Talk:Medieval cuisine/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2007

How could it have appeared in the "Did You Know?" column on September 18, 2007? Is this article from the future?

Going through it, and....

I know I found a legitimate, pinpoint reference for the Pope who ruled that puffins are fish. It was the Archbishop of Norway would got the puffin reclassified as a fish. As soon as I find it, I'll note it.

The question is this, though: is it worth indicating the viral plagues that Europeans got and survived from their livestock? Smallpox (later, I know) and chicken pox and measles all came from the medieval farm, and the resistant populations went about carrying those diseases to great effect to the new world. It might be extranneous. Geogre 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The spurious fish-classifications are as amusing as they are interesting. Hope you find the source, because there doesn't seem to be anything about it in the literature I have.

Disease-spreading livestock didn't occur to me and I don't think I've seen read anything about it (in the Middle Ages, at least). It's also interesting, but I think it would be more at home in articles like medieval agriculture or perhaps medieval demography.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've found references already to the "legendary" designation of the Puffin as a fish. Now I need to find the reality, the actual bishop who got it done. I know it was done officially in the 1400's, but I want to get a real thing there and not, like the 1911 Britanica, reports of reports. Geogre 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's [1]], but I wouldn't use it. I know that there is a real reference out there, but I have to keep looking. Geogre 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got documentation for Otter being considered to be seafood. The following recipes are from the section of "La Varenne's Cookery" (T. Scully, trans.) dealing with dishes for meatless (fish) days: --Doc 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sea-Otter in a Court-Bouillon. Dress a sea-otter and prepare it for putting into court-bouillon, which you make up in the same way as for the brill. When it has cooked, serve it dry, with parsley in a napkin on top.

Sea-Otter on the Grill. Dress the sea-otter and roast it. When it is done, make whatever sauce you like for it, provided it tastes strong and, because those large chunks don't readily take on a flavoring, split it or slice it on top. Simmer it in its sauce until it has soaked up almost all of it. Then serve it, garnished with whatever you have on hand.

Oh, those cooky Catholics... :-D Thanks for the tip! I'll be sure knead it into the article. Could you give me some more details on the source (ISBN, etc.)?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Biscuits 'n mustard, or biscuits 'n milk?

Question: the term "biscuit" is used in the article twice. Now, there is the biscotti, obviously, but are we talking about the British English "biscuit" ("cookie" in US) or the American English "biscuit" ("roll" or "scone" in Insular Engl)? Just wondering, because it looks like one in the breads section and another in the desserts section. Geogre 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the medieval recipes I've seen, the word "biscuit" almost always referrs to a small, unleavened, baked item usually made from flour, which may or may not contain lots of spices or dried fruits. Cookies and baked goods that use leavenings other than yeast were essentially unknown in the medieval period. I'll have to check through the article now to see how the word "biscuit" is used there. --Doc 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"from oats, barley or weat"

Interesting article. I'm going to slowly digest the text but I noticed a spelling error in one of the quotes (excerpt right above). Or is weat an old form of english? If so a [sic] at the end of the quote might be a good idea which I think means it's verbatim or something.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Sic is probably best described as "yeah, this is kinda odd, but I'll point it out so you won't complain". But, alas, no sics will grace this article, because it was nothing but a humble typo.

And remember not to binge on those letters, or you'll get an eye ache! :-D

Peter ^Isotalo 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

copy-editing

There seems little point in copy-editing this piece if the (presumably) original author is going to revert many of the changes. It pays to remember you're writing for everyone, not experts in the field, and to avoid redundancy and the heavy use of unnecessary phrasing where something has already been implied. As far as transitive goes, I am not particularly concerned for grammatical niceties - for example the subjunctive is now considered fairly archaic and pretentious in reference article writing unless one has a very good reason for using it - likewise use of litotes, gerundives, etc. As a writer of two best selling books I would advise that a journalistic rather a discursive belle-lettre style be used in this otherwise very interesting article. Good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.22.154 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

You're actually distorting some of the information with some of that copyediting. For example, you changed "dazzling fire-breathing subtleties" into "fire-breathing effects subtleties", which means you simply didn't bother to find out what a subtlety is. And when changing "Aqua vitae in its alcoholic forms was highly praised" to "Aqua vitae was highly praised" you also ignored that the term was used for all distillates, and the sentence clearly referred to alcohol.

