Talk:Pavlova (dessert)

Image

I see Hollahollaholla03 has replaced the main image, what are other people's thoughts on this as opposed to the previous one? Personally I think the earlier one was better since it was sliced and you could see the interior 'pav', where as the one in this new picture is all but invisible under all that chocolate, strawberries and kiwifruit. And while it may look like it would be a very nice pav to eat, all that chocolate doesn't seem like very typical decoration, at least I've never seen that done before (hm, not that winegums are either for that matter, but at least with the slice taken out of it you can actually see the pav). Maybe somebody could just take a nice picture of a plain pav, with a slice out of it to show the interior texture.Number36 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree the new pic obscures the content of the actual cake. This look more like a chocolate cake. The pomegranate pic is much better. Format (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I swapped them but it messed up the formatting a bit. Sorry! 217.186.112.201 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2010 (U)

This is a non-debate

I have read this entire talk page and it appears that most Australians have grown up with a myth, and upon having had that myth exposed, instead of accepting the new reality some have become pig headed about their myth. It's like the flat earth society - instead of accepting that the earth is a sphere they just come up with more and more tenuous arguements to assert what they want to believe. See confirmation bias

It is obvious that the New Zealand case is clearly the strongest and the Australian case lacks substance. Just as rugby has been adopted by New Zealanders as their national sport without any need to claim they invented it, pavlova should be accepted in the same way by Australians. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that's a rubbish analogy. It's a confirmed fact that rugby was invented in the UK. It isn't remotely confirmed where pavlova was invented. Saying 'New Zealand has the strongest case' is weasel words. What does that even mean? That New Zealand has a 51% chance of inventing pavlova, therefore we just need to accept it as a fact because it's more likely that the 49% chance of Australia inventing pavlova? There's a different between confirmed facts and probabilities. Looking at the sources, it seems more likely pavlova originated in Australia anyway e.g the trove link that another person posted on this talk page. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Most Australians aren't arguing the point. This article is stable. Few people actually care. Format (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an Australian, and I don't give a damn where pavlova came from. Flash Man999 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way this is ever going to be settled is if New Zealand becomes officially part of Australia. Which would be awesome.14.2.39.63 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a kiwi who moved to Sydney recently and I was surprised to see many Aussies celebrating Australia Day with pavlova. It may have originated in New Zealand but it doesn't mean it can't be traditional in Australia too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.127.1 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

its a non debate because the proof is in the newspaper in 1906... here http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/20822916?searchTerm=pavlova%20recipe&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc When you read down, it says not to add (significant) flour.. That would mean...its a pavlova ! and its australian not NZ. This article shows that the recipe was the result of evolution and multiple small deviations of the recipe, not singular invention. 220.233.121.43 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As the article quotes: "People have been doing meringue with cream for a long time, I don't think Australia or New Zealand were the first to think of doing that."-gadfium 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In my family, we personally think the very idea to label desserts with surnames of ballerinas is weird. HOWEVER, in 1911, ice cream was an incredible rarity worthy of some loud name. In this sense, I like to think "pavlova" was supposed to be a diet-ish dessert made of juice rather than butter, cream and other fatty stuff. Of course, it's a personal opinion; I am just saying 11-11-1911 mention of pavlova ice block feels wholesome, while the same ballet-related name slapped to a cake-sized meringue feels like it would be a marketing ploy to use in our decade. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and deeper history explained

Evidence shows that Pavlova originated in New Zealand, and then adapted in Australia shortly afterwards, yet very little is said of the Pavlova's Australian history, why it is considered by many to be Australian, and an Australian point of view on it. However, and with no disrespect to any NZ friends, much is said of the New Zealand point of view and origins. To me this shows a lack of depth on the subject of Pavlovas and fails to demonstrate a neutral point of view. It would be appropriate if more was explained in the article in this regard. --Belfry (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a general problem, and not just related to Australia, though input on the rise of the dessert from an Aussie point of view is definitely important. The early history of pavlova's now fairly thoroughly covered, but not how it reached iconic status in either country, or whether it or similar foods are known elsewhere. It's more a case of {{globalise}} than {{NPOV}}. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I know of no formal argument presented by any Australian (except for a single relative of Bert Sachse) that pavlova really is Australian. The general Australians who think it is Australian probably simply assumed it was, because if it isn't French, Italian, English or American, well, I suppose it must be. A google search will probably reveal 1000s of sites saying Australians claim it is Australian. But then you look at the sites and they are journalistic type articles recounting the same general story that they apparently got from... other journalistic type articles! (Some are used as references on this page, like this one [1] - not that there's anything wrong with that.) I did a search of this type - admittedly a year or two ago - and really didn't find any flag waving sites/articles by any Australians claiming first hand that pavlova was Australian; it was mostly third party articles simply saying that Australians firmly insist it is Australian, and that they always argue with New Zealand over this. I suspect some Australians (and people in other countries, possibly) sometimes just assume that something personally familiar to them that isn't prevalent in international media is "uniquely Australian". (You can often find this thinking in wikipedia.) Things often thought to be Australian but kind of aren't really include the cooler, the barbecue, thongs, steak pie. Likewise I have heard people say things like "the phrase banana republic is an Australian phrase that means...". These are just assumptions/conclusions made with little thought, in my opinion. People simply assume it must be Australian because it exists in their own country, but wasn't mentioned every second episode in the endless reruns of The Brady Bunch that played continuously in Australia for 30 years. I do not know if a large proportion of Australian's really do have a strong sense of tradition regarding pavlova. This UK article (from 2005!) suggests this is the "latest" thing to divide Aust and NZ [2]. Format (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In a few hours searching Google News Archive I did a quick scan of dozens of free news articles (didn't view the many subsciption only articles) that mention this dish. It seems the pavolva has been reported on several times in the United States, and has occasionaly been available in US restaurants, since the mid 1970s. Many articles say it is from, or is popular in, Australia. A number say it is from or is popular in, "Australia and New Zealand". A few say it is from "New Zealand". Occasionaly the dish is said to be from, or be popular, "Downunder". Some articles do not say where it originated. It is mentioned a few times as a recipe in Australian publications - most of which do not say where it is from or who invented it... Here is a random selections of articles: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - New York Times. [8] [9] [10] - New York Times. [11] - New York Times. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] - pasties are not Australian but English. [22] [23] [24] [25] - This article claims it was created by a Syndey [sic] chef. [26] [27] - this 1963 article says the dish has no known link with the Russian Ballerina. [28] [29] - this 1962 Australian article calls Pavlova "our national dish", but observes how "Australian" items are hardly unique, as Pavlova is close to the French meringues in terms of preparation. ... So it seems the country of origin has not so much been hotly contested by Australia and New Zealand. I do not see much evidence of that. In many cases, and for several decades, comments of whether it is from Australia and/or New Zealand is a minor bit of trivia that appears in the lead-in to American recipe articles or restaurant reviews. Any rivalry seems only to be described in relatively recent articles, and usually UK and US articles. Format (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Belfry, I'm afraid to say that any Australian viewpoint is going to be quickly shouted down by the fanatical Kiwi editors. As with the Phar Lap article, any viewpoint other than the accepted Kiwi doctrine just cannot be accepted. The New Zealand national identity is dependent on it. I have in the past attempted to point out to the Kiwi fanatics that the first pavlova recipe was merely a renaming of an existing recipe for the meringue cake, recipes of which were already widespread in NZ, Australia, Europe and the US. The fact is that the pavlova was not invented by anyone. A similar argument applies to the ANZAC biscuit, recipes of which existed in both NZ and Australia well before the name was first applied.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd care to look, my ovine friend, you will notice that the first "fanatical Kiwi editor" (sic) to comment on this thread agreed with Belfry. Please take your unwarranted anti-New Zealand sentiments elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, despite your agreement you have done nothing to remove the irrelevant reference to ANZAC biscuits, nor have you removed the even more gratuitous reference to the NZ advertising campaign. I note that you've also been undoing the edits are made on the Australian cuisine article. I think your actions pretty much back up my comments. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agreed that more needs to be said about pavlova's role in the culture of Australia. How, exactly, does than not square with me removing "gratuitous references" to things completely unrelated to pavlova's role in the culture of Australia? And yes, I undid your change to Australian cuisine, which was vandalism - you took out valid references to a relevant point on the article. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The references I removed were of a poor quality. Mind you the majority of so called references quoted in Wikipedia are of a very low standard, so that is not saying much. However the particular references were presumably to support a contentious point, a point which it was not necessary to make as it is addressed in the individual articles on the pavlova and ANZAC biscuits. Hence my description of it as "gratuitous". Tell me, just why are you so desperate for those references to remain in the article? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained at your user talk page why those references are necessary - they clarify the nature of the articles being mentioned in text; they ensure that editors can find relevant information outside Wikipedia on the articles mentioned; they show that any claims made are not original research; they help users find additional information on the topic; they improve Wikipedia's credibility by indicating that information about the topic has not been either deliberately or accidentally ignored in the writing of the article. All these are primary purposes of citations. Removal of such citations is vandalism without due reason. Listing certain food items as "unique" without making mention of the fact that they are not unique to Australia. Your reason for removing the references (in order to remove one weasel word) is disingenuous. In this case, the term is not a weasel word anyway - check Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Exceptions. The third example is a clear analogy of the current situation. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your so called explanations, they didn't make much sense to me I'm afraid. In fact I get the feeling that you are desperately clutching at straws in order to justify your silly knee-jerk reactions to any edit which I propose. I'm being disingenuous?? LOL, that is rich. Firstly the section in question was about iconic foods, as far as I could tell there was no implication that these foods were "unique" to Australia. I really have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion. Well, maybe it's the New Zealand inferiority complex at work again, but I'll not go there because I know how sensitive some Kiwi editors get whenever it gets mentioned, the poor things. But back to your point, whatever it is, I'm still not sure exactly what you are on about. But if you think that anytime pavlova or ANZAC biscuits are mentioned in the context of Australia it is of vital importance to provide those references then your services are urgently required over at the Greek cuisine page, there is reference to Baklava without any mention of it being created first in Turkey. It could turn into an international crisis situation!! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

as far as I could tell there was no implication that these foods were "unique" to Australia??? The section header was "Unique and iconic Australian foods". What part of that fails to imply that the foods were both iconic and unique to Australia? Grutness...wha? 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, is that what has been troubling you? It does seem that you've got yourself all worked up over a very minor point. Why didn't you just change the section header if it really upset you that much, rather than getting into an edit war? My interpretation of the header was that it implied that the foods mentioned were either iconic or unique, but not necessarily both. For example the meat pie is not unique to Australia is it? I don't know why you would decide on such an interpretation, perhaps it's that New Zealand inferiority complex to blame, yet again. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think that "unique and iconic" means "unique or iconic"? Interesting. Grutness...wha? 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In the particular context in question, yes. I thought the meaning obvious, and am somewhat surprised that you could have interpreted it in such a way. I suppose it is possible to interpret it that way, but it seems a little unnatural. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems both surprising and illogical that you should interpret "and" as meaning anything other than "and", in this or any other context. Seems unnatural and highly unlikely to consider that "A and B" should mean "A or B". Grutness...wha? 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's a matter of context, it hardly seems a point worth arguing. How would you interpret the meaning of "and" in the phrase "green and red apples"? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Biscuits

