Talk:English cuisine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliably-cited stereotypes

An editor has recently deleted seven of the reliably-cited stereotype dishes from the gallery, adding one uncited item, and accidentally breaking a citation in the process. It's hard to see why the long-standing and informative gallery, containing many of the most characteristic dishes recognised as English cuisine (including even the "Full English Breakfast", surely one of the most stereotypical dishes of all) should need to be slashed in this way. Beef Wellington is possibly worthy of inclusion, but the item was as stated not cited; it is much more recent than the other items, and as a showy dinner-party dish, far less often eaten: compare it to fish and chips, or to sandwiches, or to pasties, for instance, and it is immediately obvious (as the cited sources indicate) that this is a rare item rather one that enjoys the mass circulation of the other items illustrated.

To sum up, there seems no reason at all to delete a large number of reliably-cited items which are undoubtedly stereotypes as described in the text. There equally well seems very little reason to add one item which is neither described nor cited, and which is doubtfully even a stereotype, at least to anything like the popular degree of the other items. Finally, it is poor practice to make a large-scale deletion under the edit comment of an addition; any large-scale change to a long-standing and formally-reviewed article certainly requires discussion and consensus. I've therefore started this thread, and reverted the gallery to its status quo ante. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have great respect for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia, Chiswick Chap, but dear god (sic), that is one of the most unappetizing sets of food porn pics I've ever seen. I'm sure the food (or most of it, anyway) is delicious—I've enjoyed seaside fish and chips and a nice Cornish pasty now and then—but these pictures do not make the mouth water (and does the cream tea really need half a jar of jam?). ;-) Nevertheless, I agree there is no reason to delete these items. Regarding Beef Wellington, however, I was under the impression that although it is often referred to as a "British classic" or "traditionally English", it actually originated in the US; according to The Diner's Dictionary published by Oxford University Press the earliest known reference to it dates only to 1948. Carlstak (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for discussing. People both in England and abroad have had differing views on whether their food was good, and the article does its best to reflect that; and of course tastes have shifted enormously in the past few centuries. The most we can do is to present the history as accurately as possible in all its strange diversity. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I wasn't clear. My remarks about the pictures weren't about the savoriness or edibility of the food itself (despite my jokes), but about the presentation of the items in those particular photos, such as that of the bangers and mash. I've seen the same dishes presented in pictures that were much more inviting and depicted the food in a more flattering manner. Carlstak (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. I must admit I find them clear and effective as illustrations, as have a large number of readers over the years. I'm not sure that a vague sense of offended editorial aesthetics is a good reason to replace an image --- normal reasons would be low resolution, poor focus, or failure to show key details clearly, none of which seem to be at issue here, but if you have a specific image and a potential replacement in mind, we can consider it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It was just a passing comment tossed off in a joking way, although I would stand by the critique of the photos. My remarks were more about agreeing there is no reason to delete the long-standing items in the gallery that were removed by the other editor, and then restored by you, and a note that beef Wellington is actually an American dish, and therefore has no place there. I'm old enough to have had many different jobs in my life, and in one of them I was called "chef", although I've never seen myself as more than a good cook. If I ever have time (probably not) I may get around to preparing some of these dishes and taking pictures of them myself. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not good.

This page requires improvement;

It fails to represent the cuisine of England both present day (2023, not 1950) and, to be honest, has a strange retrotic throughout regarding foreign influence. Every modern cuisine has foreign influences, it doesn't mean England has no cuisine nor shouldn't have its best dishes represented here.

I think a rewrite is needed in parts. Some of it is good, and yes, we need to keep the stereotypes. But we could list good examples of English food, and comment on the quality England had for its food culture before the Industrial Revolution. And now it's improved today.

I find this quote deeply offensive. The English never had a cuisine. I don't agree with the chef, just because the English have foreign influence in its food it doesn't mean they have got no cuisine. England has a wide list of dishes that have English orgins and came from England. It's like saying Sweden has no national cuisine because meatballs from 18th century Turkey. 84.67.74.17 (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for voicing your opinions. However, the article is fully and reliably cited; and Wikipedia articles are required to present the views of scholars and critics neutrally, regardless of whether editors like or agree with their points of view. The article does not state that Cradock was correct in her opinion, nor does it give her undue weight. Her claim is directly attributed to her by name and cited, alongside multiple other viewpoints; it is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. On your other points, the article already has a section on Quality; that section lists some of the many kinds of good food, mentions the quality of restaurants, and refutes the suggestion of blandness and poor quality. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I do still feel England's cuisine should be better showcased here. Compare it to other national cuisine pages, and this one is very one sided (so much focus on foreign influence, you'd forget even about English food by the time you read that). I'm not suggesting England has no foreign influence, nor that it shouldn't be represented here. You're right about the quote, it should remain. However, why not follow it up with a counter argument? It seems very one sided and feels like an attack against English cuisine. England clearly has a large cuisine, the problem is, anyone would think it doesn't reading this page.

There's way too much images, too. I'd decrease the number of images in the history section, and perhaps make a complete new section for the revival of English food that has taken place over the past 25 years.