I'm not being stubborn about keeping my prose, but I would like a better explanation. Could you try to specify exactly which phrasings you consider especially problematic?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I assume that you were the one who made the copyedits earlier today? If so, I'd like to point out that just about all your changes were kept. Just about the only things reverted were those I felt were beneficial for clarity.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are to be congratulated on a fine article. Naturally you will revert a few of my edits - that is in the nature of things. However, several of your reverts simply make the prose redundant again. I fail to see the difference, for example, between a general lack of sources' and a lack of sources - why do you need the word general'? It seems pedantic. Geese and ducks do not 'spawn'by the way - that term is usually reserveed for frogs in common parlance. please name me an edible distillate (the cooling of a volatile substance sublimated from another by heat and obtained by cooling) that is not alcoholic? Are ther aldehyde and ketone aquae vitae? I think not. Also, you have written: "english chefs seemed to have had a penchant for" - well, they either had a penchant or they didn't, if they had (and they did have) it is best simply to say so: viz: English chefs had a penchant for using, etc. Keen to hear from you.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm very fond of the article. It's excluding rose water, actually. At least that's what Scully says. But if you feel really strongly about some of those redundancies and say you're an experienced author and copyeditor, then I'll trust your judgment. Just be careful with those subtleties. :-) keep in mind that there's a general guideline to state the obvious. But then again, there's also the much harder policy that says to ignore all rules. Please re-revert that which you feel is really necessary.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Putrifaction, putrification, putrefaction, etc...

Don't know which ones are spelling mistakes, which ones are incorrectly used, which ones are the old english variants rather than the more commonly (according to Google) used ones. You might want to check that out. Of course, I'm talking about their use in the article. Not here.-BillDeanCarter 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pyes de Pares

What a fascinating article; thankyou for directing me to it, Peter! (and I must say, the referencing is very clear). I wonder if the following is of interest. In "Pyes de Pares" Medieval History Magazine (Issue 6, Feb 2004) Del Elston discusses the use of 'pyes' or 'coffins' as a means of preserving meat. Using a recipe from Harlein MS. 279 (and other similar ones), he constructed a heavy pastry casing, filled with cooked meat and sealed with a flour and water glue. Kept for four weeks at room temperature, microbiology tests detected no micro-organisms. It seems this was used as an early form of 'canning'. Having just 'googled' this article, I discover it has been reproduced on this site: http://www.sca.org.au/cockatrice/uploads/issue21_pyes.pdf Gwinva 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the above article which bring its conclusions into doubt.

1. Of the existing recipes for pies in the body of medieval cookbooks, I have found only a handful which make reference to pies being used as a method of preservation, and those were for non-meats (I recall one being for flour, and another for fresh herbs). The concept of meat pies being for meat preservation stems from English 18th century pies.

2. Almost all of the medieval recipes I have seen for meat pies (including the one used in "Pyes de Pares") state at the end that the pie is to be served immediately. I seem to recall seeing one or two that say the pie would keep a day or two, but I can't be sure.

3. The author states that he's using whole wheat flour, when the recipe he cites calls for making "fayre past". In this context, "fayre" implies light-colored. He also states that he often uses a substantial amount of salt in his pie crusts, where medieval source recipes do not call for salt at all.

Essentially, while Elston has proven that under certain conditions pie crusts can be used as a method of preservation, he has not shown any evidence that this was done in medieval Europe, nor that it was possible to do so givin the conditions and methods of medieval cooks. It's an amusing diversion, but still poor scholarship. --Doc 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense; thankyou. BTW, I've looked at the website linked from your user page. Fascinating. I'm sure I'll study it further. Gwinva 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a web page of notes on pies[[2]] that you might want to check out as well. Feel free to email with questions / comments / criticism. --Doc 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"You will die" was my favorite part of the paper.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A working link to the article can be found at [3] Meteorswarm (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing fact-tags

Regarding this[4]. If you have a reason that a {{fact}} tag should not be there, please bring it up on the talk page. Per WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

That means that I can request a citation without an explanation, but if you feel that the section is already attributed, or does not need attribution then the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I already explained to you that I don't need to have a discussion before requesting a citation. I am going to return that tag, and if it is removed without providing a citation, or explaining why a citation is not needed, then the information in question should be removed.