The only rational I can see for including the reference to Anzac biscuits in this article is (petty) nationalistic debate--no pavlova I've ever eaten had a crumbled Anzac biscuit crust. Stevebeck (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no reason to include any mention of ANZAC biscuits in the article. I have made mention of this previously, but to no avail. The problem is Kiwi editors and their nationalistic agenda -they have gone berserk with power and there is no way of reasoning with them. But we shouldn't be too harsh on them, it is really the massive New Zealand inferiority complex that is to blame, the Kiwi editors can't help themselves. Quite sad, really. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

I intend to expand upon/rewrite some of this article in order to clarify some facts and correct a few inaccuracies. This will obviously be somewhat contentious, so I will trial any material here for comment and discussion. The reference for this will be the book 'The Pavlova Story' by Helen Leach. Here's my first submission -comments and criticisms welcome.

• History

The pavlova is characterised by its crispy outer crust and soft inner centre. This is achieved by the addition of key ingredients of cornflour and vinegar, combined with a slow baking time. Until recently it was believed that by the addition of these ingredients the pavlova emerged from the general class of meringue cake recipes, which were thought to have lacked these ingredients. However more recent research by Helen Leach indicates that this was not in fact the case. Recipes for large meringue cakes which included the ingredients cornflour and vinegar existed prior to the first known published recipe for pavlova cake. In her book Leach concludes “Pavlova cakes emerged from meringue cakes not, as most of us formerly supposed, by the addition of key ingredients (cornflour, vinegar) believed to have been absent from meringue cake recipes, but by the simple act of renaming”. Leach points out that in New Zealand meringue cakes continued to exist under their own name side by side with pavlovas for the next two decades.

• First named pavlova cake

The most recent research by Helen Leach points to ‘Festival’s’ Pavlova Cake as the first known published recipe for a meringue cake with the name ‘pavlova’. It was published in the ‘N.Z. Diary Exporter Annual (Inc. Tui’s Annual)' in 1929, and consisted of two crisp meringue layers sandwiched together and topped with cream. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back (honestly!) Though I agree that some of the changes you're suggesting are worthwhile, I think it should be woven in with the current section rather than being used as a complete rewrite. Your suggestion completely removes any reference to the purported Australian origins, which - though they may not be the first - are important to the history of the development and culture of pavlova as a national dish in both coutries. It also relies too heavily on one source, albeit the most thorough one, whereas currently several sources are used. May I suggest the following mix of the current and proposed sections?

• History

Current research suggests the pavlova originated in New Zealand.[6] Keith Money, a biographer of Anna Pavlova, wrote that a New Zealand chef in a hotel in Wellington, New Zealand, created the dish when Pavlova visited there in 1926 on her world tour.[7]

Until recently it was believed that by the addition of the key ingredients of cornflour and vinegar, the pavlova emerged from the general class of meringue cake recipes, which were thought to have lacked these ingredients. It is these ingredients, in addition to the slow baking time, which give pavlova its characteristic crisp outer and soft inner consistency. More recent research into the history of the pavlova by Professor Helen Leach, a culinary anthropologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, suggests that this is not the case. Recipes for large meringue cakes which included the ingredients cornflour and vinegar existed prior to the first known published recipe for pavlova cake. In her book Leach concludes “Pavlova cakes emerged from meringue cakes not, as most of us formerly supposed, by the addition of key ingredients (cornflour, vinegar) believed to have been absent from meringue cake recipes, but by the simple act of renaming”.

Leach points out that in New Zealand meringue cakes continued to exist under their own name side by side with pavlovas for the next two decades. Leach has compiled a library of cookbooks containing 667 pavlova recipes from more than 300 sources. [6] Her book, The Pavlova Story: A Slice of New Zealand’s Culinary History, contains a timeline of pavlova history which gives 1935 for the first Australian pavlova recipe and 1929[2] for the recipe in the rural magazine NZ Dairy Exporter Annual.[1]

It has been claimed that Bert Sachse originated the dish at the Esplanade Hotel in Perth, Australia in 1935.[9][6] A relative of Sachse's wrote to Leach suggesting that Sachse possibly got the year wrong when dating the recipe, but Leach expressed doubt, "simply because it's just not showing up in the cookbooks until really the 1940s in Australia." Of such arguments Matthew Evans, a restaurant critic for The Sydney Morning Herald said it was unlikely a definitive answer about the pavlova's origins would ever be found. "People have been doing meringue with cream for a long time, I don't think Australia or New Zealand were the first to think of doing that," he said.[10]

• First named pavlova cake

The most recent research by Helen Leach points to ‘Festival’s’ Pavlova Cake as the first known published recipe for a meringue cake with the name ‘pavlova’. It was published in the ‘N.Z. Diary Exporter Annual (Inc. Tui’s Annual)' in 1929, and consisted of two crisp meringue layers sandwiched together and topped with cream.

Grutness...wha? 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd want something somewhat more notable than a cook book, even one with an apparently historical subtext. There is plainly evidence of this calibre available in support of both sides, thus if nothing stronger can be offered I suggest it's simply left as a matter of contention (something I think is plainly obvious) between the two nations. 124.108.98.216 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Leach's work is a history. Naturally, the history of a recipe uses cookbooks as sources. You are welcome to find other sources, but deleting sources from the article is vandalism.-gadfium 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

NZI advertising campaign

Is this section a joke? Please explain because it makes no sense to me. It is blatant POV. It is not relevant to an encyclopedia article about a dessert. It might be relevant in an article called "New Zealand's many issues with Australia". - Josette (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't POV at all, let alone "blatant", simply asserting it is, is not an argument. It doesn't make any assertions for it to possibly be POV. Except that the advertising campaign exists and the details about it. This appears to be confusing the subject discussed with the article itself. Heck, as it notes, the parent company is even Australian owned...

Now, to be fair, you could argue it doesn't contain enough information for it's own dedicated main section, however the information is relevant and a notable overt example of Pavlova's wider cultural place, as explained in the edit summaries, so does fit within the article. So one small change I might suggest is a merge of both this and the Pavzilla section under something like the title 'Pavlova in culture' or 'As a cultural icon' or something, with separated sub-sections. This would also open up the possibility of someone fleshing the section out at some point with more from both NZ and Aus.

Really not sure where you're getting the mistaken idea that New Zealand has any issue with Australia, but it's not especially relevant to a discussion the sole purpose of which is improving an article in Wikipedia so let's put that aside and speak no more of it, as already amply demonstrated on this discussion page this sort of jingonistic comment on other editor's nationalities and motivations is not conducive to progress.121.73.221.187 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And you are using a Youtube video to source this information? - Josette (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the Youtube link for copyright reasons, following Josette's post on WP:RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

right... mebbe == Pav in corporate adverts == ;) Jack Merridew 17:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is unsourced PR Guff re a corporate advert wrapped in a nationalistic POV; I've removed it again, as unsourced material. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove source → then remove as unsourced ignoring ongoing discussion; brilliant ;) . Never mind, the source appeared to merely be included as a reference for the existence of the ad campaign anyway, which I assume isn't disputed. If you want to view it that way, then it's the perception of the pav as a nationalistic icon that this campaign plays on which makes it noteworthy to the article. It is not POV to discuss this perception in the article. I have changed the text of the section also removing the ref to Pharlap, and implemented my suggestion to merge as sub-sections under a title of 'In Culture', and replaced the citation with one that mentions both the aspect of the trans-Tasman rivalry, pavlova, and NZI being Australian owned. I hope that other examples of pavlova's iconic place in the culture of both countries can be added under this heading.121.72.131.37 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is silly trivia, and not especially useful or relevant in this article. Even before seeing Josette's comment I was going to joke that we should start a new article about how some New Zealanders have a persecution complex whereby Australia tries to "steal" anything good from New Zealand, claiming it to be Australian. Did Australia "steal" Crowded House? No, Neil Finn chose to live in Australia and chose to start the band in Australia. Australia did not ask him to move here. Finn adopted Australia, not the other way around. With Phar Lap the NZ owner voluntarily sold him to someone who was to train him in Australia. Australia did not coerce the seller into giving up the horse. Australia did not steal or even claim the horse, a single buyer gained ownership legally and brought him here. ... ps. Is Flight of the Conchords (TV series) an American TV series? Or is it a New Zealand TV series? Format (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the subject discussed with the article itself, the article does not assert that any country 'stole' anything, it is describing the campaign. Which for that matter is clearly playing on ubiquitous subjects of the long standing friendly rivalry between the two countries, not some sort of nationlistic propaganda. It's an Australian owned company for goodness sake. As I said before, this kind of comment about the nationalities and motivations of other editors is not helpful or relevant.121.72.131.37 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So why promote that kind of bias by insisting that information stay in the article? It seems to be more about sour grapes then meringue. - Josette (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see merely discussing the existance of something equates to promoting it. Not that I agree this campaign is actually portraying a bias in any case, as I said, it's clear from the context that it's merely playing on the ubiquitous subjects of a long standing friendly rivalry and how they are viewed within the culture of New Zealand.121.72.131.37 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think the changes made are an improvement. Seems progress was made. - Josette (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This section should be deleted. The section is meant to be about the pavlova in popular culture and yet an entire section is about an advertisement made in New Zealand over a decade ago? That's totally irrelevant, it's totally biased, and moreover it has nothing to do with popular culture whatsoever. It's an obscure and outdated reference that isn't relevant to the vast majority of people looking at this article. It seems to be only there as an in-joke for nationalistic kiwi wikipedia editors.Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary and MSN article relating to it

Maybe of import. Article just appeared on MSN here, re the relaunched online Oxford English Dictionary stating that the first recorded pavlova recipe was from 1927 in 'Davis Dainty Dishes' a publication by Davis Gelatine in New Zealand. It's also one of the featured articles on the MSN NZ homepage.Number36 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very sketchy sort of an article. I suspect it might just be another example of Kiwis getting a little over excited. I would like to see the full text of the entry. As far as I know the Davis Gelatine recipe is, as would be expected, a Gelatine Pavlova, nothing at all like the modern day version. Also I believe the recipe was first published by Davis Gelatine in their 1926 Australian edition. This is all according to Prof Helen Leach's book, which should be treated as gold standard. Of course the Oxford Dictionary is concerned with the origin of the word, not necessarily who created the dish. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'Kiwis' plural? It doesn't take that many people to write an article ;) Whether or not the article is sketchy, that the Oxford English Dictionary has included this information seems relevant, and being reported by a third party gives it some notability; so I mentioned the article because I suspected someone would see it, then come here to edit the article, and I thought it should be discussed how best to include it or not first.

