Talk:British cuisine/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Affirmative action

Somebody put an opinion piece across very incorrectly here. The BBC claims that Chicken tikka masala is "Britain's true national dish". So the BBC's name needs to be there, there is no evidence that this is majority British opinion and it is clearly bias to present the dish as if it were. Focusing on "take-away culture" is really offensive and is patronising attempt to sell "multiculturalism".

Also Chicken tikka masala was developed in India with the British, when India was an Imperial territory of the British Empire, nothing to do with later Indian settlers in Britain. Again this seems politically motivated, and very left wing in slant. Britain's connection to such cuisine is through the Old Empire. - Arthur Wicket (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After a quick browse around the web, this is indeed a left-wing stance bias in favour of the political ideology multiculturalism, as it was purportrated by one Robin Cook a high profile politician of the New Labour-period. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/19/race.britishidentity

I mean this force feeding a highly politicised statement like that down the throats of millions of Britons and claiming their national dish is Indian take-away, throwing aside fish & chips, sunday roast which are considered by the natives as British cuisine, is a bit much. In Britain, curry houses are marketed as simply "Indian", and people go to "order an Indian" note the majority of people do not think of it as just "British". Just the same as they do when going for a "Chinese", "Mexican" or "Italian". - Arthur Wicket (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources to verify that "curry houses are marketed as simply "Indian", and people go to "order an Indian" note the majority of people do not think of it as just "British"."? The BBC and The Guardian are reliable sources; we do not write about personal opinion in articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure:

http://www.squaremeal.co.uk/restaurants/london/selection/96/Best_Indian http://www.tandoori.co.uk/ http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_extlink.png See how it says "Indian" rather than "British-Indian" so your multiculturalist Robin Cook propaganda fails? Now, can you verify that the racist anti-British sentiment of claiming some tacky take-away is the nation dish, isn't a politically charged left-wing bias statement from a left-wing politcian promoting multiculturalism? Why are you trying to stur up hatred and resentment of Indian people by attacking the native cuisine of Britain? - Arthur Wicket (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to be coming to Wikipedia with a much more neutral point of view. Please note, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Also, your sources are not reliable - they are examples of your claim, but do not back it up explicitly.
You're not going to be able to secure a change in this article with the belief that this is a race-related cover-up on my part. Editors, including myself, merely reflect source material, not personal opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for a rather belated contribution, but I do see both points of view in this. Both The Guardian and the BBC have had accusations of left wing bias levelled against them...on the pages of Wikipedia included; Criticism of the BBC & Talk:The Guardian. I fail to see how this is race related and that it will "stur up hatred and resentment of Indian people by attacking the native cuisine of Britain" is laughable, but there is a leftist multicultural agenda behind these 2 particular sources pushing Chicken tikka masala as the 'favourite dish of the UK'.
The popular belief is that it is a purely British dish may well be true...see the Origins section on the Chicken tikka masala page, but just how popular it actually is can't be proved. --Panzer71 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with a statement doesn't mean it is representative of bias, and I've got to be honest, who is a more reliable source- a large national media organisation or you and your mate Terry down the pub?

Don't use wikipedia to spout your insane ramblings about a "leftist conspiracy" unless you have a verifiable source; you can do that on the Daily Mail website. 92.16.42.207 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is nuts. It's not a political issue, it's really quite straightforward. When the British media picked up on the apparent fact that "Indian" food had become the most popular takeaway food in the country it took the oppportunity for some sensationalist journalism and for a while there was a bit of a debate on whether or not the most popular "Indian" dish should be made the national dish (not that Britain has an official national dish) all very nice attention grabbing headline making stuff but not encyclopaedic on the subject of British cuisine. What is encyclopaedic is the fact that Chicken Tikka masala was actually invented by an Indian immigrant in a curry house in Glasgow, and is therefore British-Inidan cuisine. This is the fact that should be mentioned here, not that the British media like to write about it... If anything that should be a journalism article. Furthermore, if any curry dish deverves a mention in the first paragraph of this article it is Coronation Chicken - the original, notable, Anglo-Indian dish with unquestionably Imperial roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.170.197 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

'Puritan' food

Interesting as it certainly is, I'm not sure the cite provided really goes to show that the arrival of Protestantism/Puritanism had a strong influence on food, for a couple of reasons:

(a) It states "Cromwell's tastes were those of a gentleman farmer of the Fens - plain, but robust" - implying that such tastes were already common at least among certain strata of society, before the Puritans came to power.