The article is very good, and the last thing I want to do is remove swaths of information, which is why I am working on getting it cited. You are demonstrating ownership of this article. I see from the history that you have done much work, but that does not put you in charge of it. If you don't like the tag, then cite the information, or remove the information.

I am working within policy to improve the article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can play the ruleslawyering game just as well as you can. Specify what you think needs citation, then we can discuss whether it needs a "I don't believe it"-tag or not.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have responded to this earlier, but I did not know you moved my post here. To not sure what rules lawyering you are talking about, I am trying to improve the article. Please assume good faith. Nothing to do with "I don't believe it", it is "citation needed". If you don't understand that please read WP:V. The tag refers to the text before it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the appropriate time to splatter a tag over an article is after you have brought the matter up on the talk page, not before. If nothing else, your use of the tag might be inappropriate or wrong, and a quick check on the talk page will help spare you embarassment. Our first responsibility is to our readers. We do our readers no services by distracting them with flashy banners warning about possible problems unless and until we're first sure that those problems actually exist. Nandesuka 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Splatter? A small edit like that does not need talk page consideration, if I made a small error and it was reverted then no damage done. I had no reason to believe it was controversial or so complex as to need discussion. Flashy banner? It is tiny, as it does the service to the reader to let them know the claim isn't being cited, that is why we use them in the article space. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

class imitation, nobility exposed to more foriegn food

I have tried to add a {{fact}} tag to this introductory paragraph in keeping with WP:V. Yet it is being removed without any sort of explanation by User:Peter Isotalo, despite my attempts to discuss this with him.

I have explained why I added the tag, now why do you object to it? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your text, but I think I missed the explanation. What fact, specifically, do you think needs a footnote? Please note that this article has a very rich list of references, so my good faith presumption going in is that the material in the article's introduction is in one or more of those references. Nandesuka 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you decided to opt for dialog rather than tagging, HighinBC! So let's work this one through:

The very reason that sumptuary laws exist is because the upper class of just about any society wants to prevent the social climbers (the middle class, boosh-wah, etc) to reach the elite level of refinement or, indeed, to imitate any of their habits, is because they want to keep their position of uniqueness. This is a more or less universal law in most complex societies, a well-known and uncontroversial fact of sociology. The goal of the classes below the elite is, of course, to imitate the elite in order to reach that lofty status so they also can be the elite, or at least to pretend that they are. And then we have the lower classes, the working classes, the poor souls who toil in the fields, who, especially in strictly hierarchical societies, are ruled by the upper classes (and scorned by the climbers). While they usually don't have the option of imitating the upper classes (due flat-out poverty), they will do so if given the chance, but this will always be delayed. (How else is the elite supposed to distinguish themselves?)

This is as far as I know an iron law of all societies, and certainly not just medieval Europe. While this is something that can be found out by reading a book or two on medieval cuisine, I'd say that this is not for this article to cite. Unless, of course, you're challenging the fact based on something you might perchance have read.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not challenging anything, I only want to improve the article.

I response to Nandesuka, the specific claims I am interest in seeing the citations to are: "the foods eaten by the wealthy nobility were considerably more prone to foreign influence than the foods of lower strata of society", and "each level of society imitated the one above it, innovations from international trade and foreign wars were gradually disseminated through the upper middle class of medieval towns". I see the article is very rich in footnotes and references, it is a good article. If the facts in the introductory sentence are referenced elsewhere in the article, then the same footnote can be used in the introductory paragraph.

Peter Isotalo, your common sense is complex and not obviously universal. If the information about classes imitating each other is something I can learn by "reading a book or two on medieval cuisine" then please cite them in reference to this claim and I may just do that. The idea that "not for this article to cite" pretty much saying that the idea is not worthy of inclusion. Per our WP:V policy we source our claims.

It is important not to assume that the reader of this article has this sort of "common sense", providing footnotes to references gives credibility to the article and helps tremendously in research. A request for a citation is not a challenge to a fact, this is not an adversarial game, we are working together. A request for a citation is an attempt to improve the article by either confirming a claim or removing it.

