Talk:Dosa (food)

Merge

This should be merged with masala dosa because masala dosa is still a dosa. We could include it in a subsection and point to an article with more detailed info. --Shell 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Shell, the articles should be merged. Snroy 11:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever...dosas rule Agreed

Yeah, you should merge all dosa stuff into this article.

TA

I disagree. You cannot dishonor 80 million tamilians by distorting an important breakfast name they are used to. Are any of you lovers of "freedom fries"? You know, the Americans wanted to change "french fries"?

I will oppose any "merge" into dosa. Merge "dosa" into "dosai" if you are desperate to save a kilobyte of disk space.

Netking 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If so, please merge Dosa into Dosai. I'm fine with either of them. Just that two articles on the same subject is not good. Otherwise, one can distinguish Dosa and Dosai in the respective articles if such distinctions exist. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with these two articles even if on similar subject? The topic yahoo.com has some 500 articles! Why aren't you trying to merge those articles? Why is this fancy to destroy the nuances and specialty of each language and lifestyle? Dosa is as much special to kannadigas as Dosai is to Tamils! What next, Ford car and Toyota car will be merged because they are cars? Boeing and Airbus? Chimpanzees and Humans because they are similar (and 99% genetically identical)? Why is this desperation to convert everything into simpleton articles? I think people can be more productive with their time than trying to simplify the diversity that nature brought over in millions of years.

Netking 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never been to Andhra but dosa sounds a bit ugly to me, reminds me of dosha more than dosai. /Veerapandiyan/

the simple reason why dosa and dosai cant be merged is because of the sheer number of people all over india and over the world call it dosa and thats what it should be known as.. thats reason number one why the articles should not be merged... secondly...abt dishonoring 80 million tamilians....by simple calculations or a census/or from any source it is easy to know that the number of telugu speaking people are a lot more than the tamil speaking population over the world and in india...so in fact the usage of dosai is limited to a fewer number of people ... but then, the discussion was never abt telugu vs tamil.... all i am saying is that dosa and dosai should reamin two different articles...

i therefore oppose the merging of articles

and ppl who think that "dosa" sounds ugly...try travelling outside ur state...theres a gazilllion people who think otherwise...


Merging not a good idea
Guys, please, I think merging might not be a great idea. However, these articles should definitely be linked to each other. From a "wiki" perspective, merging might make sense, but then you will lose the beauty of the different languages and some part of culture would be lost. Granted, it need not be taken as an insult by 80 mil tamilians (I am a tamilian btw) but there is no point in losing linguistic heritage over this. Naridon 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi, do we really need a separate section at the base about masala dosa? There's already an article on masala dosa that is linked from this article, so a section at the bottom really isn't necessary, especially when we aren't delving into any other dosas. Even.more.sarcasm (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

merged

I've merged Dosai into Dosa. Please quit your linguistic chauvinistic bickering and focus on the article. There are several varieties of burrito which bear no resemblance to each other, and you don't find anyone arguing over them. -- 74.132.201.173 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Claiming state of origination

I have noticed a few people claiming that the dosa is native to one state or another (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc.). Clearly there is disagreement over the state where the dosa originated. Instead of having an edit war over this, please talk this over here on the discussion page, and post factual sources which other people can check and verify. If there is controversy about where dosas originated, Wikipedia's place is only to describe the controversy neutrally and not take sides. This will keep us out of edit wars as well as lead us to write an informative, factual article. Thank you. --Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a crepe

The only thing dosas have in common with crepes is the shape. A number of articles and one or two books claim dosa to be found in sangam literature of tamil.But the dosai which tamils made and ate on those days were thick like oothappam. Only idli is attributed to karnataka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reperian (talk • contribs) 05:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Peacekeepurwar (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that "dosa" pre-dates "crepe" so why would one define a dosa as a type of crepe, and not a crepe as a dosa? Peacekeepurwar (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

OOTHTHAPPAM

I Guess Oothaappam (ootha appam means sour pancake) is the mother of thosai ( As far as I know, nobody knows the etimology of thosai but its variant oothaapam's is known). Word "thosai"/ "Dosa" does n't sound like a tamil/malayalam word. so I guess it got originated from Karnataka/Andhra (KP)

\\OOTHTHAPPAN forsure is a Tamil owrd.OTHTHU =Pour,APPAM = bread like idsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.240.52 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

\\DHOSAI OR THOSAI AND NOT DOSA

Dhosai is a South Indian dish.In Tamil literatures which are the earliest notes on Dhosai it is mention only as Dhosai and not Dosa or any thing else.The root word for all these other terms is Dhosai and nobody calls Dhosai as Dosa.So this article as to be name only as Dhosai and Dosa are Samosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.240.52 (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Masala Dosa?

