Talk:European cuisine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absurd Article[edit]

The whole article is absurd in every way, there is no such thing as "European Cuisine", this is just another eurocentric nonsense, trying to imagine things that would fit in this whole false "European identity" thing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.200.25 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • How can this article be "Eurocentric" if it explicitly about Europe? You'll have to explain yourself a little bit better. here. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:78.79.200.25, would you suggest adding, for example, Asian cuisine or American cuisine to an article explicitly about European cuisine? JIP | Talk 13:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
European identity is not a "false" thing. The same applies to African identity, Latin American identity and other pan-regional identities. It existence does not exclude German identity, Bavarian identity and Munich identity. It does not exclude panhumanism neither, for that matter. Anything that has common features can be summarized - it's not up to your personal opinion but knowledge: if you agree that "Europe" exists, then you must realize that "European geography", "European history" and "European cuisine" all deserve a Wikipedia article. Even if the Mediterranean beaches an Norwegian fjords are something completely different - they do belong to the same landmass. Greek seafarers reached Ireland and Vikings reached the Mediterranean. Think: European history. Queen Victoria of Britain was the grandmother of both the German Kaiser and the Russian Tzar. There is obviously a separate "British history" and "Russian history", but there is also a "European history". Eurocentrism refers to viewing the world from European perspective - so it is absurd to accuse an article that is only about Europe as "Eurocentric nonsense". You probably wanted to say "pan-nationalist" or "EU federalist" or "Europhiliac" - all those would be more logical in your sentence. Yet all would be wrong too: European cuisine is not NATIONAL but REGIONAL; European cuisine will not suddenly disappear if the European Union is dissolved; European cuisine not a political or emotional statement - this article can be written by both a Euro-lover and a Euro-hater. European cuisine exists. Period. (The thing is that this article, as for now, in mid-2023, is very poorly written, is a completely different kettle of fish). Dnaoro (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Stub?[edit]

Why has this article been marked as a stub? Isn't it supposed to be linking to other articles which give information? I don't really understand what's supposed to be added to this page.--gottago 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional classification[edit]

British cuisine to "Nordic" one?

Latvian and Lithuanian cuisine to "Nordic" one?

Polish to "Eastern European" one? [and yes, I am Polish, and I find classifying me as an "Eastern European" as derogatory].

Am I missing something here? 195.136.30.51 (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing derogatory about the Eastern European classification. Koalorka (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balkan Cuisine is a better representative than southern european cuisine. It has distinctive properties.
If we're going to stick with vast regions of Europe in this article (an idea on which I will remain neutral), it should have a an section, with some countries moved from some of the other regions into it, especially Southern and Eastern. Poland would certainly go in there, as would Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and probably much of former-Yugoslavia (while some parts of it might stay in Southern; I'm guessing Macedonia for one, though I'm not really sure how they think of themselves). Some classify Germany as Central European, though I think that this is not accurate for modern Germany, which is thoroughly Westernized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on European cuisine. Not Polish or German cuisine. Some regional features overlap. Similar or identical traditions exist on both Swiss, French and Italian side of the Alps. Butter reigns supreme in traditional northern French recipes, versus olive oil in the South. This brings Brittany closer to Denmark and Provence to Greece when it comes to some aspects of food culture. Why cannot we classify France both as North and South? And Poland both Central and Eastern? Many Polish foods are identical to German and Czech ones, Vienna-style kipferl becomes a rogal, kloße become kluski. Yet, barszcz and borscht ("sch" suggest German spelling doesn't it?) ring an "Eastern" bell, as do pierogi vs varenyki. There is no reason to deny Poland its 'Easterness' in the context of its 'centralness'... Then think about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. From geopolitical perspective we find it obvious to bundle them with the "Balkan States" tag and throw into the "East" bag, also due to their Soviet past. Then we remind ourselves that Estonian and Finnish languages are similar and we look at the menus and we find out that they eat similar things there. Is Estonia "North" then? Scandinavian? Or does black bread make Finland part of the East? Then there's Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth thing that disturbs us. You go from koldūnai to kołduny and it seems obvious that several centuries together left a mark on culture(s), but then you realize that next to pierogi lie Maultaschen and your perfectly organized map is shattered yet again. Why can't we just write about food and not politics, and if a list of countries is needed why would we simply duplicate their names if necessary? Dnaoro (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European regions[edit]