I wondered if the info might come from Helen Leach's book, and you make the very valid point that the dictionary is going to be discussing the origin and etymology of the word itself, as opposed to specifically the modern Pavlova, defined by its recipe, which is the primary subject of this article. So perhaps it shouldn't be included in the article (I see someone has added it since yesterday)... or else somehow incorporated into the history section as a comment about the origin of the word itself. Which might prevent people mistakenly re-adding it as the origin of the pavlova without context. Or maybe removed altogether until someone at least actually looks at the entry itself.Number36 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, Kiwis is the plural of Kiwi. As I said, Kiwis are easily excited. I wouldn't be surprised if the so called new edit in the Oxford dictionary turns out to be the exact same one as in the past. If the year they give is 1927 then it would seem that the information did not come from Helen Leach's book. As you point out, an excitable Kiwi has already added it to the article. I'd delete it myself, but some tosser would no doubt undo it. Perhaps you would like to delete it? I'm on a 1RR restriction so can't afford to get into an edit war. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed a winking smiley there, you really shouldn't take one article as representative of anything. Mildly surprised you'd think Kiwis were excitable in any case, especially when you've got Aussies for comparison :p I can't help but think about my Australian in-laws at this point for some reason...

Anyhoo, back on topic. I don't think the person who added the information was being particularly excitable, on the face of it the article presents what seems to be new information relevant to the subject of this page. I'm happy to remove it for the reasons we've discussed here in any case.Number36 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree then. In my experience Kiwis are in fact very easily excited. This is now the umteenth occasion on which Kiwis have claimed victory in this debate. But there is no new information contained in the Oxford Dictionary entry I can see. Indeed it might even be in error. The Davis Gelatine recipes are known, I think they might have even been mentioned in a previous edit of the article, I'm not sure. Anyway, what is of interest is the date of 1927 the Oxford Dictionary is stating, apparently. I've not seen the entry so can only go on articles in the media. But if 1927 is being given as the date for the first published Davis Gelatine recipe then maybe someone should get in touch with Prof Leach to see if she still stands by the date of 1926 quoted in her book. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This article sums things up well [30]: Leach concludes that the recipe referred to by the Oxford Dictionary is actually a gelatine dessert, not a meringue cake. A large meringue cake first appeared in a NZ cook book in 1929. There's no news here but I'm sure it was nice for all those journalists to try out their "whipped", "creamed", "egg on your face" puns. (BTW A New Zealander is now declaring that the Kiwifruit is from New Zealand! [31]) Format (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what we thought with the reference to gelatine, though as said earlier, a dictionary is going to be more concerned with the word than the specific recipe, so it's not as big a deal as they're making it out to be (personally I think what it really shows is that it's a slow news week). It might be worth a note 'earliest use of the word for a dessert was in such-and-such year, but was for a different recipe' or something, but I think someone should at least look at the OED before anything is added to see what it actually says.

Oh & that New Zealander didn't declare kiwifruit originally came from New Zealand Format, he only jokingly said that next Australians would be claiming it, and a lot of Aussies got all excitable ;) Though I was amused by the Australian 'expert' in the article who doesn't know we have passionfruit in New Zealand and thinks we make them in pans.Number36 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting way off topic but one NZ commenter does say "our kiwifruit". Margaret Fulton was famous for cook books and cooking show appearances in the 1970s-80s. A TV celebrity essentially. I wouldn't call her an expert in the way Leach is. Her pavlova comments aside, the passionfruit comments are just laughable. Meringue is centuries old, like from before any Western people set foot in AU/NZ. I agree, slow news week. Format (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<re-indent>She just seems to be mirroring Hulton's claim that putting 'your' passionfruit on it proves it's Australian, saying neither would be a valid argument. Though kiwifruit is closely associated with New Zealand, we've been cultivating & developing unique varieties of it for over a hundred years, zespri kiwifruit for example can be said to be 'our kiwifruit', we're also one of the top two producers in the world and its name is connected to our native fauna/national nickname. But you're right we're getting a bit off track & franky I prefer strawberries anyway. Back to the article, I bet Prof. Leach was 'amused' when this story 'broke', I wonder if there was any publicity like this back when she published her book? Could be a source of refs if there are any old articles floating around in archives. You'd think a whole book would be a bit more note-worthy than one minor entry in a dictonary.Number36 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it must be a little annoying for Helen Leach to read this news "revelation" - when really it is essentially a trivial media beat up on a slow news day. Leach seems to have nailed the issue, yet "new" information like this keeps popping up. At least the subsequent reports quote her, and she clears things up. I'm pretty sure that at one point this WP article did mention an old/older "pavlova" recipe, but that it was a gelatine dessert. It's all old news. (Personally I can't stand clumbly desserts... can't stand elevator music either.) Format (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed Margaret Fulton is featured in print and television advertisements for a certain overpriced Australian supermarket, in which she serves a large, grotesque pavlova topped with cherries. Maybe she's eagerly chiming in with these bold press comments to ensure she remains a bankable spokeswoman on the topic and will continue to feature in these lucrative adverts? Format (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples of celebratory and holiday meals

Noticed the last couple of edits before mine; an IP adding 'New Years Day brunch' as an example alongside the already present Christmas lunch, someone removing it as unnecessary and the IP re-adding it with an argument in the edit summary that 'examples can serve to illustrate various occasions it can be consumed'. Which made me wonder if either example was actually necessary, 'celebratory or holiday meal' doesn't seem like a difficult concept which needs extensive illustrating. Though I could see an argument that it flows better with at least one example or maybe two, but 'New Years Day Brunch' might not be the best choice for a second example, it doesn't really seem like a traditional or particularly notable 'celebratory or holiday meal' but even with that aside it's another example of a holiday meal which already has Christmas dinner to illustrate it, so perhaps as an alternative 'birthday party' would be more suitable as an example of a celebratory occasion on which they are commonly served?Number36 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see "New Years Day Brunch" as a celebratory meal - there is no tradition of any type of celebratory meal on New Year's Day as far as I know. I agree that "celebratory or holiday meal" is enough and that really examples are not needed. BTW In my experience pavlova is not really part of an Australian Christmas Day meal, it is simply something that tends to be served at large gatherings any time over summer. In contrast a Christmas pudding would always be served on Christmas Day, but less likely served any other day, and so is more a Christmas dish. Format (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I agree with that (other than the fact that I'd be very disappointed if I didn't get pav on christmas day) and there's been no further input in the last month so I'll go ahead and remove the examples.Number36 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposed edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have attempted a couple of edits to the article. On both occassions my edits were quickly reversed. As far as I can see, for no valid reason. I included a source to justify my edit. My proposed edit and quoted source would seem to fit in with the general feel of the article, at least as far as I can tell. My edit also provided a correction to a misleading statement included in the article. Although I don't feel the onus should be on me to spell out my source word for word, for the benefit of those who don't have access to the book by Prof Leach I'll do it on this occasion. On page 45 Prof Leach writes:

"There are fifty-two desserts in the sixth New Zealand edition of Davis Dainty Dishes (1927), and only one is named after the famous performer. Something must have prompted the Davis Gelatine Company's decision to create a new jelly in honour of Anna Pavlova. The recipe first appeared in the fifth Australian edition of Davis Dainty Dishes in 1926, the year Anna Pavlova visited Australia and New Zealand. It is likely that the reccipe was developed at the Botany Bay factory opened by Davis Gelatine in Jan 1999."

And on page 154, in a pavlova timeline box, in the entry for the year 1926 it is stated "Davis gelatine publishes recipe for Gelatine Pavlova in Australia" I hope that will be enough to satisfy any doubters.Theodore D (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is what appears in Leach's book (apart from a few minor typos you made: she says "only one is named after a famous performer", a misspelling of recipe, and the factory opened in January 1919). My concern is that you appear to be changing the emphasis of the article by minimising the difference between the gelatine dessert and the meringue dish.

I suggest that the article needs to distinguish better between

1. the meringue with cream dishes which were not named "Pavlova", such as Emily Futton's 1926 recipe, but which go much further back;
2. the gelatine recipes called "Pavlova";
3. the meringue recipes called "Pavlova" which are similar to modern recipes.

Leach does not mention Keith Money's reference to a 1926 dish as far as I can see; it's not clear from our reference [32] whether this was named after the dancer or just created in her honour. Presumably it belongs in category 1.

The first of the meringue Pavlova recipes identified by Leach was published by Rose Rutherford in 1928 in the Weekly Press (See Leach pp 57-59), but our article only refers to its 1929 publication in a "rural magazine" which references a 2004 interview by Leach [33]. Leach's book, written in 2008, says the 1929 publication was actually in a book, Practical Home Cookery Chats and Recipes by Katrine McKay. I'm not sure what the "rural magazine" was - probably not the Weekly Press, which was published in Christchurch.-gadfium 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Prof Leach does mention an unconfirmed story that a wellington chef named a new type of meringue cake 'pavlova' at the time of Pavlova's visit in 1926. That's probably the source of Money's reference. Similar stories exist for Pavlova's Australian visit. Prof Leach says that, although plausible, there is nothing to link the stories with any printed recipes. I suspect these stories could be urban myths (that's my opinion).

According to Prof Leach the Pavlova Cake published in the NZ Dairy Exporter Annual in October 1929 is the first current recipe for the pavlova as we know it today.