The ubiquitous Indian dish masala dosa has its origins in Udupi. A masala dosa is made by stuffing a dosa with a lightly cooked filling of potatoes, fried onions and spices. It wraps the dosa around a onion and potato curry or sabji.

Dosa is supposed to have had its roots in the Temple Streets of Udupi, Karnataka. Masala dosa showing Aloo masala filling

Before it was invented, plain dosa was served with potato curry (batata bhaji) without onions in a separate cup. During a shortage of potatoes, he created a method where potato was mashed and sauteed with onions and other spices and placed in the dosa instead of a separate cup. He did this to hide the onions which are not eaten by some Hindus and Jains. People enjoyed this new dosa. Hence, he named it "Masala Dosa", from the sautéeing of spices (masala) during the preparation of the bhaji.

Who does "he" refer to in the last paragraph?? --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Dosa in Karnataka

"The Dosa or Dosay (see spelling variants below) is a Southern Indian delicacy that originated in what is now Karnataka.[1] It is supposed to have had its roots in the Temple Streets of Udupi, Karnataka.[2]" - I have my doubts here despite the fact that citations have been given. A proper timeline has not been defined here. There is also sufficient evidence that dosai is mentioned in Tamil Sangam literature, which is by far the oldest body of significant literature in south india. refer to : 1) http://www.fermented-foods.net/pdfs/rules.pdf,

2) http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7LYHFGLJQNQC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=dosai tamil sangam 6th century&source=bl&ots=YQU93S2YS3&sig=RyVoub6hUza16iI6Gp84h5vYenU&hl=en&ei=NzI_SrqhFsWjkAWE372mAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

I'll be glad if someone verifies the claim that Dosa originated in Karnataka. Even then, I would appreciate the mention of the Tamil Nadu evidence, for the sake of maintaining fairness in the article.

jash121 (talk) 8:30, 22nd June 2009 (UTC)

your source is confusing, it says it is first noted in sangam literature about the sixth century AD and it donot mention which place it is originated. sangam literature usually dates between 2BC to 2AD. to maitain NPOV version, it is better to mention both but we are talking about origin, I've many sources which says dosa is originated in Udupi, udupi is in Karnataka. C21K^talk 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'Tamil Sangam Literature' refers to the literary works and not the Sangams themselves.Considering the fact that these are literary works, it is hard to define a place. But surely, Sangam literature was composed in Tamil Nadu( based in Madurai), which is why I brought it into the question of 'origin'.Plz refer to the wiki article on Sangam Literature. Regarding the timeline, classical tamil literature (Sangam 'literature' as we know it today) flourished till 600 CE.And oh yes, I did check out the facts on Udupi. So, it think it is best to mention both in accordance with NPOV.jash121 (talk) 18:25, 22nd June 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste

(Flexible 10:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)) In Malayalam, Dosa (transliteration of malayalam DOSHA) as well as Dosai means just the same, so as vast majority of India except, perhaps, Andhra Pradesh, a state that has about 6% of total Indian population. I would argue that both the terms to be merged.

But the Telugus never called Dosa as Dosai and hence the question remains if Dosa is the anglicized version of Dosai. - Kesava 0430 THU 22 Jan 2004 UTC

Agrees. Dosa is a South Indian delicacy, and nobody knows which part of South India it originated from. Dosai as a term exists only in Tamil. Chancemill 08:15, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I Guess oothaapam (ootha appam meaning sour pan cake) is the mother of thosai. It does n't sound like a tamil/malayalam word. so I guess it got originated from Karnataka/Andhra.

