Talk:تراتور

POV Pushing by editor

Theodoridis's tentative attempt to derive from Pontic Greek ταραχτόν (tarachtón, “not very thick colostrum”), which has been uncritically accepted in some standard references (e.g in Eren and Stachowski), is speculative (as admitted by Theodoridis himself) due to the difference in meaning, unusual sound changes and lack of evidence that the dish entered into Ottoman cuisine from Pontus.

A large part of this paragraph is not part of the sources rather than an editor's POV.

Specifically this part: Theodoridis's "tentative" attempt

This part: due to the difference in meaning, unusual sound changes and lack of evidence that the dish entered into Ottoman cuisine from Pontus.

And this part: which has been uncritically accepted in some standard references

The information is not necessarily wrong, but the wording is not at all fit for a use of sources in an etymological page. Also the last part is unsourced. I suggest we change it into something more neutral, like so:

Uncertain. Perhaps from Persian تار و تور (târ o tur, “in pieces, piecemeal”). Alternatively, from some derivative of Persian تره (tarre, tare, “garden herb”), perhaps Persian تره دوغ (tara-doğ, “herbs and sour milk”). According to Theodoridis it derieves from Pontic Greek ταραχτόν (tarachtón, “not very thick colostrum”). 2A02:586:C422:7647:D049:7399:96B:7806 02:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing here is unsourced. I heard the criticism of Theodoridis's etymology on the Talk Tuah podcast. Vahag (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is obviously not sourced and let me just say that this is fundamentally not the way that etymological sources are used on wiktionary.

If you want to add that some reference is uncritical you need to provide a source that defends that, if you say that a specific word evolution is unpredictable or that the place of origin is unlikely, you need to provide a source that says that. If you just think that something is a "tentative attempt" you need a source that says that.

Whether an etymology is speculative and its speculation is mentioned, you can include it, here it is even weird to say that when it is already mentioned that it is uncertain but in any case, the point is that anything else you want to add in the manner that you have done here needs to be sourced, otherwise it is just your own POV.

This is not at all how etymological sources are used on wiktionary in any entry whatsoever, closing the article for vandalism is ironic especially in regards to your stance. 2A02:586:C422:7647:2408:8DCA:B307:F69F 00:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You're confused, you're on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. We are allowed to use our brains to synthesize and criticize sources and even write our own original etymologies. Now if you want me to take you seriously, go and actually read Theodoridis article instead of pushing it just because it strokes your Greek ego. Vahag (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)