Why western european cuisine comes before eastern european cuisine, shouldn't they be put in an alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.202.244 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is a (probably inadvertently) very PoV-pushing article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)gggfsajbbbkhkkkbbc[reply]

France where?[edit]

lol, hasn't anyone noticed a glaring omission in the article? There's just about every kind of cuisine you can imagine, but not French cuisine? Please tell me this is the result of vandalism --87.198.16.181 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC

European/Western Cuisine as terms in China, Japan, HK and elsewhere[edit]

I'm familiar with Yōshoku which in Japan is literally "Western Cuisine" - I'm not a wikipedia editor so I wouldn't dare updating the page, but shouldn't there be a section about European cuisine in other cultures? What do you think? 213.46.15.186 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basque cuisine has its own identity[edit]

Basque cuisine has its own identity, well known all over the world. It makes no sense classified in the section of spanish cuisine. It is completely independent of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.207.98 (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French cuisine appart from southern Europe but with German cooking???[edit]

German cooking is either northern European (as well as Netherlands, England or Scandinavia) or central European in the case of southern Germany; but has few in common with french one. Outside of Alsace-Lorraine which has German-like cooking, french cooking has not much in common with Germany's. The whole "western cuisine" category has not much reality.

French culinary traditions have much more in relation with the other countries of southern Europe than with Germany. The exemple of Magret de Canard (Duck) from south west France is from Southern Europe as much as foods from Spain (which is also as much in "western Europe" than France and more than Germany by the way). The other given exemple of typical french food is "escargot"; it is aslo good to remind that traditionally snails are not eaten in northern or central Europe but typical from mediterranean nation such as Italy, Spain; Greece and France. That is also the case for quails eating, which exist also in Portugal, Spain and Malta, but not in central or northern Europe.

Southern European cooking is not only made of the stereotypical image some poeple have of "mediterranean cooking". There are many regions in southern Europe, especially in northern Italy, inside and northern Spain and most of Portugal whose cuisine is not like the stereotypical mediterranean cooking, but very similar to their french equivalents; for exemple the Asturian fabada and the french Cassoulet: Those are southern European dishes.

Inversely, France has among its most famous dishes many very famous dishes typically mediterranean... Ratatouille; Salade Niçoise; Bouillabaisse; Aioli; Pissaladière; Soupe au pistou; Brandade de morue; etc... Those dishes do not even appear in French in the southern European category.

Also I think it would be nice to nice that France is clearly a country whose culinary tradition is wine-based as it is in the rest of southern Europe; which is not the case in Germany, which, like northern and central Europe is inclined towards beer-culture.

It seems also that the french dishes that are here are not representative of the real french cooking as are the dishes quoted for other countries. Escargots or Cailles are far to be everyday popular meals, but more the kind of dishses that are popular in fancy/chic french "haute cuisine" restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, feel free to edit accordingly! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Outside of Alsace-Lorraine which has German-like cooking, french cooking has not much in common with Germany's. The whole "western cuisine" category has not much reality."

It's wrong. There is an "occidental cuisine" influenced by the place of fat. In this case, French cuisine shares a lot of things with Germany, England or other occidental cuisine, in the contrary of the southern cuisine (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece...).

"The exemple of Magret de Canard (Duck)...snails...quails eating, which exist also in Portugal, Spain and Malta, but not in central or northern Europe."

Lol. You would make us believe that your "examples" (carefully chosen) should by representative of French cuisine ?

"in northern Italy, inside and northern Spain and most of Portugal whose cuisine is not like the stereotypical mediterranean cooking, but very similar to their french equivalents;"

It's wrong again. The cuisine of those countries are essentially mediterranean by the large use of oil, especially olive oil, even in Northern Italy. In the contrary, Western Europe use essentially butter. You can check for example the cunsumption per capita of butter : high in Western Europe (France, Germany, England, Belgium...), very low in Southern countries. Scandinavian have reduced it since recent times, but they used to cook with butter too.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1997/97-07-Dairy/butterpc.htm

"Inversely, France has among its most famous dishes many very famous dishes typically mediterranean... Ratatouille; Salade Niçoise; Bouillabaisse; Aioli; Pissaladière; Soupe au pistou; Brandade de morue; etc... Those dishes do not even appear in French in the southern European category."