The previous article did distinguish between the various incarnations of the pavlova. But, now that it appears the first recipe called "pavlova" might have originated from Australia, feel free to over emphasize the point if you must.

I'm going to revert the article back to my first edit, which specifically mentions that the Oxford Dictionary is in error. I thought that was a good edit, just the sort of thing Wikipedia should be about. It might even help the OED to get their act together! Theodore D (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

References in the summary section

Opinions sort on 3 issues:

1. I removed part of a sentence and it was undone. Those words I removed were "...but formal research indicates New Zealand as the more probable source". Upon reconsideration, the use of the term "formal research" and word "probable" in the same sentence is conflicting & poor use of the English language. Suggestion, the sentence needs a rework or deletion.

2. Stemming from issue (1) above, has the book by Leach (2008) undergone a Peer review or is it Reference work? If neither, the words "formal research" will be replaced with the word "opinions" if that part of the sentence is not deleted. Additional referencing to this sentence that is contra to Leach (2008) confirms a change is needed.

3. The section above the Table of Contents is meant to be a summary of what follows, even if references are duplicated. This article can be much better.

If no thoughtful replies are received relating to issue (1) and/or (2), issue (1) MAY be actioned in the way of deletion to that part of the sentence.Factrules (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You say you "removed part of a sentence and it was undone". You neglect to say the part you removed is referenced and has been for a long time. Leach's book is a RS, but it is moons since I read it so I can't say whether we should actually have a direct quote instead of paraphrasing. Moriori (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Moriori, Help me out, what does RS mean? Additionally, just because something has existed for a while doesn't make it correct. Factrules (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leach's work is a well-referenced non-fiction book by an anthropologist with a specialty in human diet and history of recipies,[34] and therefore an entirely suitable reference for this article. If you have examples of other books by similarly qualified authors which contradict Leach's book, please cite them. Your question seems a little confused, since most non-fiction books are not peer-reviewed, nor are they reference works in the sense of the link you added.-gadfium 04:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If the term "formal research" was not in that sentence I would not have raised any of this. Formal research indicates there has been a Peer review or is it Reference work. You state that it is a "well-referenced" book, I assume that means the same as "formal research". Therefore, there must be no doubts to the original of Pavlova. But the word "probable" should be omitted from that sentence as it indicates doubt and is a challenge an apparent fact.

Tangent: "most non-fiction books are not peer-reviewed", I know as I have picked up on many errors over the years. Many authors don't like me as a result. Mentioning something in a book doesn't make it historically correct. Factrules (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OED

From the OED, 1989 edition

"pavlova Austral. and N.Z. [f. the name of Anna Pavlova (1885–1931), Russian ballerina.] A dessert or cake, now usually one made with meringue, whipped cream, and fruit. Also attrib. 1927 Davis Dainty Dishes (ed. 6) (Davis Gelatine, N.Z., Ltd.) Pavlova. Dissolve all but a teaspoonful of Gelatine in the hot water, and all the sugar except a dessertspoonful [etc.]. "

so that NZ news report mentioned in the main article is only a couple of decades out of date! Theodore D (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the name

Isn't the cake named in honour of Anna Pavlova, as the article says, because it was a favourite dessert of hers? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Named to honour her, but to the best of our knowledge not because it was her favourite dish. (It didn't exist before her downunder tour/s so it couldn't have been her favourite dish before it was invented and named). Her article says "The Pavlova dessert is believed to have been created in honour of the dancer...... ". Moriori (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cornflour myth

article states "The major difference between the pavlova and a large meringue is the addition of cornflour, which results in the pavlova having a crisp and crunchy outer shell, and a soft, moist marshmallow-like centre, unlike meringue which is usually solid throughout." This is plain wrong, as any accurate reading of Prof Leach's book would confirm. Indeed, neither vinegar or cornflour are necessary to achieve the desired crisp crust and soft centre. This can be obtained with a suitable proportion of sugar per egg white, added gradually, and a longer cooking time. The addition of vinegar will improve the quality of the meringue, while cornflour will, if a small quantity of water is also included in the recipe, enhance the marshmallow effect. It should also be added that the 1929 'pavlova' recipe referenced in the artice is simply a re-named meringue cake recipe, such dishes being fairly common at the time. Theodore D (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cornstarch, perhaps?

Pardon me, but I would think that if you were going to include corn-anything in the pavlova shell, cornstarch--starch from maize--would be the product to use, and not cornflour--flour from ground maize. Is cornflour the down under term for cornstarch? Rootlet (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, but cornflour is the is the name of the product used in Australia and NZ. Is cornstarch the American term for cornflour? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, US cornstarch = Aus cornflour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.97.39 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

first Edmonds' pavlova recipe 1939

3 egg whites, 1 tsp essence of vanilla, 9 oz. castor sugar, 1 tsp vinegar, pinch of salt

Beat egg whites until quite stiff, fold in sugar, add vanilla and vinegar. Place on greased paper on greased tray and bake slowly about 1 to 1 ½ hours. (very slow oven 250 F). Pile whipped cream and chopped fruit on top and decorate with Edmonds jelly (chopped). Theodore D (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

confusion still reigns

In the main article it is stated "The nationality of its creator has been a source of argument between the two nations for many years, but formal research indicates New Zealand as the source". This appears to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. It is also not supported by Prof Leach's book which is cited as the reference for the claim. Certainly no page number is indicated. In fact the dispelling of the "myth of the heroic inventor" is one of the central themes of the book. But it does require a thorough reading of the text, and I suspect few in here have gone to that trouble, at least judging by some of the contents of the article. As I pointed out above, and illustrated by citing the first Edmonds' recipe, the inclusion of cornflour is not what separates the pavlova from the large meringue. Large meringues with cornflour as an ingredient existed side by side with pavlova recipes. As Prof Leach has pointed out in her book, these first recipes called 'pavlova' were simply recipes for a large meringue cake renamed 'pavlova'. The 1929 recipe, ‘Festival’s’ Pavlova Cake, is simply a double layered meringue cake sandwiched and topped with cream. What we can say about this 1929 recipe is that it is the earliest example of a large meringue cake renamed as 'pavlova'. What appears to be less well known is that recipes for a large meringue cakes with vinegar as an ingredient (as with the Edmonds' first recipe) can be found in American cookbooks over a decade before the "Meringue with Fruit Filling" of 1926, which some have mistakenly called a prototype of the pavlova. Hopefully, with time, nationalistic sentiment will give way to accuracy, and this article can be written to more accurately reflect the story of the 'pavlova'. Theodore D (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

more on creation myth

Quote from food historian Michael Symons very nicely sums up the situation: "In the 1920s and 30s, numerous large meringue cake recipes, and the pavlova name, circulated in both countries. After two or three decades, everyone gained an idea of the "real" pavlova, so expected some "original" recipe that never existed." Theodore D (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the point, there has to have been a first recipe that corresponds to the modern concept of a pavlova. I mean just by cause and effect. It may've evolved from similar recipes and the demarcation point might be difficult to establish, but there was at some point a recipe that was first one which matches the modern recipe, i.e. an original recipe. Similar recipes or desserts that may have used the name pavlova at the time, while maybe noteworthy, are not the subject of the article.Number36 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to first define what you mean by the modern recipe. Perhaps one that includes both cornflour and vinegar? But then there are going to be recipes that are exceptions to that rule, such as the first Edmonds' recipe I gave above. The point is that there was no single instant of creation, rather the story of the 'pavlova' is one of evolution. In fact, the very first example of a meringue dish named 'pavlova' is Rose Rutherford's little Pavlova Cakes of 1928. But this seems to be somewhat discounted now because these were small meringues rather than a single large meringue. Yet nowadays we do recognise variation within the 'pavlova'. For example the mini pavlova, or the more extreme pavlova roll. During the 1930s there were a variety of meringue dishes with different names such as 'Meringue Cake', 'Meringue Cream Cake', 'Marshmallow Meringue', 'Meringue Gateau' which existed alongside the 'Pavlova'. The 'modern' pavlova evolved out of these dishes. For example if you had never heard of the pavlova and presented a recipe for Meringue Gateau to your dinner party guests, then it is more than likely they would inform you that this was in fact a 'pavlova'. So with time all these recipes eventually merged into the one strand we now call the 'pavlova'. (This might be a little bit of a simplification, but it does illustrate the concept of evolution rather than creation). Theodore D (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally have to define what I mean by the current recipe, rather it's what Reliable Sources™ define it as, and as you wrote above in the 'My proposed edit' section, Professor Leach does do this, and gives the earliest example. Also even though it is an evolution, there still has to be a first recipe that conforms to whatever criteria you like for the modern recipe. A variation is a variation, so not by definition the standard recipe.Number36 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are on about here. I am not aware of a set 'criteria' defining the 'modern' recipe. But if you could specifiy such a criteria then it would be helpful for the discussion. Recipes will always vary. If you want you might like to select the first large meringue cake to be renamed 'pavlova' as the moment of 'creation'. The earliest known instance is the 1929 recipe, ‘Festival’s’ Pavlova Cake. Theodore D (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The point was that for any criteria which you might use, there would be a first recipe that conformed to the definition which matched them. But as I said, only what reliable sources state is relevant though, it's not up to me to specify the criteria which define the current pavolva, fortunately as you have pointed out Prof. Leach does give us this as the first example of the current recipe.Number36 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

which recipe are you referring to? Theodore D (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The same one you're referring to, the 1929 recipe.Number36 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

that 1929 recipe is a double layered meringue cake, sandwiched and topped with cream. In fact there is a little conjecture as to whether it has a soft or crisp centre. I'm not sure whether it would be recognisable nowadays as a 'modern' recipe. But you're missing the point. Double layered (and indeed single layered) meringue cakes already existed as this time. The 1929 recipe is simply such a cake renamed as 'pavlova'. Theodore D (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You state in the section above "According to Prof Leach the Pavlova Cake published in the NZ Dairy Exporter Annual in October 1929 is the first current recipe for the pavlova as we know it today."Number36 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

yeah, slightly ambiguous that. But it is, in the sense that it is a large meringue cake. Most would recognise such a dish as falling within a reasonable definition of what a pavlova should be. The information missing is that such dishes existed prior to this, and the 1929 recipe is significant only as the first known example of a large meringue cake to be renamed as pavlova. But in itself this recipe could not be considered a new creation. Theodore D (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. What is the reference and wording of the reference, for the earlier recipes being the identical to the 1929 pavlova? And also just to clarify does Prof. Leach state that the 1929 recipe was the first example of the current pavlova as we know it today.Number36 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

