Talk:English cuisine/Archive 1

Formal Dining

Where is all the information on Silver Service, and foods of the more formal types. Traditional menu courses such as soup, fish, main course, dessert. etc. Also which foods go with which desserts, drinks and the like. What does fusion food have to do with real English cuisine. Just because it is sold or eaten in England does not necessarily make it English cuisine. I have read the comments below, and sadly they are rather limited in their knowledge and understanding, as there is nothing better than a Roast on Sunday, be it Pork with crackling, Chicken with Lemon and herb, Beef with horseradish sauce and Yorkshire pudding, Lamb with mint, Duck with Plum, Goose with Apricots, Pheasant, Pot roasts, and such. To many peasants with computers these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.93.21 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dickens' goose

,Just a quick note about the following sentence: "Since its wide-spread availability after World War II the most popular Christmas roast is turkey, superseding the goose of Dickens's time". It's generally true to say this, but we should be careful about presuming the definitive post-war appearance of the turkey in Britain. Although in the 1951 'Scrooge' movie it is a goose that provides the seasonal meat, in the original Dickens book he actually buys a turkey, so, it has obviously been a part of British cuisine longer than is often thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpip (talk • contribs) 08:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

CUISINE?

How could the author(s) of this article possibly use the word CUISINE to describe the junk we eat in the UK?? British Cuisine is simply a non existent phenomenon, as except from some back-in-the-country stews and pies it completely consists of dishes copied from other cuisines, REAL cuisines, mainly from Asia and Continental Europe. The fact that London might have its share of good restaurants does not make the entire UK a paradise of delicacies. First of all, the quality of our (very pricey) fresh produce is sadly inferior to what the Spaniards, Italians and Greeks consider FRESH food. Second of all, I'll have to admit that this is also about personal tastes. As most British people do not even have any knowledge of what food is actually about, they usually like "elaborate dishes" with exotic names and a ridiculous amount of spices they wouldn't even recognize separately. In Mediterranean Europe, one of the culinary walhallas of the globe, people DO know what food is about, it's about pure tastes, the essence of a dish should come from its main high quality ingredients. (Fresh high quality ingredients are not available in the UK for which its cuisine will always be inferior to that of Spain, Italy or Southern France). That said, you might say: "in Rimini or Salou (where you get to see a glimpse of Britain's high society) my paella tasted gross or "their fried calamari are so gooey". Now THAT shows the ignorance and complete lack of taste we British people have concerning food. Whatever Chirac might did or did not say, British/English/Welsh/Scottish cuisine should not be compared to any other cuisine, as it simply does not exist. - Annette

Let me try to counter these arguments. Firstly, let me say that I do agree on the point raised concerning such countries as Italy, Greece, Spain etc, generally having a greater awareness of what constitutes good food than a country such as England, for example. There is no escaping the fact that good food is much a stronger part of certain countries' cultures than others. No, you can't compare a Denmark, Cambodia or Uganda with a France, Thailand or Morocco. It would be unreasonable however, to claim that any country is completely devoid of its own culinary gems. Maybe they are harder to find in some countries than others, but that's not to say they don't exist. All this said, I would hesitate to put the UK at the bottom of the pile. This is the country that invented steak Tartare, jugged hare, Arbroath smokies, beef Wellington, steak and oyster pie and Chicken Tikka Massala. Yes, I did intend to include the latter. Yes, it was heavily influenced by foreign cuisine, namely Indian, but it is ours and it is delicious when made by an adept chef. Anyway, what's wrong with imitating the food of foreign cultures. Most of the sauces used in French cusine were heavily influenced by the Italians. Thai food owes a lot of its flavours to neighbouring regions. It's the sign of a healthy and active culinary culture that will adapt and experiment like that.

To sum up, I disagree that British cuisine 'simply does not exist'. I do agree that ignorance is a key issue. Yes, there are many people who don't care about educating themselves, in any respect, not only as concerns food. There are also those who choose not to believe things exist, 'simply' because it hasn't fallen into their laps and they haven't made the effort to look for it. By the way Annette, talking of fresh produce, you should try going to some of the game shops in Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Cumbria and the North-East. I've yet to find their equal anywhere in the world.Bkpip 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for saying that but I prefere sausages and pies to pizzas and pastas... I've been traveling to many countries, but pork, onions, potatoes - my best choice! Anyway - in case a cuisine is quite a distinguishing matter you should differ English cuisine and German cuisine (IMHO German is the most closest to English). /////////// Sargon II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.231.99 (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridden with POV

This article is full of clearly POV comments, with no sources e.g. tea is less commonly consumed in Britain - this I find highly unlikely given that people of all classes have been drinking tea for at least most of the 20th century, the range of teas is ever expanding with green teas (accounts for 2% of all tea drank) and I recall a recent statistic that over 100 million cups of tea are drank in Britain a day! Hardly in decline. "less ubiquitous than it was" If anything its omnipresent today. Angryafghan 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much POV in the article (and also inaccurate use of 'British' to mean 'English'). It does need a major overhaul. Let's do it... Barnabypage 04:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV starts with the title - I've eaten there and "English cuisine" is perhaps the best example of a contridiction in terms. Most of their food is barely edible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kidney Dish?

Someone has redirected kidney dish here. I'm not sure what a kidney dish has to do with 'British cuisine', but I sure wouldn't eat my roast beef out of one.

Yuk, sounds offal. I've replaced the redirect with a proper stub. --Heron 13:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Defence of British cuisine

People say british cuisine is awful like the french and as it has been proven out of the top 10 restaurants in the WORLD 4 of these are within Britain compared to 1 in france so work that out with your "fine" cuisine.

- Proven by whom? Whilst it is dubious to be reliant on certain lists in the first place, perhaps the most poignant point of note is that British cuisine rarely dominates, or dare I say rarely exists at all in the most acclaimed restaurants. I don't think the article has suggested British cuisine is awful, but simply gone to lengths to explain why it has this reputation. But if we are being honest, it is unrefined and lacks the richness of French, Italian, Spanish, Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Curry is not a British cuisine.

Therein lies an important distinction -people can eat fantastically well in London, but chances are they are not eating a native British dish.

Lest we forget the mad cows...

British cuisine is fantastic! I condemn this article for it's stereotypicism. The food traditionally found in the UK is both inventive and hearty REAL food. The cornish pasty, haggis, welsh rarebit, shepherd's pie and lancashire hot pot, to mention a few. These meals are delicious and i resent the view that it's bad just because other nations don't appreciate it. The food is designed to cater for a strong and powerful race of people for whom sustaining on a flimsy salad whilst slacking off and doing no work all day (see continental europe) is not desirable. Perhaps this is why they have a stagnant economy in the eurozone. I mean has anyone enjoyed the 'continental breakfast'? It's normally a piece of dry bread and a cup of coffee.... Ha. The English breakfast is a meal for a man.

Can I just say something about Scottish cuisine. We have the best Salmon that you would ever taste. I have pulled a salmon from the river and cooked it the same day and it is exquisite. Venison is also one of my favourites and I like to cook it slowly with lots of red wine and herbs. Why are people so suspicious of haggis? My son is married to an English lass and I made haggis neeps n tatties and she loved it then my son told her what was in haggis and now she wont touch it....strange eh?Put your text for the new page here. This article has some elements of truth but is also misleading. Britain has a rich heritage of traditional dishes many of which fell into disuse during the 19th.century. In recent years there has been a rediscovery of these traditions which have been committed to text by many informed food writers. Reference Marmite, a yeast extract, it is not a main food but is an aquired taste. It is rich in B vitamins and is 100% vegetarian.

Britain also has a very long tradition of 'take away' food dating from the times when people started to live in more crowded conditions without adequate cooking facilities. There are many reasons why British food became the butt of jokes, many dating from the time of war time shortages when rationing forced some very strange substitutions. Since that time British cuisine has absorbed a range of foreign dishes and brought to the forefront many traditional dishes.

Although there is an element of truth in your article it tends to give voice to uneducated views and stereotypical ideas of British food and cuisine. Britain has a diverse cuisine that has always embraced influences from far and wide, to bring it back to fish and chips or marmite is not only insulting it is far from true. Take for example renowned French chefs such as Albert Roux who is a great supporter of British produce and cuisine. So much so that he opened the first British restaurant in France to great acclaim.