(b) It's really just about his personal tastes - it doesn't delve into the issue of whether the Puritans influenced the broader population's tastes.

I'll see what I can find in Dorothy Hartley etc., but it does need a better cite, or rephrasing, I think. Barnabypage (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of implicit common knowledge in Anglo-American-German-Scandinavian culture - I'm trying to find a better explicit reference - but take a look at the implicit references on on [[2]]82.35.115.3 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to above see Babette's Feast which plays specifically on this dichotomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.3 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Unambiguous reference : [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.3 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to be wary of assuming that the opinions on food which would - I agree - very likely have been held by Protestant or Puritan thinkers would have filtered down to affect the common diet. Remember that a lot of the more extreme positions of the Henrician Reformation were quickly undone by Mary and Elizabeth; that a lot of the principles of the Reformation weren't always translated into action "on the ground" in individual parishes; and that the Puritan Cromwell wasn't in power very long - to be replaced by a notably hedonistic monarch. But it's a very interesting subject and I shall look forward to seeing what other sources we can both come up with. Barnabypage (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to come up with a lot on this, but Mennell: All Manners of Food. Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present is interesting (the gist of his argument is that the opposition was to gluttony rather than specific forms of cooking). It's on Google Books - the relevant bit is around p104-105. Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The puritan ethic originated in the Elizabethan period (See Arthur Dent (Puritan) and a further American reference [[3]] on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.3 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[1]]

Anglo-Pakistani cuisine

In the British cuisine linkbox this goes straight to Balti (food). Are these really synonyms describing the same thing?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Piste Orfe

I am, well, let's say, um - surprised - at this article.

We, the "British" (and for f*ck's sake, why is this linked to "English food"; England <= Britain) have many foods which have originated in 'England': - Cornish Pastie; -Yorkshire thingy; - Something else.

Well, I'm off to have some proper Cheddar cheese (Extra mature. You have no idea what you are missing.)

=Ivor Dudeneay

British cuisine is from Britain, by definition, not the United Kingdom

Nuff said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.29.128 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it would be more accurately that from the British Isles. 86.169.253.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
While I realise that I may be biased (being from NI), I discovered something browsing WP earlier today: unlike Great Britain (an island), "Britain" is apparently a shortened form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (according to a reference to the UK govt in 1975). On a tangential point, it also justifies the "Best in Britain" signs that have appeared around Bangor, County Down, of which I was a little skeptical. Well, partially justifies ;p Of course, like many other terms relating to NI this one has it's own controversies, but toponymy never ceases to amaze. Anyhow, disregard this point if needs be, but I thought it may provide a curio for others too.
Actually, I should point out that, in any case, Northern Ireland cuisine is not substantially different from that of the Irish down South or Scottish Lowlands, in my experience, (aside from maybe the Belfast Bap, a shared claim on the Ulster Fry and Paul Rankin who was, in fact, born in Scotland).Philtweir (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, while I'm here, I might just add a line to the NI section. If anybody feels strongly that NI shouldn't be included here (including this section's instigator), you're welcome to go ahead and remove from my perspective - I won't lose any sleep over it :) Philtweir (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornish cuisine

It's just a minor adjustment but I put Cornish cuisine next to Welsh rather than English as traditional Cornish cuisine and culture are much more similar to Welsh than English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.92.224 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First section/intro/whatever you call it

The first bit of this article, while basically factual, reads terribly. Firstly it seems to be written from a very North American perspective in terms of the myths it proports to debunk, or the stereotypes it remarks on. Shouldn't these be left until later on, once these concepts are introduced? Do you define a culinary culture by how well - or not - it fits one part of the world's traditional view of it? If I compare this article to those written about German cuisine, Czech cuisine, Argentinian cuisine, etc. it becomes strikingly apparant that this article is written for a different audience, one with preconceptions. Facts appear to be chosen more for their curiosity value, or their connection with said preconceptions than with any intention of being encyclopaedic. This reads like a section from an American cookbook on world cuisine.

