Talk:Pretzel/Archive 1

bush choking on a pretzel

The below was removed by User:Daniel Quinlan with the comment "Bush choking on a pretzel is not encyclopediac". I was not the one who first put reference to the incident here, but I'm not sure I agree that it's inclusion is inappropriate. Googling for "Bush Pretzel" gets over 17,000 hits; the event certainly became a known pop-culture reference. As I've often had to decypher old pop-culture references from historic materials of eras I'm too young to remember, I personally would find explantions of such potentially usefull in a project as wide and deep as Wikipedia aspires to be. I'll let others decide if this merits inclusion in the article; in the meantime, I moved the former text here to talk. -- Infrogmation 01:01, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On 13 January 2002, US President George W. Bush choked on a pretzel and fainted, causing worry. He recovered almost immediately with only a minor bruise from falling off a couch. The event was much commented on by satirists and late night talk show hosts.

External Links

• George W. Bush pretzel incident

I don't think this sort of reference is really appropriate here. The web search for "George Bush Pretzel" only returns 9,070 hits and aside from a few articles and late-night jokes shortly after the incident (which did happen), it looks like all of the references are on extremely anti-Bush pages. I have a similar concern about the reference to Bill Clinton on the Rimming page. Let's just say I'm more of an expert on Pretzels, so I only made a Talk comment on that page. Both seem like simple cases of people peppering Wikipedia with political low blows about politicians. If the page had a significant list of "pretzel incidents" or "pretzels in the news", then I think it would fit in. As it was, especially considering that both this and the Rimming article are so short, they both seem like low blow POV content. Daniel Quinlan 01:28, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Huh? Why google for "George Bush Pretzel"? Googling "Bush pretzel" gives about 103,000 hits today. Many of these references were probably created in the last year and half due to the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, but I think it's notable trivia that the pretzel is probably the only snack food to ever have nearly killed a U.S. president.

I was wondering if this debate was still open. If I remember correctly there was a lot of attention on pretzels due to this very incident in International media at that time. Some newspapers in Europe apparently explained in detail what a pretzel is. Personally, the first time I heard about a pretzel was during this incident. In some ways one could even say that this incident made pretzels "noteworthy/newsworthy". Shouldn't we include this bet then? Gingerjoos (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2bad that sob didnt die on that pretzel. that would be hella funny.24.144.137.244 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>>When did Dick Cheney open a pretzel company?

regardless of whether or not its an interesting piece of trivia, it really is (especially on this page) trivia, which is discouraged on wikipedia. i'm removing it for now unless somebody has any huge objection. Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

image

File:Pretzel.PNG

The image shown here has been listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion with the claim it was obsoleted by the image now on the page yet the image now on the page does not really show you what a pretsel is just how they are sold. Plugwash 03:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is missing a mentioning of pretzel variations, like "Yoghurt pretzels" and the like... -- Mnolf 13:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Say what?

Pretzels are traditionally about the size of a standard cookie. ... What the heck is a "standard" cookie? I'm also surprised that there's so little to be said about something as common and everday as a pretzel. -- WikidSmaht 23:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Most people believe the pretzel was actually invented by the Native Americans... ...The truth behind this can't be proven... ... I've never heard this one - I'd have thought the Jewish/German provenance to be much more certain, especially given the similarities between pretzels and bagels. If speculation is the game then why not assume that the refrigerator was also developed by Native Americans, as a means for keeping their pretzels fresh?

Pretzel history

Taken from the book 'History of Science and Technology' (au: Bryan Bunch with Alexander Hellemans) has it that- "An italian monk invents prezels as a reward to children who learn their prayers. He calls the strips of baked dough, folded to resemble arms crossing the breast, prestiola ("little reward").

Could we possibly get more on this? The article currently says:

One documented account taken from the book History of Science and Technology (by Bryan Bunch, with Alexander Hellemans) has it that in 210 A.D., "an Italian monk invents pretzels as a reward to children who learn their prayers. He calls the strips of baked dough, folded to resemble arms crossing the chest, pretiolum ("little reward")."

If one googles around, it's possible to find other citations of this source, some of which give the slightly more plausible date of 610. But on what basis do Bunch and Hellemans give any date at all? This claim is awfully specific, and I'd like to know what their source on this is.

I've been working on la:Panis quadragesimalis, the Latin version of this article. It turns out that there are attestations of bracellus and its variants as the name of a cake, starting from the 12th century, and apparently none at all for pretiolum (There is no entry at all for the word in the impressively complete lexicon of Du Cange, not even in the meaning of "little prize"). If Bunch and Alexander can lead us to a legitimate primary source, I would be very interested.

It is interesting how the first Latin attestations for bracellus, the Hortus Deliciarum illustration, and the first bakery emblems all seem to occur in the 12th century. This seems to lend credence to the theory that the pretzel was invented in the Middle Ages. Most of the evidence I've seen presented that it was invented by the Romans has been rather shaky (though I have a pet theory about the Sabine lixula cake... ;) ).