Yes, very famous...in Provence, lol. France can't be summarized by a region which is about 5% of the territory of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.26.134.206 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

indent[edit]

i looked and thought 'someone forgot to put some double stars' they are there but don't seem to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home fried potatoes photo?[edit]

Why is one of the main photographs at the top of this article, on European food, a photo of a USA dish from a restaurant in California? If there is a place in Europe that this dish (home-fried potatoes) is traditional to, then the photo should be of that instead.86.173.78.190 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I replaced it with a picture of home fries in Germany. JIP | Talk 17:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian cuisine[edit]

Moules frites is one of the classic Belgian dishes, originating in Brussels. It is one of the best known. It has a name in French and in Flemish. It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (raw herring and bitterballen are classics). A standard Dutch dish is mussels with bread, not moules frites. It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. Here is a source about "Les Belges" which discusses Moules Frites at length as a Belgian icon:

  • Beaufils, Thomas (2004), Les Belges, Le Cavalier Bleu, pp. 85–88, ISBN 2846700729
  • [1]

A Dutch recipe for mussels and bread is here:

The Dutch wikipedia does not claim the dish as a Dutch dish, so evidently it is not a Dutch national dish. It confirms what is written on the encyclopedia and in the source above (Belgium and Northern France).

nl:Moules-frites

So claiming that it is seems childish and disruptive. In the Dutch article on mussels they write, "in Nederland kiest men meestal voor mosselen met brood en sauzen of met friet." (i.e. what the reference above says about mussels with bread or chips). That seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly As a Belgian I can refer you to the Belgian constitution where you can readily read that French, Dutch and German are the official languages of the Belgian Kingdom. Mosselen met frieten is Dutch, Moules Frites is French. No Flemish, which is a dialect spoken in West Vlaanderen. Secondly, moules frites is a regional dish, eated throughout northwestern France, Belgium and the southern Netherlands. Indeed the mussels themselves come from the Netherlands if they're any good.
I've never claimed that this dish supposedly originated in the Netherlands. That is of your own fabrication, an attempt to distort what has been done here which is simply adding to the article that it is a Dutch dish as well. You're only here because you stalk my edits in an attempt to provoke further conflict, despite that; I've added two references to the article one a cookbook clearly stating that moules frites is a traditional dish of both Belgium as well as the Netherlands and northwestern France and a book which explains why it commonly seen as a the national dish of Belgium. Colleabois (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell whether you're Belgian or not. The Belgian constitution does not apply to wikipedia, I regret to say. But sources are there and you've yet again added content which contradicts what is in those sources and elsewhere on the encyplopedia (even on nl.wikipedia). As a newly arrived editor who has already created problems editing with an IP, your edits will be monitored, particularly if the content you are adding to wikipedia is misleading to the reader. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if I'm a Belgian or not, because being a Belgian doesn't make it so and would be Original Research. You removed sourced material, the two books I added, and have repeatedly and knowingly misrepresented my point here; which is not that it isn't a Belgian dish, nor that it originated in the Netherlands (this is peoples food, it isn't "invented" to begin with). I say (and back this up with references) that this is also a traditional Dutch dish. Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism. Colleabois (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Colle, your argument above is ridiculous, we eat moules-frites here in Western France too, that doesn't make it a French dish. As to your references, try reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, throwing a couple of random book titles into ref tags, whilst mis-spelling one of the author's names, (making it hard to track down the relevant work), does not a serious reference make. Also try and supply full information: French Food: On the Table, on the Page, and in French Culture publié par Lawrence R. Schehr, Allen S. Weiss, both authors in this case.

And from that book, page 162, chapter "The betrayal of moules-frites", section "Moules-frites": the meal as a whole (wasn't it the example of Belgian cuisine?) is nonetheless an incontestable sign of unity. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do understand. I'm explicitly NOT making this argument on the same basis as for example "Hamburgers are American, France has McDonalds' too therefore Hamburgers are also a French dish". What I (and the author of the first book referenced) say is this; the dish is a tradition of Belgium, Southern Netherlands, Northwestern France. In much the same way, for example as fondue (internationally most associated with the Swiss) is also a tradition of the French and Italian alps. Colleabois (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - the phone went: It's the Belgian national dish, the page presents cuisine that is typically associated with a country, you are being deaf to what I say above about moules-frites being eaten in Western France. Okay so maybe they eat paella in some border region of Portugal, or in southwestern France, it's still a Spanish dish. And following on from this, and concerning your above addition, we are not going to annotate every photo to say Swiss/French/Italian fondue, Hungarian/Czech/Polish meatballs and so on.