I Guess Oothaappam (ootha appam means sour pancake) is the mother of thosai ( As far as I know, nobody knows the etimology of thosai but its variant oothaapam's is known). Word "thosai"/ "Dosa" does n't sound like a tamil/malayalam word. so I guess it got originated from Karnataka/Andhra (KP)

Funny thing, we malayalees call it "Dosha". Shouldnt that be there as well, Chance? :-) Deepak 03:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Malayalees also call it as "Doshai" and sometimes "Thoshai"?! - at least, I have heard some Palghat Brahmins refer to it this way!:-)KRS

hey desi,

Not sure why you changed emphasis from sambhar as the main side-dish to chutney. I am sure in most places sambhar is universally used, though chutney is very popular as well. Might I suggest an "or" between the two sentences? Sorry for the pedantry , but it's a subject close to my heart as Chancemill will testify! Deepak 02:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sambhar and Chutney are side-dishes of equal importance in Andhra Pradesh. So Desi might consider this for a revision. Kesava 04:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

the section on masala dosa has an explicable reference to a person referred to only as "he". the quote from the article is "During a shortage of potatoes, he created a method where..." there is no explanation of who this person is. if someone can explain this or correct it that would be great. Glocke01 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)glocke01

Attu

It is of no use to argue about the origin of Dosa. It belongs to all South Indians. If someone feels he/she holds a patent on Dosa, let it be so. Dosa is called Attu (Minapattu for Urad Dosa and Pesarattu for Moong Dosa). These names are authentic Telugu and of course Minapattu is the common Dosa. The photo of Dosa is really good and mouth-watering. Let us enjoy eating Dosa/Attu rather than wasting time on trivial arguments.Kumarrao (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dosa and Udupi

In this version, references 2 to 7 are used to reference a claim that It is generally believed that dosa had its roots in the Temple Streets of Udupi, Karnataka.

• second reference doesnt even mention the word Udupi,
• Pat Chapman in his third reference says "credit for Dosa invention goes to the coastal town of Udupi". however, he doesnt cite a reference, looks like he just pulled it out of thin air.
• somebody needs to clarify why the fourth reference is there, page number may be
• same with the fifth reference, page number required
• In the 6th reference, Thangappan Nair says all south Indian delicacies originated in Karnataka. i dont have access to the book and so, can somebody clarify on what basis he makes the argument?
• 7th reference is again Pat Chapman

Can somebody help me clarify this? --CarTick 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Second reference says The dosa, like most other south Indian culinary exports, is often linked to Udipi, a small temple town in the state of Karnataka. Please READ the article before commenting on it. Pat Chapman is a respected researcher and food writer. So please spare your uneducated opinions on him. I am sure he knows more of what he is talking about than you do. Please bring in a reference which contradicts Mr. Chapman, we'll see then. Reference 4 - Page 132. Quote - Dosa written in the language of Kannada, spoken in the South Indian state of Karnataka, where the Dosa originated. We are quoting P. Thankappan Nair as the authority on history of food, which he is and that's what we are supposed to do in Wikipedia as opposed to your original research. Please put forward a similar learned reference on the table and we will talk then. And as I said, Pat Chapman deserves the respect which he earned. Hope things are clear now. Please don't revert without proper references. Thanks!Gnanapiti (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference which you are proudly using in Idli article to claim The originations of Idlis are unclear with the earliest mention in writing occurring in Kannada writing of Shivakotiacharya in 920 AD, doesnt talk about Dosa mentioned in any Kannada literature. well, that doesnt mean anything. it probably is. The article also says Idli is a foreign import. why did you fail to mention that in Idli article. To begin with, it would be foolish to definitely say Dosa or Idli originated in some place. sounds very immature considering the first person who made the first Idli or Dosa probably never left any evidence behind. It would be rather smart to cite its reference in some old literature. If Pat Chapman is authoritative, he probably knows why he says Dosa originated in Udupi. Please find that information, until then, this information stays away as an uninformed writing of a food writer. --CarTick 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read this before comparing articles. We are talking about this article here. We are not here to push our own conclusions. We are quoting a historian and that's the end of it. If you can find some reliable references that says Dosa was originated elsewhere, be my guest. Gnanapiti (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my comments properly. do u understand English? --CarTick 13:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Order