I agree with one of the above about the english breakfast: 5 suasages, a whole packet of bacon, 3 slices of toast, coffee, tea, tomatoes (cooked or raw) beans, salad and pancakes on the side is obviously designed to keep you fueled for the much hard physical and

mental work we have to do, eg: plumbing, building, chopping wood, harvesting and maths, forensic, biological, chemical and medical sciences, lots of ICT and progamming, english and languages (Italian, greek, spanish, portugese, mandarin and japanese among the favourites)

so dont go and give our tasty and healthy food negative referals. (not just wikipedia but YOU too)

There is no such thing as "British Cuisine" as the Welsh and the Scottish eat totally different foods , Haggis being a perfect example. sadly most the comments regarding English or British foods here are written by people who only eat in pubs and take outs on their dole money, so have no broader vision of English cuisines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.93.21 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Time periods

Maybe it would be better if this article was split up into time periods. For example, I believe that we should have a section for ancient British food like bread cheese and meats, a section for changes in diet during the industrial revolution. A section for food imported through the British empire, and a section about Britains current mutli-cultural nature.

--perfectblue 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)perfectblue97

Fabulous idea! after all, almost no-one eats all that cornish pastie and stuff anymore.

Traditional British dishes

Where is fish and chips, curry, spotted dick, toad in the hole, mushy peas, Puddings of any sort? Any Britons around to expand this article?

I am unclear as to whether the article is meant to be about English food or British food: Cranachan in listed, yet that is Scottish. The heading suggests otherwise as it says English food. Therefore I recommend you remove the Cranachan from the food English section (you could put that in the British dishes section if it is not there already). Mushy peas should be here, and the pie and mash should be pie and mash with liquor. 62.3.100.54 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Old joke

Q What is paradise ?

A A place with German organization, British humor and French cuisine.

Q What is hell ?

A A place with French organization, German humor and British cuisine.

Ericd

Purgatory is obviously somewhere in the Low Countries. Mintguy

I think that must be Belgium, it seems to lack all three 7

Was that you, Jacques Chirac?

The opening paragraph has an extremely POV flavour. Some mention of international opinion might be justifiable somewhere in the article but not as the intro. I agree completely with Apathetics comments above. --Tatty 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I suggest that cuisine is the wrong word to use in this article, and that "British food" would be more authentic (with references to "British cooking" where cooking is involved). As the sage Rab C. Nesbitt observed, "Cu-zeen? If the Lord had intended men to know about cu-zeen, he wouldn't ha' gi'en us Crispy Pancakes." -- Heron

Restaurants

"The best London restaurants rival those anywhere in the world, in both quality and price and this influence is starting to be felt in the rest of the country."

This has to be a bad joke, surely? Eating out in the UK (for a comparable price to that in say, France, Spain or other European countries) has got to be one of the most appalling experiences anyone can have. I do not dispute the quality issue at the (very) high end of the range, but the price aspect is totally incorrect. In France or Switzerland, where I live, you can find good, well prepared food for less than GBP 10 for a 2 or 3 course meal with no difficulty. In UK it is not only virtually impossible to find equivalent food (except for much higher prices), but even when the higher price is paid the cuisine is often sadly inferior in quality. This may not be the case when comparing very expensive places (I wouldn't know), but in terms of everyday places, which is where most people go, there is absolutely no comparison. The UK still has much to catch up on in this area. User:Geoff97

Well the two worst meals I had recently were in France. One in Dijon and one in Cahor. I think it's a question of knowing where to go. We have a couple of excellent gastropubs near where I live and an exceptionally fine (rave reviews in the The Guardian and The Times) and not overly expensive restuarant. Even my local which is very much a traditional boozer serves excellent food. Mintguy

I guess we're into subjectivity here. I certainly don't rate rave reviews from either the Times or Grauniad as being a reference. As a Brit, I'm just quoting my own experience of long term restauraunt eating over 35 years in many countries. I cannot, of course comment upon your local boozer, as I probably don't know it. Of course, there are also bad places outside the UK. However, my point remains that the general quality of food and value for money in the UK is vastly worse than that available in continental Europe. User:Geoff97

That may well have been true in the past and for sure the availability of, and popular awerrness of good quality food in Britain is nothing like it is on the continent. But its just as easy to get ripped off abroad as it is in the UK. When we were in Dijon we made the mistake of relying on the local guide to restaurants rather than finding restaurant reviews before we arrived and hoping for a good meal to mark the end of our holiday we instead ended up paying over $60 euros a head for an average meal. Mintguy 02:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC), p.s. please sign your posts by putting four ~s like so ~~~~ Mintguy

The anonymous commentator above ("This has to be a bad joke...") was clearly either very unlucky, hasn't visited the UK for more than 20 years, or else hadn't got a clue how to find good food. Has he not heard of pubs? While quality varies and it can be hit and miss, there is superb food to be had in the vast majority of pubs for sensible prices. Such pubs are not hard to find. Even some of the chains are pretty good - Chef and Brewer for example. I have had pretty bad food in France, it has to be said, though in general not too many bad experiences. Usually the food is great, but often the service is lacking, especially once they know you're English. The very worst value for money meal I ever had was in Calais - I was charged 50FF (this was before Euros) for a single, small plain omelette, served with extreme bad grace as I just caught them on the dot of last food orders, and this was the only thing they were willing to serve me. I'd have complained severely but for the fact I was utterly starving. I've also had bad experiences in Italy - not with food quality, but with being ripped off for relatively small meals. The price of a sandwich in one cafe was inflated 1000% when ordered in English... My golden rule for eating abroad is - never eat at a place where the menu consists of photographs ;-) GRAHAMUK 06:57, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I should perhaps have pointed out that the local (parochial) restaurant with the rave review from the Gruaniad also gets a rave review from me. Also I'd almost erased from my memory another bad food experience in France (in Beaune actually), where we made the mistake of going into a bar for lunch and ordering two croque monsieurs. I was absolutely horrified to see the barman fish two plastic wrapped frozen slabs out of the freezer and bung them in the microwave. And Graham yes, guess what. The menu had pictures on it. Mintguy 10:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

LOL - told ya so! Actually very often the Grauniad reviews restaurants that are not particularly expensive, elitist or limited only to the central London area. They are a liberal-left paper after all, so one hopes they have the interests of the majority of us at heart. They once reviewed the cafe across the road from where I lived in Earlsdon, Coventry, and yes, they pretty much got it right. They even reviewed an Indian in a nearby district of Cov, and once again fingered the best one around in an area that is saturated with them. For me this lends credibility to their reviews for places I've never heard of. However, you can't beat the Good Food/Good Pub Guide published annually for unerringly managing to find great places. Maybe this is because half the book is written by voluntary contributors who actually know the places they review well. It's the wikipedia of food guides. GRAHAMUK 02:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since when did a country's restaurants become the measure of its cuisine? Surely domestic and traditional family cookery is a far more authentic cultural indicator. Adambisset 23:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The one place that Britain excells in is Vegetarian food. I've been to France a few times and getting the people there to even understand that vegetarians exist is hard enough: Let alone cook for them. Even after spending at least 10 minutes explaining that I didn't eat any animal products to one frech waiter, he still brought me a big fish. In Britain, we are incredibly well-catered-for. Celestianpower 19:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

I'm moving this back to British cuisine, because British cuisine exists outside of the state of the UK. Mintguy

The wiki link to Bangers and mash in section "Examples of British Cuisine" shows up as an edit link even though an article exists. That is, "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bangers_and_mash&action=edit" instead of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangers_and_mash". When I insert a wiki link to [[Bangers and mash]] on my user page, it links to the article correctly. Maybe there is a glitch regarding en.wikipedia.org and en2.wikipedia.org? I suspect a small change to the article will tickle the DB enough to fix the problem. If not, I'll post something to the Village pump. Ryanrs 07:16, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I changed the "Bangers and mash" link to "Astronomy" and saved. Then I changed it back and saved. This appears to have corrected the problem. Wierd. Ryanrs 07:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Once thought to be an oxymoron by the culinary minded" really doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems to hinge on some sense of 'cuisine' that could be denied, but what could that sense be? I'm not fixing it because I have nothing in mind to fill the gap. isn't the title of the article, oxymoronic, geeze?

Needs a rewrite

This article is pretty rubbish actually. I've rewrittne the first para, but it needs a complete overhaul. Jooler 15:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I might rewrite the history soon, once I have read Spencer on British food which I picked up the other day. Also have traditional foods of Britain which is useful. I might spin out the history into a seperate article though. Justinc 16:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move

Okay, I hope someone is watching this page. I propose to move this to Cuisine of the United Kingdom, its proper name. The adjective form (British) shouldn't come first, and the convention is almost always to have it this way. Objections? --Dmcdevit 01:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well yes I object.

• it has already been there and been moved back. That was before my time though, but I think you should take notice of this.
• In Category:Cuisine every single article is French cuisine etc, ie adjective first. Clearly UK isnt an adjective.
• Northern Ireland (ie the only part of the UK not in Britain) shares its cuisine with Ireland not with the rest of Britain, and shouldnt be lumped together with Britain for political reasons. Even the EU thinks this - see the note on Category:British_Protected_designation_of_origin. Thats why many categories and articles with British in the title exist (there are probably a few errors, but this isnt one of them).