pg. 77 of Prof Leach's book has a recipe for a Meringue Cake from 1927. It is a 3 egg white meringue rather than the 4 of the 1929 recipe, but it is basically the same thing. The 1927 recipe might be just about the earliest from NZ which includes cornflour or vinegar as an ingedient. However large meringue cakes which included vinegar as an ingredient can be found in American cookbooks for up to a decade prior to their appearance in NZ. Theodore D (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying they're basically the same thing, or does a RS reference? Also where is the ref relating to your assertion about the American cookbooks? Is this OR/Synth, or do you have a ref that discusses them in this context. Also again, to clarify, does Prof. Leach, state that the 1929 recipe was the first example of the current pavlova as we know it today? As you stated she did earlier. That doesn't really sound like an ambiguous statement if so.Number36 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

pg. 81 of Prof Leach's book "Pavlova cakes emerged from meringue cakes not, as most of us formerly supposed, by the addition of key ingredients (cornflour, vinegar) believed to have been absent from meringue cake recipes, but by a simple act of renaming. In New Zealand, meringue cakes continued to exist under their old name, side by side with pavlovas, for the next two decades, and their recipes are entirely comparable to those of pavlova cakes". Theodore D (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere :), that seems like something that should indeed be added to the article. Now that's established, does she have anything to say about the origins of 'Meringue cakes'? Are they then identical as this would seem to indicate at the beginning or merely comparable? Is it indicating that they diverged with the naming in some respect, so as to exist 'side by side', or simply that some people called them meringue cakes whilst others called them pavlovas? Also what was the wording of the ref that you, others, and the article, based the statement about the 1929 recipe being the first example of the current recipe then?Number36 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, just googling meringue cake now there seems to be a variety of different similar things at this point which use that name, could it be that meringue cake was a general term of which this proto-Pav was simply one type?Number36 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, there are some recipes called Meringue Cake that consisted of a sponge cake with a meringue topping. In our context we are referring to meringue only dishes (some of which could have a name other than 'Meringue cake'). According to Prof Leach's book the type of Meringue Cake we are interested in first appears in NZ cookbooks in the 1920s. However, this category of large meringue used as a cake can be traced back to nineteenth-century North America and Europe (pg 77 of Prof Leach's book). The emphasis on the 1929 recipe Festival's 'Pavlova Cake' as the first example of a meringue cake to be named pavlova is mine, although it is a fairly obvious conclusion from the book. However, I probably should add that this cake was more likely to be crisp rather than soft centred, and the 1933 recipe Laurina Stevens' 'Pavlova Cake' is closer to the modern ideal of a pavlova. I think by comparable we mean of the same kind, but there will be variation within recipes, as there is variation in pavlova recipes. Theodore D (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like you've got the basis for some referenced edits to the article as it stands then. What do you propose? Also does she go into any further relevant detail about the 18thC recipes for meringue cake from North America and Europe, where they originated, earliest examples, similarity to modern Pavlova recipes, etc?Number36 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Illustration of how pavlova cakes and meringue cakes existed side by side. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. pavlova-type dishes of interest are 'Meringue Cake', 'Meringue Gateau', 'Meringue Cream Cake', 'Marshmallow Cake'.Theodore D (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

recent academic article

[44], not avaliable for free download alas, but does give an alternative view to the singular creation myth being pushed by the wikipedia article. Theodore D (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Herbert Sachse's original recipe

here's Bert's pavlova recipe (purported to be at least) from 1935 [45]. If this is indeed correct then it may well be the first example of a pavlova which used both vinegar and cornflour (and even cream of tartar). It is to be cooked in a tin, so it is not quite the classic free-form pavlova, but nevertheless is looks to be a not insignificant development on what was before. Theodore D (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't really draw conclusions like that, per WP:OR. You seemed to be onto something with the above quotes from Prof Leach's book though, but you didn't give an answer on what your proposed addition to the article using them as support refs would be.Number36 (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How to make the perfect pav

this article [46] gives interesting (and maybe correct?) explanation of roles of various ingredients in a pav. Theodore D (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

meringue (or pavlova) cakes

further illustation that pavlova was really just an alternative name for meringue cakes [47]. While this pavlova sponge [48] could possibly be a renamed 'foam torte', which can be found in jewish cookery books. Theodore D (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

gotta say the lack of feedback on all this stuff I've presented is a bit disappointing. Perhaps people do not want to hear about it? Theodore D (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Claim in Keith Money's book

Keith Money's biography of Anna Pavlova was published in 1982, well before research began into the origins of the dessert. Money's description of this alleged first pavlova would seems to fall into the category of what people would expect the original recipe to have been, based on their idea of the "real" pavlova that exists today (or in 1982). This first recipe apparently included kiwifruit (then called a Chinese gooseberry), so it was certainly a recipe well ahead of its time, if indeed it existed. However, there exists no verifiable source for the claims. Money, a New Zealander, writes that he knew the name Pavlova as he grew up in NZ, "the country that produced the cake which carries her name". Given the year was 1982, that claim would appear to be based on hearsay. Theodore D (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin

According to the opening paragraph in the origin section "Research shows the recipe originated in New Zealand". This is an incorrect statement. It is not supported by the reference cited. As I've mentioned many times before, Prof Leach in her book emphasizes evolution, not creation. There was no original recipe, there would instead probably be a moment when a large meringue cake was first given the name pavlova. That should be made clear in the article. Indeed, the first recorded example of a large meringue cake given the name is 'Festival's' Pavlova (1929). Here is that recipe, Whites of 4 eggs beaten very stiff, add 4 large tablespoons sugar. Beat and lastly add 1/2 tablespoon cornflour. Bake in very slow oven in greased sandwhich tins, and make filling of cream chopped nuts and cherries.-Festival. Here is another recipe, from a publication called The Portland Woman's Exchange Cook Book (1913). Beat well the whites of 6 eggs; add 2 cups of granulated sugar; beat again with eggbeater, then with perforated spoon. Add 1 tablespoon vinegar and 1 teaspoon vanilla. Beat with spoon 15 minutes. Put in 2 patent layer cake tins; bake in slowest possible oven 1 hour. Put between layers a filling of whipped cream, broken walnut meats and cut up marshmallows. Loosen cakes from tins while warm.- Mrs. Jesse Stearns. Given the Futter recipe dates from 1926, it appears that the large meringue cake took a while to reach both Aus and NZ. There is some conjecture as to whether either of these recipes possessed the soft-centre of the modern recipe. Festival's recipe includes cornflour only, while the US recipe included vinegar (so similar to the first Edmond's recipe). Both recipes are double-layered. Over time, recipes become single layered only, and included both cornflour and vinegar, while other ingredients, lemon juice and cream of tartar also make appearances. Another stage in the evolution was the use of baking paper instead of a cake tin. These developments in the evolution of pavlova were not especially notable in themselves, but were borrowed from other recipes, for example the Schaum Torte, a meringue based recipe similar to pavlova which often included both vinegar and cream of tartar as ingredients. Meringue cakes and pavlovas existed side by side for a number of years. The meringue cake went by various names 'Meringue Cake', 'Meringue Gateau', 'Meringue Cream Cake', 'Marshmallow Cake'. Over time, a form of 'natural selection' acted on these various names, along with the pavlova name, until eventually all of these recipes were known simply as pavlova. Theodore D (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea of cornflour

One thing that seems to be a unique feature of the pavlova (the modern concept at least) is the addition of cornflour. According to Prof Leach's book (pg 64) the earliest known/recorded meringue recipes specifying the addition of cornflour date to 1896 in Aus, 'Cookery Book of Good and Tried Receipts'. The modern version of the pavlova specifies the adding of both cornflour and vinegar, while earlier versions of the 1930s could specify one, or both ingredients. Here's [49] an example of a meringue recipe from 1906, with cornflour added. Note that for the recipe in which the cornflour is not added, it is suggested the insides may be scooped out and filled with cream. The one with cornflour has no such recommendation. Although it is not clear, due to the brevity of the recipes, just what the purpose of using cornflour was. Theodore D (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Origins

This article should represent two things, the first of which that there are references that indicate origins for both Australia and New Zealand, so it would be unwise to portray one as the origin. Secondly, due to the controversial and questionable nature of the encyclopaedic content within this article, I propose that a header bar be placed to avoid confusion. Azirus (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the references which indicate Australian origins? This has been debated for a long time, but no such references have been provided.-gadfium 22:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the debate consider that different names were used at different times for different types of cakes? Does the debate also consider that all claims are mostly based on the Eton mess, an English recipe? Azirus (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the pavlova dessert was created on a particular day, in a particular country, by one or more particular individuals, is a myth. As I have pointed out on this talk page, rather repetitively I'd have to admit, the first instance of a pavlova, by name, and somewhat resembling the modern concept of what a pavlova should be, was not really anything more that a large meringue cake renamed. This is an important point I'd have thought, but it doesn't get any play in the main article, which seems more interested on playing up rivalries between NZ and Aus as to which nation can claim the credit for creating the first pavlova. It might well be that NZ can claim honours as evidence suggests that renaming the large meringue cake as pavlova took off there a little before it did in Aus, but large meringue cakes by various names continued to exist alongside those called pavlova in both countries, for many years. It also seems that both countries borrowed from each other over the years as the pavlova recipe evolved to the modern standard we know today. I don't believe the Eton mess, though similar, was the origin of the pavlova cake in NZ and Aus. The evidence points to large meringue cakes, most likely recipes from Europe and the USA. Theodore D (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

cornflour issue

there still seems to be an issue with this article's claim that addition of ingredient cornflour makes the difference between a pavlova and large meringue cake. This is plainly not so, as the first Edmonds recipe, from 1939, did not include cornflour. This recipe held its own in the Edmonds cookbook for some 40 odd more years. Theodore D (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

name of the original creator?

In text of article it is stated "The nationality of its creator has been a source of argument between the two nations for many years, but formal research indicates New Zealand as the source". A reference is then given. As I happen to own a copy of the reference I looked through it, but alas, was unable to find any mention of the name of this original creator. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!Theodore D (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Flat White developed in both Oz and NZ

That's the claim over at the Wikipedia article about the Flat White. But technically it could be said that the Flat White originated first in Oz, before being further developed in NZ. Which begs the question why a similar compromise has not been reached here. Clearly the pavlova was developed in both NZ and Oz. There is no evidence at all to support a single Kiwi creation. So what gives, Kiwi wikipediansTheodore D (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)?