Also the first reference you are using is incorrect, there is no page number etc. to verify your claim, and accusing people of vandalism when it's not can be considered a personal attack. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As is calling people deaf and ridiculous. On topic: In that case the gallery should have that made clear, because in the end its about accuracy and facts, not stereotypes and these issues will repeat themselves. Such as paella, which is perceived as the Spanish national dish, but is a regional specialty I believe of Valencia or Schweinbraten below ... Colleabois (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you cannot read English correctly (or deliberately misread what is written), so I will translate: "your argument above is ridiculous" means ton ARGUMENT est ridicule, so no slight of your good person there, "you are being deaf to what I say above" means tu fais la sourde oreille quant à mes propos ci-dessus. "You are stupid" is an affirmation in English that implies that I believe that you are permanently stupid (and as such *is* a personal attack), "you are being stupid/deaf/whatever" means that I think that you are temporarily without sound grounds for judgement, hearing capacity (or willingness to listen) and so on. So nowhere do I either say that YOU are ridiculous or deaf and, I am afraid, this is why your approach seems to smack of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how translating English to French would clarify anything, for me at least. Per your logic "removing sourced material is vandalism" isn't the same as calling someone a vandal either. In any case, you don't have to react so defensive and scared. I don't believe in running to admins pr notice boards when someone incidentally chooses their words less carefully than per usual. It's better to solve this topic rather than cloud it with fruitless banter on whether you might be able to block one another instead. As I said, this is easily solved by adding a caption to the gallery with a notice of sorts explaining that iconic dishes do not have to limit themselves (by tradition) to the country with which they are most closely or popularly associated. Do you agree? If not, why? Colleabois (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schweinsbraten[edit]

Schweinsbraten is not only an Austrian dish → [3]. --IIIraute (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiener Schnitzel is the national dish of Austria, and also provides an article/link - problem solved. --IIIraute (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at your TP, that was all that we needed, we are not going to reignite a war over whose dishes are whose. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with the same solution, but there was an edit conflict :) I added four other national dishes in addition: three desserts for Austria, Germany and Luxembourg; and rösti for Switzerland. Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem" isn't solved, an attempt is made to hide it. The problem is, that iconic dishes associated with a certain nation might not be restricted to the nation with which they are most closely associated. Even something like a Wiener Schnitzel, which even has the nations capital in its name (!) will still be identical to a Cotoletta alla milanese and therefore common throughout northern Italy... Colleabois (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not identical - Cotoletta alla milanese is a fried cutlet similar to Wiener schnitzel, but cooked "bone-in". --IIIraute (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, incredibly similar then. In the same way that Swiss and French fondue use different types of closely related and also near identical cheeses. The question itself still remains ... Colleabois (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change[edit]