Justinc 18:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, then Cuisine of Great Britain, whatever you prefer, that political thing wasn't what I was getting at, its just the adjective vs. noun naming convention. And you are clearly wron about the common adjective-first construction. Go to Category:Cuisine again, but this time scroll down to the articles and not subcategories. Almost all of the articles except for a few outliers like this one are "Cuisine of X". I don't know why the subcatagories are like that, but I suppose since those are not for searchability it's better that way. Perhaps you don't know the reason why almost all articles are "Noun of Country" as in "History of X", "Culture of X", etc. It is this: The reason we always put the noun form first is to avoid irregular consructions. So, let's say I want Cote d'Ivoire's cuisine, would I know how to construct Ivorian? Or Congo --> Congolese, or Equatorial Guinea --> Equatoguineans, or Kiribati --> Gilbertese, or Myanmar --> Burmese, you get the idea. Putting Cuisine of X allows someone with minimal knowledge to search and find the article. While British is a common construction, it should be moved for consistency's sake. --Dmcdevit 19:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the Category names must not differ. You cannot move the articles without moving the categories, as the category guidelines say that the article and category names should correspond in these cases. Justinc 23:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no reasons whatsoever to move this article. British Cuisine describes a style of food that originates, but is not limited to Britain. Great Britain is a geopgraphical entity, that does not include Northern Ireland or the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. british cuisine can be found in these places and elsewhere in the world. British cuisine describes this far more succinctly than any of your proposed alternatives. This probably also true of the counter examples you say are inside the cuisine catergory. They should probably also be moved. Jooler 23:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You're not understanding me. I don't care about Ireland or Isle of Man, or all that stuff, it's purely a naming convention about the adjective placement that I'm talking about. Whatever it is that Britain encompasses, this should be at "Cuisine of ''whaever it is you think Britain encompassses''". That's why I suggested Cuisine of Great Britain as an alternative. Again, I'm purely concerned about the adjective placement. (Also, you know, British culture is a redirect to Culture of the United Kingdom) --Dmcdevit 23:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• What is wrong with adjectives? They are the normal grammatical way of describing something. It is more concise and more precise which are both important. Will continue this on User_talk:Dmcdevit. Justinc 23:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I happen to like adjectives. It's just that on WP, they aren't the normal grammatical way of describing things. Go to any country article, for sake of this dicussion let's say Japan. There, you'll see history of Japan, economy of Japan, military history of Japan, culture of Japan, politics of Japan, geography, demographics, religion, etc., I could go on, all of Japan. Even Cuisine of Japan. It's WP policy because of the possiblity of irregular adjective constructions in English. It's just for ease and consistency, this page should be no different. After all, what if I do want Kiribati's cuisine? I could find it easily at "Cuisine of Kiribati", but have almost no chance of finding it at "Gilbertese cuisine" if I don't know the irregular construction. In fact, British is an irregular construction too, it's just more well known. --Dmcdevit 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I see Japanese bondage Japanese imperial regalia Japanese ship naming conventions Japanese toilet Japanese writing system. I also see that almost all Categories are the other way in all sections, and as category and article names are supposed to be the same I think there is in fact not a consensus. at all. In fact, looking at Japan, I think the diversity is often correct: Emperor of Japan not Japanese Emperor is correct, but Category:Japanese stubs not Category:Stubs relating to Japan; I think Category:Military of Japan sounds clumsy, noone uses Military like that; but I dont see what else you could call Japanese bondage: Bondage in Japan is just wrong; Japanese imperial regalia is clearly correct, as I think is Geography of Japan as it refers to the country specifically. So stop going for a fake uniformity globally, just make each type of thing uniform in the way that makes most sense. Justinc 00:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • What you cited are not standard subarticles, they are specific to Japan, and as such would be searched for that way. What a totally strawman argument. You blatantly ignore the fact that history, culture, religion, demographcs, etc. the standard subarticles always appear the same, as this cuisine article should. What you are arguing against is WP common practice, because you are also ignoring that almost all of even the cuisine articles are phrased this way. If you disagree with WP standards, bring that up on the Village Pump policy page, rather than trying to make up your own policy here. --Dmcdevit 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I dont believe it is common practise, because the categories and article names do not correspond, which is against policy. Point me at a discussion that suggests that it is if you like. Actually I believe it is some fallout of the problem with American X vs X of the United States which bothers people a lot on occasion. But it is still wrong. You could write an article Cuisine in the United Kingdom or Cuisine in Great Britain but it would not be about the same as British cuisine, it would be about what the people who live in the UK eat, rather than about the history of the relations between cultural identity and food. And your argument about standard and nonstandard articles is strawman too, these just happen to be common ones at the moment, but they should not enforce incorrect standardisation. Look at Category:Gardens in Japan, this correctly has Japanese gardens as its (currently only) head article, as most notable gardens in Japan are in the Japanese style. The adjective vs noun style is culture vs place. Let it be as it needs to be for the cases in question. History and geography are usually correctly organised by country, cuisine and art by culture, let Food & drink in Birmingham (of a place) live with Basque cuisine (of a culture) Justinc 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Also changing it to Cuisine of Great Britain doesnt help - this is still a geographical not a cultural reference, in a way that the adjective isnt in normal usage. Justinc 00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Um. Is there anything in this article that applies to British food outside of Britain? --Dmcdevit 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There is hardly anything of any worth in any of the main cuisine articles (havent read all the minor ones yet) alas. Look at Italian cuisine to see exactly how badly a major subject is treated - clearly it should mention the role of Italian cuisine in America for example; however it is more of a priority for it to even have a sentence in it and talk about Italian food in Italy. I am currently preparing to write a proper article on British cuisine which is why it happened to be on my watchlist. I hadnt realised how bad this section was. Justinc 01:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (btw I like how you cloaked Cuisine of Italy by calling it Italian cuisine)
      • Okay, I agree that there should be articles for the geographic area and people. So, there is, I hope, an easy fix. We move this geographic only article to Cuisine of the United Kingdom (or whatever cuisine first one you want) and then you can write your article about the people here. After all, it appears you agree that the geographic articles should be at for instance, "Cuisine of Japan, and it appears you agree that this article in its current state is only geographic. Can't we resolve this by just moving the curent geographic content without prejudice to creating a people article here? --Dmcdevit 01:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
        • How about you leave the moves on cuisine for a bit and I write a proper article (ie featured article type quality) on British cuisine and then we have a look at what the whole area should look like. Until I write it I am not quite sure what its going to look like anyway (in particular how history and current usage will vary, whether history should be split). I was going to write it off my user page anyway, as I was going to replace the entire article. Offline for a few hours now. Justinc 01:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If the adjectival form is not standard for cuisine articles, then it should be. If I go to an Italian restaurant, I expecct to eat Italian cuisine. Cuisine of Italy is a completetly unnatural formation. I will move the article. Jooler 09:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing. Indian cuisine. If I go into a curry house on Brick Lane, I will be eating Indian cuisine (or probably more specifically Bengali). But many of the dishes on the menu (like Chicken Tikka Masala) are not "of India" they have been created by the cultural influence of people from the Indian sub-continent. This is why limiting the cuisine articles to a geo-political state is wrong. Food is about cultural tradition, not a political or geopgraphical one. Jooler 09:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry I was gone for a day, or I would have spoken up sooner, and I'll not be on for a while again, such schoolwork!) Okay, I'll admit, at the start of this debate, I had no idea that there was this much opposition to the idea, as it struck me as just a semantical thing. But I'm sufficiently satisfied with the amount of disagreement that I don't think anyone should be moving cuisine articles to either naming style. And Jooler, I do not think it was very noble of you to move those major cuisine articles without any discussion, like I offered here before moving. What should happen at this point, I think, is it should be brought up on primarily the Village Pump's policy page to get lots of opinion from more than just us three in this isolated discussion. Also, if there's a cuisine Wikiproject, Portal, of noticeboard, the experts there should be addressed. Again, none of us should be moving at this point until the proper name is clarified by Wikipedia as a whole. --Dmcdevit 04:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Stella Artois a good example of a continental lager?