Still no response to my very reasonable question. I also note that the main article still perpetuates the myth that the addition of cornflour is what sets the pavlova apart from the large meringue cake. As I have noted in here, on more than one occasion, the fact that the first Edmonds recipe for pavlova did not include cornflour gives the lie to that claim. So my fellow Kiwi wikipedians, what gives? Is there no one brave enough to address any of the many valid points and queries I have raised, or are you all too scared?? Theodore D (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Scared? Do you have WP:RS for these statements? Wikipedia isn't interested in original research, you know. Your statement about the addition of cornflour being a latter innovation may be true, but it reads like WP:SYNTH. The few reliable sources we have suggest that the Pavlova is a Kiwi invention, that's really all there is to it. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What original research are you referring to? That the first Edmonds recipe did not include cornflour as an ingredient is FACT. Have you actually read any of these reliable sources? I doubt it, because none of them claim that the pavlova is a Kiwi invention. You can bluff and bluster as much as you like, but that will not change the fact that I am correct, and you are not. But if you do disagree, or are under the delusion that you have superior knowledge to me, then feel free to present it here. How about starting by quoting the reliabe source that proves the pavlova to be a Kiwi invention. Come on, surely one of you brave Kiwipedians are at least up to that challenge? Theodore D (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not from New Zealand. My concern is with keeping petty vandalism and edit-warring to a minimum. Second of all, There is already a reliable source saying that the Pavlova is from New Zealand. Third, cornflour is mentioned as part of its modern preparation. If some early recipes don't include that, it's hardly some sort of deal-breaking conspiracy. What exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that the paragraph about cornflour should be removed? Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Theodore, I asked you over two years ago what specifically you proposed, but got no answer. If you don't propose specific changes supported by specific WP:RS cites, then I can't see how there's any moving forward.Number36 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've actually cobbled together some pretty good information above, if I do say so myself. Have any of you actually read it? My fear is that few, if any, actually possess the necessary understanding and knowledge of the intricacies involved to fully appreciate the significance of my previous pontifications. But let's get one thing out of the way. Please don't try and fob me off with any of this rubbish about reliable sources, original research, or synthesis of material. That really is a laughable tactic given the poor quality of the vast majority of scholarship on wikipedia, this article being no exception. Since my source is Prof Leach's book, we can safely assume that it is a reliable source. And unlike most in here, I've actually read the book. So when reference is made to this book, as is frequently done in the main article, would it be too much to ask that a page number be given, just to narrow things down a bit? That is the usual way sources are cited. I realise this may be a problem, since few here have read the book. In fact, I note from the history of the article, that before Prof Leach's book was quoted as the main reference, the Listener review of her book served that role. I suspect this is the reason for her book being cited as the source for a number of false and misleading claims in the article. Her book has simply been substituted in for the Listener review as a source. Given that the statement about cornflour is not sourced, I'd suggest it should be removed. It illustrates the fundamental misunderstanding regarding the origin of the pavlova. As Prof Leach has emphasized throughout her book, the pavlova evolved over time, from a large meringue cake, to the modern, idealised concept we now have as to what a pavlova should be. That is, crisp on the outside, with a soft marshmallow like centre. As the pavlova evolved over time, a consensus of opinion was reached that the inclusion of cornflour resulted in a better pavlova. The addition of cornflour may well enhance the marshmallow effect, but I've yet to see the chemistry behind this explained. Theodore D (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, -once again for clarity; what specific edit or edits to the article are you proposing. Be as specific as possible i.e. wording and changes, outlining what the edit is you think should be made, and provide a specific cite from a WP:RS to support it. Which is not 'fobbing off' at all. Arguing that poor quality exists elsewhere is not an argument to sidestep the requirement for proper sourcing, and as you say you have sources to support the changes you think should be made it shouldn't present a problem in any case. There's literally no moving forward on anything you raise if you don't actually propose a specific edit at any point, that's not an attempt to argue or a tactic of any sort, it's simply an objective and neutral fact. It's all well and good to say you've cobbled together information, but now what edit/s do you propose based on which parts of it? I have added a citation needed tag to the claim regarding the difference between the pavlova and a large meringue being the addition of cornflour.Number36 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

here's a recipe for Meringue Cream Gateau ->http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/139472148. A pavlova in all but name, it is certainly closer to the modern concept of what a pavlova is in comparison to Festival's named pavlova of 1929. As with the Anzac biscuit, I do not believe the renaming of something that already exists entitles one to then claim ownership. Theodore D (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, what specific edit or edits are you suggesting? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

If the body of the article clearly outlines the uncertainty of the pavlova's national origin, giving the case for both a New Zealand and an Australian origin, why then does the infobox not match this? Giving 'Place of origin' as only Australia is not only unverified, but also doesn't match the content of the article. I suggest the infobox be changed so as to include both countries, or perhaps omit 'Place of origin,' as it is, at this stage, apparently unknown 2602:301:77C7:9200:7DBB:E211:7645:C007 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you saw a version of the Infobox that had been incorrectly changed a few hours earlier. It's fixed now. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What it says in the Infobox is a lie, but it will not be changed no matter what the facts say. The pathologically dishonest kiwi Wikipedians will see to that!Theodore D (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What it says in the Infobox is supported by reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia requires. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it isn't. The source is very good and reliable, the problem is that it doesn't support what is said in the Infobox. I have outlined the details in previous comments above, if you'd care to study them.Theodore D (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New history article

article here: http://www.goodfood.com.au/good-food/food-news/pavlova-research-reveals-desserts-shock-origins-20151010-gk5yv9.html

Maybe I'll try to update the article when I have time? Format (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection to your updating the article, but the link you give appears to be a copy of http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/72742788/pavlova-research-reveals-puddings-shock-origins, so please reference that source. Also, while there were numerous dishes named after the dancer prior to 1929, and the combination of meringue and cream has been around for a very long time, the source does not seem clear on whether any of the earlier desserts named pavlova were at all similar to the modern dish. Eg the 1911 recipe mentioned was a glacé type dessert.-gadfium 03:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been telling you twats this for fucken ages, but you continually blanked me. But let's no get ahead of ourselves here. There is nothing new in this research. It has been already well established (Prof Leach's book) that the first large meringue cakes called pavlova (at least in Australasia) were merely existing recipes (either from Europe or USA) renamed pavlova from what they were originally called (Meringue Cake,Meringue Gateau,Meringue Cream Cake,Marshmallow cake). Indeed, Festival's pavlova cake from 1929, celebrated as the first known occasion (to date) of this being done, is not even a very good example. There existed known recipes at the time, which had they been renamed pavlova, would have been much closer to the modern concept of what we now consider pavlova. What happened, as large meringue cakes become popular in Australasia is that, over time, it become more and more common that a certain ideal was preferred, namely a large meringue cake with a soft centre, and crisp outer layer. At this time, pavlova and other large meringue cakes with different names existed together. By a process of selection, eventually, nearly all meringue cakes were made to the ideal of a soft centre and crisp outer. At the same time as this occurred, the name pavlova began to dominate. Until eventually, or such large meringue cakes were called pavlova, and they were all made to a certain ideal. I have outlined all of this, in more detail, earlier on the talk page, if anyone cared to read it.Theodore D (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ice cream not relevant

An American icecream may have been named after Pavlova. However that is irrelevant to this article.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

some people pronounce it the Russian way (stress on first syllable), which is surely preferable as the name is Russian. I have added this as an alternative.Seadowns (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Add a section a dedicated section on the rivalry over the ownership of the pavlova?

Should a new section be added to include specific details on the rivalry over the pavlova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lochlan Hanham (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It may help to defuse the constant efforts towards changing that aspect of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Only if the content is supported by reliable sources, and not original research. Stickee (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I mostly was trying to make a start to built on. Also is referencing internal (Wikipeadia) possible? L.H. (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stickee (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request, 13 March 2019

This edit does not conform to WP:NPOV. Please change "proved" to "said" or "wrote". Thank you. 70.162.235.236 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I changed it back to argued --DannyS712 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Protection removal

Admins should never abuse the privilege to protect an article, such as, trigger permanent protection for first time offence without an community arbitration. It’s better to adopt the three-strike system (if two non-permanent protection were triggered, third time can be permanent). Please revert to, at least, pending changes, then wait and see for a while. Thank you. 1.152.107.150 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@1.152.107.150: If you want the protection of this page to be changed, please make a request at WP:RPP; requests made here will not be considered. The multi-month history of vandalism on this page (in my opinion) justifies the protection. If you want to make a change to the general protection policy, you need to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). With that said, since there is nothing wrong with the current policy, we are unlikely to consider your proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

20/07/2019 - Pavlova is not Aussie OR Kiwi

For many years, it has been widely known that neither the NZ or AU peoples created pavlova. Recipes have been noted originating in Germany, England, South America (found in kitchen staff's recipe books usually with notations about the people passing on the recipe as having 'strange' or 'far away' accents).

Below are a few relevant links, a couple of which are discussing how the Pavolva was originally a German torte and made into what we recognise today as being a Pav, in the US by migrants. There is also reference to the Austrian Schaum Torte.

If judging ownership or origin by what the Pavlova actually is, it's easy to see it didn't come from the NZ or AU people. If you judge it by it's name, 'Pavlova' has been used on a great many recipes in honour of Anna Pavlova, and again, is from neither AU or NZ.

The earliest NZ and AU recipes that have been found are far older than the earliest pavlovas form other countries. It is still disputed exactly where is first appeared (both in it's original form, and as the whipped egg white meringue we use today), but it is definitely from neither Australia or New Zealand.

As an Aussie myself, when I learnt this way back when I was taking Home Ec classes in school 15 years ago, I was needles to say, fairly disappointing, but I suppose at least NZ and AU don't need to be bickering about it any more...

https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/news/pavlova-research-reveals-desserts-shock-origins-20151010-gk5yv9

https://food52.com/blog/16810-the-dessert-australians-and-new-zealanders-are-squabbling-over

https://ediblemilwaukee.ediblecommunities.com/recipes/schaum-torte-strawberries-lemon-curd FlinginFlangin (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the things I really like about this topic (other than being delicious) is that it's a great example of a social construct.