I'm currently travelling abroad, so I can't possibly look for History of Science and Technology. Does anyone else here have easy access to that book? --Iustinus 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I' ve checked the book, and made some changes to the page. No source is given for that specific entry, however, in the "Further Reading" section, two sources on Food and Agriculture are given:

• Fruit: An Illustrated History. Peter Blackburne-Maze. Firefly. 2003.
• A History of Food. Maguelonne Toussain-Samat (tr. Anthea Bell). Blackwell Reference. 1992

Perhaps if I look up that latter source I can find out where Bunch and Hellemans got this information. --Iustinus 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet someone just thought about "prestiola" beeing related to pretzel because the names look quite similar, but dont forget pretzel is in fact a Brezel. ( B instead of a P and no T at all) btw. what has "arms crossing the breast" to do with a present?

Citation Needed

OK, just took a look at the article after a long absense. I previously wrote regarding the Hellemans quotation: "However no source is cited to back up this detail." Since that time someone has marked that statement itself with a "Citation Needed" tag. Um.... I'm really not sure how to provide a citation for the fact that Smith & Hellemans don't provide a citation. As you can see above I did look into this (I looked at least briefly at both Fruit and A History of Food and found nothing about the invention of the pretzel, certainly nothing so specific)... but what should I do, footnote Smith & Hellemans as my source? Or is the real problem that this is original research? If so, how can I more responsibly indicate that this source may be questionable? Pending further discussion I will remove the tag, but feel free to replace it with further discussion here. --Iustinus (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the bit about "tying the knot" being a reference to pretzels is badly in need of a citation - I've not been able to turn up any reference to this, and at best the claim that this is where the phrase "got its start" is badly incorrect.

Gordon Schumacher (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stats?

The average amount of pretzel per american is mentioned two times, one being 1.75 pounds and the other being 2 pounds, which is it?

Portal

Hi. Please refrain from spamming the Philadelphia portal template on articles that are only tangentially related to the city. While it's acceptable to use on articles relating directly to the city, putting it on articles like Pretzel, Hoagie, and Stromboli is taking things too far. Thanks. - EurekaLott 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I really want to assume good faith about your post, so before I take offense at your use of the word spam I am going to post my justification. The article is listed under Category:Philadelphia cuisine, and features Philadelphia in the article. Philadelphia is an eating-town. The portal is appropriate. --South Philly 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Earliest depictions

Not the earliest depiction of a pretzel?

I added Image:Hortus Deliciarum 1190.jpg, which I imported from the Spanish wikipedia. There it is claimed that this is the earliest known depiction of the pretzel. However, several websites claim that the Vatican Library has a 5th century manuscript of Virgil with a pretzel illustration, Codex no. 3867. Of course even in this day and age, most of the Vatican Library is NOT available online. Anyone have any idea how to track down this reference? --Iustinus 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AHA! Codex 3867 is the manuscript known as Vergilius Romanus. But googling around for illustrations from that codex, I have yet to find the pretzel. Anyone have more luck? --Iustinus 06:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've got it. According to this site and this one, the illustration in question is Image:VergiliusRomanusFolio100v.gif. I'd hardly call that conclusive. But this illustration does seem to be mentioned in several discussions of the history of the pretzel: do you think it merrits metnion in this article, just on that basis? I'm undecided, myself. --Iustinus 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you spot the pretzel in this picture? ;)

good?

"Soft pretzels are good and traditional." This is not very becoming of an encyclopedia.

Northern German

Just for the record: I corrected the spelling of "Pretzel" in reference to northern Germany. I am from northern Germany, and certainly we do not call them "Pretzel". Actually, no-one in Germany calls them "Pretzel". Nowhere. Never-ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.55.15.190 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

We actually call them "Brezel", Brezeln for plural. There is also a mistake that says that germans call the stretched ones "Salzstange". This is not true, they are called "Laugenstange", Salzstangen are more like a kind of crisp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.73.137 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

According to what I've seen, the "Salzstangen" are hard pretzel sticks (which is what the section is referring to), and "Laugenstangen" are softer pretzel sticks, which aren't mentioned at this point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretzel = Pretzel

"Telephone books in the U.S. and other historical records from the early 1940's show that the Pretzel was there often referred to as the "Pretzel"" - Really? Sixty years ago we called pretzels pretzels. How is this worthy of mentioning? Adtroy 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the original text said that old phonebooks said "bretzel." --Iustinus 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The official term for Pretzel is Brezel

This is the word which can be found in the german wikipedia

But this is the English wikipedia, and English speakers for all practical purposes never call it that. Just like German speakers like to call cellphones handys, an allegedly English word, even though English speakers don't use it. Just because "handy" would be wrong in English doesn't mean German speakers shouldn't say it. --Iustinus 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

This article suffers both from frequent vandalism by anons, and registered editors missing out on reverting it. I suggest a request for permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretzel lye wash: Needs clarification

The article says that pretzels are dunked in lye. In practice sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (lye's cousin) are used. before baking. I'm not disputing this, but I really think that section needs an additional mention that the lye in question is a *diluted*, food-grade lye solution/.More importantly, it needs to state the actual lye content in that solution. I'm guessing it must be a weak solution; between 0.1% and 3%, but I'm not certain, so I won't add it myself.