I do not agree with the order especially because none of the Kannada claims have no attribution to any historical writings, epigraphy or whatsoever. In any other article, these weak references you use for these claims stand no chance. Lisa Raynor's cook book is absolutely ridiculous. only because serious editors dont care about this article. --CarTick 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

pls find some evidence

Gnanapiti, your time will be better served in seeking some mention or evidence of Dosa in some Kannada literatre or inscription instead of wasting everbody's time here. --CarTick 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are blind to all the references in the article, not my problem. Gnanapiti (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

show me some history. not cook books. --CarTick 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm very close to either protecting this article, or blocking users for edit warring. Please remeber the 3 revert rule, and also please try to remain civil during discussions on this talk page and in edit summaries. GedUK  12:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First reference in Sangam

I would like to know why Prem doesnt like to mention that Dosa is first noted in Sangam literature. --CarTick 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Firstly, I am sure that Sangam literature is much more than a dosa-recipe book! Secondly, what you are citing is not Sangam literature per se. It is a book written by a British guy who probably can't even pronounce dosa properly (let alone dosai, dosay or doshai)! Thirdly, if you italicise or emphasise on the word "first", it wouldn't make Sangam literature any better. People have been fighting over religions, languages, holy places.. claiming it to be theirs as it was first mentioned in their scriptures. In fact, it would have been much better if they had just fought over dosa on wikipedia!! Also, it would have been much better if you and your friend Gnanapiti spent all your edits on improving the other sections of the article, which were totally ignored. Frankly, I wanted to delete the origin-of-dosa section. Now since it is there, let us concentrate on the other sections and improve them. Now I am off to make my dosa and upload the picture on wikipedia! Have fun guys! ROCKOPREM^talk 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

it is always better to cite a secondary source (british guy's book) than the primary source (Sangam literature in this case). pls see WP:SECONDARY. I could not find an answer to my question in the long reply of yours. BTW, I do not appreciate your condescending advice, i have done my share of contribs to wp over the years, may be more than you. --CarTick 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer lies in my long reply, given above. In real-world terms, both you and Gnanapiti have been citing secondary sources and you call his source a "cook-book"?!? I have deep regards and respect for both you guys for having those astronomical numbers in your edit counts. So, I thought it would be better for a rookie like me to handle this situation and play with the words and please both you seniors. That is the reason I decided to use neutral words that won't away the credit from your scriptures with regard to the rice-pancakes! Without further pontification, I would like to step-back from this conversation and also from the section with respect to the origins so that you guys can continue reverting edits. I will loiter around the non-controversial parts of the article! Adios amigos :P ROCKOPREM^talk 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

while secondary source is always good and important, secondary source should contain information about what primary sources were used to derive the conclusion. In Gnanapiti's sources, citation to primary sources is missing. citation to primary source is even more important in this case because you and me (or some writer of a cook book) can not decide something as old as Dosa originated in some place without the support of solid historical evidence (primary source). hope that clarifies. --CarTick 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Pat Chapman and Thankappan Nair never wrote any cook book in their lives. And no, that article was not found in Asia Times recipe section. Gnanapiti (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

doesnt matter. where is the primary source? if those writers failed to mention in their books, it ought to be there somewhere. if it is common knowledge and a non-questionable claim, it should be easy to find. --CarTick 19:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosai in Manasollasa

found this secondary source which refers to the reference to Dosai in Manasollasa and added it. I am sure there is an earlier reference, hope will be able to unearth it. --CarTick 04:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar dish from the «Brayon République du Madawaska» : «PLOYE»

The first photo of the article shows a typical «ploye». It has been made for several generations since the mid 18th century in northwestern New Brunswick Canada and the adjoining area in the state of Maine USA. It has traditionaly been made with a specialy «cured» buckwheat flour, wheat flour, water, salt and a patato forment. It is poured on a hot iron plate and not turned over. It was a substitute for bread eaten with butter for any meal. It was often accompanied with «creton», a spead made with porc, or with molasses for dessert. It is still made today but the buckwheat flour quality has seriously degraded since mills use steel grinders rather than stones ones which did not heat up in the process of grinding.