Now, are there any remaining reasons that these claims should not be cited? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that you haven't read a single page of any of the sources? Well, there's always this passage from Wikipedia:Summary style:

There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole.

Granted that sociology isn't technically a sub-topic of food history, it's still something you should think twice about doubting, since it's bit more than just "common sense". And in case you're wondering, I won't add footnotes for editors who are simply baffled by learning something new in an encyclopedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information about that guideline. I have not read every MOS page. That clears everything up completely. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just one question, it says "these detailed references can be found in the subarticles", which of the subarticles can a reference to these claims be found? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding addition of fact tags, HighInBC's first addition of a this tag [5] appears to be a simply inability to properly read the sentence and instead applying undue suspicion to the article by trying to misinterpret it. Thus I suppose it is no surprise that another editor who takes such keen interest in this article should be getting annoyed at the manner of the addition of the fact tags? Though HighInBC's later usage of fact tags on this article is more acceptable, this is only after it being pointed out to him the error of his earlier usage of it. So perhaps now the later additions of fact tags is being done merely to try and assert his usage of adding them in? Mathmo ^Talk 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this has been resolved by now, but I would like to emphasize that adding a {{fact}} tag to an unsourced statement does not mean "I don't believe this". It means "Please add a source for this statment", nothing more. —An gr 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Angr. They're not speech balloons. Article space is not an appropriate place to express one's doubts about a topic one can't be bothered to read up on. Talkpage first, tags later.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Peter. They don't express doubt. They express a request for references to be added so that one can read up on the topic. It is unnecessary to clutter the talk page with statements like "Please add a reference for the claim that XYZ" when an unobtrusive {{fact}} immediately following the relevant sentence is all that's needed. —An gr 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't ask for sources about something which is blatantly obvious, rather you ask for sources for something you believe needs it. (thus there isn't that much of difference between "I don't believe this" and "where are the sources", as several other people have already noticed) And additionally they shouldn't be used to the same extent when it is blatantly clear (as in this earlier example which happened on this page) or it is already sourced. Mathmo ^Talk 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Clutter" a talkpage with queries? Bollocks! That's their sole purpose. Article space is supposed to be our face to the public. It's certainly not a place to express one's personal doubt. Especially if no effort to read up on the topic has been made.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe other people use the fact template differently from me, but I use it all the time to mark things I don't doubt in the least, but that aren't adequately attributed to sources. I don't use it "to express personal doubt"; if I have serious doubt of the veracity of something in an article, I remove it and ask for discussion on the talk page. And at the risk of repeating myself, how do you expect someone to "read up on the topic" when you haven't provided a source so they know where to look? And it is important that our readers see notices about missing sources, because they need to be reminded from time to time that they can't believe anything they read on Wikipedia unless it's adequately sourced. —An gr 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first fact tag I added was a simple mistake. The second one however still is not clarified. The MOS guideline you pointed out says "these detailed references can be found in the subarticles", which of the subarticles can a reference to these claims be found? The facts still need a citation, if they are in a sub article fine, be I can't see it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you weren't actually serious about that, but in that case, take a look at this. Not a guideline, but it's generally respected by everyone. Now, I've explained why this isn't something that really needs a separate citation. It's not just common sense, but actually common knowledge (or in Raul's terms "subject-specific common knowledge"). Now you provide one good argument for doubting it. If not, go read a book or two and see if you get any wiser. Who knows? You might even find a scholar who questions it. But there's no policy or guideline that says you can demand a citation merely because you've never encountered a fact before.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are asking me to provide a good argument why it is not obvious? That is not how the burden of verifiability works on Wikipedia. Your last sentence is just incorrect. WP:V is a policy, and it does say "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it"... so yes, there is a policy that says I can demand a citation merely for any reason. I cannot imagine why you would be so insistent on not sourcing claims in this article.

