefe (yeast) und Wasser (water)." Note that this refers to the big, knotted thing, not the smaller, crunchy things. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

With all respect I don't agree and before once more you removed several images that were in article for ages will you discuss WHY you want to remove them. First of all you remove historical images, and you have no idea how difficult to find ANY image about pretzels in art history. VERY VERY seldom that pretzels are depicted in art, and each image is a valuable witnessing about their existence. Second, the image with pretzels you keep removing is spectacular and good, a good image made by a sadly missed editor, who really was a genius with images. Third, if you are interfering with others edits and you see they don't agree, time to discuss. Th Hafspajen (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is overcrowded with images with very little learning effect. For the particular images which I removed:

1) I see no new information in the picture "Pretzels in Alsace". Another photo shows the same type of pretzels sold on a Christmas market. The quality of the picture is equally good. This is also more informative, as it shows the tradition of selling pretzels on Christmas markets. But what do we learn from the photo where the same Alsacian pretzels hang on the wall? If it is "spectacular" without any new information, it can be viewed on Commons. There is a gallery page commons:Pretzels where all such aesthetically appealing images can be shown. There is a link to Commons from this page.

2) There is a picture "Fish lunch by Jacob Foppens van Es, before 1640" in the history section. Flemish painting from 17th century. From this we learn pretzels were common in the Netherlands already in the 17th century. We also see how they were presented on the table. We also see how the painters treated them in they (realistic) painting style. This an interesting illustration. Why do we need two more flemish paintings from the 17th century, all in the same painting style, in the same article? What do we learn from them? If the frequency of pretzels occuring in paintings is so interesting, then describe it in the text or start a new article "Pretzels in art" and explain what is the difference between these paintings. Otherwise these images can be viewed on Commons in commons:Category:Pretzels in art. One can create a gallery page commons:Pretzels in art there. --Off-shell (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the information: apart from fact that it is a good picture, they show pretzels in different regions. One is in Alsace, witch is in France, and the Christmas market is in Germany, they prove that the different regions have pretzels. That the pretzels are of the same type of pretzels in Alsace and Germany, that is an interesting information, at least for Europeans. In US the pretzels may look all the same, but in Europe there are differences between the countries.

• I think I was explaining before how rare it is to find a depiction of pretzel in art. If it can be a possible solution that one can put them at the end of the article in a gallery, like *Pretzels in Art*, but it is kinda hiding them to the end of the article, where nobody can see then or find them. But removing those very few images that I found during five years looking for them, I think it is a pity. There are very rare and unusual images, I can see no real reason to remove them, since they're so unique, and unusual. I don't think that the article is overcrowded either. They show different themes and different types. To describe it in the text or start a new article "Pretzels in art" - you need references and what I am telling you is just that there are no pretzels in art ON COMMONS: And, I have the definite feeling that I had this discussion before, somewhere, somehow exactly in this way. About something else... Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Christmas market in Strasbourg, Alsace

This image (on the right) shows Christmas market in Strasbourg, Alsace. It is not in Germany.

The two still life images are very similar: the 17th century, Flemish baroque painting. These files are available on Commons in commons:Category:Pretzels in art, and there are some more there:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

This could make a good gallery page on Commons. What do you mean when you say they are not available on Commons? --Off-shell (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

610 AD

OK, continuing from my comments of nearly a decade ago and my more recent edit... I see by Hadspajen's recent work that the idea that pretzels date precisely AD 610 is, in fact, very widespread, and not just an invention of Buch and Hellemans'. Where on earth does this idea originally come from?? The earliest reference I can find so far is this one, from 1959. Can anyone do better? --Iustinus (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the full text of that hit. No ulterior source cited, naturally. --Iustinus (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pretzel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050523034724/http://www.klingenpfad.de:80/Brezel.htm to http://www.klingenpfad.de/Brezel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826154217/http://www.snydersofhanover.com:80/en/company/history_of_pretzels.php to http://www.snydersofhanover.com/en/company/history_of_pretzels.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pretzel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929095810/http://www.catholicculture.org/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=543 to http://www.catholicculture.org/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=543

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pretzel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315110653/http://verkehrsverein-speyer.de/content/view/31/43/ to http://verkehrsverein-speyer.de/content/view/31/43/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816162747/http://www.bikiniscience.com/costumes/maillot_SS/pretzel_S/pretzel.html to http://www.bikiniscience.com/costumes/maillot_SS/pretzel_S/pretzel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of bread for a pretzel

In the opener, literally the last line:

"Worldwide pretzels worth a billion dollars are sold annually."