Yvon A Moreault —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.240.165 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cook books as a source of history about food

I have raised a query at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cook books as a source of history about food about the discussion on whether cook books are a reliable source that's been going on here for the last two years. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits and reversion of them

User:Curb Chain recently introduced a series of edits, which I reverted. I explained on his talk page my reasoning for this:

I am sorry to have reverted your recent edits to Dosa. This was done for several reasons, which include:

1. you removed all the statements for which citations had been requested, even though most of them date back only as far as March 2011. While uncited statements are far from ideal, Wikipedia's policies say that statements must be verifiable not verified. If the requests had been there for, say, a year then I might support your removals but when they have existed for only 6 weeks or so then it seems a little extreme
2. you removed some content on the grounds that "editor is not a nutritionist" - how do you know this?
3. you expanded the list enormously, even though it is already very long. If we try to list every variant of every dish then we would face a never-ending task. Although Wikipedia is indeed timeless, long lists in the body of articles add little or nothing to the content and can be construed as being undue weight. If long lists are likely then a better option is to create a separate article called (in this case) something like "List of dosa variants". I would actually support such a creation.

It is entirely possible that I have reverted some valid edits: your changes were so extensive that I did not pick through every line of them. I think that if you were to create the list article, split the content of the existing article into that & then return to make valid edits to the main article, things would go a lot more smoothly. Of course, you would need to discuss forking the article first but, rest assured, you would have my support for it. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Curb Chain then responded on my talk page and the conversation went:

1. I can say for certain those statements cannot be verified. Such statements were along the lines of "Cherry dosas are most popular in Tamil Nadu" and such statements would actually need a peer-reviewed article to verify, which would be very hard to find. Also, I can tell you such statements are easily refuted because immigrant communities would be very enthusiastic connoisseur of these foods.
2. I can tell you also that the food can only be verified for wholesomeness by a nutritionist. The statement was not footnoted.
3. I did not add any new entries to the list; it was a product of formatting according to wp:bullet.Curb Chain (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your intent, honestly I do. However:

1. you cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot prove that the statements cannot be verified (!?! - sorry, I find it difficult to express this concept).
2. the fact that it was not footnoted does not give you the right to say "the editor is not a nutritionist" in your edition summary. I seriously doubt that you know what the relevant editor may do in their day job (if they have one), but there was a recent valid request for a citation tagged to the statement & that should suffice for now
3. it certainly looked like stuff had been added but, in any event, this needs moving into a separate article due to the size & potential for further expansion. As I explained on your talk page, I would support such a split in the article. WP:List should cover this, and it also contains the various possible styles for a list, of which bulletting is only one. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Curb Chain reverted my revert, in contravention of WP:BRD. I would appreciate the views of other contributors regarding this matter - not so much the BRD issue, which I consider to be a minor point, but rather the points raised in the conversations. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply to his second message:

1. Unverifiable statements can be removed.
2. You are right, the edit summary was not well thought. But I disagree, because {{cn}} should not suffice and the statement should still be removed because, as I have explained, it will not be possible to verify this food for wholesomeness. Also, I do not think the sentence was tagged. Why have you reverted all the edits if you are debating this?
3. Well then, there is no dispute on this format.Curb Chain (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of above user talk page comments

Curb Chain says that unverifiable statements can be removed ... but does not address the issue of how he knows it is unverifiable. He says that the statement was not tagged for a cite, but in fact it has been tagged since March.

He raises the issue of why I am debating this. The answer is that I was not intending to debate as I did not consider my original revert to be controversial. I merely left a courtesy note explaining it on his talk page. It has subsequently turned into a difference of opinion regarding content and style.

I do not understand his last point, viz. that there is no dispute regarding the format. My point was that there are several acceptable ways to present a list and that in fact the list probably should not even be in this article.

Hope this clarifies. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's true that unverifiable statements can be removed, but unless it's offensive or a BLP violation, we don't do it immediately. And we don't do it on one editor's assertion that something is unverifiable. Specifically in this case, it is not true that only a nutritionist can add statements about nutrition to Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia is specifically not written by experts, and we don't take experts' words for things. We go on verification, which is what the {{cn}} tags are for. We need the statements to be tagged for citations for a reasonable length of time to give enough people the chance to find sources. So I'd say leave the disputed statements in for a while to give people long enough to see if sources can be found, and delete them if no sources are forthcoming after a reasonable time. How long is reasonable? I can't find any specific guidance, but I'd suggest a couple of months is insufficient, while a year is more than enough - so perhaps somewhere nearer the middle of that range? (As an aside, when {{cn}} etc templates are added, it's good to add a comment to the Talk page to explain what is needed and why, as that helps any potential researcher and avoids charges of "drive-by" tagging, which seems to annoy some people) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My Responses