The reason I suggest this is, it's quite possible that some poor soul attempting to make soft pretzels could be unaware of the dangers of lye, and might use solid, non-food-grade, or a strong solution of lye, with the upshot being a trip to the emergency room, or worst case, the morgue. Can someone who knows add the specifics of what percentage the lye solution typically is? Or, at least post it here? 97.82.247.200 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should now be a cookbook for stupid people?139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More detail on production and physics

I notice that this article lacks any detailed description of how the different varieties of pretzel are made and what parts of those processes are responsible for their distinctive characteristics (both traditional and mass-manufactured varieties), somebody that knows about pretzels should add this information, as well as perhaps a few recipes. I found the bagel article to be much more informative. 67.180.206.34 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true. Specifically, the point of the lye bath was to make the bread softer. Medieval breads were made with whole wheat which creates a hard thick crust after it cooled. It was so tough that well-to-do people ate the insides, and used the outside as a kind of edible plate (a "trencher"). Afterwards, these were given to the poor as alms. The bigger the loaf, the better. The lye process softened the outside so that little breads could be made and sold for hours during the upcoming day. Modern commercial whole-wheat bread are sprayed with an enzyme to prevent this problem. Recipes that say, "non-aluminum pan" date back to the days of lye, as baking soda does not harm it..... Baking soda is a recent culinary addition, and it is added to make the water boil vigorously. Unfortunately, this makes the water seem hotter than it is. Using a baking soda bath too soon leads to a soggy pretzel which absorbs too much water. The pretzel will be pale, lumpy instead of smooth, heavy instead of light, and taste foul because it soaked up baking soda..... It is better to place the formed pretzels on a cookie sheet dusted with baking soda than flour. Flour will make the hot bath unusably foamy...... Many modern recipes call for yeast, but most medieval recipes used no leavening or sourdough leavening. The pretzel process is similar to the bagel boil-and-then-bake, which uses no yeast because it is against orthodox Jewish 'kosher' food laws. In addition to giving breads a fluffy structure, yeast adds glutamate, which significantly improves the flavor, and many vitamins, including a form of vitamin D, an important nutrient if the diet does not include animal sources...... Perhaps one of the most delightful hidden aspects of the pretzel is its efficient use of the water and heat. While being boiled, it floats and must be flipped over midway through the process. It needs a certain width to be stable. A sphere is unstable. A patty shape is stable but does not cook evenly through to the middle. A ring is stable but leaves an unused space in the middle. Thus, with its Y-shaped central part, a traditional pretzel is a fairly optimal design...... What I truly would like to know is, is it necessary to have anything in the water at all? Can bagels be made with clean water?...... I know there are bagel recipes which use sugar or honey. Would anything reasonably easy to clean that provided sufficient solutes work? User: Talzhemir:Talzhemir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.15.94 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An update on baking soda: I asked a friend (named Nash) who's a professional chef with a specialty of baking. He says the main purpose of both lye and baking soda is as a "dough conditioner". It makes the dough more elastic, and softer after it's baked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talzhemir (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

National Pretzel day?

Seems kinda unlikely. - Denimadept (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What date would that be-- January 13? User Talzhemir:Talzhemir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talzhemir (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I forget, look at the article. I'm questioning the edit. - Denimadept (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone removed it. - Denimadept (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

National Pretzel Month is October, ref[1], and National Pretzel Day celebrates pretzels of all shapes and sizes.

When ? Always April 26th-

See, [2]

Warrington (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The current second paragraph needs reworking or even deleting. This is the one about various pretzel variations (yogurt dipped, chocolate covered, etc). First of all it's a mess of random trivia that doesn't warrant being the second paragraph, but might be worth mentioning much further down. Secondly it's full of dubious statements about the popularity of the variations, which do not match my own experience. (No one I know eats yogurt covered pretzels, nor am I aware of any christmas association with chocolate covered pretzels..perhaps these phenomena or local to the writer's region). I'm tempted to just delete the whole thing but don't want to be too draconian, and some bits in reworked form might be worth preserving. I'm at least going to delete the useless bit about people's perceptions of the yogurt-dipped pretzel's healthfulness. --Ericjs (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not overdelete, add instead citation needed or clarification needed ={ {huh}} and wait a while. If your personal experience is not the same, it does not mean that your personal experience is always valid for everyone, everyhwhere.