I thought the Stella available in British pubs was mostly British-made. It's noticeably different from the Stella available in France. Perhaps the Czech Budvar would be a better example? Barnabypage 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does a continental lager need to be continental (sorry to get a bit philosophical there!). Stellar seems a good example as its an almost ubiquotious feature of the pub scence in the UK (IMHO; this comes after a night on Stellar as it was the only continental lager on tap). --Neo 22:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Have amended the para to reflect the distinction - but like the rest of the article it could probably still do with a good working-over! Barnabypage 13:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

vandalism unnoticed

In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_cuisine&diff=next&oldid=26365179 a good chunk of the intro was cut out. It was not noticed and the dlanglin end para at the beginning was removed, leaving a poor intro. I have restored it to something like it was before the damage. Jooler 16:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there is no such thing as British cuisine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.93.21 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

White people food is usually bland

Sorry but after trying Jamaican, African, Indian, Chinese, Thai and several South American dishes I feel it must be said. This article alone states that British food is hard to find because it's so bland and limited. If you've tried spicy exotic rottie and curry you'll know what I mean. Both the US and England in modern times have influences from many other areas of the world which is nice but hamburgers and French fries, beef in a can is hardly actual food.

Another thing is that North Americans and Europeans hardly eat rice, yet rice is huge in Asiatic areas and Caribbean and South America (ie. Columbia, Venezuela).--King of the Dancehall 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure of the point of the above post. What does the colour of one's skin has to do with anything? Food in a country is historically influenced by the local climate and soil conditions. Historically, exotic spices were not able be grown in Europe (places like Kew Gardens helped developed European hardy varieties), they had to be imported from afar, that made them very expensive and the preserve of the rich. Homegrown European spices like Horseradish, Mustard and herbs like parsley thyme, sage and mint have always been used to add flavour to food. You talk of bland food and then you talk of rice (the cultivation of which incidentally is again a matter of climate), which unadulterated, is one of the blandest foods I can think of! On the other hand I take it you've never eaten rice pudding or kedgeree. Jooler 19:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of rice is eaten in the West. It isn't the main staple food (and why should we prefer it to the alternatives?) but we still get through a lot of it. Choalbaton 05:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how all "white people food" is bland. In terms of spice, possibly, but European food is far from limited. Look at Italian, French and Spanish cuisine, for example. Hell, even Chicken Tikka Masala is an English dish, technically. --El Zilcho 14:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jooler, [migration]] and imperialism is a major factor in the development of cuisine. E.g. during slavery days much of the food consumed on the plantations was fish brought from North America. This explains the starvation of many slaves during the American War of Independence. Likewise, Bananas are a common food in Britain (I just had one on my muesli for breakfast) yet they do not grow in Britain. As for the example kedgeree, well it has an Indian origin. I think much of the mateial here is misplaced and should be in the British cuisine page where the culinary interactions of the peoples of the former British Empire could be properly discussed.Harrypotter 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And a lot of these non-English cuisines can have the word 'samey' substituted for bland. Spicy is spicy is spicy. None of these 'spicy' cuisines comes close to French cuisine in terms of the range of dishes available. So to look at it another way, they are 'bland' from the point of view of being 'all the same' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.215.119 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

POV

Look chaps, the first para of this article is POV beyond belief Apathetic 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, only I'd say that about all three paras before the TOC. The article should start with a description of what BC actually is, before getting judgemental about the subject. I've just had a go at a proper objective intro, but I admit that it's only off the top of my head and could be better. --Heron 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not much wrong with the new intro. The article is very much improved. Furthermore, I suggest moving the Reputation abroard section lower down - the main content should be describing BC. Reputation is secondary. --Tatty 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done it. Reputation abroard is in it's proper slot after Traditional cuisine. However, "a general ignorance of good food persists amongst the general population" is still POV. Can someone with Wikigravitas edit this, please. --Tatty 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Seafood

Utter POV rubbish. You do realise the majority of our fish exports are abroad because we catch far more than we need? We're a small country and we have large fishing areas allocated to us and we sell what we don't need abroad, this does not make us "behind" in terms of fish cuisine. Fish and chips is a national dish FFS.--I'll bring the food 01:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section entirely. The data on fishing and exports properly belongs in an article on the British fishing industry - it has nothing to do with cuisine. And frankly, given that a citation is lacking, I don't believe the 7/10 claim. Barnabypage 13:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

English Or British?

Is this article intended to be about British Cuisine or English Cuisine? The title suggests the latter but the content the former. This sort of inaccuracy is infuriating to Brits particularly if there are not English. (i.e. Welsh, Scotish, Northern Irish).Thrupp 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Much of this food is not particular to the [[English people|English], although it is widely eaten in England. Indian food remains characteristic whether served in Wales or England, but there has also evolvedparticular forms in Britain. The term British does not merely relate to Great Britain, but also the Former British Empire, the origin of much British food.Harrypotter 10:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Milk

An unsigned user added the following to the article: EDIT: I want to add that most of suburban Britain still recieves their milk from milkmen and that it is now pasteurised. The milk is delivered in the early morning but paid for once a month at the weekend. You can now ask to recieve many varieties of milk, such as semi-skimmed or even chocolate. Many services have now expanded to even deliver fruit juices.

I've moved it here partly because I think they may have meant to put it in Talk, but also because I'm not sure the "most of suburban Britain" comment is correct. Does anyone have any reliable figures on % of households getting milk deliveries?

(Also, on reflection, it may not really belong in this article even if true. It's more about distribution and the dairy industry than it is about cuisine.) Barnabypage 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

International cuisine in England

I was surprised to see a distinct lack of coverage for the international cuisine available in England. Chicken Tikka Masalla has long been knocked off the top of the list of most popular takeaway dish in the UK for instance. The whole point of cuisine in the UK (especially in London) is that it is reflective of a diverse UK society that absorbs cuisine from around the world, especially the Commonwealth. 207.218.21.4 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

POV of reputation section

The reputation section is *very* biased towards British food.

1. It's pretty much everyone who "thinks that food served in England often fails to reach the same general level of excellence that can easily be found" (most any place else) not just so-called francophiles.
2. The article isn't about celebrity chefs but about normal English cuisine. English cuisine very well might be improving but it's pretty obviously pretty bad most of the time. Manchester, for example, has exactly one resteraunt with good traditional British meals for under 20 pounds (although this restaurant has an equally good sister store across the street). Otoh say Lyon France or Boston USA would have enumerable restaurants were 20 euros or 20 dollars would find you very good traditional food.
3. It's true that "ready meals" have improved but their use is still a major blot on British cuisine, even the nice ones just aren't that good. Don't act like they're a positive.

81.178.251.85 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed. At the moment it reads more like some francophobic inferiority complex. British food can be good if it is prepared well and this is what this article should be about. Codik 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying English cuisine is "obviously pretty bad most of the time" is just bias the other way. In most large cities these days you'd find restaurants which equate with what's available internationally, in my experience as someone who has lived here all his life rather than someone foreign who has little to base our cuisine on other than hearsay. Gymnophoria (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The section is headed Reputation abroad and that's what it should be about - primarily, what the reputation actually is, not the issue of whether the reputation is well-deserved. It would be really useful to have some references here to non-UK publications and what they have said about English food - what e.g. do French guidebooks to Britain say on the subject? Maybe any non-UK editors who are watching this page could help here. Barnabypage (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want quality Pub food, which takes some finding but is well worth the effort, English food (outside of Central London) is garbage - on average i.e. to pick somewhere at random. Compare this to somewhere like Italy, where the quality of food (picked at random) will be higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.215.119 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering you are stuck on pub food tends to indicate something of your character, perhaps you should sober up and visit other English food sources for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.93.21 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The real joke here is that this reputation comes largely from American commentators in the latter 20th century and not the French. Americans become more outward-looking and likely to travel internationally in the 2nd half of the 20th century and this coincides with the British being in economic ruin and under a strict rationing programme. If we define British cuisine by the food that is eaten in Britain, then today's British cuisine is certainly not inferior to that you can find in most parts of the US, Germany and Austria. Moreover, there is no type of food that the British don't seem to enjoy eating, and there is no dish you can find anywhere in the world that you cannot find in London and the South East - where a great number of British people live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.149.129 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-merge British cuisine articles

The cuisine articles (of Britain) originally started out as British cuisine but for presumably nationalistic reasons someone decided to split out Scottish, Welsh and Irish/Northern Irish and rename the old British article to English cuisine. I think this was a mistake. There is so much crossover here that it makes sens to discuss them all together and then have subsections explaining English/Scots/Welsh/Irish/Cornish etc specialities. I was particularly annoyed when someone removed references to the fact that "Britain became a net importer of food" from the English cuisine article because they, they said in the edit summary "British isn't English", they also removed referenced to Gordon Ramsay because he was born in Scotland. This is where it becomes plain silly and the problem would be solved by simply remerging the articles. Jooler (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of this article isn't about English cuisine whatsoever

But rather about the history of English eating habits and even then such a page would probably seem quite condescending and stereotypical, which is how this page sounds. Admittedly, this article might be very short compared to say the French or Italian pages if it was about what it claimed to be, but it would be truer to the point. Ready meals do not constitute cuisine but an eating habit for instance. There isn’t one mention of ready meals on any other national cuisine pages as far as I know and it would be false to say portions of French or even Italian society don’t eat them. Or the idea that Spaghetti Bolognese as an Italian dish is not cooked in German or French households. Someone who understands the style (I believe there is somewhat) and history of cooking in England probably needs to be editing this rather than over eager Wiki editors who may be uninformed (apologies, I don't edit here much, but I have a gripe about relentless 'pan-topic' editors unless their concerns are spelling and grammar).