You are obviously very familiar with the nutrition issue, you are the one who rewrote what it said previously: [1]. I have looked at the edit history, and the previous versions of this phrase date back to 3 years ago. That is more than sufficient time to give a citation for this phrase. It is not about giving time to give a citation to uncited material, it is giving a citation at the time OF writing the material. If some how on the slim chance that these "dosas" are nutritious, I am sure that it would be notable enough to be included in this article. Thus, the sentence should go. If you have information to back, then you can reinsert it, but it should be removed.

You state on my talk page that "It is entirely possible that I have reverted some valid edits: your changes were so extensive that I did not pick through every line of them.". You should examine the edits instead of making a wholesale revert. I included an edit summary to every edit, but you on the other hand, did not explain your complaints and infact, you state right here that you did not care to take a look.

For example, I have just removed a period in the picture that I restored. This is because wp:caption states that sentence fragments do not use periods.

I am not going to touch the list because Stephan Zhang will convert those sections.Curb Chain (talk)

I've changed a few into prose, as an example. As I can see, looking at the list, there is a lot of different variations, too many to convert into prose without getting out of control. Perhaps five or six of the most common variations could be selected, and converted into prose. It's not really necessary to list all the different variations, perhaps just the more common ones. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

@Curb Chain - it wasn't tagged three years ago. I amended it & tagged the thing. What is your problem with that? As I say below, most foods have a nutritional value. I said that I didn't check through every edits because I found some of it to be confusing when I compared the diffs. I specifically brought it to your attention so that things could be added back if I had done something wrong. It was a courtesy note, honestly. I'm not going to get into all the ramifications otherwise we'll both end up wikilawyering & it is not productive. This is an article dealing with (primarily) a south Asian subject & as such it is always likely to attract POV/peacock, warring, poor grammar, style issues and just about every other thing you can think of. It is unfortunate, but the tendency of such articles to reflect these issues is regularly remarked on across all sorts of areas of WP, including AN/I and AfD. The issue is particularly extreme with regard to articles covering the various castes.

@Steven Zhang. You have spotted my point exactly. Prose is better; if it must be a list that is too long to be usefully rendered in prose then create a list article.

@Boing said Zebedee. I agree. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is absolutely original research. The only thing you have done is inserted a period and removed it from the paragraph to make the second paragraph of the article. You have tagged it for over 2 months. That is ample time to get a citation from anyone, if they are even interested.Curb Chain (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on the sentence in dispute - "It is common as breakfast or dinner and is rich in carbohydrates and protein" Well, it is very common as a breakfast, most definitely (though I'd say the "or dinner" bit makes it less meaningful). And as it is essentially made of rice flour, it is undeniably rich in carbs - because that's what rice flour is. Versions made with dal will also have higher protein values, as pulses are high in protein, but that is perhaps less universal. So even if that sentence is unsourced, it is at least in part plainly true. My reasoning is not sufficient, of course, and it needs sourcing - but not outright deletion. (Actually, I think a better answer might be to have a sourced "Nutrition" section if possible, and then a lede sentence summarizing it would be fine without any specific sources - ledes don't need to be sourced when they summarize sourced parts of the article). Anyway, there seems to be a consensus building to retain and try to source that statement, so please do not delete it again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have added a source that seems unreliable and it seems you've pulled it out of a hat to save this sentence from deletion because i've looked at the website and anyone can write a review, which is what this source seems to be. Infact, i can not even find a database which lists other foods, if there is one.Curb Chain (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just what is your problem here? First it was unsourced, then it was OR, now the source is not good enough - and the sentence is plainly and obviously factually correct. I've provided one source (showing it is high in carbs and commonly eaten at breakfast), which is more than anyone else here has tried to do, and have modified the sentence in line with it - there are more sources out there if you want to look for a better one rather than just spending your time here complaining about the work of other people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and that site appears to exercise editorial control, which makes it not just a free-for-all - see the "*Verified by* livestrong.com" tag -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added another source now. And if you're going to complain about that one too, how about you do some constructive work yourself - a Google search on "dosa nutrition" finds nearly 2 million hits, which should be enough to get you started -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested, and I am happy to provide one. I will comment on the three points that were raised, and go from there.