Have a nice day

Warrington (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

There are recently pretzels flavored with mustard; one may also dip pretzels IN mustard.if the latter is meant here then "dipped in mustard" is not a "variety" of pretzel.if the former please clarify. Asked by IP adress 140.180.21.199

Warrington (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

I think the timeline is very clear and makes things easy to follow and understand and I think it is a much better solution than an amorf text. Kids and even others get a much easyer understanding of the history part.

And you were not discussing that change yourself, the article was in this shape since a very long time.

Warrington (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An article being in one shape for a long time is no reason not to improve it. All articles have the eventual goal of being featured articles and, though this one has a long way to go, these changes go toward that end. Wikipedia is not a timeline or a history book. We should be more concerned about getting the article improved than with maintaining the status quo. This is an encyclopedia, and reverting the changes is contrary to the goal of making this article encyclopedic. No encyclopedia article about a pretzel should look like that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don’t care about maintaining the status quo. I simpl think that the timeline was more educational and more clear, I only care about the readers and how they understand articles. In my oppinion this change is not for the better. I think that this should be the main goal, all the time.

Where is that forbidden to use timelines?

Warrington (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I do think this version IS better:

History of the American Pretzel, Timeline

1700 - The soft pretzel was part of the southern German and Swiss German tradition. The large immigrant population became the thrifty Pennsylvania Dutch culture. The pretzels popularity spread and, in time, many handmade pretzel bakeries dotted the Pennsylvania Dutch landscape.

1861 - Sturgis bakery in Lititz, Pennsylvania, becomes the first commercial pretzel bakery in the US in 1850. Long wooden paddles, also known as “peels,” were used by the baker and his helper to place the pretzels on a stationary stone or brick hearth in the oven. A wider “peel” was then used to remove the pretzels from the oven.

1884 - Bachman pretzel bakery founded in Reading, Pennsylvania{

1885 - Among the German population of Cincinnati, Ohio, the spelling "bretzel" is used. It is an Americanization of the pronunciation of the German word "brezel." City business directories during the 1880s have a classification for "Bretzel Bakeries", but not for "Pretzel Bakeries."

1889 - The Anderson Pretzel Factory, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, calls itself the world's largest (65 tons daily). They have made pretzels by hand from 1889 to 1955 when machines were added.

1909 - Snyder's of Hanover founded in Hanover, Pennsylvania.

1922 - Federal Baking Company South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was founded by Italian American Edmund Nacchio who followed his mother Maria Nacchio’s bakery pretzels that she began baking in 1922. It was continued by the various family members for four generations until it was sold to J&J Snack foods in the year 2000. Federal Baking lays claim for being the oldest baking soft pretzels in the city and made a major impact on the popular culture of Philadelphia comfort foods. This soft pretzel became synonymous with the Philadelphia soft pretzels. It was often slathered with yellow mustard estimated at a quart for each 200 pretzels sold. Street vendors for 80 years sold them on street corners in wooden glass enclosed cases or employed young boys to make extra cash who walked through the streets carrying baskets loaded with soft hot pretzels yelling aloud the phrase ’Fresh Pret-zels’ It became a staple Philadelphia food for snacking at school, at work or home and considered by most to be a quick meal

1935 -The modern age of pretzel making began when the Reading Pretzel Machinery Company first introduced the automatic pretzel twisting machine. Prior to that, most commercial pretzels were actually shaped by a cracker-cutting machine, then placed on baking pans and put into the baking ovens by hand.

1946 -Tom Sturgis Pretzel Company founded by Marriot D. “Tom” Sturgis, grandson to Julius. The first bakery was located on Grape Street in Reading, where the current Reading Area Community College is located. The giant pretzel in the front of the building serving as a landmark.

1948 - At the bicentennial of the city, there were at least 15 pretzel bakeries in the Reading/Berks area. The key to the City of Reading even has a pretzel on it

1960 - By 1960, total pretzel sales reached $92 million. In the mid-60's, pretzels were the fourth most popular snack in the US and the number one snack with beer. Pretzel technology moved from machine-twisting to die-cut production.

1963 -Largest pretzel of its time was baked: It was 40 lbs, 5-feet across baked by Joseph Nacchio of Federal Baking, Philadelphia, PA. The largest pretzel in the movies at 20 lb., 4’ pretzel shown in the 1963 movie “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World” by the same baker.

1978 -First machine produced soft pretzel. Federal Baking Company used the original 1922 recipe but the last hand-twisted pretzel was made in 1978. Labor became too expensive and workers too hard to find. Machines were designed and at 7 pretzels a second, nearly 60,000 are extruded and baked daily. There was no change in taste or texture. The pretzel were of the same dimensions but denser and heavier (three and a half to four ounces) than the hand-twists sampled, and bears the unmistakable grainy machine surface. It also baked longer and hotter at 12 minutes. A wholewheat soft pretzel was attempted but harder to work in the machine and was discontinued.