The article was recently changed in too many ways all in one edit. The spelling in the article has been British English spelling and there is no reason, given the subject, to change that. The characterisation by region instead of country does not make much sense. The problems arise with terms like "mediterranean" and "alpine" which apply equally well in France, Spain, Italy, etc. To group together Turkey, Malta, Greece and Cyprus as "mediterranean" was not wise. What happened to France, Spain, Italy, the various constituent countries of former Yugoslavia, etc? I agree that more text could be added with sources. Perhaps the solution is to leave the country classification, but add some of the new text in a more consistent way. A new largish descriptive section after the lede but before the categorization into sets of countries could be added; but the best idea before doing so is to find new comprehensive sources. Without those, it is hard to say whether the article could ever be more than a list and series of galleries pointing to other more detailed articles. Mathsci (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any radical new changes need new sources. So the first step before an arbitrary and inconsistent restructuring is to find those sources. The idea mediterranean cuisine refers only to Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Malta is faintly ridiculous. The first major step prior to any restructuring or addition of text is the addition of new sources covering the content of the article. That could take quite a while. Incremental additions are preferable. The restructuring was not helpful. Some of the new text could be useful in future, but would require more careful sourcing. So please respect the "D" in WP:BRD. Edit warring major changes into what is essentially a list article is not helpful. Finding new sources, particularly comprehensice books or culinary encyclopedias, will take time and should not be rushed. Given the nature of cookery books, it isn't clear what there might be out there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I break down my answer to the different points you have raised:
- The spelling: I agree with you. Keep the article in British English.
- Sections by regions: the original article's sections and image galleries are broken down by regions. The regions used are of course subjective and different countries can be sorted into different regions. But, the break down by regions makes the article more readable and we don't have substantial information on every country to base the sections on individual countries. Plus, adjacent countries usually have similarities in their cuisines. I would support making a country classification when we have more data on the different countries, but for now regional classification is the best solution.
- The sources: Everything in the new edit is well-sourced and the references are considered reliable for this kind of topic.
- Mediterranean cuisine: not only Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta are in this section but also Spain, Italy, and the Balkan countries (which make up Mediterranean Europe). Balkan, Iberia, and Spain are subsections under the Mediterranean section, and they are grouped like that for easier readability.
I understand that you have reservations about some parts of the new edit, but rather than reverting the whole edit, which brought much new and good content, change the parts that you think could be improved. FonsScientiae (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This categorization makes no sense. France has Mediterranean and Alpine regions, with the cuisine that goes with each. As I wrote, please leave the division into countries as it is. Find some decent sources and write a section after the lede and before the country sections with content drawn from the sources. No original research please. The sources for that content certainly exist. Whether they can be directly accessed on the web is another thing. Even if they are called encyclopedias of European gastronomy, or something similar, they are often classed as cookery books. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can break the categorization down by North, South, East, West, etc. regions, but we do not have much information on every country. I see no objections using the sources of the new edit and (as I said earlier) everything is well referenced and from the sources. FonsScientiae (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh cuisine[edit]

Your argument, for removing Kazakhstan from the article, does not hold water, simply because it lacks consistency. If you are only interested in including the cuisines of European countries that are listed in the category page, then why did you continuously remove Turkey from the article back in January, in spite of Turkey's inclusion in the category page? In my opinion, this is cherry-picking. Almost all Europe-related articles or templates that I've come across include Kazakhstan, therefore I see no reason why Kazakhstan should be omitted here. This article is meant to outline the cuisines of all European countries. --Kutsuit (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lead of the article does state: European cuisine = Continental cusine, and Continental Europe does not include Turkey - however, the Turkey argument is irrelevant for the inclusion of Kazakh cuisine.

Kazakh cuisine does not belong in the European cuisine article - please see List of European cuisines, or here, for example. Kazakh cuisine is also not included in the Category:European cuisine template.

If you want "Kazakh cuisine" included - why don't you try to support your argument with some reliable secondary sources - but please stop your edit warring and rather follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante). --IIIraute (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not evade my question. I will ask you again: why did you remove Turkey from this article back in January, if you're genuinely concerned about keeping the article in accordance with the category page? You're not being consistent as you're quite simply not even abiding by your own standards. This article was explicitly made to outline the cuisines of all European countries, and that is undeniable. Therefore it is you who has to provide sufficient reasons to remove Kazakhstan from the article when it clearly goes against the accepted norm. --Kutsuit (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illraute is perfectly right that the header "To Illraute" is inappropriate on an article talk page. Talkpage headers should be addressed to all users, as pointed out in the talk page guidelines under the heading New topics and headings on talk pages: "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." I've changed it. Please don't edit war about such a thing, Kutsuit. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Kutsuit's version of history seems more than a little disingenuous:
  • I did answer her question; please see my talk page comment above.

    I will repeat my statement for you: "Because the lead of the article does state: European cuisine = Continental Cousine, and Continental Europe does not include Turkey - however, the Turkey argument is irrelevant for the inclusion of Kazakh cuisine." That's the reason why back in January I argued not to include, i.e. "add" Turkish cuisine to this article. You will be able to see this from my argument: "Please read the lede: Western cuisine, referring to the cuisines of "Western countries", the "Occident" in contrast to the "Eastern countries", the "Orient"", since the article lead clearly states: "European cuisine, or alternatively Western cuisine". I basically only did some reverts on Bobcats 23's edit warring,i.e. restore the status quo ante, because Bobcats was the user wanting to add content to the article, and instead following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and using the talk page, the editor chose to achieve his target through edit warring. At this point I also never tried to base my argument on "templates & WP categories" - and I guess that will bring us to the next point:

  • You were the editor introducing the "template" argument; i.e. that rather than basing the inclusion of certain cuisines on reliable secondary sources (and by using the talk page) - you chose to force your personal opinion to this article, through continuous edit warring - based on the argument that: "As per the template, Kazakhstan will be included"

    That was the reason why I did notify you on your talk page, and later also on this talk page, that based on your argument: "Kazakh cuisine does not belong in the European cuisine article - please see List of European cuisines ... Kazakh cuisine is not included in the Category:European cuisine template."

