Talk:Ice cream

History section

The history section of this article is a self-contradictory mess. It starts be telling us that Iranians were making frozen desserts (actually' deserts'!) around 550 BC, and ends by saying that they were only made possible after the discovery of the endothermic effect, dated to the 4th century AD. In between, it makes all sorts of contradictory statements, base in some cases apparently on original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You've just deleted this sentence:

The history of ice cream is full of myths and stories with little evidence to support them.

CABF45 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did, because you copy-pasted it from the source, in blatant disregard to the copyright policy already brought to your attention on WP:RSN. And even if it wasn't a breach of copyright, it did nothing to improve the section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The original sentence is slightly different and the sentence was properly credited to the source, a Royal Society of Chemistry book. CABF45 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

References

I am not interested in debating with you further. Violate Wikipedia copyright policy again and I will report the matter. I didn't start this section to continue a discussion we have already had elsewhere, and your insistence on doing so is disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the easiest thing to do. It's only about four-five sentences. How would you cite them according to your standards? CABF45 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Is the self contradictory template still relevant since CABF45's disruptive edits are now removed ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The origins section still ends by stating that "Ice cream was made possible only by the discovery of the endothermic effect", which is incompatible with things stated earlier. I suspect that the root issue here is that there is no real agreement as to what constitutes 'ice cream', and there is unlikely to ever be one. In such circumstances, Wikipedia needs to avoid definitive statements - and ideally, to avoid sources which make them. From a quick look, I get the impression that we are citing a fair number of sources that are likely to be questionable for historical content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, but honestly, this is the way we go in a great many of articles dealing with stuffs with obscure origins, even the best reliable sources are often disagreeing with each others then.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment @CABF45: You seem to ignore that chemists are not historians, while the royal society of chemistry would be a reliable source for articles about chemistry, they are not for the history of ice cream. Please read our guidelines, that will spare time for all of us.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

However, the Indian Express is a perfect source for these types of claims... CABF45 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it, there are many other sources supporting this claim.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed it for you. Done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion with a lot of good points being made. It may be better to focus the article on ice cream. The content about frozen dessert would improve that current stub article. Spudlace (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Break

I am going to attempt to boldly fix the issues that have been raised here about the history section. Geraldine M. Quinzio has written an academic book on the history of ice cream. Her discussion of ices and ice creams has custards as a precursor for ice cream. I will look for others to include the variety of ice creams in different cultures (gelato and similar variations). There is no agreement what constitutes ice cream but some things clearly out of scope can be used to improve the existing articles for other types of frozen desserts. Spudlace (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It is far from obvious what is or isn't 'out of scope', and I'd strongly advise against edit-warring over content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why I started discussion. If you want the content in the article you should be able to explain why on the talk page without being hostile to other editors. Spudlace (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I added back the ABC-CLIO and the Royal Society of Chemistry sources to WP:Balance the history section. I also completely rephrased and simplified the sentences to avoid Copyvio accusations. CABF45 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Origins

Wikaviani this is not the right article for sorbet. I left this article alone to see if you or others would fix the problems with it but you are just "guarding" content that your comments say should be removed. I am ok with you removing the content from the article or let me do it. How long is the article going to be "protected" by edit warring when everyone agrees it needs to be fixed? Spudlace (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you ignore WP:BRD ? The definition of ice cream may vary, in some countries, sorbets are a kind of ice cream. Besides, the content you removed is relevant to this article since it is part of the developpment of this food. The encyclopedia of Jewish food for example, describes Faludah as the forerunner of all ice creams, that makes it relevant here. Also did you take a look at the job you made ? you just made the section vanish to replace it with some chemical infos that have only few to do with history and in your hurry to do so, all the cites contain errors ... Maybe a RfC would be relevant, since i don't feel me and you will reach an agreement but if you revert again before having reached a consensus here on the talk, i'll take this to ANI.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time for an RfC. I'm not in the mood to work on the ice cream article right now but it is not acceptable for Wikipedia like this where the content in the article is about sorbet or frozen drinks. Sorbet is not a type of ice cream. But the mess you are rabidly protecting is not limited to reason. Sharbat? Like medieval orange juice? You are going to "take this to ANI". Please, do. I don't like working on controversial articles, I don't do it, I don't like having hours of time consumed by self-important pricks who would rather fight on talk pages than do work to improve articles. If I add the sourced content that I have found about ice cream it is going to make the section even more confused and contradictory then it is now. Please remove the content about sorbet from this article and fix the section so it is about ice cream or do Wikipedia and its readers a favor and stop guarding this article. Spudlace (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm guarding nothing but the quality of this article, if you don't have time to do a proper job, then maybe you should wait to have time in order to do so, just take a look at the version you left, nothing about history, cites were messed out, etc ... i just try, in good faith, to keep the quality of this article and i suggest you assume good faith about my editing. If sharbat is so much disturbing for you, fine, let's remove it, but faloodeh should remain, as per what i said just above, being the forerunner of all ice creams and sorbets, it has its place in the origins section. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Based only on Gil Marks? Does he give any details discussion that is on par with other sources used on Wikipedia? Usually he does not. The unexplained original thoughts of Gil Marks are usually used only with careful attribution in Wikipedia articles. Spudlace (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That source may not be the best ever, but it sounds acceptable however and is used all around Wikipedia in article dealing with food.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't use Gil Marks when there are better sources available. I don't use him when the source is vague. Both apply here. It's clear that he is describing the sweetened ice mixture as the "forerunner of all ice creams and sorbets", but not the faloodeh itself. He doesn't give the name for this sweetened ice mixture and he doesn't give a date for the addition of faloodeh to the modern form of the dessert. The syrup may be sharbat, but he doesn't say. Spudlace (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gil Marks is a food historian, sounds quite relevant in an article dealing with ice cream which is food. You have the right to use him or not and to like it or not, but this source is reliable for this topic. the sweetened ice mixture is in the section named faloodeh in the source and its description is the same than faloodeh, thus the so called sweetened ice mixture is most likely faloodeh, however, if you still want to remove the word faloodeh from the article and replace it with some icy mixture, that could be a compromise, but i think that since the mixture seems to fit with faloodeh description, it's better to be the most concise possible and keep the word faloodeh.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove content from the article with the edit summary "unsourced" that is from the Oxford Companion of Sugar and Sweets? Spudlace (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the Oxford source actually supports the next sentence, not the one i removed. By the way, while this has been discussed above, you still removed Gil Marks as a source for the sentence about the sweet icy mixture, which i genuinely disagree with, since the source explicitly supports it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I? Well, thank you for fixing that. I thought I removed the Book of Firsts. It doesn't have any additional information to Gil Marks. I don't have any objection to your last round of edits or the removal of "invention".Spudlace (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm citing WP:Balance:

However, when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

CABF45 (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You added that same claim with the Royal society of chemistry and ABC CLIO while none of them is an expert source for food history, typical disruptive editing..---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The ABC-CLIO source looks ok but I agree with Wikaviani about royal society of chemistry. Doing the background reading for this discussion I found very good science books that uncritically repeated claims of Chinese origin by way of Marco Polo legend. Christopher Cumo (ABC CLIO) says "most food historians usually credit Europe with its invention," Not Europeans. The earliest evidence that food historians have published supports the Europe origin, which is why we've avoided using very strong terms like "invention". Spudlace (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Potato gelato into Ice cream

It is tagged notability for two years. It would easily merge into the ice cream article section on different world ice creams. Spudlace (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)