I think the whole thing needs a rewrite from a fresh and less stereotypical perspective that is consistent in tone with the majority of other national cuisine pages. I might possibly quibble that the presence of the 'Reputation' section really belongs here. If the page was encyclopedic enough the reader would be able to make such an assumption about it relatively well, no? Lines such as "[English Cuisine] typically represented by dishes consisting of simply cooked meats and vegetables that need to be accompanied by bottled sauces or other condiments after cooking to make them more palatable" are pedantic, what is pasta without its various sauces? Also, many cultures, from my meagre knowledge, seem to eat quite simply in the home I believe as in China fish sometimes being simply being fried in a Wok with boiled rice and vegetables being placed at the center of the table as a basic family meal (this was a documentary contrasting a Hong Kong lifestyle with that of the rest of China I viewed anyhow). Yet the reputation regarding Chinese and Cantonsese cuisine is mostly known through its flamboyant restaurant style dishes, if you were to rank English cuisine by this resurant criteria it would surely not be the terrible sterotype portrayed here and most likely one of the more well regarded. This page can continue to either perpetuate the stereotypes or actually be informative as it should be really, it's up to the supposed Wiki 'experts' to be honest. Le Gibbon 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments altogether. As a regular editor of articles, and having been pulled up for my style too, i can say from experience this article does not conform to Wikipedia standards. This seems to be about eating habits rather than the food itself, and many POV are without citation to back them up. As and when i can, i will try to update the article. At least the sections and subheadings are logical.Rimmer1993 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of food writers

I think Dorothy Hartley should be added to the list. Her book 'Food in England' is considered a classic by other food writers including Delia Smith. 62.3.100.54 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not about English cuisine

Would an article about Japanese cuisine talk about McDonalds, or would an article about Italian cuisine mention Chinese take-out? International cuisine within the UK is certainly an important topic, but it has little to do with English cuisine. I'd suggest moving all the stuff about Chicken tikka masala and either adding it to the general British cuisine article (which covers the entire UK, not just England) or making a seperate "British Indian cuisine" article (much like there are numerous articles about Chinese cuisine in the United States and other countries). An article about "English" cuisine should reflect the traditional dishes of England, like Yorkshire pudding and Sunday roasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.136.201 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Article in Need of POV Cleanup

I see that this issue has been brought up on the article talk page numerous times. I concur that there are many noticeable POV statements such as:

• There has also been a quiet revolution in both quality and quantity of places to dine out in Britain, in particular, public houses have been transformed in the last twenty or so years[citation needed]. Many have made the transition from eateries of poor reputation to rivals of the best restaurants, the so called gastropub – very often they now are the best restaurants in smaller towns.

• Another formal British culinary tradition rarely observed today is the consumption of a savoury course, such as Welsh rabbit, toward the conclusion of a meal. This now though may be eaten as a snack or a light lunch or supper. Most main meals today end with a sweet dessert, although cheese and biscuits may be consumed as an alternative or as an addition.

• Indian restaurants typically allow the diner to combine a number of base ingredients – chicken, prawns or "meat" (lamb or mutton) – with a number of curry sauces, without regard to the authenticity of the combination. (Most restaurants are run by Bangladeshi Muslims, so pork is rarely offered.[citation needed])

• English cuisine still suffers from a relatively poor international reputation compared to other countries' cuisines like the French cuisine and Italian cuisine, being typically represented[citation needed] by dishes consisting of simply cooked meats and vegetables that need to be accompanied by bottled sauces or other condiments after cooking to make them more palatable.

...and several other POV laden commentary.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To the English Nationalists

Honestly, I've been to England many times and the food in londons restaurants is ordinary at best and the take away shops are total junk, they hardly compare to other European nations...I even dry reached when I first tasted Haggis, I havent tasted it again since

To the person who said "it has been proven out of the top 10 restaurants in the WORLD 4 of these are within Britain" thats ridiculous lol, that survey was conducted by the British who are trying to improve "British cuisines" reputation...I think that qualifies as propaganda actually

And to the person who says something along the lines of "English food is made for a big and strong race of people", first let me say the English are NOT a race and second, what the hell is so big and strong about the English? Being ugly doesnt make you big and strong, what an idiot

English Nationalists? I just don't know where to start... I don't think I'll bother. I can't believe you have the gall to finish that stream of mind vomit with the words "what an idiot". Perhaps the article has been edited since, but I have never seen a line on this page that even remotely read like "English food is made for a big and strong race of people", even Wikipedia could manage to save that one. Please, do everyone a favour and refrain from spouting your obnoxious, moronic twaddle across the internet again. One more thing, perhaps you're such a poor tourist who couldn't find themselves off the beaten track for bugger all is the reason why it's so easy for you to summarise your 'extensive' culinary experiences of 'take away shops' in the UK. 91.110.249.157 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For a start, Haggis is a Scottish food, not English. As for your 2nd paragraph, Mr/Ms Unsigned, if you look at the entry for Michelin Guide, you will see the following...

"...in the UK and Ireland 2004 guide, out of 5,500 entries, there are 98 with one star ("a very good restaurant in its category, worth a stop"), 11 with two stars ("excellent cooking, worth a detour"), and only 4 with three stars ("exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey")"

As for your last paragraph, that's just infantile. --Panzer71 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm Removing This Line At Some Point

"typically represented by dishes consisting of simply cooked meats and vegetables that need to be accompanied by bottled sauces or other condiments after cooking to make them more palatable". It simply has no validity as a statment to me and it's been here far too long. Would anyone care to tell me how many dishes around the world are characterised by their sauce, what is pasta other than eggs water and 00 flour, how about curry? I want to hear a good reason as to why it should remain. The line is basically untrue. I'm the user who wrote "Some of this article isn't about English cuisine whatsoever" since none of my rather long winded paragraph was contended with I don't feel as though I should hesitate in addressing the points I made there any longer.

Lancashire hotpot

Is there any reason that Lancashire hotpot is not mentioned in the text of the article (other than the link at the bottom)? I believe that Lancashire hotpot is an important part of British English cuisine and recognised across the world via Corrie. Perhaps it could be added? Darkieboy236 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it should be referenced here. However, I'm afraid Corrie isn't quite as international as you think it is :) Moreover, it's one of those dishes that has a lot of analogies in other cuisines - made with local ingredients. Suppose that you didn't have so many sheep? There are few truly world famous local terms for stew and even in those cases, they still tend to be made differently wherever you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.149.129 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of Ice Cream

This is listed as 1913, with a citation to a (now removed) page at the Open University, so I haven't changed it, but according to Mrs. Mary Eales's Receipts a recipe for Ice Cream was given in England in 1733. Can someone knowledgeable on food history please check? Thanks. Kiore (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to it being known well before 1913 so I'll remove that date. See, for example, http://www.canalmuseum.org.uk/ice/icecream.htm. Possibly 1913 is when it first went on sale in stores (as opposed to being homemade) thanks to refrigeration? Barnabypage (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Barnabypage. Kiore (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationing

This has been removed as not specific to England: it belongs under British cuisine.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fast food

The introduction currently claims

Britain was also quick to adopt the innovation of fast food from the United States,

However, if we look at the articles for fast food or fish-and-chips, it seems that Britain was the leader, rather than the follower. (With the word "innovation" being somewhat dubious, in light of the long history of the principle fast food.) Does the statement refer to some specific types of fast food? (Hamburgers?)

As an aside, I have the long-standing impression that the US is very good at collecting, utilizing, improving, and commercializing existing ideas, but are less brilliant at coming up with new ideas. Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

English, not British

The article British cuisine already exists. This article should be foucusing on England's contribution to British cuisine, but there's too much discussion about various dishes being British, rather than specifically English. I've taken out one glaring example, but perhaps one of the editors here could have a look at this issue? Obscurasky (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've extended the lead to improve the description, and also to acknowledge the overlap between English and British cuisine. Despite some recent weeding, to remove overtly British references and replace them with English ones, I think there's still more to do on that front, but the article is looking better for it. Obscurasky (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth Noting?