I've replaced Cheshire cheese with Cornish pasties as an example of regional food. Cheese per se isn't regional and it is typical to name cheeses according to their point of origin - Cheddar, Cheshire, Lancashire, etc, so naming Cheshire here doesn't illustrate the point. Madgenberyl (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)



I totally agree with you!! CHH

Chicken tikka masala

OK, it's true that the BBC website says that Robin Cook called chicken tikka masala "Britain's true national dish". But the Guardian's transcript of his speech shows that he actually said that it is "a true British national dish". This is not one and the same, since the first seems to imply that chicken tikka masala is the single most typical British national dish rather than one of many. Shouldn't this be amended?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Marmite.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marmite.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marmite.jpg and it was not deleted in the end.--mcld (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Modern British Cuisine" section

The "Modern British Cuisine" section could do with some grounding in reality. I accept that it might be a real thing, but the current description sounds almost meaningless with statements such as "It uses high-quality local ingredients" which sound aspirational rather than factual. And is the section talking about the celebrity chefs mentioned, or British home cooking, or British restaurant food...? --mcld (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is bad

Virtually unreadable. Wow, this is a poorly written article. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Further reading is useful to many readers

Reading category is standard in many thousands of Wikipedia historical article. And you are especially useful for people – especially secondary in university students – required to write papers on these topics. They won't get a good grade if they limit themselves to the short Wikipedia article – they need access to a wide range of suitable sources. People not interested can skip it easily enough. The guideline is An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. MOS:FURTHER Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no acceptable purpose to adding such materials here. There might be a good reason to cite the text better, which would not be difficult; and there could be good reason to provide a history of writings on the subject, with bluelinks to the best textbooks and some historiography. A naked "further reading" section of indeterminate and ever-increasing length achieves neither of these worthy goals. Reference to other articles (otherstuffexists) is an inapplicable argument, as other articles too may be cluttered with useless materials. Supposed usefulness (itsuseful) is another very well-worn inapplicable argument: Wikipedia is not a revision guide (we have Wikiversity for the academic side) and cannot attempt to be a catalogue (notcat), another nonstarter of an argument. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
. You are too caught up with science articles. this is history and it's well established Wiki practice there. we don't want to help students write papers -- which they cannot do from the short text of this article without help. Rjensen (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Please don't make personal remarks. However, this is nothing to do with being scientific: all three of the policies I have mentioned are quite general in their application.
Further, you are still arguing about wanting to "help students". If that were our goal, which I rather misdoubt (as they say in Scotland), then we would need to provide them with a historiography or at least a history section, cited to the best books and papers to steer them through the literature. A fragmentary and very partial list, which by its nature comes with no reliably-sourced guidance on which texts are useful for what and when, is of precisely no help to the student who doesn't know where to begin on a topic. After all, if you extend the list now, nothing is to stop Tom, Dick, and Harry extending the list tomorrow with all manner of partial texts offering a wholly unbalanced view of the subject. No, the way we help students (if at all) is by writing a decent article (to GA standard or better), covering the subject with reliably-cited text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Stargazy pie

But... where is the Stargazy pie everyone loves to make a fun of? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

... well, this isn't a list, and a top-level overview article should not attempt to say everything. Further, the article's inclusion criterion probably should not be that some editors find the item amusing; the goal of a top-level article is to give an accurate overview, with a small sample of items from the overall cuisine described (and even fewer illustrated) to give an idea of the history, geography, and variety of the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:British_cuisine/Archive_1"