Many thanks and best wishes. 84.67.74.17 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "showcase". The article does not attack anything. But thanks for your suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate navboxes

An editor is repeatedly inserting duplicate navboxes into this article. The article is, per policy, fully navigable with embedded links and a substantial set of navboxes at the end of the article. There is no justification whatsoever for inserting duplicates near the top of the article: these are a) redundant b) space-hogging and c) intrusive. We are, to put it mildly, better off without this sort of useless and pointless clutter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have already said (twice), my issue with your edits is not that the navbox is duplicated, the issue is that you are repeatedly removing the side box. The side boxes are significant because they provide continuity with the Welsh, Scottish, N.Irish and British Cuisine pages. If you want to remove the duplicate that's fine with me, but removing the side box definitely requires definitive consensus.

I understand you don't like the existing layout, but imo your continued attempts to impose your preferred alternative, without consensus, amounts to vandalism. Obscurasky (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a different approach; one thing I think we can agree on is that the English 'logo' in the 'Culture of England' info box is very large. The use of 'culture boxes' on cuisine pages seems to be a near-universal adoption, so I don't think you can change much else on it. The American cuisine page follows the same duel side-box format, but its 'cuisine box' is much more compact, incorporating the lead picture within it, and using drop-downs. You might consider approaching one of the main editors of the British cuisine box, or make changes to it yourself? Obscurasky (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The English have never had a cuisine

"The English have never had a cuisine. Even Yorkshire pudding comes from Burgundy."

Yorkshire Puddings came from England. (source: [1]https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Yorkshire-Pudding/)

This page is not only deeply offensive, it's quite outdated. Other countries do not have such attack against their cuisine despite having foreign influence. It doesn't mean a nation doesn't have a cuisine due to some foods having foreign influence. If that's the case then the rest of the world has no food cuisine.

England has a rich history of cuisine and has many unique dishes. 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:B00E:CAC6:EFC3:4860 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is shown as an assertion by one writer, not a claim made by the whole article. It is a point of view about the very large number of evident influences from other countries and probably not meant to be taken literally. Ponsonby100 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's the relevant point here. The problem is that Cradock's assertion simply isn't correct. Apart from her being wrong about Yorkshire puddings, it's quite clear that, historically, the English have had a cuisine - and whether or not that came about from foreign influence is irrelevant. The article points out, for example, that the Romans introduced sausages to England, but that was two thousand years ago! It's probably overstating things to say this is an attack on English cuisine, but I would agree that incorporating this (erroneous) statement does put an unnecessarily negative slant on the article. Obscurasky (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

English wine

A section on the growing English wine sector should be added. Englandsupport4 (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Gallery

I see the Gallery has been the subject of previous discussion. Two quick points from me:

• Beef Wellington - I tend to agree with CC's earlier comment. I'm just not sure it's popular/commonly served, at least these days. I've actually seen it far more often on menus abroad than I have in the UK.
• Full English breakfast - Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the triangular item bottom centre a hash brown, rather than the piece of fried bread that it should be?

Anyways - food for thought. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

POV removal of large amount of reliably-cited content

An editor has seen fit to remove an exceptionally large amount of reliably-cited content, apparently on the grounds that it seemed to them "negative".

Firstly, Wikipedia covers topics neutrally, per WP:NPOV, covering all attitudes whether those are in favour or against any particular position. This article takes no side, has been formally reviewed on criteria which explicitly include neutrality, and is Reliably Cited to scholarly and other sources.

Secondly, it is unacceptable for editors to remove content that they personally consider "negative". Editors always have a wide range of opinions, and they are required when working on Wikipedia to put their own views aside and to report on the facts neutrally.

I have therefore restored the article to its last clean state. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, the article should staty in this state until the discussion is completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I added back my two changes - the Yorkshire Pudding quote from a chef needs a balance. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

That's fine; the exact claim and citation were actually commented out in the same paragraph, i.e. it had been considered for inclusion. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could update some of the images in the English dishes gallery, using pictures @CulinaryBrit's added in his edit here? Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Thanks for discussing. It's not impossible, but you will note that each of the current images is discussed by scholars and provided with known dates, suitably cited to reliable sources. Further, the images have been chosen to illustrate the diversity of both dishes and ingredients, and the range of dates at which these were introduced. The gallery is thus both well-informed and large enough (galleries must not be indiscriminate), so it is not obvious why we'd need either to replace any of the existing images, or to add more. In either case, we would require reliable sources. Further, to replace an image, we'd need a convincing set of arguments, here, why the new image served readers better than the old one; and to add an image, we'd need arguments both of the necessity for the additional image, as stated by scholars in the article's text, and for why the gallery would not be getting over-large (i.e. worse, and contrary to policy) through the addition. The default position is that the current gallery is properly constructed and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Maybe it's something we could work on slowly? I do think @CulinaryBrit introduced some nicer, more up to date images in the gallery. I do understand, however, we must keep the sources there and do this carefully. It wouldn't even hurt for some dishes to be replaced and new sources added with it. Smallworldsplayer 2 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Change is always possible. The idea is that the images directly support the cited text in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

English wine missing?

Welsh wine is mentioned on Welsh cuisine, but no mention of English wine here? It's the biggest market of wine in the UK and England produces more wine than the rest of the UK. Should be noted and given some attention. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:1D74:3475:623A:4662 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure that it's particularly well justified (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is against Wikipedia policy - there are always instances of people doing things which may be inappropriate), and wine is not "cuisine" but agricultural production, and so forth. I know that the French sometimes put a glass of wine in their stew, but there is certainly no tradition of such things in England. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost every cuisine page represents a section on beverages. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:5C35:104D:9E4E:D332 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Then a lot of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... if we're serious about focusing on "cuisine", then we need to ask "do these things form part of the cuisine", and only if the answer is "reliable sources say yes" should we add and cite anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)