What, exactly, is a pavlova and what isn't? This would need to be answered before this could ever be settled, but good luck getting everyone to agree on that. Is a schaum torte a pavlova in disguise, or is it it's "closest relative" as one of those sources says. The Goodfood.com.au source says it evolved into its "final form" in the US... but that's absurd, isn't it? Who gets to decide what it's "final form" is? Surely people are still making new and interesting "forms" of it to this day. The article mentions that passionfruit and kiwifruit are the iconic toppings, but I doubt anyone in the United States had access to Chinese gooseberry in any quantity in 1911, and passionfruit is native to South America. Are those optional, or are they important?

There cannot ever be a single platonic ideal of a pavlova. It's not just the name, it's not just the meringue or cream, it's not just the particular fruit, it's not the addition of corn flower... since people are not required to agree on whether or not something even is a "true pavlova", they are not going to agree on who invented it. Because many people seem to genuinely enjoy arguing over this, it is fortunate that Wikipedia cannot take that away from them even if we wanted to. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Insert after fifth paragraph under heading "Origin and history":

By the early 1940s, home cooks in Australia were sharing a recipe for “Pavlova Cake” that is the recipe for what we now know as pavlova. In her handwritten recipe book, Hunter Valley woman Lydia Louisa Ling recorded a recipe for pavlova in October 1941.[17] The descriptive way she writes out the method indicates it’s something new for the time. She notes to “…turn off the gas when it is a deep creamy colour” and that it should be “… hard on the outside and like marshmallow inside”. She also describes leaving it in the oven to cool and filling the hollow with cream.

[17] Pavlova Recipe, originally recorded by hand in a small notebook and published on Cooking with Nana Ling recipe blog.

Also add to External links • Nana Ling’s 1941 Pavlova Recipe Libbyh1 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Blogs are self-published sources, and are not generally usable on Wikipedia. Please be mindful of editing with a conflict of interest, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

Please change the text: "Research conducted by New Zealander Dr Andrew Paul Wood and Australian Annabelle Utrecht found that the origins of the modern pavlova can be traced back to Germany, where it began life as a torte. It was later brought to America where it evolved into its final form."

to read as follows: "Research conducted by New Zealander Dr. Andrew Paul Wood and Australian Annabelle Utrecht found that the origins of the modern pavlova can be traced back to modern-day Austria or Germany, where it began life as the dessert Spanische windtorte. It was later brought to America where it evolved into its final form. German immigrants to the United States first streamlined the Spanische windtorte into a more simply-constructed meringue, whipped cream, and fruit dessert called schaum torte ("foam cake" in German). The main distinguishing feature between schaum torte and pavlova is that pavlova contains corn starch and schaum torte does not." Draco847 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've tried to expand this based on the source, which is all we can really do here. The cited source doesn't mention cornflour as a defining trait of the schaum torte, but I've tried to explain the gist of it without drifting into original research. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a cake

It's not a cake, should change page title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.110.96 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pavlova (dessert) is a more appropriate name. A requested move is needed however. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my humor, i can't help but say: the cake is a lie! Профессор кислых щей (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

Remove Maori translation from first line and "alternative names field".

The cake is not of Maori origin, and there is no Maori tie to the dish; it is European in origin and named after a Russian dancer. Compare with other New Zealand cuisine such as Cheese Roll and Lolly Cake.

Also given the controversy over the cake's origin, it would make even less sense to include a New Zealand specific language in the case that the cake originates from Australia. Elaborateshotput (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

Pavlova originally came from New Zealand 2407:7000:81E4:C600:E9FE:4C03:F37B:35B9 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What diametre would be in pavlova?

Some cookes are trying to make pavlova in circular parametre. 136.158.59.116 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlova_(cake)#cite_note-24 to https://web.archive.org/web/20211109181354/https://edmondscooking.co.nz/recipes/desserts/pavlova/ RobDouglasNZ (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Overwhelming consensus to move the page. Schwede66 may want to look into creating it the primary topic in a seperate RM, as no discussion has yet taken place regarding it. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Pavlova (cake) → Pavlova (dessert) – Pavlova is a type of dessert that Australians and New Zealanders overwhelmingly do not consider a cake, though it's challenging to find formal sources for an odd negative like this. The best I'm coming across is informal comments polling and comment threads talking about Australians getting upset when pavlova is called a cake. Pavlova certainly falls into the category of schaum torte (foam cake) but as it is not considered as a cake in its home countries this page would better serve antipodeans as well as the rest of the world as "Pavlova (dessert)". 180.150.37.72 (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support The lead sentence refers to it as a "dessert", and (from what I can tell) almost everyone thinks of it as such. PatricKiwi (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support As above. The article takes quite a while to get to calling it a cake, and that seems mostly historical. In the lead it's described as cake-like, meaning it's NOT a cake, just LIKE a cake. In my over 70 years I have never heard it called a cake in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support As above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. A cake is a flour confection, which the pavlova patently is not. The pavlova is essentially a type of meringue, which is a dessert. Paora (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support "Dessert" is more accurate than "cake". Cullen328 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Presumably whoever chose cake didn't know what a pav is. Local Potentate (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• make primary topic It's certainly not a cake but a dessert. However, this should not even be relevant as this article appears to be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC by quite some margin (look at the page views). We should move the dab page from Pavlova to Pavlova (disambiguation) so that the primary spot can be taken by the dessert (as it were). Schwede66 18:54, 29 December 2022 (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.

• Postfactum support: it was supposed to be a diet-friendly substitute to a cake, an ice block or sorbet that appeared in the New Zealand Herald on 11 November 1911.

References

Untitled

This need’s correcting, the desert predates the 20th century claims of Australia & New Zealand https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/pavlova-research-reveals-desserts-shock-origins-20151010-gk5yv9.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.27.211 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Description of Pavlova picture

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's passionfruit pulp, not "lemon sauce" 124.168.179.114 (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's passionfruit lemon sauce, which is a combination of passionfruit pulp and lemon. All the major supermarkets sell it. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Claim about 1922 Futter recipe

The claim that was the first recipe to entirely resemble the modern Pavlova is explicitly contradicted by the cited source, which notes specific differences. The lack of vinegar and cornflour, -and obviously the 'fruit filling', where the top is lifted off, it's filled, and then replaced.2404:4404:3726:BF00:724E:FF17:4C56:A1D5 (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked the source, and agree, so I have made an edit that I hope reflects that. DrThneed (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can edit the page as I'm relatively new but there's a recipe from 1932 that was published in NZ, which does include vinegar and is named as Pavlova (albeit smaller cakes and with coffee flavouring). It seems similar enough to warrant inclusion, no? If so, it would go between the 3rd and 4th recipes mentioned. Here's the citation: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MT19320719.2.7.1

Hoping you might be able to incorporate this as you seem to have edit privileges (if you think it meets standards). There's also one from 1933 that is covered in fruit, whipped cream and nuts: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19330722.2.145.4. It appears to have become more fleshed out as a recipe by 1934: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19341103.2.188.42.3

Thanks! LavenderSprout (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2024

• Pavlova (dessert) → Pavlova
• Pavlova → Pavlova (disambiguation)

– Currently Pavlova is a disambiguation, however, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Pavlova (dessert) should be moved to Pavlova and the disambiguation page should be moved to Pavlova (disambiguation). This has previously been suggested by Schwede66 but it seems that a requested move proposal was not made as a result. It is very clear that the dessert is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As previously identified, it has a significantly higher number of page views than all other pages by a large margin: Pageviews on wmcloud.org. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 02:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per the pageviews analysis. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Panamitsu. Theparties (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The primary topic, per the pageviews and a Google search. This page is very likely what someone searching just "Pavlova" is looking for. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support As per what I said 23 months ago. Schwede66 08:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Primary topic. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at the stats some more. WikiNav says we saw 364 views of Pavlova in October, and could identify 200 clicks to the dessert, 45 to a biography, and 158 clickstreams were not identifiable because of anonymization - they were under the threshold of 10 source-destination pairs. As the dessert is the most popular option, it's less likely clickstreams involving it were anonymized, rather those involving other smaller topics were. So the ratio of traffic is most likely ~200 : ~203. That is not an indication of primary topic at all. That just looks like half the readers want to read about the dessert, and half about other topics. (The best immediate response to this is to sort the list better.)

I noticed the overall traffic link above, and went to look at the all-time view, and included the old article names, and page views like that show a lot of variability in the dessert traffic (seasonal?), while traffic to Anna Pavlova is consistently in the same ballpark.

I don't see a long-term significance argument above, and I don't see why we should assume that a dessert has more significance than the biography of the prima ballerina.

It's not impossible that search engines like Google have learned this navigation layout and have sent us a disproportionate amount of ambiguous traffic, but we can't really know that. Setting up a primary topic might cause half the readers to be navigated in a less efficient manner, and despite a significant volume here we're not seeing an appreciable volume of complaints. A handful of editors noting this idea over the last couple of years doesn't compare well with decades of disambiguation at ~500 views/month ([50]). (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts to note in response. When reviewing the the WikiNav statistics (correct me if I am wrong), the dessert accounts for a relatively overwhelming number of >80% of all clicks from the disambiguation page, and even though the dessert fluctuates in page views, the page view statistics consistently still show a significant disparity between the two over the last two years.

Also, Google Ngram shows a large disparity between Pavlova and Anna Pavlova; when searching Pavlova in books, it is also clear that these are all largely focussed on the dessert (even on a Google website from a different region). Carolina2k22 • (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that WikiNav isn't rendering the 158 anonymized ones in the outgoing and incoming graphs. So those graphs show only identifiable clickstreams, and don't have a visual indicator for the missing data. That causes it to lead us to conclusions that aren't necessarily right. It's showing the certain parts and skipping the uncertain parts, thereby creating an illusion of certainty.

Likewise, Ngrams can give you more information - if you add wildcards to see what do books mention the most before and after the word, like this, I'm not sure we can say with any certainty that these would generally be talking about the dessert. Rather, Anna is consistently the largest item, there's a posessive form 's, the use of had and to, the N., A. and P., ... that all seem more likely to be references to people, not objects. --Joy (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Joy. There is no primary topic, a pageviews show. Srnec (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joy and Smec. Indeed, if a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC were to be proposed, it should be Anna Pavlova, with Pavlova redirecting to her entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I will also note that, the statistics brought out so far, which overwhelmingly display that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Pavlova dessert is something known by practically every single Australian and New Zealander, this is tens and tens of millions of people. It is significantly more popular than the ballerina, and any anonymised links it is significantly and much more likely that it is related to the dessert. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we assume that the readership for this term is mainly in Australia and New Zealand? This is a global encyclopedia, serving not just tens of millions, but everyone.