1. Content in the article was removed for which citations had been requested, but not provided, after a few months. Generally, there is a grace period of a month or so between tagging a statement in an article for a reference, and it's removal for non-verification. That said, it is much preferred for the tagger of the statement to search for references, as opposed to just tagging as {{citation needed}}. I'd like more information on the content that was removed, so I can take a closer look at what's going on.
2. Content was removed, the grounds being stated as "editor is not a nutritionist". Whether the editor who added the content is a nutritionist is besides the point. If I was a neurosurgeon and discovered a new part of the brain, I couldn't just add it to Wikipedia because "I know it's true". Original research is a big no-no on Wikipedia. If the content that was added is in, say, a recipe book, or something similar, then sure, add it, and reference that book, but you cannot add something to Wikipedia just because you "know it".
3. List of variants of the dish. To be short and sweet, the list as it presently looks doesn't appear too long. Definitely not long enough to warrant it's own article. The formatting of the list should be cleaned up, at present it looks a bit messy, but it's not too long at the moment.

I'm happy to give more thoughts if needed. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of list length arises because in fact it has been longer and there have been numerous additions removed (some by me) due to this. There is a weight issue, as I see it. WP is not a cookbook and listing all these here, rather than overviewing the dish seems excessive. "There are numerous variants of the dosa, both regionally and internationally. (link to list article).

I understand OR. I was the person who tagged in the first place & do doubt that it can be verified. However, I honestly do not think that one month is sufficient. It may be on a current affairs article, but not something like this. All foods have a nutritional content (by definition) and somewhere there will be information regarding this. The complication is that the information needs to deal with some sort of common denominator, since there are so many variants. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the variations section can be rewritten, changing the dot points of variations into prose. I'll have a go at it and see what I can come up with. Please forgive if I remove too many. As for the OR issue, if you feel that content cannot be verified, you can either a) Tag the content for verification and wait for someone else to add references, or b) Do a search on Google/books/news/scholar for any references. Do a search in your local library, or on their online catalog. If you still can't find anything at all to back up what's in the article, and unless it's indisputable information, such as, The Earth revolves around the Sun, grass is green, the content should be removed, due to failure of verifying the content in the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You can remove all the variants, as far as I am concerned ;) As for the OR issue, well, I am presently called into mediate a sourcing/content dispute precisely because some people recognise my abilities in the area of digging out information/assessing sources etc. This is water off a duck's back to me, but I have no great interest in cookery or indeed food (I just stuff my face, haha) & it has simply slid because of that. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I realise that, but at the same time, the situation as I see it is that the content either needs some sourcing or it'd have to be removed. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor point: "nutritionist" is an unregulated term; anyone who chooses to call himself a nutritionist is one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It may not be an unregulated term everywhere in the world. Not that this really matters: the thing is sourced and the nutritionist issue was a side-show from a rather unfortunate edit summary. Done, dusted. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Report At Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Dosa

Here is the diff.Curb Chain (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Already sorted and archived, by the looks of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fermentation

If dosa is made out of fermented rice/dal, shouldn't the batter be made with (luke)warm watter and rest for a few hours? PizzaMan (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about fermentation. Is something added like yeast? Or is it fermentation like a sourdough - wild yeast in the air?--2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:285B:FA7A:DE97:F2F0 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nutrition

No saturated fat in a dish made with ghee? Source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.133.32 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above. This dish has a lot of saturated fat. I will try to remove that part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.39.203 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What has Dosa got to do with Hindi? I dont see Tamil or Kannada used in Paratha section?? Hain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.75.186 (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename "Origin" section to "History"

Folks,

I propose renaming "Origin" section to "History". When it comes to food, often there is no clear way of pinpointing origin to a particular time/place/group/community/individual. It is often driven based on oldest available historical record such as stone carvings/remains/literary work. Article on "Idli" seems to have a "History" section instead of "Origin". I say we be consistent and do the same rename here as well. Moreover, it will also be less contentious and allows folks to add more proper/authentic citations down the line. To be clear, I am not proposing changes to the content inside "Origin" section, just proposing a simple rename of "Origin" to "History". Please let me know your suggestions? Thanks. MariaJeyaraj (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed info

