Talk:Seffa

Merger proposal

I propose merging Seffa into Mesfouf since the two are the same dish with a slightly different name and the Mesfouf article is older. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. The dishes are certainly similar and it's clear from the name and composition that they share the same origin, but they have diverged enough to be separate varieties that should each have their own article, most certainly because they belong to different cuisines (Moroccan vs Algerian/Tunisian). --Ideophagous (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says they are separate? M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A comparison of the ingredients and the name usage in different sources makes it clear that they can be considered separate. Moroccans predominantly use the term "seffa" and the ingredients involve sugar and cinnamon, and sometimes chicken or lamb but definitely not nuts or dates (raisins sometimes but not often). Algerians and Tunisians use the term "Mesfouf" predominantly, and usually put dried fruits (dates, nuts, etc) and sugar. Concerning the name variation, check this source for example. You'd have to check and compare a lot of sources as I did, to verify the name usage and ingredient, which I believe is the best we can do. --Ideophagous (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And the source you posted (Proceedings) mentions Seffa/Mesfouf only in passing without any details. That's hardly sufficient to prove anything, except what we already know which is that they are both varieties of sweet Couscous. --Ideophagous (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The source that I added is the most reliable of all (beat any of the other crap). Do you realise that the "Wolfert" source that you added mentions the use of chicken? M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is more reliable for the general topic of cookery. It does not deal specifically with Seffa and its varieties, and only mentions it once in passing. Thus it is definitely NOT the best source to use here, except to prove that both Seffa and Mesfouf use a form of fine grain Couscous, which is not saying much. If you have a detailed source other than Wolfert and cooking websites, by all means bring it forth. --Ideophagous (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat: do you realise that the "Wolfert" source that you added mentions the use of chicken? M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That just proves my point further since the Moroccan Seffa is often served with meat (chicken or lamb). Keep them separated, that's my final vote, unless you have better sources that point to the opposite. --Ideophagous (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since I have no time for WP:OR, let me quote what Ken Albala says about it: Northerners make an extra-small couscous called seffa or mesfuf, which they serve with butter, sugar, and cinnamon Adding this to the rock solid source that I already cited and we have a solid proof that the two are one and the same. Come to think of it, I may even suggest a merger with Couscous (since Mesfouf/seffa is just couscous and the toppings which vary from one village to the next are irrelevant). M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

First, you have no "rock solid" anything here. The first source you put (Proceedings), mentions Seffa and Mesfouf only in passing, and does not specify where each term is used, or whether they are 100% equivalent, only that they're both based on fine grain Couscous, which we already know (the source should remain in the article obviously though). Your second source (Ken Albala) basically cites the overlap I hypothesized about in my Talk page. There are bound to be regions where the names or even the details of the ingredients may overlap. That doesn't change the fact that, as a general rule the term Seffa is mostly Moroccan, and the term Mesfouf is mostly Algerian/Tunisian, and similarly that, apart from fine grain Couscous, sugar and sometimes raisins, the two varieties are sufficiently different from each other to deserve their own article, especially since they belong to different national cuisines. This can only be established by surveying a large number of sources, as I did, for the terms and and ingredients used in each cuisine, and not one or two sources where the dish is only mentioned in passing. Merging with Couscous is even more nonesensical, because the ingredients (apart from Couscous itself) are mostly different, and Seffa + Mesfouf are mostly served as desserts, not as a main course. --Ideophagous (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to specify that Seffa can also be made with rice and Vermicelli, which the article clearly specifies, whereas Mesfouf is practically always made with Couscous. That's another major difference. I'm completing my survey of web sources, and will post my results in a table as soon as I'm done. --Ideophagous (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: With specific reference to the quote from Albala - "Northerners make an extra-small couscous called seffa or mesfuf, which they serve with butter, sugar, and cinnamon" - I would note that there appears to be a high level of confusion between whether seffa refers just to the grade of couscous, the resulting dish, or both. Sources that are more explicit on this are really needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now): As the content currently stands, aside from the different name (albeit related and from from the same Arabic root), I do not see a huge overlap between the ingredients used in these two dishes aside from the fact that both can use butter. The Algeria/Tunisia version appears to be focused on the incorporation of legumes, whereas the Moroccan version is exclusively sweet and involves butter, cinnamon, almonds. Only Sfaxian mesfouf appears to overlap. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I had actually added more details to both articles with sources, showing why the articles should clearly be kept separated, but @M.Bitton: inexpicably reverted my perfectly legitimate edits, and then posted the merger request. I suggest my edits should be reinstated, and the articles expanded to add more details. A merger will only make the content poorer and more confusing to the reader. --Ideophagous (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the reversion was a tad premature, and would have been better left to stand pending further discussion on merging. As is, the dishes are clearly related, if not the same, and without the sentence you added, no link is made between the two and seffa is not even mentioned. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• New reliable source: "Certain distinctively Moroccan dishes like seffa that mixed butter with chicken and meat could only be found in Muslim homes. This is because Jews were also uniquely prohibited from mixing meat and milk together in a single meal." - a lot of interesting material to unpack here. (Emily Gottreich currently serves as Interim Chair of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.)