England has recently had a massive popularity burst with japanese foods like rice, noodles sushi, ramen, calamari etc etc so that may be quite worth noting in the article. 82.35.102.218 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is about 'English cuisine'. There has been significant foreign influence, but that doesn't make noodles, sushi, ramen and calamari, etc, English dishes. Obscurasky (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of The Fat Duck

The Fat Duck restaurant in Bray, Berkshire, which was named the best restaurant in the world by Restaurant magazine in 2005.

My attempted addition of this image has just been reverted. Firstly I am more than a little disappointed at the edit summary of the editor who removed the image ('blatant advert') - since I have absolutely no connection with the restaurant, and have never even eaten there. This is a complete breach of the requirement to assume good faith.

Regarding the image itself, it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable illustration of the article text. I should add that I am happy to discuss tweaks to the image caption.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

With hindsight, I can see your point about good faith, WP:FAITH; I should have written that it 'gives the impression of being a blatant advert' - which in my opinion it does.

With regard to it being a 'perfectly reasonable illustration of the article text', I think it's fair to say that the source for that text is somewhat dubious. For a start, it dates back to 2005, but more importantly it was a British magazine - which might explain how they managed to vote 14 out of the top 50 restaurants in the world as being British(!) If you can't find a more appropriate image, I wont delete it if you really want to reinsert. Obscurasky (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, how about a caption which just says that it currently has three Michelin stars? Or have you got any suggestions for another image for that section? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Scrambled Egg and Bacon Ice Cream

The trouble is that the image is so boring. I agree that the Fat Duck with three stars should be mentioned (which it already is), but without the image. Perhaps a better contribution to the international reputation section would be figures on the number of Michelin 1, 2 and 3 star restaurants in the UK - with some sort of filter to remove foreign cuisine English-based restaurants such as Michel Roux's Le Gavroche. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I support your suggestions for the text of the section. Re the image I really would like to see one added to the section. Although the image of the Fat Duck isn't perfect it would in my view be better than none. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So what about the restaurant's food rather than the building e.g. the iconic snail porridge or bacon & egg ice cream (see right) --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would work for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Take your pick from the dishes on offer then and post to the article. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But what have these "iconic" foods got to do with British cuisine - only a very, very little I would say. This is not food widely eaten or in any way representative of a much longer lasting and recognisable national cuisine. It is hard to see what influence the Fat Duck or its celebrity patron have had on the wider culinary experience of our green and pleasant land. He is generally acknowledged as a skilled and innovative operator but in a very narrow field. I'm just gently suggesting that maybe the article should not dwell on the brightest lights or loudest bangs but deal with the more general widespread and unfathomable omissions. Richard Avery (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What still needs doing

Sectionise into meat, dairy, etc. Add sections on stews and cold meat. And vegetables. Add section on dining styles and occasions, to incorporate Tea and Pub Grub. also Xmas dinner. Add section on dairy to incorporate Cheese. 1Z (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 1Z (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

+ more info about the iconic 'Full English Breakfast'. Obscurasky (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Monty Python Version

This is a beautiful satirical piece on British cuisine that points up, in a very individual way, all the quirky aspects of the food eaten in the UK. It needs a decent rewrite, I'd love to have a go but am to committed at present. Richard Avery (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure the monty python version is actually

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

it is only wafer thin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.149.129 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content

I restored this edit after user:Logical Cowboy claimed this page is not a forum. I have read the articles he recommended but it seems to me the edit in question does not seem to be acting as in a forum, but adding to the discussion about the distinction between English and British food, which seems to be a relevant function of a talk page.

I have reproduced the content below:

English Or British?

Is this article intended to be about British Cuisine or English Cuisine? The title suggests the latter but the content the former. This sort of inaccuracy is infuriating to Brits particularly if there are not English. (i.e. Welsh, Scotish, Northern Irish).Thrupp 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Much of this food is not particular to the [[English people|English], although it is widely eaten in England. Indian food remains characteristic whether served in Wales or England, but there has also evolvedparticular forms in Britain. The term British does not merely relate to Great Britain, but also the Former British Empire, the origin of much British food.Harrypotter 10:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you! we can read about the cuisine tradition that appeared after the British empire, so which term should we use: English or British?Noeliasuarez (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a little adjustment HP to make your comment easier to read. You need to check your link to English food. Richard Avery (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful to have some specifics. O to back up this comment. Obviously, there will be an overlap between English, Welsh and Scottish cuisine because they have much in common. OTOH, if this article mentions specifically and purely Welsh (etc) dishes, that would be a problem. 1Z (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay - English?

I think he should be removed from the list of English foodies. I think he's great but he is Scottish. Richard Avery (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A list of English foodies has nothing really to do with English cuisine. A list of foodies (of any nationality) who cook and contribute to English cuisine is more appropriate, and would include Ramsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.149.129 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now made this edit, the original wording was ambiguous and indeed could be read to imply everyone on the list was English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.149.129 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite required

This article consists, as earlier editors have noted for the past 8 years or more, mainly of personal opinion (that's WP:POV and WP:OR for standards-lovers, and only a step off jokiness at that). Almost every section needs to be substantially rewritten, starting from published sources, with new citations.

The list of cooks probably needs to be hived off as a separate article, divided into centuries with far more weight to earlier times (WP:RECENTISM probably applies to much of the rest of the article also), and cited throughout.

Given the widespread lack of citations and of historical perspective, almost any degree of slash-and-burn editing would seem justified. The article currently favours a slightly nostalgic look at some mythical, mid 20th century period (avoiding the wars and the great depression) when everyone had a full English breakfast, ate a Sunday roast for lunch, and sat down to dainty Edwardian tea, before slipping out to the Dog and Duck for a swift pint. That rose-tinted picture is true neither of the historical past nor of the present.

I'd hesitate to suggest how to reshape this article, but an emphasis on actual periods of time would be a marked improvement. There might be 'Middle Ages', 'Early Modern', 'Enlightenment', 'Victorian era', 'Twentieth century', and perhaps even 'Twentyfirst century', though it may be a little soon for that last one.

As for what should come out (apart from everything that's uncited), 'Food establishments' seems out of place in the article, and it's hard to see why there are separate sections on 'Dessert' and 'Sweet dishes', or similarly on both 'Savoury course' and 'Savoury dishes'. However, if all the sections on (mythical era) foods, meals and dishes become subsections of 'Twentieth century' (perhaps in a subsidiary article), with uncited claims removed, then most of the problem will disappear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The new historical approach is a a start but, Oh dear...there is so much missing. The nineteenth and Twentieth century sections are essentially records of cookery writing (and other media) , with no mention of what people were actually eating. The medieval section needs to mention the peasant diet. Pre-medieval introductions by the Romans, etc, need to be mentioned. 16th century additions from the New World need to be mentioned, as does the effect of World War II on diet,. and the development of processed food in the twentieth century.

There is virtually no treatment of important dishes like Roasts, and Fish and chips. There is virtually no mention of regional specialities. I could go on. 1Z (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Peterdjones: Glad to hear there's someone else interested in improving the article. Feel free to add some of these things, with suitable sources - Wikipedia hath no hands on earth but ours. I'm less sure about the material on cafes, tea rooms and so on - we could arguably remove all of that as it's only marginally about cuisine, more about food outlets: but if it is to be here, then it must be fully cited, using the {{cite web| title= |publisher= |accessdate=}} and similar templates. On roasts and fish-and-chips, their importance has been much exaggerated in people's imagination. Roasts were never of the importance some people imagine (certainly not in the Middle Ages, for instance); and fish-and-chips was a very late introduction from Europe, as the article states ("Panayi created controversy by asserting, with evidence,[b] that fish and chips had foreign origins: the fried fish from Jewish cooking, the potato chips from France; the dish only became "an important signifier of national identity" from about 1930.[13]"). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Peterdjones: the increased emphasis on food outlets is very probably a mistake in the context of an article on cuisine, which should definitely focus on prepared dishes of food, the topic of the article. I suggest we look again at the shape of the article, consider what it ought to cover, and then plan out a structure which will cover the topic without straying into other areas. Fish and chips, for example, are now mentioned in three places, which may not be ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If the importance of roasts and FnC has been exagerated in some way, the article should say so , not remain mute. (Edit: And if something is seen as important, that already is cultural importance)(Edit2 And I don't follow your/Panayis reasoning that to be authentic something has to have exactly zero foreign ingredients or influences)..

It certainly looks well wrong at the moment. = The other hazard it needs to steer around is the imagined "English" diet which may well never have been what anybody ate more than very occasionally, so as usual reliable secondary sources are essential. On a topic like this, uncited remarks that appear obvious or "what everybody knows" are unfortunately extremely likely to be comforting, plausible-seeming, and wrong. Panayis exactly does not argue that authenticity means no foreign influences; au contraire, he argues that almost all English cuisine is foreign-influenced, and the better for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Outlets section looks OTT because the History section is so undernourished.

