Talk:Ful medames

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 28 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bananacoconuticecream.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Telestudent2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A note

in deciding how to spell "ful medames", I did google searches for the following combinations:

	ful	foul	fool
medames	1020	287	1250
moudammas	10	858	13
moudamas	0	113	15
mudammas	1170	301	67
mudamas	10	81	14

Then, I summed the rows and columns, deciding that "ful" and "medames" are most common, even though the combination isn't. MisterSheik 01:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Someone has changed the spelling to müdemmis, which is peculiar to Turkish pronunciation and orthography. I can't see how that could be justified for a dish that notably belongs to Arab cuisines, not Turkish. However we decide to spell it, the spelling needs to reflect the word in Arabic only. Let me go and correct that.

P.S. For what it's worth, the transcription in Wehr is based on Egyptian dialect: "mədammis." Also, it should be obvious why the spelling "foul" won't work in English. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edited the article and essentially rewrote the second paragraph. The paragraph was poorly composed and the information (regarding the etymology of "ful medames") seemed to have been pulled out of nowhere. [unsigned comment]

I'm glad you put that table in the Talk page -- I'm not sure I would have been able to find the article otherwise. :-) The local restaurant spells it "foul mudamas", and Wikipedia's search function found this page due to your table. -- Phyzome (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Falafel

Falafels are made out Chick Peas not fava beans. Abdullah Geelah 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it depends. Most people seem to make homemade falafels with chickpeas, but at least over here restaurants usually serve fava bean falafel (which I find more tasty). DiamonDie (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta'meyya and felafel aren't the same thing. Ta'meyya is made with fuul, felafel with hummus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.56.63 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Can we find a picture that doesn't include incorrectly cooked eggs? These have a green layer surrounding the yolk because they have been incredibly overboiled. I can smell the sulfur from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.140.140 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there you go, two pictures of Ful from Haleb that I took. Anyone can use them as he/she wishes:

• File:فول مدمّس حلبى.jpg
• File:فول حلبى مقطوع.jpg

--Emir Ali Enç (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with Template:Tl banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Herodotus citation

Since it runs so strongly counter to both earlier and later information, it would be particularly welcome to have a specific citation from Herodotus' writings to document his assertion that Egyptians neither grow nor willingly eat beans. --Haruo (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mashed or not?

I don't know anything about this topic, but as a curious reader following a link, the first thing that confronts me here is a contradiction. The description in the first sentence clearly says it is a dish of "mashed fava beans" but the image directly to the right is clearly of a dish full of intact beans. --Ericjs (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, coincidentally I'm back here again, as I just ordered the stuff, and was looking up the pronunciation, and the contradiction struck me again. What they served me was definitely not mashed, so I'm striking that adjective. --Ericjs (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethiopian Ful

Ethiopian fuul is normaly served with bread, not injera. I may be able to supply photos supporting this assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.45.123 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Egyptian" has simply been replaced with "Somali"

Historical accounts seem to point toward an Egyptian origin. Please change this.

Etymology

Do we have a meaning or derivation of ful medames? I know ful or foul means beans, what does medames mean?Gymnophoria (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd that it's not included in the article, which otherwise makes a couple of references to a cooking method, without explaining what that is. "‘Medames’ means buried in Egyptian." - "the beans were buried over gentle embers to slow cook." https://www.souschef.co.uk/blogs/the-bureau-of-taste/egyptian-breakfast-recipe-ful-medames https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Ful-Medames This is kind of important. It's a slow cooked dish, conveniently prepared the night before, commonly eaten for breakfast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed Etymology section

Removed the following section because the source is more than questionable:

The name of this culinary dish is transcribed fūl medammis, ful medammes, foul mdammes, etc. Some modern dictionaries suggest that its Coptic name is ⲫⲉⲗ phel or fel, but this is a term derived from Arabic (after the Arabization of Egypt). [citation needed] A hypothesis by Adeeb Makar states that neither ancient Egypt nor Coptic languages and dialects used the word "ful"/"fūl" or a similar term, arguing instead that the ancient Egyptian name for beans is written in Egyptian hieroglyphs 𓅮𓏏𓈖, retranscribed swnw in Latin , and pronounced "sunu" . The ancient Coptic name for ful may be "ⲃⲁⲩⲉ" (bauē).

This was sourced to: https://moniseum.com/on-the-etymology-of-the-word-falafel-154f1744d80a

Most of this comes from an article on Medium authored by a Monis Bukhara. The transcription of the hieroglyphs is egregiously wrong ... 𓅮𓏏𓈖 is pꜣtn not swnw, the word is not in Gardiner (the moniseum article says it is); swnw is in Gardiner (spelled completely differently), but glossed correctly there as "physician", not as "beans". Somebody (not me, lol) already pointed this out in the comments to the article in 2024 and the author's response looks like generic ChatGPT nonsense:

It appears that I made an error in my interpretation and representation of the hieroglyphs and their corresponding readings. The clarification about the hieroglyphs 𓅮𓏏𓈖 not reading as SWNW and actually being P3TN, along with your explanation about the absence of these terms regarding “beans” in Gardiner’s dictionary, is particularly enlightening.

Your inclusion of the correct hieroglyphs for “beans” in Middle Egyptian, such as 𓃛𓂋𓇋𓇋𓏏𓈒𓏥 (IWRYT), 𓄭𓏏𓈒𓏫 (SPRT), and 𓊪𓏲𓏭𓂋𓏤𓈒𓏥 (PWR), is also greatly appreciated. This corrects the record and enriches the understanding for readers interested in the linguistic aspects of ancient Egyptian culture. I will ensure that further research is conducted and that more rigorous verification is applied, especially when dealing with ancient languages and etymology. Thank you once again for enhancing the accuracy and depth of the discussion in the article. Your expertise and attention to detail are invaluable.

Source: comments section under the same article referenced above

Wow. I can only conclude that the whole thing is cobbled together by a bot because no human in their right mind would acknowledge that everything they have written is wrong and then - not change one iota. Be that as it may, a source that retract itself on the same page is not a good source for Wikipedia MikuChan39 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)