1993 - The Pretzel Museum opens in Philadelphia by members of the Nacchio family dynasty to highlight the area’s preference for their more unique more rectangle shaped styled pretzels being baked soft and unlike the dominant more circular hard pretzels produced in western Pennsylvania. Champion hand pretzel twister Helen Hoff demonstrated producing 57 pretzels per minute at this first museum.

2003 - Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell declares April 26th "National Pretzel Day" to acknowledge the importance of the pretzel to the state's history and economy. Congress declared it in 1983, but stopped the "commemorative day" practice in 1998. Pennsylvania produces 80% of the nation's pretzels.

2007 - Not all U.S. pretzels are made using automatic pretzel twisting machine. Some Pennsylvania pretzels, like Auntie Anne's Pretzels, Southeastern Pennsylvania are still hand-rolled soft pretzels. The biggest pretzel ever baked spanned 12 feet across, and was created by Auntie Anne's franchisees from Lake Charles, LA.

Warrington (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a prominent example would be WP:NOT#STATS. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Year after year of statistics, where many years are skipped in between, does nothing to promote the improvement of an article; in fact, this format simply encourages people to add spurious entries at the bottom of the list. Embedded lists are only supposed to be used where no other option is viable for presenting information, and this information is presented just as well in prose. As we are building an encyclopedia here, there are certainly rules which must be followed. To that end, I used WP:MOS as my basis for making those changes. Constructive changes, such as the ones that I made in trimming out unreliable sources, should not be misconstrued as improper or wrong. WP:TPA states that the perfect article (what we should all strive for) "follows standard writing conventions of modern English, including correct grammar, consistent verb tense, punctuation and spelling" and "reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles." A timeline would be more appropriately located at History of the pretzel, but that article is unnecessary until this one is expanded, using summary style, to the point where it needs daughter articles. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • A timeline like the above is not a "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" -- in fact, it has very few statistics at all. That rule simply does not apply here. There are a few numbers in the article, as part of paragraphs of the time line. If there is another rule, find it.

Personally, I find the timeline easier to read, and more appropriate for the likel uses of an encyclopedia than a paragraph based style. Long paragraphs, especially with superscript references, so not work well in html. The best formatting for print and the best formatting for the web are different. We are an online encyclopedia. I see no reason to insist on the changed form. changing an established format for an article based on personal preferences is not helpful.DGG (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Personally, I find the timeline easier to read"

"Changing an established format for an article based on personal preferences is not helpful"

• The above are two contradictory statements. If I may be blunt, the content of this article was stunted and in very poor shape when I first encountered it. I have done nothing to hurt the quality of the article. Whether an article is easier to read as a timeline is not the issue; whether a paragraph "doesn't work well in HTML" is certainly not an issue in the slightest because all of Wikipedia is written in this manner. If it doesn't work, how do we have featured articles? If it doesn't work, why are there over 2.7 million articles on the English Wikipedia at this very moment? All of the edits that I have made are fully in line with Wikipedia policy, especially one of the core principles of Wikipedia: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references." Any material that was removed was done so under this policy and WP:RS, which supports this stating that "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The formatting for articles outlined in WP:MOS and WP:TPA dictates that this format should be used, and the guide to writing better articles agrees. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Additionally, I feel that I would be remiss if I did not call attention to a very fine article of this same WikiProject. As I stated earlier, the goal of all articles is to eventually become featured, or at least good articles. Black pepper is such an article within the Food and Drink WikiProject, and nowhere in this article is there a timeline, nor are there statements which are unreliably sourced. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on: I mean that removing the timeline, that change is not helpful – for the readers.

That is my oppinion, both as a reader and an editor. The encyclopaedia is for the readers, - and the efforts to make an article better is for the readers, they should be the ones to benefit from it.

Can’t find anything against timelines in the Manual of style or Wikipedia:The perfect article only a recommendation be: clear and accurate and the timeline is very clear, is a clear description of the subject major turning points in American pretzel history, it is understandable, is precise, explicit and informative.

~~ Warrington (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't made any point to me that makes me believe the timeline is "better". I see and respect your opinion; I also happen to believe that the current version of the article is better. Having an article (which a timeline is not; it's a timeline) is the point of writing these things. If an editor wanted to write a List of turning points in pretzel history, I certainly wouldn't stop it. I point out, again, the article Black pepper, and also the article Saffron, both food-related featured articles. Again, there is no justification, using other food-related featured content as a guideline, to use a timeline. Honestly, the article is not able to meet the featured content guidelines in this format. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a states:

Apart from writing your Wikipedia article in sections, paragraphing is the largest scale on which you'll need to structure your text. A paragraph break allows your readers to tie up the idea that they've just read about—to "download" it more deeply into their memory—and to start afresh on a new idea or a new aspect of the same idea. Aim for paragraphs of roughly equal size, without being overly strict in this respect.