This is the sort of cleanup I do to several articles every day, I don't get any grief anywhere else. As I already said, the {{fact}} tag is not a "I doubt this" tag, it is a "This needs a citation" tag. I read the first paragraph and I think "Interesting, but where did this come from? Did somebody just type this? Is it based on something?". It is not about doubt, but a desire for a more informative article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is informative by content, now how many footnotes it has. Maybe you'll find out that the statement is in fact false, but so far you've only debated policy, not facts. "Reliable sources" have been presented and the policy says nothing about your rights to demand footnotes. All the cuisine-related books except for Adamson are available at Vancouver Public Library.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes are a style issue. If you can show me where the "Reliable source" is for these claims in another form that is fine. As the article is the reader has no way of telling if that paragraph is original research or not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Food in Medieval Times, Introduction, xxi.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC are you really telling us that a citation is necessary to verify that the refined diet of medieval European nobles is more likely to incorporate foreign influences than the coarse diet of the peasantry? Or that the lower levels of society ape their social betters in all manner of behaviour, from food to clothes to style of speech? Asking for a citation for either of those is faintly ridiculous. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will just remove this article from my watchlist. I did not intend to stir everyone up, this is just regular maintenance to me. I think there are some WP:OWN issues here, but I cannot fight every battle. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, *I* don't have time for "battles" of this sort either - I would love to spend more time writing, not debating the appropriateness of inline citations for the n^th time. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and move on?

I certainly don't "own" this article in any sense - but I do think it is outstandingly good. This article has only just passed FAC, so it seems a bit churlish to slap "fact" tags on it now. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And what battle would that be? To prove that you were wrong to intervene in the first place? That simple deductive logic and consistency in human behavior wasn't enough to persuade you? You didn't look Adamson up in under an hour, now did you? I could just as well have pointed you to a recipe for stuffed pike or eel pie.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

The disputed information is well known among people who are versed in this subject, but it does need to be better documented. It would also be a good idea to expand upon it with a full treatment of sumptuary laws, mercantilist economic theory, and international trade. If I had the time and ready access to the appropriate reference books handy I'd do that myself. As things are I'll back up Peter Isalto on the fundamentals, ask for this whole discussion to cool down about twenty degrees.

Here's the basic context: during this era sumptuary laws were widespread in Europe. These restricted the legal use some luxury imported consumer goods (mostly textiles and foodstuffs) and served the dual purposes of maintaining social distinctions and safeguarding the country's trade balance. The dominant economic thinking at the time was that unrestricted access to imported consumable goods would harm a country's prosperity. Among the upper classes banquets served an important function as displays of wealth and power. An indoor canopy often distinguished the highest status table from the others and all seating arrangements reflected social standing - one was either above the salt or below the salt. Banquet dishes themselves were often (quite literally) conspicuous consumption that flaunted the host's acquisition of imported ingredients such as dates, pomegranates, oranges, refined sugar, or black pepper. The word sugar in most European languages derives from Arabic because Morocco was a major exporter of the product (this changed when the Black Death decimated the Moroccan population and their irrigation system fell apart, but that's another story). The desire for luxury foodstuffs had far-reaching consequences: Spain financed Christopher Columbus's first voyage in the hope of getting cheaper black pepper from India and, somewhat later than this period, Europe's sweet tooth for refined sugar was closely linked to slave trade in the Caribbean.

So yes, this article has room for improvement, but let's remember the perfect article does not exist. This passed a recent featured article candidacy and is far more deserving of main page attention than (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

wealthy dudes buy expensive imported stuff

This would seem blatantly obvious but apparently requires some sort of reference. It does not. I have copy-edited the first par. to underline this intuitively plain fact. Hope this calms the waters somewhat (by pouring expensive foreign oil on them possibly). Sodesuka. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.90.186 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Your improvements to the article certainly do clear up some things, and reduce the flowery language. Thank you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My kudos to you as well. You're doing good deeds, anon. You should consider setting up an account.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will sign in next time. Truth is I'm a doctor (writing still doesn't provide enough income!! Grrr!) and I tend to edit on the fly between patients. Can't spare those extra few seconds to log in but I will from now on.Lgh 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

dreifelderwirtschaft? Ja, oder?