I don't know why we'd want to assume that anonymized clickstreams are significantly more likely related to the dessert. There would need to be some sort of a rationale for that, beyond an assertion. --Joy (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There are more English-speaking Canadians than Australians and New Zealanders combined, of which there are not "tens and tens of millions", since that double plural implies 40 million and the combined population of the two is about 32 million. Only a very small number of Wikipedians participate in any given RM, so it is important that the closer gauge how well the (necessarily local) consensus represents the global view. In other words, there is no need, as two users have done, to highlight Australian views. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support The page view and ngrams evidence (even from those opposing the move) clearly demonstrates that the dessert is the primary topic. The clickthrough data above assumes that all anonymous clicks went to something other than the dessert with no justification, instead of the more logical assumption that the anonymous clicks would follow a similar pattern. Meanwhile, the page view analysis shows that the lowest ever monthly page view count for the pavlova is still higher than the highest ever for Anna Pavlova over the same period (which is still true if you add all other non-food pavlovas into her total). In the last two years, the food item has routinely had over double the monthly views of the ballerina, peaking at over four times as many views in December last year. This is one of the most clear cut examples of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that I've recently seen. Turnagra (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't logically assume that the ratio of 200/364 applies well to the anonymized ones, because the more popular options naturally stay in the data set and less popular options naturally get removed. Perhaps it's best to illustrate this with a couple of examples:

When we see 24 clickstreams where the source is Main Page, that means the number 24 was derived from these possibilities: 24, 14+10, 13+11, 12+12. All the others would have necessarily been removed. This can mean that there could have been e.g. 14 people who went from Main Page via Pavlova to the dessert, 10 from there to ballerina, 6 from there to the film, 5 from there to the gymnast, 4 from there to Pavlov and 2 from there to the novelist. Of these, 14+10=24 would have remained visible, while 6+5+4+2=17 would have been removed. Looking at the final output, we get the impression that only the 24 matter, even if 17 would have been a fairly comparable number to it.

Conversely, as the amount of traffic per source goes down, we can lose a disproportionate amount of clicks towards the popular destinations. For example, if in a month there were 11 navigations from cake to pavlova, of which 9 proceeded to the dessert, and 1 to the ballerina, and the last one just went away. Here we would lose the information that over three quarters of those readers definitely wanted the dessert. At the same time, these 11 or 12 lost are still overall fewer than the 17 from the previous kind of an example.

I don't have a strict mathematical proof that the first kind of an example is more impactful on the overall numbers, but it's got to be based on the distribution of probabilities: in most examples, the bulk of traffic to disambiguation pages comes from big, generic source categories like other-search, other-empty, Main Page, etc. This naturally happens because editors disambiguate any incoming links from other more specific places. Likewise, the remaining anonymized traffic from more specific places is usually restricted topically - there's only so many places where it's likely a reader would reach for the search box to get to this place. That's why I think the first example scenario is more impactful than the second.

Anyway, the most general problem that I have with this line of thinking where we choose a popular topic as primary based on a smaller or larger advantage in this or that statistical measure is that the point of a primary topic is supposed to be to mimic real-world consensus about what a term refers to. If we go against such a consensus, we risk confusing any readers who look up a term and have an expectation to only ever see that topic described there. I don't know that we can apply that to this term, because the sum of knowledge about this term seems to involve a variety of topics. Sure, maybe Australians associate this with just the dessert, but it seems highly doubtful that everyone else does. I also doubt the Australians have an expectation to be navigated directly there. Who are these readers who would say anything approaching "get me straight to the dessert, or else this isn't a serious encyclopedia!"? --Joy (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I do understand your logic, but I'm still not seeing that this indicates there is no primary topic. Pavlova (dessert) consistently receives between two and three times the pageviews of Anna Pavlova, and just under twice the traffic of the ballerina from the dab page, with her page being the only other page with substantial outgoing traffic. There are also other measures suggested at WP:DPT which are worth considering. If I change my search region to the US (so I'm getting US results), almost all of the results in a Google Books search are for the dessert, as are those in a Google News search. I do note your analysis of the Ngrams above, but I don't think it really tells us much, as there isn't any specific word which you would expect to consistently show up beside "pavlova" when referring to the dessert, whereas many (perhaps the majority) of references to the ballerina's name will include "Anna" next to "Pavlova". While not as instructive, a regular Google search (again, with US results) also gives pretty much exclusively results related to the dessert. The dessert is also linked much more frequently, [51][52] another metric WP:DPT suggests we consider. In addition, I think I can say with confidence that any Australian (as one myself!) would expect a search for "pavlova" to take you here (I, in all honesty, doubt that the vast majority of Australians and New Zealanders would have heard of the ballerina), though of course this alone would not make it the primary topic. Taking all of these things together, the dessert seems to me to be the primary topic. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Raw page view ratios are not determinative. For example, Talk:Fallout (disambiguation) describes a case where we maintained a primary redirect despite millions of views in difference.

Google search engine results are not reliable. Here from Europe, the exact same Google Books search link you posted has /zero/ hits for the dessert in the first two pages - and my location/profile affected only #20 (it was in Croatian - all the others were in English), and the results seem reasonable - no dumb old database lookups as it sometimes happens.

The News search gives first 4 about the dessert, 5th and 6th are about some persons who don't even have a Wikipedia article, then 5 more about the dessert, then a sportsperson (again no Wikipedia article), then another about a dessert, then some album called Pavlova's Dog, then the phrase "a pavlova response" (another modified reference to Pavlov's dog?), then a tennis player, etc. Sure, there's a lot of desserts in there, but also a lot of other stuff that may be news but also hasn't much relevance to an encyclopedia - WP:NOT#NEWS.

The 922 vs 590 difference in links also is far from impressive, and besides, that's something that can reflect editorial practices, not necessarily readership. The last time I did a bigger analysis of incoming links ratios was I think at Talk:Montserrat, where it was apparent that these variables aren't correlated all too well.

--Joy (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this seems to change the fact that these measures indicate that the dessert is the primary topic. All of the measures I considered were those listed at WP:DPT, and, as far as I can tell, pretty much all of them point to this conclusion. All your response seems to be doing is saying is that in some cases we would not follow just one of these metrics, and sure, that's true, but we can't not follow all of them, they're all of the measures that WP:DPT says we should use to determine the primary topic. And besides, I'm not arguing that we should take any single metric as conclusive evidence, but rather that, taken all together, these various measures strongly point to the dessert being the primary topic. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if the dessert is PT1, it may not be PT2. As in apple vs Apple, we can easily see why a dessert gets more internet hits than a dead ballerina. But Wikipedia isn't just here to throw the internet back at you. That is why PT2 exists. When you consider all factors, the evidence for primary topic based on hits and clicks is not overwhelming. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The point on the basis of PT2 is fair. I still think there's enough here to consider the dessert the primary topic, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what you were reading, but you seem to have missed the fact that a book search for 'pavlova' resulted in 0 out of 20 hits with the dessert. This measure absolutely does not indicate that the dessert is the primary topic. The others are rather moot, because a bit over half the people favoring one usage and a bit under half the people favoring all other usages is not indicative of a primary topic. All this taken together points to an absence of primary topic. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we ignore what a US Google Books search says, in favour of what a Croatian Google Books search says? Far more readers come from the US than any other country. And we can't simply discount all of the other measures at WP:DPT in favour of a single measure which only weakly supports this Pavlova being the primary topic. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The point is that it's not US or HR or AU Google Books, it's that they differ based on profile of the reader. So Google Books is recognizing the ambiguity and not showing a coherent primary topic to everyone. If our robot overlords don't want to force-feed all readers the same thing, the encyclopedia shouldn't either.

And, once again, all of the other measures do not support that, that's merely your interpretation, which we disagree on. --Joy (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how you can disagree that the other measures I provided don't support the idea that the dessert is the primary topic (eg., how does having 2 to 3 times the pageviews not support that?), but if that's your interpretation, that's fine. I think I've said my piece – I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned before, raw page views are not determinative, because that is not the sole criterion. The clickstreams are inconclusive, the books ngrams are inconclusive, and the incoming links are probably the least reliable of these indicators of usage as they are based on editor behavior, not reader behavior. The guideline further advises us to think of long-term significance and of different groups of people in the audience.

In my thinking this is a bit like a difference between a plurality, a majority and a supermajority. It's easy enough to say that the dessert is the single most popular item in the set, but that doesn't mean it rises to the level of primary topic. --Joy (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've removed a trailing period from the proposed target of Pavlova (disambiguation). Skynxnex (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be helpful to note that the legendary ballerina has been generally referenced and known to the public as simply "Pavlova", rather than by the full name "Anna Pavlova". A famous novelty song about the ballerina, titled "Pavlova", became a 1940s hit for Danny Kaye. For those who may be interested, here is a link to Danny Kaye's performance of "Pavlova". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's perfectly normal for people to be referred to by their surname, even if it's not strictly mononymous usage. There's no reason to believe that the contingent of readers recognizing this term as a surname isn't just as large as the contingent of readers recognizing it as a dessert. --Joy (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, those whose historical notability is such that simply a mention of their surname is sufficient, such as Mozart, Balzac or Einstein become, for most intents and purposes, mononymous and, likely, no one would accept a culinary preparation named after Einstein to be primary over him simply because those who type "Einstein" are presumed to be researching the dish, while those who search for the great man are expected to type "Albert Einstein".

In the field of dance, Pavlova or Nijinsky are comparable to such mononymous redirects as Beethoven, Disraeli or Proust in their respective fields. Here is the cover of a book simply titled "Pavlova", with the interior subtitle, "Pavlova: Repertoire of a Legend". It may be also noted that the dessert is sometimes referenced as "the Pavlova" or "a Pavlova", thus indirectly acknowledging that simply "Pavlova" is the legendary ballerina. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I support the view that the dessert is the primary topic by long-term significance, noting that any use of a surname is necessarily a partial title match. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The ballerina, who is very often known simply by her surname, is as notable as the dish named after her per long-term significance. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)