You can't walk away on a bombshell like that. Who are these big players with their hands in the dough? Where are these high-price morsels being sold, and what's so special about them, are they made of rolled gold or something? I think people would like to know why we aren't going to Mars anymore these days but we have so much money to spend on snacks, especially in a single transaction.

184.149.39.148 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

See that little number in brackets at the end of the sentence? That's called a citation. If you follow that link, you'll discover the source for this assertion. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Kid boy chow" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kid boy chow. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 14:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"modern scholars"

I don't mean to disparage Mr Weaver's knowledge at all, but one reference to an "independent food historian and author of numerous books", none of which are academic but rather popular, does not really support the statement "modern scholars identify the pretzel." In the absence of anything else at most the article should say something like "one modern writer claims that ...." --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:2459:C1EC:C71B:4617 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AA6:3000:A071:F60E:C5A2:F2A (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Another possible source for this is Hilda Ellis Davidson, an actual academic who drew a link between bread offerings to Nehalennia (not Sirona), Dutch duivekater bread, and sacrificial substitution. The recipe is similar to pretzels, and both are Celtic water goddesses. The discussion is in the context of animal, not human, sacrifice. I would suspect that the writer of the cited article heard this, misunderstood, and put the name of the wrong Celtic goddess. There is a citation on the Nehalennia page talking about this [[1]].

Atlas Obscure

Hemiauchenia I reverted your removal of content cited to Atlas Obscura. The reason you gave for your removal is that "Atlas Obscura is not a reliable source". I don't think Atlas Obscura is a good source to use for anything controversial but it's an ok source for basic facts. I've looked at the Atlas Obscura article used here and this very well may be controversial and not the kind of thing we should use Atlas Obscura for. It should be checked against other reliable sources but it would be a good idea to leave the dubious tags in place for now. I'll take a closer look at it later. Spudlace (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of foreign language terms

@Largoplazo: removed the foreign language terms from the article (see this edit [2]). I agree about WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This definitely skirts the boundaries of the guideline but there are frequent objections to doing this. I wonder if it is beneficial in food articles to WP:PRESERVE the foreign language terms. We want all cultures where the dish has a cultural significance represented, without too many redundant spin offs. We could be more demanding on sources to show that it's a culturally significant dish in the languages mentioned, so it wouldn't be as much like a dictionary. Spudlace (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel the cultural significance of a food in various countries calls for us to switch to the term used in that country when we speak or write of it. I'm going to write "manchego is a Spanish cheese while ricotta is an Italian cheese", not "manchego is a Spanish queso while ricotta is an Italian formaggio". That being the case, there's no reason for the article on Cheese to tell readers what the Spanish and Italian words for "cheese" are, notwithstanding the undeniable culinary and cultural significance of cheese in both countries.

I think I have a sense of what you're getting at. I left viipurinrinkeli in place because it appears to be a term for a specific Finnish type of pretzel rather than simply the Finnish translation of "pretzel". I left "Glico Pretz" alone because it seemed to be a brand name. Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Where you speak of spin-offs, do you mean situations that correspond to, say, Healthcare in Pakistan, Healthcare in Germany, Healthcare in Israel, etc.? So, likewise, there might be articles (if there were enough material for them!) on Pretzels in Finland, Pretzels in Germany, Pretzels in Poland. When it comes to food, we have situations like that, where Pretzels in Poland might instead have the Polish word for "pretzels" as its title. Is that what you had in mind? If so, that's more about whether an article should be split up by country; the choice of title for each spin-off, if spin-offs are created, is a separate matter. In that case, using the local term for X might be a reasonable form of disambiguation, rather than X in Someplaceia. Largoplazo (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretzel is a type of dough and so I don't think it's as universal as queso or formaggio. It can be made without lye but many sources exist saying there's no real substitute for it. German food articles too tend to be common in many Central European countries and I don't think we would split unless there was a reason for it like too much detail for this article. Spudlace (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Kringle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as the dough is different; to move Danish material only. Klbrain (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose the information for Kringle should be merged here on Pretzel. There is clear overlap, as Kringle states already it is "a variety of pretzel". So basically put it here under Geography with a separate subheading for something like Northern Europe - Kringle. At the moment it seems extremely weird that there isn't even good crosslinking between these two articles. Additionally, having these two separate creates problems and confusion when trying to interlink different languages. Gemena (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the first part of Kringle ought to be moved here, while that article should remain but be only about the Scandinavian treat by that name that isn't a pretzel, other than perhaps vaguely looking like one. Largoplazo (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you should move only the discussion of Danish kringle, for much the same reason as Largoplazo. It looks like peninsular kringle are a pastry dough, which is very different from a pretzel. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.