  What's so interesting about this cherry picked sentence? A claim by a non-specialist, made in passing in a book that isn't about either Couscous or Seffa. Also, we have no idea which seffa she's referring to (whether it's the common couscous based one or the vermicelli that is known as Douida in the east). M.Bitton (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton and Iskandar323:. I've spent a few hours collecting more information from various sources. First of all, it is clear that this dish and its varieties will require way more time to research and document, since it has many flavors and varieties in each country and region. That alone should be legitimate ground, not only to separate the Moroccan Seffa (which, surprise surprise, is not even exclusively or mostly made from Couscous) from Algerian/Tunisian Mesfouf, but I would even suggest creating a separate article for Algerian and Tunisian Mesfouf, so that documenting each one would be easier and more precise. The simplest form of the dish (fine grain Couscous + raisins + sugar) is found in all three countries, and is always served as a dessert, but this is just the basis on which each country and region adds its own unique flavors. In particular, we have the following varieties:

1. Seffa Medfouna (1, 2): exclusively Moroccan, based mainly on vermicelli, though it could also be made with Couscous, and includes meat (mostly chicken) and saffron (+raisins and sometimes ground almonds)
2. Mesfouf with beans (1, 2): also called thimekhlett is exclusively Algerian, and involves beans of different kinds, and sometimes onions and carrots (raisins are sometimes used too)
3. Mesfouf El Bey (1): exclusively Tunisian, involve nuts, dried fruits and cream

The main issue with a lot of sources, no matter how reliable they are, is that they treat Seffa and Mesfouf as the same generic North African dish, and do not go deep into these distinctions, or explicitly address the questions of name usage, ingredients and methods of preparation by region. Several sources however make it clear that the term "seffa" is exclusively or almost exclusively Moroccan, and that Mesfouf is exclusively or almost exclusively Algerian/Tunisian. There's a third term "Sfouf", which I didn't research thoroughly (but is apparently used in both Morocco and Algeria), especially because there's a Lebanese cake with that name, which would make the search more complicated. For example this website distinguishes between Moroccan Seffa, and Algerian Mesfouf. These websites (1, 2, 3), Encyclopedia of Jewish Food, and this book clearly state that "seffa" is the Moroccan term, and "mesfouf" is the Algerian/Tunisian term. This Moroccan Cuisine website, even explicitly calls the Tunisian variety Mesfouf, not Seffa. Out of dozens of cooking books and websites I've surveyed, the term Mesfouf is predominantly used for the Algerian (48 main mentions, 3 secondary) and Tunisian (44 main mentions, 4 secondary) varieties (Moroccan variety, 6 times, all secondary mentions), while the term Seffa is predominantly used for the Moroccan variety (59 main mentions, and I had to stop because there were too many), as opposed to 7 secondary mentions for Algeria and 1 secondary mention for Tunisia. Furthermore, the ingredients tend to differ between Seffa and Mesfouf. The only absolutely common ingredient is raisins. Even fine grain Couscous in the Moroccan variety (Seffa) can often be replaced with vermicelli (36 times in the sources I surveyed) or rice (8 times). In Tunisia, it seems that Mesfouf is always associated with dried fruits, nuts, and even plain fruits (pomegrenates and grapes), with the exception of the Djerba variety which involves meat or fish (but I'm not quite sure if this is not just plain old couscous). In Algerian Cuisine, it seems kind of midway between the Moroccan and Tunisian varieties, adding beans and legumes instead, though sometimes fruits as well, but I found no instance of meat being used in Algerian Mesfouf. So I have the following suggestions:

• Keep the articles separated and expand them with more information and sources (I can take care of that). The articles should definitely mention each other as varieties of sweet Couscous dishes in the Maghreb.
• Preferably create an extra article for either Tunisian or Algerian Mesfouf where more specific details would be documented (in particular regional varieties).
• Create a new section in Couscous titled Sweet Couscous dishes that would summarize and refer to these articles.

Any comments, objections or extra suggestions are welcome. --Ideophagous (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a WP:OR conclusion based on your analysis of some random recipes that you collected on the web.

definitely not nuts or dates This source says otherwise. While I don't think much of Gil Marks, the fact that they mention a specific name for the dates cannot be ignored.

@M.Bitton: inexpicably reverted my perfectly legitimate edits, 1) That's a lie! Here's the edit summary of my first revert where I assumed good faith and left a perfectly valid explanation that also mentions the merger. 2) Your edits were anything but legitimate since you used a recipe to base your WP:OR on and deleted a scholarly source in the process.

the dishes are clearly related, if not the same. Here's a reliable source stating that the terms Seffa and Mesfouf are both used in Algeria to refer to more or less the same dish.

Ultimately, the more you look into this the more convinced you will become that the terms "Mesfouf" and "Seffa" are above all things about the grade of the couscous and not the toppings. M.Bitton (talk)

I find your insistence not to keep the articles separate, and even go as far as merge them with Couscous rather strange. Even if all three countries used the exact same term for these varieties of sweet Couscous, there could still be legitimate ground to have separate articles so as to document each country-level varieties separately, given how diverse they are even on the regional level.

I have nowehere suggested that my web search analysis be included in the articles themselves, rather it is meant to help editors make a decision based on how common specific terms are used in which country, a fact that anyone can verify by themselves on Google. We have already established from the start that there's most certainly some overlap in the usage of the terms, especially in Algeria which lies between the two extremes of the Maghreb. Still, ir would be best to have a Moroccan Seffa, Algerian Mesfouf and Tunisian Mesfouf articles, that document each separately, while acknowledging the overlap. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food that you cited yourself does indeed mention that Seffa is Moroccan, and Mesfouf in Tunisian. It is not far fetched to consider that Algerian towns use either term depending how close they are to the border of which neighboring country. This would need to be documented as clearly as possible with reliable sources.

You could have certainly reinstated the source (which I had removed by mistake when I intended to move it to another location in the article), and then opened the current discussion, rather than revert the edits. The original edits were also just a first in a series, since I intended to improve both articles with further details and sources. Again, rather than impulsively revert edits, I believe it is always best to open a discussion, except in clear cases of vandalism, which was clearly not the case here.

You keep repeating the Seffa is just Couscous, when the Moroccan variety of the dish clearly uses vermicelli and rice as replacement on many occasions. The term "Couscous" itself was originally about the couscous grains, but has also been used for the variety of dishes that use couscous grains. Seffa, Sfouf and Mesfouf are also designations of fine grain couscous, but they are also designations of the dishes based on it. Furthermore, different national cuisines show enough variety to be distinct from each other, despite sharing many similarities, and that applies overall as well as for each dish.

--Ideophagous (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I find your insistence to keep them separate even stranger.

given how diverse they are even on the regional level. You'll notice that we don't have separate articles for each region.

Still, it would be best to have a Moroccan Seffa, There is no valid reason to have either a "Moroccan" or "Algerian" seffa since the word is used in two countries (at least). It just so happens that it also refers to a vermicelli version in Morocco (which is mentioned in the article as it should).