Overly long paragraphs make it harder for your readers to stay interested; a mass of grey text will force them to work hard to keep an ever-increasing amount of information active in their working memory as they wade through. In this situation, try to identify a sentence in the middle of the paragraph that appears to be a departure—to offer something new. Make it the first sentence in a new paragraph.

Similarly, short, "stubby" paragraphs tend to break up the prose, interrupting the flow: give your readers the chance to link a number of sentences into a cohesive whole; that will usually be the easiest way for them to absorb your message. Stubby paragraphs are all too common in Wikipedia articles, and reviewers in the FAC room are apt to object to them. Apart from the psychological effect on the readers, one-sentence paragraphs can result in a fragmented visual appearance. A stubby paragraph should typically be either expanded into full ideas or merged smoothly with another paragraph (most often the previous one). Very occasionally, a single-sentence paragraph might be appropriate to emphasise or summarise an idea.

If you happen not to be familiar with featured article criterion 1a, it states that the featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Since the eventual goal of all articles is to be featured; I submit that the changes made are forward-looking toward that eventual goal and a step in the correct direction. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What about including a short section with a timeline.

I think the timeline breaks it up and makes it easier to understand, wiki rules say it is fine. I say go for itvoice99 —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Critical points in pretzel history

Or soemthing as KV5 suggested. The article can remain in standard from with the addition and improvement of a short timeline of the most notable and critical developments included in a timeline. This would give a good illustration and perspective for the article. A similar timeline would improve the already impressive saffron and pepper articles as well, if someone wants to add one there. Although my experiences trying to work on FA articles leads me to believe they are guarded against anyone wanting changes. But I think Warrington is onto something. Timelines are frequently used in encyclopedias, and the reason is that they communicate certain pieces of information in a very effective manner, just like photographs. There are no words than can communicate an image, and there are no paragraphs that are as effective in describing and ilustrating the passage of time and the perspective that gives on events, the way a timeline does. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Warrington (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not be opposed to the inclusion of a timeline. I am fully opposed to the entire article (aside from the lead) being a timeline. There are many more important parts of the world of pretzels that aren't included in this article, and discussing critical junctures in history definitely makes sense in a separate section. However, not every pretzel bakery opening is critical. A consensus must be reached on what counts as critical before any timeline goes into the article. Thoughts? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair offer to me. Warrington are there some key dates in the history of Pretzeling that would make a good timeline? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can even start things off. The first pretzel bakery established in the United States was built in my hometown by Julius Sturgis in 1861. Definitely critical because it established Pennsylvania as a nexus in the craft of the pretzel. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is the link I have been looking for all day that governs the use of embedded lists within articles. We should follow this policy when rebuilding the timeline. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure,

Howewer, Wikipedia:Lists guidline states:

Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article. Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature.

Lists have three main purposes:

1.The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically , grouped by theme, or annotated lists. (this case)

2 Lists contain internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. ...

3 Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, ...

Timelines as a list according to the policy, are fine. First US pretzel, a court case? http://www.hammondpretzels.com/histpret.htm

I added one more picture to the gallery for visual balance. Warrington (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't debate that lists are used on Wikipedia by any means. I'm a featured list writer and reviewer, most of the time. However, this is an embedded list, because it doesn't meet the qualifications for a stand-alone list, and therefore has to be governed by the policy on embedded lists, not just WP:LIST.

Now, what about a court case? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Lists guidline policy is both for lists found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article. There are some stand alone list here and there, like Lord Byron (chronology) Chronology of European exploration of Asia or Timeline of the Salem Witch Trials.

Wikipedia:Embedded list also states that:

Embedded lists are lists that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article. Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs. ( Which goes for the cronology )

At the Wikipedia:Embedded list, at thre saction Appropriate use, they say something similar:

However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short.

And I think it does make sense.

Warrington (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that all of the articles named above (Lord Byron (chronology), Chronology of European exploration of Asia, Timeline of the Salem Witch Trials) all meet the criteria for stand-alone lists. This article is not a list; it doesn't even say list in the title. It is an article and should be phrased as such. See the following example: "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." WP:EMBED says that "Embedded lists are lists that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article. Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." The preceding does not support the use of a timeline as the format for this entire article. The embedded list policy refers to lists within articles, as a supplement, not as the sole method of disseminating information. "It can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them." This means that there has to be paragraphs of information first before "daughters", or chronological nuggets, if you will, can be created in an appropriate manner. For example, if you talk in prose about pretzel bakeries in the United States, then it would make sense to insert a short chronological list of the most notable or important pretzel bakery openings after that. This is currently what has been proposed: to use elements of a timeline to build out the list but not to use it as the sole method of communication. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I like the new picture; it's a good shot. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it flows. If we keep everything like it is now but add a section cronology to the end, I think it would be a good solution.

Warrington (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, but we don't want to duplicate everything that's in the article, so what, in your opinion, are the "most critical" points that need to be expressed? I definitely think we could split out the bakeries into their own mini-section, since there are a lot of them. Thoughts? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea. The timeline probably needs some reworking, do as you want...