I agree that more history is required, but doubt that that will somehow make an outlets section seem relevant to the article. If the history section is extended to the present, it will cover essentially the entire topic, which is after all something with a thousand-year history. The article needs urgently to avoid recentism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would not be happy with removal of the outlets section before the Twentieth Century section is revised to include topics other than food writing.

As for the right moment to remove the outlets section, if it's not agreed to be within the scope of the article, it ought to be removed sooner rather than later; I don't see any special reason for it to remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly inevitable that some topics will be touched on more than once. The important thing is to touch on different aspects each time.

There is no hard-and-fast rule here, but it's definitely better not to hop about all over the place. Fish and chips is one, rather recent, dish in the English diet, a small element in a long history, and a declining part of today's fast food market. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But the long history isn't there. If you have removed a lot of material from an article, you need to focus on re-adding material, not on stripping out more. 1Z (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1Z (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As for things being "of cultural importance": this is an article on cuisine, not culture more generally. In the article "English culture" it would make perfect sense to discuss beliefs about what the nation's diet is; less so here, though a brief disclaimer about wrong beliefs might be worth including. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is not that a comprehensive history will make Outlets relevant, it will be that outlets will be no longer be necessary as the only mention of certain important topics. The article needs to avoid recentism, but absolutely does need to reach the present day, which is why the failure to say anything at all about convenience/processed food is such a bizarre omission. The reason for Outlets to remain, as I have pointed out, is as a stopgap to make up for the dire omissions from History. 1Z (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We can certainly agree that the history needs to extend to the (reliably sourced) present, and that coverage of fast/processed foods will render the outlets sections obsolete; that however doesn't make wrongly-structured and poorly-cited additions right at this moment or any other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And then there's the Foreign Influences section, which makes the current article look like an WP:ESSAY arguing that English Food isn't really English. 1Z (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced and directly relevant to the subject, not the opinion of any editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrongly sourced and poorly cited? 1Z (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It suspiciously devoid of counterargument, and heavily reliant on a single source.1Z (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Twentieth century

"Rationing was introduced in 1940 to ensure that the supply of food, limited by the U-boat blockade of Britain, was distributed fairly." could be better written as follows:

"Wartime rationing (around 1940) attempted to ensure fair food distribution." - U-boats, blockades and WWII have nothing to do with the topic of cuisine. Keep it simple folks, and stop trying to introduce unrelated topics. To the extent that war rationing (might have) affected the evolution of popular cuisine, if it was significant and can be substantiated by experts, then make a new section and get busy. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated and reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cornish Cuisine

Is Cornish cuisine a type of English cuisine, or is it treated as something different?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It has its own page; Cornish cuisine.Obscurasky (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is the main picture from the USA?

Hiya,

Isn't there a picture of English cuisine from England to use as the top picture? Seems a bit odd having the picture for the English Cuisine page be a photo of American food, even if it's American-English food. --90.254.153.221 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should it be from England? If an American establishment is prepared to go to the trouble to make and present convincingly English food in an attractively English-looking setting, that's English cuisine, loved and respected. Nobody has any difficulty with saying that the food in a Greek restaurant in any Western city is Greek. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that the lead states the article concerns "the cooking styles, traditions and recipes associated with England". Obscurasky (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Too much Panikos Panayi

The page contains over 24 references to the writing of Panikos Panayi - it's just too much! As far as I can tell, he's not even an especially noted food historian. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but some pruning is necessary. Obscurasky (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. I've done some pruning for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Obscurasky (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on English 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113000131/http://www.sausagelinks.co.uk/sausage-facts/sausage-varieties/ to http://www.sausagelinks.co.uk/sausage-facts/sausage-varieties/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930024842/http://www.balti-birmingham.co.uk/about-balti/bpost-on-the-balti to http://www.balti-birmingham.co.uk/about-balti/bpost-on-the-balti
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011202619/http://www.european-vegetarian.org/lang/en/home/home.php to http://www.european-vegetarian.org/lang/en/home/home.php

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) 08:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912035012/http://www.rheged.com/files/relish%2C%20pickle%20and%20chutney%20making%20tips%20-%20Jane%20Maggs.pdf to http://www.rheged.com/files/relish%2C%20pickle%20and%20chutney%20making%20tips%20-%20Jane%20Maggs.pdf

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) 20:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Royal taste

I've removed some additions concerning the food preferences of monarchs. These would be relevant, perhaps, in articles on those royal personages. They would only be relevant here if they were stated by reliable sources to have influenced English cuisine, something that's obviously possible but not to be taken for granted. Simply inserting material on royal tastes without such evidence is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR (original research) because it embodies the assumption that if a royal likes something it automatically must have influenced taste. That's a hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation, all forbidden here on Wikipedia, without a directly attributable statement from a Reliable Source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Please restore the large amount of sourced content you deleted from this article. All of the sources for early English cooking are from royal rolls. Your reason "reflection royal taste wd be relevant only via proven influence on nat. cuisin". The relevance is proven by the sources, everything you removed is supported by multiple reliable sources.

The content is not about "royal taste" but the foods prepared by the royal chef. It is as relevant as the earlier English historical sources (cooks), going back at least to Victorian times. You deleted jam pennies, Queen Victoria's sponge cake among other items relevant to local produce and ingredients that is certainly relevant to English cuisine.

If anything should be removed for lack of relevance it is the list of Michelin starred restaurants serving Indian cuisine.Hickoryglaze (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for stating your opinion so clearly. I am afraid not so much that I disagree, but that the reasoning you set out is not logical. To state the general point first: the goal in writing any Wikipedia article is to create an accurate coverage of the subject, not to find a home for editor's ideas, nor to create as much material as possible. In this case, the goal of extending an article that has already been prepared and reviewed through the Good Article process is to correct a definite imbalance or inaccuracy that is described in a reliable source about the subject. It is not, I regret to inform you, to add any material that appears interesting to an editor on a similar or possibly related topic, and which the editor believes has some connection to the article's subject: we call that WP:Original research by WP:Synthesis, both forbidden here. For the record, I did not say you added unsourced material, rather that you added material that was not relevant to the article, and connected to it only by Original research: the authors of those sources were not writing about English cuisine as such, but about royal habits. To save much time and discussion, it would be very helpful if you could familiarise yourself with these (related) policies.

Now for the specifics. The article is not about British royal taste but English cuisine, i.e. what the English as a nation actually cook and eat. You argue that one or two dishes are English - well yes, but so are many thousands of others of equal or greater significance, and we certainly can't name or list them in an article of this kind: you are free to add them, suitably cited, to List of English dishes. There is, contrary to your assertion, no "list" of Michelin-starred restaurants here, nor should there be (again, that might or might not be a worthy topic for a separate list article); this article mentions only that two of the most distinguished of the thousands of Indian restaurants in England attained stars. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different parts of the content. Some of the content you removed about preferences of individual royals would be better in articles for the general palace history or the specific royals. I don't know what you mean by "Good article". The article should cover English cuisine than its extensive coverage of food establishments located in England. Links to traditional dishes of historic significance like Jam Pennies and the chocolate sponge should not be deleted. Surely there is room for some of this, if it is written as prose and cited to good sources?Hickoryglaze (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A Good Article is, as I said, an article that has been through a formal review process. A "good source" is, as I have now repeatedly said, AND referred you twice to Wikipedia policies linked above, one that its authors intended to be about the topic named in the article title, and that is published reliably, such as in an academic journal or textbook. Interesting material from splendid sources about other topics cannot be called "good sources" in the context of a Wikipedia article. A third time, I would urge you to read the policies linked above, before arguing further, as we will just be needlessly clarifying policy text that is long-established and explained clearly and at length, with examples, in the linked policy pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I will read the policies and thank you for being patient to explain this to me. The source is the Royal Cook. Hickoryglaze (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo

The "kind thought" revert suggests that my swapping of a US hotel photo for one from the Savoy was maybe read in bad faith, but all I had in mind was that a photo from an English restaurant was likely to be a more authentic example of English cuisine than one from another country.

Is it not a bit odd to open the article on a country's cuisine with a photo taken outside of that country? I'm not a great afternoon tea taker so wouldn't be able to make a call on how traditional the US hotel's arrangement was (although their website promises "afternoon tea, Philadelphia-style [...] adding a dash of local flavor and some exquisitely re-imagined elements"), but it would seem wrong to illustrate the American cuisine article with a photo of an apple pie as served in an English restaurant (even an American-themed one).