The Encyclopedia of Jewish Food that you cited yourself does indeed mention that Seffa is Moroccan, and Mesfouf in Tunisian That's not what it says. It specifically says that the dish is called as such (not that it's a different dish). This we know as I have provided a RS above stating the same thing. It also contradicts the baseless claim that you made about the dates and the nuts.

You could have certainly reinstated the source You have replaced a scholarly source with a recipe. That's unacceptable, regardless of whether it was an honest mistake.

It is not far fetched. That's WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Now now @M.Bitton, it's not nice to bicker. Lord knows some of these articles need sensible contributions and if @Ideophagous has the energy to do research, all the better. Might I suggest we try to improve both underwritten articles and then see where we stand, sources bared? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Adding content to the article that is being discussed is more annoying than you what describe as "bickering". M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since when did discussion prevent editing, particularly on unrelated matters? Whether or not material is added has little to no bearing on the merger discussion, unless of course the material added demonstrably compels the argument in one direction or another. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since always, especially when it comes to cherry picking so-called sourced content, as it prevents what's being discussed from becoming meaningless. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think these reliable sources (you're going to need more than just saying 'so-called' in talk to define them as unreliable) are so cherrypicked, please do go ahead and append whichever sources you think would balance out the evidential equation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read what is written before replying. 1) I didn't make any comment about the reliability when I said "so-called sourced content". 2) I already addressed the cherry picked sentence that you added to the article (my comment was ignored). M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't be rude or act stupid. When you say so-called sourced content, you are obviously impugning, on some level, the source. The rest is bandying words. We would make progress a lot faster if you stopped intermittently treating everyone else like their idiots. I did indeed miss your comment in the deluge. However, I would suggest that there are very few dedicated books on either Couscous or Seffa, and yes, I do in fact believe I can trust a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at a reputable university to issue qualified, well-researched statements on a range of subjects, and I tend towards trusting their competency. Needless to say, the statement I have quoted is quite emphatic in its pretense of understanding, using both the words "distinctively" and "only" - the type of words that academics and editors do not tend to allow lightly. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've had it with your personal attacks. I'm not used to crap from anyone and I certainly won't take it from you of all editors. If you have anything to say about me you take it to ANI and take your chances there, otherwise I suggest you stick to the WP guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I said you were being rude (as in uncivil), which you often are, and I was quite clearly suggesting you tone down your own incivility. Telling people to read, as if they are stupid or willfully ignorant, is obviously uncivil, when you could simply point the way. And, when you act as if you are not criticising a source when you clearly are, THAT is what I mean by "acting stupid". I did not say that you are stupid: we both know full well that you are not. But I am very sorry if that was unclear, and came across as an attack, though again, I think you are probably smarter than that. Anyhow, this is obviously not ANI-worthy stuff. Though "you of all editors" does sound somewhat like a personal attack, whatever it means. Perhaps mind the guidelines yourself and respond to my (unanswered) points. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you deal with a lot of new users (as well as IP users) coming onto Maghreb-related articles and creating a mess of things (we've discussed it), but may I suggest that you might, perhaps, sometimes let a degree of your ill will towards actual vandalism leak out into your dealings with well-meaning editors honestly trying to make improvements? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: (as in uncivil), which you often are Another personal attack to boot. Enough! I meant what I said, so I won't needlessly repeat it. Where we go from here is up to you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Suggesting someone may be being uncivil is basically the lowest common denominator of politely asking someone to tone it down. It hardly rises to the level of personal attack. Anyway, fine, take mock offense instead of continuing the discussion. What I was actually going to say before this was that I actually rather respect the way you generally safeguard Maghreb articles, though I do think you sometimes go a bit hard on those (esp. newer users) proposing changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: WP:OR is perfectly legitimate within a discussion, since we're only listing possibilities here, which will be actualized if reliable sources are found. Once again, nobody is suggesting to include these observations as such in the articles. Separating articles is the natural course when there's enough information to cover a topic, especially when it helps make things clearer for the reader. A reader interested in Moroccan Seffa is not necessarily looking for information on Tunisian Mesfouf, but they have the option to check it out too if they so wish. Furthermore, documenting each national cuisine, and their corresponding dishes, separately makes more sense than mixing them all into one article. Even if some information is repeated, that's fine as long as there are enough differences, which is the case here.

Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that even if the dish varieties had the exact same name in all 3 countries, we could still separate them based on their ingredients and methods of preparation, which are varied enough. The name variation is only the cherry on the cake, or in our case the raisin on the Seffa.

We could technically also have another article about Couscous as a substance and its varieties including fine grain Couscous (seffa/mesfouf), or this could simply be included in the main Couscous article. --Ideophagous (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Technically, we could do a lot of things, including creating a DAB page for word "Seffa" and separate articles, i.e. "Seffa (Ageria)" and "Seffa (Morocco)". M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here we split @Ideophagous - if the dish has the same name AND is suitably similar, it should definitely be the focus of only one article. Wikipedia does not duplicate food articles per country ad nauseum. I'm here because I am not yet convinced that mesfouf and seffa ARE the same dish, either in terms of their most frequent forms of preparation, or in the cultural backdrop to their evolution as dishes. More sourcing needs to be done. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 and M.Bitton: I certainly have the energy to do this work and sort out the mess. Feel free to verify and correct both of you. In particular, I will create a section just for the discussion of the name, its variants, their etymology, meaning, and regional usage. Academic book and journal sources will be used preferably, with cook books and websites, and journalistic sources as support, especially for some details that academic sources would tend to gloss over (such as ingredients). --Ideophagous (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ideophagous: Feel free to propose your changes here so we can go through them and see whether they are suitable for inclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: My point precisely is that if the dishes are sufficiently different from country to country, and there's enough information to write a full article for each, they would need to be separated regardless of their name. Obviously if there's little difference between them, they should be in the same article. So in either case, the name is just an additional detail. The real question is whether the dishes are different enough in their actual essence. I believe they are, but let me finish working on the articles, and we'll see then. --Ideophagous (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Unsecure source?

Can anybody actually open the third source? [1] It has a fairly odd url link and it prompts a security alert on my computer. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I can open it. It leads to the website of the second Moroccan channel, and has a video to a TV program about Seffa (all in Arabic). --Ideophagous (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

So can I. Frankly, you're not missing out on anything (the usual morning TV crap talking about the "nutritional value" of seffa). M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

So carbs, carbs and more carbs? Would that really count as a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You forgot the sugar and butter (for a healthy lifestyle). M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on Paul Wolfert as a source

So it turns out that Paula Wolfert is not just any cookbook writer, but am award-winning one, specifically for her publication of The Food of Morocco.

• What are our thoughts on her as a secondary source? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Like any other cookbook, her book is good enough as a source for a recipe and nothing else. M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think she's reliable source when it comes to dishes and ingredients, and I don't see @M.Bitton:'s dismissal of her as warranted. It is of course always good to corroborate certain details (especially in relation to history) with more academic sources, but those are not cooking treaties, and often will not include some important details about specific dishes or cuisines or regional variants. --Ideophagous (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't now about everyone else, but I certainly don't learn history in cookbooks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I would, however, assume that even the most lackadaisical cookbook writer does a reasonable amount of reading and research, and I would further like to think that the notable writer of an acclaimed book could potentially have an insight or two to share on the subject beyond other cookbooks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• In case people haven't read the page, it says this of Wolfert:

Jeffrey Steingarten, food critic for Vogue, wrote: "Paula is part anthropologist, part amateur scholar. She works in a way that's both sensual and scholarly. She isn't content until she knows not only how your olives were made, but also where you got them, what you did with them, what else you did with them, and whether your friends are doing the same thing. And then she'll call your friends, too."

A food critic (someone who eats for a living) singing the praise of a cook. No further comment necessary. Anyway, why are we talking about this cook who wrote a book about Moroccan food since anything she says will only apply to Morocco? M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)