    I also provided you with a link here, to "Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue" which includes an introduction written by former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, and was published by the Council of Europe - see: Darra Goldstein, Kathrin Merkle, Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue, Council of Europe, 2005, ISBN-13: 978-9287157447

    ...and then, I provided you with the advice, that: "If you want "Kazakh cuisine" included - why don't you try to support your argument with some reliable secondary sources - but please stop your edit warring and rather follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante)."

    Therefore, I do think I did make myself quite clear - didn't I.

    Also trying to change all categories and templates, as you just did at the List of European cuisines article here or at "Category:Kazakhstani cuisine" here - doesn't really contribute to this discussion, does it?

  • FYI: Canvassing fellow editors (i.e. your proposal for tag teaming) does not only apply to discussions, but also to votes, edit warring, reverts, etc. - and is considered more than inappropriate. --IIIraute (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIIraute, I wont ask you anymore questions about the past. It's my fault and it's irrelevant to the discussion. My understanding is that this article is meant to outline the cuisines of all European countries. That is why I felt Kazakhstan shouldn't be omitted. You can see Kazakhstan and other transcontinental countries included in other Europe-related articles. Let's try to reach a middle ground, please. I want to resolve this but only with your satisfaction too. --Kutsuit (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, Bobcats 23. In fact, Continental Europe also includes Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Furthermore, if the purpose of excluding Turkey from the article was on the grounds that it doesn't belong to Continental Europe, then I fail see to why Iceland, Ireland and the UK weren't excluded from the article as well. Ironically, the reference used in the opening sentence of the article always included Turkish cuisine. That's exactly the kind of inconsistency that I was referring to in my earlier replies. In any case, the past is the past and I'm willing to give IIIraute the benefit of the doubt, but it now appears that we also have another user (i.e. Jerryine) who is neither willing to discuss his changes nor accept the facts. --Kutsuit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a. Continental Europe doesn't really "include" Turkey per se - it includes a small part of Turkey, which is Eastern Thrace. That also has nothing to do with my former Orient vs Occident argument.

b.Although I think that it is very "generous" of you that you are "willing to give me the benefit of the doubt" (whatever that means), please stop addressing me personally and direct this discussion towards all users, as I basically had nothing to do with your persistent and continuous edit warring. --IIIraute (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyway, going back to the matter in hand, the fact is that almost all Europe-related articles and templates that I've come across have included Kazakhstan. There has to be a good reason to omit a European country from an article whose purpose is to outline the cuisines of all European nationalities. I'd like to rectify this problem with IIIraute, but I see no reason why I shouldn't restore Kazakhstan back to the article if this dialogue doesn't continue. --Kutsuit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight, IIIraute... Are you requesting that I do not address you in a discussion that wouldn't have occurred, had it not been for the fact that you omitted a European country from the article? That's not a fair request on your part and I would like to question the motive behind such a request. Why are you evading the discussion? Furthermore, you've been involved in edit warring in this article since January, therefore that is not a reasonable thing for you to say against me. Once again, why have you decided to omit a European country from an article that is meant to outline the cuisines of all European nationalities? You still haven't answered this question. --Kutsuit (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kutsuit: I do not like your patronizing, interrogative style - I am neither here at the WP, to answer your questions, nor am I your defendant. It is inappropriate that on this article talk page you always address all your concerns only towards my person, as your concerns should be addressed to all users. You were told by Diannaa here: "Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives"

Your latest remarks do not really follow that request: "I'm willing to give IIIraute the benefit of the doubt...", "I'd like to rectify this problem with IIIraute", "I would like to question the motive behind such a request."