Warrington (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will do some trimming and ref-searching, and I will try to get some ideas posted here on talk by tomorrow evening if possible. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I do not know about this history about the trial when pretzel was mentioned in official papers för the first time in America, in the 1600s, but I have read about it everywhere, I think the Pretzel Museum is mentioning it too (hand made pretzels, manufactured, of course).

Warrington (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-pasting that poorly formatted version of the timeline is really poor form. I said we could discuss it, but there are a lot of things there that need to be trimmed out and properly punctuated, spelled, formatted per WP:MOS, etc. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed a lot of original research from the timeline; I have also tried to format some of the references per WP:MOS, but they are mostly still bare URLs. Discussion needs to be had on each individual point to determine whether or not it meets WP:N and is considered "important" in the worldwide view of American pretzel making. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was in the article for two years before, or so. I thougt that you can simply go adead and make you changes on it.

Warrington (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the pretzel

The Reuters article in the lead is a reliable source that provides factual support for the Italian origin of the pretzel. There is no support provided for the pretzel having a German origin; the reference that was provided earlier cited a legend, not fact, and gave no definitive time frame for establishment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in http://www.brezel-baecker.de/brezelgeschichte , the origin told by reuters is a legend, too. In fact, nobody really can declare to know the real origins. As you can see in the link, many legends are mentioned, one of Italian, several of German origin. By the way: In the 7th century, it's just an anachronism to speak about "Italian" and "German". But, please, remember that the story of the Italian monk is just one interpretation of the pretzel history. And the fact that reuters mention only that one is not sufficient to declare that this should be the truth. In contrary, to mention only one legend is just not a scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.114.15 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

#1. Using foreign language references isn't helping your case much, though I will assume good faith and try to do what I can with them through Babelfish. #2. A claim was never made that this is scientifically proven. The word "likely" was even part of the article. Have you read the article on reliable sources and verifiability yet? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are additional sources to support the claim of Italian origin. In English. Italian origin Italian or French origin Italian or French origin I see no mention of German origin throughout these published sources. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then let's try the linguistic argument: An Italian /p/ (of pretiola) can never become high german /b/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.111.37 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can. The letter "p" and the letter "b" are identical; one is voiced and the other is unvoiced. A German word ending in the letter "b" (for example, "ob") is often pronounced with a "p" sound at the end. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. These are two different phenomena. As an university teacher of German linguistics, believe me, I know what I'm talking about: What you mentioned is called "Auslautverhärtung", and this is only related to the end of a syllable. In the 7th century, the second "Lautverschiebung (sound shift; Grimm's law)" is fully realized. So a /p/ in the beginning of a syllable can never become /b/ in high german. In fact, the other direction is common in high german dialects (e.g. berg --> perg in Bavarian), but the lenisation of an /p/ in initial sound is not documented.

If your sources are cooking books, then try out http://www.dutchcountryconcessions.com/about/pretz_history.php. Can't you see that these "facts" are all legends and not scientific. I have not found a historian who could give medieval documents that prove one of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.111.37 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of professorship doesn't give your opinion any more credence; it's not supported by the sources. Regardless, verifiability and reliability are the policies in play here. The source you provided states the exact same facts that currently exist in the article. As for the linguistic argument, the "b" comes from the original Latin word, as described in the article. That "b" became "p" in the Italian. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it does, at least the opinion that is related to the linguistic argument . See the wikipedia articles for the laws of sound shifting. A source that mention at least a "documentation of the pretzel": http://zaracookout.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/brezel/. I have a diploma in Latin. So, the etomology is pretium. With a /p/ - it was ever a /p/ in the initial sound. So, your article shows really the exactness...I have to confess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.111.37 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. The sources I have provided, and the article, show that pretiola ("little rewards") is the origin of the "p". The "b" comes from, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "L. bracellus a bracelet; also a kind of cake or biscuit". This isn't an argument about linguistics to begin with. This is about the origin of the pretzel. The food. Not the word. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cooking-books are? You can't divide this into word and the signed thing. In this time, if an invention was created, the word moved often from the one place into the next - together with the thing per se. And I wanted to show the etymological problems. By the way, if you use categories like "Italian", "German", "French", then see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia. In 610 A.D. there is simply no Italy, France, German,... it's the Franconian empire and nothing else. You use anachronisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.111.37 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS (have you read it yet?): "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Cookbook authors are considered "trustworthy or authoritative" in regards to foods. In terms of location, the sources say "Italy" and "France". We report what the sources say. Not what we think. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to take phrases out of books which are obviously historical mistakes and if you don't want to think yourself any further...than write the article of the pretzel history in a pseudo-objective manner.