There is scope for a more explanatory caption about how "traditional English afternoon tea" is also served in other countries, and is maybe the most well-known English cuisine in that regard, but I'd have thought the average reader would rather see an authentic example, without having to wonder how much the illustration might be a caricature. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree that the photo should be one taken in England, although I would add that the ‘plate of sandwiches’ photo doesn’t really rock my boat. In any case, is it really necessary to include the name of the establishment? Seems like unnecessary advertising. Obscurasky (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that also. The combination of tea and sandwiches may not be your personal thing, but it's definitely part of a tradition, all the better for being seen to have disseminated widely. As for mentioning the place, it was added exactly because of the location. We can mention the town but not the establishment by all means if people would prefer that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Lord Belbury, for discussing. I think I've made it clear that the photograph is in my view well-chosen. It is of high quality as an image; it shows everything that ought to be shown; and in my view its location is a strength, showing that It is at once evident from the caption that the location is foreign, so the image shows an hommage, indeed an extremely thorough and well-executed one, to the traditional English tea, now becoming something of a rarity in England. The image is in no way a caricature; everything has been made with obvious care to provide a genuine tea in what was once the English style. Comparing it with the image you proposed, it does the job of illustrating the subject far better (there's almost no comparison, frankly, in terms of photogenicity and exposition of the subject). I don't know what you could mean with your "authentic"; if it means "geographically located in England" then a thousand tatty images would meet that criterion, but it's quite unclear why that would be a definition - an English scarf, or hat, or pair of shoes are no less English for being photographed in Tierra del Fuego or the Australian outback, indeed more obviously English for being as they are in those places; if it means "what most English people do today" then going to the Savoy certainly isn't it; if it means "meeting the tradition in full style", then the existing image does that much better.

If you feel the caption needs adjusting, I'm open to suggestions; it is in fact well linked and clearly phrased already, and has been read by over a million visitors over the past few years, but improvements are always possible. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This image needs changing - imagine if the article about Indian cuisine pictured a Balti house in Birmingham! The picture is completely unrepresentative of England's food culture. A picture of fish and chips, or a full English breakfast, or perhaps a Sunday roast would be more appropriate. Gymnophoria (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, do read the discussion above as it's still relevant; it makes the point a fortiori as it shows the cuisine is recognised internationally. The three suggestions you make are all discussed and illustrated in the article, and they all have serious weaknesses for the role, again as discussed in the article. The Balti comparison is mistaken, as the food in such a place is definitely British and scarcely recognisable even as Anglo-Indian (to use an old term) to people visiting from India. Of course a good image of a Balti house curry in Birmingham would be a fitting candidate for this article, and one eaten a good deal more often than any of your suggestions, probably. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oriental cuisine?

I would expect to see this kind of sentence in a book from the 1930s or perhaps 1950s, not Wikipedia in 2020:

Oriental cuisine has become widely available across England.

Is the word "Oriental" not a slur in the UK like it is in the U.S.? Anyway, this kind of terminology comes across as ignorant, when "East Asian" is meant and quite a lot more precise, without so much colonial-sounding baggage. Shall we substitute "East Asian" for "Oriental"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. You are right in thinking that for Brits, there is no slur in "oriental cuisine". It spans East Asian (aka Chinese) and Southeast Asian (Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian, Vietnamese, etc) cuisines so I don't think we have any convenient synonym available. If you do a Google search for "UK oriental cuisine", you will find a wide selection of businesses that sell ingredients and foods of these kinds. I do hope this helps you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm satisfied with your answer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This section suggests the first Chinatown in London is/was Soho but the Chinese community and a more informal Chinatown existed in Limehouse before that because of the number of Chinese workers coming in on ships that docked there. That is mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Chinatown.

Tweaked and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Contention on stereotypes of English food

Pretty much every culture is influenced by other cultures and tradition simply means something that has been passed down for a long time. It would be bizarre to call French Neoclassicism some sort of new immigrant stereotype because it originated in the 1700s copied from the classical forms of Ancient Greece and Rome and Renaissance Palladinism. Most of the dishes are over 100-200 years old in their orign and thus count as identifiably part of traditional British culture even by outsiders. It would be strange to call a cornish pasty a stereotype of food rather than a traditional food and may confuse people not familiar with English. Are we going to call Jajangmyeon, a Korean dish a stereotype' whatever that means because it originates in Korean-Chinese cooking in the 20th century? Menacinghat (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. The text on stereotypes is fully-cited to reliable scholarly sources, not to editorial opinion. All the many dishes mentioned in the article are traditional in that they form part of the English tradition; the ones identified by scholars as stereotypes are distinctive in having that particular status.

The separate point about foreign influence has not much to do with stereotyping, though when it can be shown that a particular dish is a recent adoption (or based on a series of recent adoptions), then it is even clearer that the dish may well be a modern stereotype but it cannot validly be called any sort of long-standing tradition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What is recent is open to contention. If we are to consider 200 years not traditional then many of the worlds traditions are in fact stereotypes. The English are not special in this regard at all so why does this page go to great pains to point this out for almost every dish in the image section? Even sausages, a food introduced 2 thousand years ago! European food is dominated by potato but this doesn't mean we need to point this out at every turn.Menacinghat (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are supplying editorial reasoning by example in place of scholarly or critical sources. As I've already said, all the dishes named in the article are in some sense traditional; the sausage is both ancient and a stereotype, whereas the "full English breakfast" is a much more recent stereotype, there is no contradiction there. Discussion of "European food" (whatever that might be) is totally irrelevant to this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My problem isn't the opinion of the authors in the section, it's that the title could be better-fitting. The definition of traditional has nothing to do with something being hundreds of years old, it's simply something that is passed down. Therefore the food can be considered traditional, not simply a stereotype anymore.Menacinghat (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case, please observe that every foodstuff and dish discussed in the "History" chapter of the article is "traditional"; and that the "Stereotypes" are at best not more "traditional" than any of the other items, and in some of the best-known cases, like the full English breakfast, a great deal less so than most of the dishes mentioned in "History". This makes the term "traditional" extremely unsuitable for use in the section's title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling traditional English food a stereotype is still very strange, at least as the header. Someone reading this in the future please come up with a better name and edit it.Menacinghat (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As explained, "traditional English food" is a very broad church, and it is by no means limited to the small number of popular stereotypes; nor are the stereotypes necessarily genuinely traditional: the terms are not synonyms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how old a dish has to be in order for it to be genuinely traditional?Menacinghat (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The article relies on the sources that it cites. A dish is "traditional" if a reliable source says it is, and "stereotypical" if a reliable source says it is. Wiki-lawyering is not an alternative to that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The other thing you are doing wrong, very wrong, is continuing to snipe in the article despite this discussion. You have now repeatedly made edit-warring changes even though your arguments have been refuted. That is not acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sniping, I just slightly edited one of your sentences to be more general. Not saying all the sources are wrong, just how you wrote it.Menacinghat (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Menacinghat (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Intrusive, space-hogging, and redundant sideboxes

The combination of the two sideboxes "British cuisine" and "Culture of England" as recently introduced (October 2022, the second one removed as obtrusive but just now reinstated without discussion) now occupy almost the whole length of a desk ruler, some 28 centimetres, in vertical "real estate". This is an extremely intrusive presentation of templates, made worse by the excessively large icon in the "Culture of England" template. There is a recommendation somewhere in the mass of style documentation that sidebars should be small, used sparingly, and preferably substituted by the far less obtrusive horizontal navbars. Further, and perhaps more tellingly, there is in fact ALREADY a navbar for "England articles" so the sidebar is redundant; actually there are already THREE navbars for cuisines, and if we need a fourth one then it would be far better as a navbar than as a sidebar. Anyway, the current result, that the reader is bludgeoned with two permanently-open and very long sidebars at the top of the article, complete with nationalistic message, is at the least very unfortunate if not grossly unencyclopedic. The second template should not have been added at all in my view, and certainly not re-added without any kind of discussion let alone agreement, given the amount of space and the fact that the addition was by that time known to be opposed (WP:BRD puts the onus to start a discussion on the person wishing to re-add something, not on other editors, so I'd be entirely within policy to remove it now back to the status quo ante. But before we go there, let's see if we can find a suitable alternative: we could for instance adapt the templates as navbars, they do not have very many entries.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to discuss before making good-faith edits so, to be fair, it's equally correct to state that it was removed without discussion. Also, I'm not entirely sure that your removal of the box, after 16 months, really counts as a bold revert? In any case, I thank you for bringing it to the talk page. I agree it's a little obtrusive, but not overly so, and I object to its removal on the grounds that this outweighed by the continuity it provides with the articles Cuisine of Scotland, Cuisine of Northern Ireland and Cuisine of Wales. If you feel it needs it, why don't you look at including a 'Hide' option in the template? Obscurasky (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bro stop 89.147.230.131 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)