So, why don't you start trying to focus your remarks strictly on content matter, and to reduce the use of "interrogation marks" in your talk page comments - that said, I am willing to answer your questions for a last time:

I only tried to put an end to your persistant edit warring - in which I was not involved. I have not edited this article for months - but I kept an eye on it. Also, I have not been edit warring in January, but restored the status quo ante and reverted some 3RR violations - which is a difference (please see: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). I also already did answer your question on why I did a revert to your "Kazakh cusine" edit: I restored the status quo ante, I reverted your persistant edit warring, you did not follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and I did provide you with a very reliable source, that does not include Kazakh cuisine → see: Darra Goldstein, Kathrin Merkle, Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue, Council of Europe, 2005, ISBN-13: 978-9287157447 here

If you want to turn this article to an article that lists the cuisines of geographical Europe, I propose the deletion of this article, i.e. to merge this article with the List of European cuisines article - as this article already exists.

Originally this article was supposed to concentrate on European cuisine, as "Western Cuisine" - the "Occident"; i.e. resemble articles like Western literature, European literature, European painting, Western classical music, etc. Are you planning to rewrite these articles as well - I hope not. --IIIraute (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of what Diannaa told me, but are you? Didn't you just speculate on what other article I'm going to be editing in the near future? Didn't you also say I was being disingenuous? Please adhere to the very rules that you're asking me to adhere to.
If this article was meant to outline Western cuisines only, then it would exclude the many Eastern European countries that aren't considered Western (e.g. Russia) and include Western countries such as Canada and the United States, instead. But that's clearly not what this article is all about. The other article you spoke of -- i.e. the "List of European cuisines" article -- is merely a duplicate of this article anyway.
Lastly, I don't know who else to address since this discussion is about the inclusion of Kazakh cuisine in the article, which you contested. I really don't know how your actions were meant to stop Jerryine's edit warring. If anything, you have contested the inclusion of Kazakh cuisine in this article, which is why I started this discussion to discuss the disagreement over the changes. My understanding is that this article is meant to outline the cuisines of all European countries. I'll be asking for other opinions to see to it that this dispute is resolved once and for all, regardless of the outcome. --Kutsuit (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your version of history did "seem[s] more than a little disingenuous" [sic], as I have shown here (also, it was a reply to one of your patronizing, interrogative questions, violating WP policies, see here), and the last sentence of my comment you are referring to, was a rhetorical question - because you already did change other articles to influence the outcome of this discussion, and to suit your argument (while this talk page discussion was going on); see: the List of European cuisines article here or at "Category:Kazakhstani cuisine" here! --IIIraute (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you know for a fact that I was being disingenuous? That was a personal attack against me. You have also speculated on my intentions to rewrite other articles (e.g. European literature article), which is demeaning. My editing of other pages are irrelevant to this discussion. Wikipedia pages are a work in progress. You actually followed me to Category:Kazakhstani cuisine and reverted my changes for no reason. That is a form of harassment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment. If you wanted to contest my changes in the category page, you could have done so in the talk page there, as per BRD methods. You have also speculated my intentions for editing that page, so you've speculated two things about me. --Kutsuit (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kutsuit, this is getting out of hand. Please focus on article content from now on. No offence meant! --IIIraute (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I lost the desire to continue this discussion. I'm out. --Kutsuit (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translated into ja:ヨーロッパ料理の一覧 from en:European cuisine (2015-07-21)[edit]

Finished translation:

--Omotecho (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Bugarian cuisine?[edit]

No single snapshot of one of the most delicious cuisines in Europe and the world- the Bulgarian? Shame on you!!! Even Norway is represented with their bulshit fish!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.56.1 (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open, so you can just add information yourself, as long as it's properly sourced Vkb123 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems with this article[edit]

There are many problems with this article:

  • It has hardly any sources, and what it has is strange. Three out of six are from Hong Kong, one is a random blog, one is a tourism promotion site with hardly any substantive content.
  • It presents European/East Asian as the key axis of differentiation. What happened to Ottoman, Arab, Persian, and South Asian, African, Mesoamerican, and other cuisines?
  • It presents steak and cutlet as "common dishes across the West". Not true. Steak is not a typical dish in Lisbon, Genoa, Amsterdam, Berlin, etc.
  • It presents wheat flour as "the most common source of starch". Wheat flour has long been the most prestigious source of starch, but many other foods, including oats, chestnuts, rice, millet, peas, and more recently maize and potatoes, were long the basic food of millions (see Early modern European cuisine).
  • It is unclear what time period it is referring to. If to the present, where is fast food? There is a silly paragraph saying "Historically, European cuisine has been developed in the European royal and noble courts", as though no one else was eating.
  • Grape wine is certainly important in much of Europe, but beer and vodka/schnapps are more important in many other parts of Europe.
  • There is the bizarre statement that "Dishes that are both sweet and savoury were common earlier in ancient Roman cuisine". But a mix of sweet and savoury was common well into the 18th century in most of Europe.
  • The introduction seems to be talking largely of elite food.

