Talk:unleavened bread

SoP. Equinox ◑ 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My vote for now is delete as SOP. But given its religious significance I suspect it might have enough idiomatic translations to justify making the entry a translation target. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it sometimes is used when referring to any bread that's made without leavening, the most common sense is in reference to the type of bread associated with the Passover. Being unleavened isn't the whole definition : one could make bread that is unleavened by heating dough with yeast in it before it has a chance to rise- I don't think that would qualify it as unleavened bread in this sense . Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. If the dough had yeast in it, it would be "bread made with a raising agent", woudn't it? (Even if the raising agent never had a chance to work.) "Unleavened" is currently defined as "without any yeast or other raising agent", rather than as, say, "unraised", so dough with yeast in it wouldn't be "unleavened" by any sense, would it? - -sche (discuss) 08:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't check my definitions. I still think there's more to it than lack of yeast, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit like one of those terms that's culturally important but in linguistic terms has nothing to offer. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even if you don't actively add a raising/leavening agent, it will rise/leaven unless you bake it quickly. For this reason, the baking of Passover matzot is timeboxed to 18 minutes. So, does "unleavened bread" include bread that leavened on its own, without the use of leaven as an ingredient? —Ruakh TALK 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't unleavened bread sort of like vegetarian chicken; i.e. not actually "bread" by definition, because it is leavening that makes a foodstuff become bread rather than, say, a cracker? bd2412 T 13:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if that is true, I don't think it alone justifies an entry. A "so-called king" isn't a king, for example, and a "failed state" isn't a state (arguably &mdash; I'm sure there are better examples). Equinox ◑ 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't think it is true. Neither our definition, nor Wikipedia's, nor that of any of half a dozen other dictionaries I've checked, says that leavening is a necessary condition for being bread. At best they say "usually" with yeast or other leavening, and dictionary.com explicitly says "with or without yeast or other leavening agent". So the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth is real bread. —Angr 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, if someone gave you a piece of matzoh and said, "here, have some bread", wouldn't think them as mistaken as if they said the same thing while handing you a bowl of oatmeal or a scrambled egg? bd2412 T 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. I might think it a little odd, but not flat-out wrong as with a bowl of oatmeal or a scrambled egg. But then every week someone puts a wafer as flat as a matzoh in the palm of my hand and calls it bread, so maybe I'm more used to it than other people. —Angr 16:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the oddity of it is enough to justify a definition explaining that, for example, unleavened bread is not bread that failed to rise because some ingredient was left out, but is a food made from most of the same ingredients as traditional "bready" bread, but intentionally prepared in a way that causes it to avoid rising. bd2412 T 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term "unleavened" seems mainly used with "bread". Google Ngram Viewer for unleavened bread,unleavened suggests that almost two thirds of uses of "unleavened" are as part of "unleavened bread". This is a non-CFI consideration, I admit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to keep such terms. Traditionally we have not.
 * My vote is to delete, but weakly since I'm sympathetic to non-rising as a result of more than non-leavening. DAVilla 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is a term of the English vocabulary. In French pain sans levain is SOP too, but it's exactly the same case: this is a term of the French language, a term nobody uses without having learned it first. Lmaltier (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entry for unleavened explains perfectly what the word means and this is only "unleavened + bread". It's not so uncommon either. There are dozens of varieties in almost every corner of the World, see e.g. flatbread. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–December 2023
Survived RFD in 2013, when we were a little dumber. Still SOP P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But now it is held by WT:THUB for its single-word translations. Fay Freak (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reason given by Fay Freak. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep but remove definition and explicitly mark as a translation hub. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we remove definitions from translation hubs? Seems overly pedantic to me: "the entry is only being kept for its translations, therefore you can't have anything but translations in there". We can surely just keep the basic definition that is already there. This, that and the other (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Bread that is unleavened" is not a useful definition to have, it just looks silly. PUC – 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But then you put at the end, and the reader will go "ah, I get why the def is a bit silly, the entry is just here for translations". This, that and the other (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Probably shouldn't have been re-nominated <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 22:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a THUB. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Kept again. I'll re-RFD in 2033. Denazz (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)