Just removed the following passage as it is 1. Poorly written 2. One of a general class of unverifiable origin stories about food that all follow the same pattern of involving royalty/important people and left over food 3. Source cited does not support the information at all:

One of the stories of its invention is that one day the Mysore Maharaja ted a big festivals and at the end of it there were lot of foods left wasted. So he order all the Chefs to think creatively and make sure no food is left waste, and the brilliant chefs came up with this unique recipe and it was a no doubt instant hits, they stuffed the plain Dosa with potato and spices and lot of Ghee too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganrah (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Nutrition Section

Particularly this statement "..it is gluten-free and becomes a complete protein" This statement either is very awkward, the Dosa becomes a complete protein? I'm assuming this means to say it is gluten-free and contains complete proteins, ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein , the statement here makes no sense given that this usage of the term "a complete protein" is unquantifiable and the term "becomes" is non-sequitor. The content of protein in Dosa is miniscule, I find any focus of protein in the food misleading and irrelevant.

Reasoning:

https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/dosa?portionid=5395411&portionamount=100.000 -- Dosa 100g Carbohydrate - 41.93g Protein - 4.96g

Compare to whole wheat bread:

https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/bread-whole-wheat?portionid=52270&portionamount=100.000 Whole Wheat Bread - 100g Carbohydrate - 47.14 Protein - 9.13g

So we can see here that clearly Dosa is not a high protein food nor is protein a relevant part of its nutrition, even if the contents consist of complete proteins. If this is left in the article, just the same, that statement should be edited to give proper grammar and the link should be to complete protein, not protein.

Furthermore the statement that there is NO saturated fat or sugar in Dosa is incorrect as there are small amounts, though not sure the watermark for "no" in nutrition's

I did not edit this article to avoid the earlier troubles seen in 2011 with similar issues over nutrition discussion 75.76.55.49 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed the claim -- the references do not support it. utcursch | talk 00:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dosa (food)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Just going by numbers more people might be referring Chennai as Madaras, doesn't mean that is the right way to make a wiki entry for Chennai. Is it? Doshai (as used by Malayalees) and Dose (as referred to as by Telugus) is more closer to Dosai. If even some people from Karnataka call it as Dosay, then I think we are better off putting Dosai also in the Title. Guess any author/book, regardless of his/her credentials can be used as an "authentic" source for backing up the origin of Dosai!! So much for the neutrality of this entry on Wikipedia!!!

Last edited at 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge Neer dosa

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

---

I placed a merge tag on this article to merge the contents of Neer dosa into this article. Previously it was a redirect to this page. And, it's clear that it would be better if Neer dosa was discussed in greater detail. Does it need a separate article, though, to do that?

Would it give greater context to someone reading about the topic to get more information in one spot?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think it's a good idea to merge Neer dosa with Dosa, though Neer Dosa article needs some kind of expansion.-- <CodePanda/>

Oppose: Neer dosa is a completely different type of dish from Dosa, as unlike a regular Dosa,it doesn't require fermentation , and the ingredients also are different. All other Dosas are more or less variations of the same base ingredient of a Plain Dosa. Also this dish is eaten in only a small area of India, i think having its own page will make this delicious dish more popular ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.129.163 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: This sounds like a job for {{Main article}} under the Variations heading as is already being done for Masala dosa. —Caorongjin (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Better to have a separate article. Contains substantial information. RoCo^(talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Onion Dosey.jpg
• Set Dosey.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Variation

There are no historical evidences about mysore masala dosa's existence, stuffing potato curry & chutney doesn't make difference so I shall be removing the content. 2405:204:5086:A58D:F760:BE03:46CE:1548 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Masala dosa

Masala dosa is a hotel recipe which tastes different from home-made dosa Can be served with sambar, with or without potato curry, chutney filling. Plain masala is without stuffing. 2405:204:5096:AB12:482B:749F:5415:D457 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Dosa Day

International Dosa day celebrations started By a Dosa Twist restaurant chain in Canada 03 March 2022 Elan1008 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Its not dosa .. it's thosai

South India we call thosai not dosa .stop changing the real name 123.208.177.237 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)