I write what the sources say. That's what an encyclopedia does. WP:V (a core principle of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation) says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But this is the exact thing you do. You write about "French and Italian" origin, you don't want to realize the sources that mention the "German" origin. This is ridiculous and this is dictatorial manipulation. Well, write what you want to - i any case, you are a person who only believes what she wants to. This a pervertion of hermeneutics, and I have really better things to do than convince ignorant humanbeings. Maybe your ignorance is the problem, your argumentation isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.111.37 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources that claim German origin are either unreliable or don't claim German origin at all. Regardless of that, I'm a male. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there: I saw a reference to this in Wikiproject Food and Drink. I'm afraid I share the qualms that have been expressed about the sourcing of the origin of the pretzel. I don't think that a cookbook is a reliable source, and the "Reuters" link was to a press release, not a Reuters article, so I've removed it entirely. I've let the others remain, but I still think the sourcing is quite weak so I have changed the wording to "possibly" French or Italian origin. I think that much better sourcing is needed. The books that are cited here are not serious histories. Much better sourcing is required to make a definitive statement about the origin of such a common foodstuff. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These sources were added after complaints were raised and corroborated the original source. Also, as mentioned above, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." How can cookbook authors and editors not be considered reliable when it comes to food? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cookbooks are compendiums of recipes, and their authors are reliable sources on how to cook food, nothing else. As for your note on my talk page, there is a distinction between news content on Reuters and the press releases from companies that they distribute for a fee. The author of the press release was "Aunt Annie's Pretzels." That company's press releases are selfpublished and are reliable only as regards to that particular company. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[3] is the source cited later in the article for the origin. This seems to be what all other claims are based on. Reliable? This source seems to corroborate the claim, but makes mention of the Germans creating them as late as 1800. But with the pretzel showing up in art in the 12th century, I can't be persuaded to believe that. Same with the PA Dutch bringing them to Pennsylvania; it was before that. I'm in PA Dutch country, so I know about the history of this area. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Searching that link you just provided from the History of Science and Techonology I don't see any reference to pretzels when I search that term in Google books. The second reference you provide is from a popular history, "German Pride," and would seem to be no less authoritative than the others cited in the lead. Quite frankly, given what is currently written in the History section of this article, I'm perplexed why no mention is made of the possible German origins of the pretzel. Given that the word itself is derived from the German, it would certainly seem credible. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just one suggestion: if histories are not definitive on the origin of the pretzel,the article should say so. I'd like to see some better sourcing on the possible Seventh Century origins of the pretzel. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow the timeline in the History of Science and Technology to 610 AD. There you will find the pretzel. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see it. There's no sourcing for that statement, and I'm wary about giving it too much weight. Given the popularity and ubiquitous character of pretzels, I find it hard to believe that there isn't some scholarship on the subject that can be quoted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Every source that I have seen when looking for further information on this quotes either the 7th-century Italian/French origin (likely from this book) or mentions the first appearance of pretzels in 1111 in the logo of German baker's guilds. However, I see the former much more often. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of the origin is "answered" in the first sentence of the wikipedia article. Due to the many existing legends, all of the possible origins should be mentioned. An article should be objective and refer to those differences. Other things aren't scientific at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.127.182 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some reference to Germany should be in the lead. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Using what claim? I would much rather we delete it from the lead altogether and let the European history section explain it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just a few words, such as "... with documented use in Germany in the 12th Century..." or something similar. The documentation for the seventh century seems thin at the moment.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that would make the parenthetical phrase too wordy, and if it's going to be written out, it's going to become redundant with the first paragraph of the European section. The recorded use of pretzels in German emblems (1111) is already present there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "possibly" to "some accounts say," which I think reflects what's out there a bit better. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not quite understand the argument here. Sharon Hernes Silverman claiming origin "610 A.D., at a monastery in Southern France or Northern Italy" in a cookbook is worth nothing without a source. Am I missing Sharon Hernes Silverman's source somewhere? Please advise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.247.243 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Three different sources, all of which showed the Italian/French claim, were provided. That is why they are included. Please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you don't see the problems with these "sources"?

"...It was the year 610 A.D., at a monastery in Southern France of Norther Italy, That a creative monk first formed strips of bread

dough into the shape of a child's arms folded in prayer..." Pennsylvania Snacks: A Guide to Food Factory Tours By Sharon Hernes Silverman May 2001

"...Pretzels have been traced back all the way to the seventh century, when Italian or French monks would shape strips of bread dough

into the shape of a child's arm folded in prayer..." The Best Bake Sale Ever Cookbook By Barbara Grunes March 8, 2007

"...One source claims that a monk in Italy in the early 600s developed the pretzel shape while trying to come up with a way to use

extra dough from baking bread..." Food Bites: The Science of the Foods We Eat By AnnaKate Hartel August 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.98.185 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... no? And scare quotes may be misconstrued as sarcasm, so let's refrain. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A question about the search

You know when I search for Soft Pretzel I would expect to goto a soft pretzel page, not the REGULAR pretzel page. I am most disappointed in this re-direction. 68.5.97.182 (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)