Talk:English cuisine

POV removal of large amount of reliably-cited content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English wine missing?

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

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

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

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

On pictures of coronation chicken

Something something WP:BRD, though I didn't think it would be controversial to swap this for that. I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. How can you stand behind the preposterous suggestion that grey mound of sludge is archetypal coronation chicken, a dish noted for its distinct colour?

I agree there are in fact no good pictures of coronation chicken on Wikimedia. Someone should change this. In the meantime though, I support yellow indistinct mound of sludge over white indistinct mound of sludge. It's also worth noting that the picture I changed it to is the one in use on the main Coronation Chicken article. I would like to hear more about your reasoning to the contrary @Chiswick Chap BrigadierG (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. We may need a better picture, or the colour balance may need to be adjusted, or someone forgot the turmeric; but the other picture was worse. If anyone can take a decent one, that'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In what way was it worse? I'm not sure there are many faults worse than coronation chicken looking grey. Let's try to be objective here. Perhaps a useful question to ask is "which photo would be more useful to a person trying to identify coronation chicken when visiting England" - since that is what Encyclopedias were originally (reference guides). BrigadierG (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)