Seems to me that we should start from scratch... with some solid sources. --Macrakis (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Macrakis and @Ehrenkater. Parts of this article are an embarrassment for Wikiepedia. It is poorly written and barely in English. It is obvious that European cuisine exists and it is a well understood and recognized phenomenon. The subject is complex and that it deserves a long and detailed Wikipedia entry.
Juxtaposition of European and East Asian traditions can be a valuable contribution to understanding of "what is European cuisine", yet it should never bee a focus of such an article. At the moment, in its current form, this emphasis is too strong.
Let's take the Central European cuisine paragraph. It starts with "All of these countries have their specialities" (sic), a sentence that 1. sounds bad, 2. is unnecessary. Do we describe Central Europe or do we describe separate countries here? By the logic of "the paragraph is about Central Europe as a whole, not about countries X, Y and Z", a regional summary should focus on common features, not differences. Then the paragraph proceeds to describe those unfortunate "specialities". Czechia - beers; Germany - wursts, Hungary - goulash. Don't we all agree that all Central European countries abound in breweries? That wurst, kielbasa, Frankfurter, Wiener, Kranjska, stem all from the same concept? That the influence of goulash goes far beyond and reaches Vienna, Krakow and Prague? The Wikipedian(s) behind this fragment had knowledge but shared it in a way that can confuse the reader: does Wurst exist only in Germany but not in Austria? It was a perfect moment to write simply "Central Europe abounds in beer, sausages and rich stews". Then details could follow, such as "while Bavarians are known for beer, wine is more popular in Austria", etc. Next, in the current form of this paragraph, Polish pierogi are described as "a cross between ravioli and empanada". There is a word in the English language that describes what pierogi are. "Dumplings". There is no need to refer to terms from other languages and cultures (ravioli, empanada). It is confusing to the reader. Pierogi are "crescent-shaped filled dumplings" - they are not empanadas. Similarly, beer is not "a cross between pulque and atole" (confusing enough?). And hey, how about Maultaschen, Kloße, varenyky, etc? Not only a much better context, but more information introduced. Meanwhile, the person(s) responsible for this paragraph does more harm than good to the subject.
Terms such as "service à la russe" and references of the "in Ancient Rome" kind are used without any effort to first introduce them in a context. The historical and cultural role and position of Ancient Rome and French gastronomical culture are taken for granted. It would be worthwhile to summarize earlier in the article what made "European cuisine" European. The potential of this article is not only wasted, but the article itself becomes a mess.
It is indeed a low quality article. I would suggest to rewrite it completely. Dnaoro (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ehrenkater (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As for wine, I want to add to what @Macrakis has stated. Wine was always important even in the regions where vodka/schnapps are popular now. It was known and traded all across the continent (and it still is), used in both Christian and Judaic ceremonies (and it still is), entered fables and proverbs, placenames, architectural ornaments, general knowledge far beyond the regions where grapes were grown. In the same time hard liquors are not limited to the "schnapps North". Think grappa, rakia, pastis, and numerous others incarnations of aqua vitae, limoncello, absinthe, amaro. Of course mead and its influence on mythology for example, should be also covered. But the importance of wine cannot be underestimated. It's more than alcohol - it's a symbol. Dnaoro (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does read like a simplistic children's primer.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet cuisine?[edit]

Should Soviet cuisine be included in the article at all? For one thing, there hasn't been a Soviet Union for three decades. The cuisines of the countries replacing it are already covered. For another, most of the area of the Soviet Union was actually in Asia, not in Europe. JIP | Talk 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There had been no comments about this for half a year, so I just went and removed the link to Soviet cuisine. JIP | Talk 22:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet cuisine includes foods and dishes from both European and Asian cultures. Therefore, even if it sounds like a paradox, one can say that European cuisine is part of Soviet cuisine, but not vice versa. Soviet cuisine in its wholeness can be described as Eurasian, but not as European. It does not "belong" to European tradition even if it's "part of it". Try to imagine it as a Venn diagram. Dnaoro (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 4[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): K Wilson12 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cmood4 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_cuisine&oldid=1211278590"