I note the de wiki entry has somw quite different emphases - for example on agrarain practices. Should the En wiki mention crop rotation for example? Lgh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.90.186 (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Crop rotation and cuisine are not much related, in my opinion. (The farmer gets more or less the same products year by year, but grows them in different locations. This is all the more necessary in a less monetary economy -- you don't buy seed, you store it, and it would be unwise to aim to store seed for three years before planting.) Hence, not much difference year by year in the products available for cooking. But, if the German article knows better, go ahead and add some text from it; or copy the text here and someone will probably translate it. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's info on crop rotation and the likes, I think it should be used to start medieval agriculture (or agriculture in the Middle Ages) or perhaps added to the existing article on medieval technology, rather than added here. If anything, it would strain the article size.

Speaking of which, if you have suggestions for sub-article topics, do share it. I'm not very fond of letting articles swell all that far beyond 50k, and I know there's a lot more that can be said on the topic. If we could bud off a few sections and leave good summaries, we would have room to bring back a bit of info from regional variations in medieval cuisine.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-medieval cuisine?

Can anything be said about how this cuisine differed from what came before it? Did the decline of the Roman Empire lead to important dietary changes? I think this would be interesting to add if it can be found. ike9898 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources that I've been able to find describe almost only about food in the Late Middle Ages, since most sources are from that period. Most of the sources also stress this problem, so I'm assuming it's not merely a lack of research. There is, of course, archeology to help out, but that can usually only give very approximate answers to what, not how, people ate. A section on (pre-)history covering the period around the fall of Rome would fit quite nicely, but it make the article really long, so some suggestions for appropriate sub-topics would be required.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

dark ages cuisine

re: Ike's suggestion: does anyone want to do this article? I know dark ages is a politically incorrect term these days but its a convenient mental handle. Lgh 00:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the dark ages were regarded as the first era of the Medieval ages.--67.118.132.226 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

nutritional value

"the calorie-to-weight ratio of meat was less than that of plant food"

that line quoted from the article strikes me as patent nonsense. meat is known to hae a higher energy value than plants today, and that isn't likely to have been significantly different a few hundred years ago. perhaps teh origianl writer of this line meant to refer to the calorie-to-cost ratio? Rhialto 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the statement needs clarification: meat that is fat-free has very little calorific value. Almost all the calories in meat are in fat (and a little in stored glycogen). However, a cabbage leaf likewise has not a lot of calories, but a potato or swede does - they are almost pure energy, being complex carbohydrate: the body breaks them down to pure sugar. In general the original statement is true to the extent that if you took a basket of typical medieval vegetables and calculated the calorific value as against that of the same wieght of typical medieval meat product I think the vege's would come out on top. Lgh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.90.186 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Wonderful article

Just a note to say how much I enjoyed the article and congrats to the editors for the fine work. It is a wonderful read and very informative! Tirronan 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also really impressed with the breadth and richness of this article. I hope this reflects the future of all Wikipedia articles. ~ Rollo44 02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fun article to read- nice work to all those editors involved.Cireshoe 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article, folks - well done! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Cracking good read. I'd like to see better referencing though. Anchoress 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also in agreement. I learned a bunch. Good read, too. -Taco325i 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! Extremely interesting, and so I must now print it. But by contrast these discussion:Talk pages are too often 'pettifogging' - if you have points, suggest text (with sources) to add in the same knowledgeable style. Incidentally, why are there so few females contributing - are they still detained in the kitchen, or still felt too pure to get involved? 86.144.193.193 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are male, plain and simple. But the best sources I've read for this article are written by women. Fast and Feast by Henisch is a delightful read, even outright witty at times (just look at her comment on dodging fasting regulations). Dembinska was just about my only source of medieval cuisine east of Germany. And then there's Adamson, of course. All of them completely indispensable.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Female editor here. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a very good article, I hope to watch it improve over time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been vandalized

There are comments such as "YOUR MOMMA GOES TO COLLEGE" and other comments.

Need to change the title

Nothing is written about non-European medieval cuisine. The title of the article should be chage to "European medieval cuisine". The present title violates the neutrality principle of Wikipedia. "Medieval" refers not only to Europe.--Alex Kov 05:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does. See archived discussion and Middle Ages.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, Encarta and Enyclopedia Brittanica agree that it only refers to a part of European history. 128.227.51.157 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Medieval articles" in these books were written by Eurocentrist. They are already "the past day". Tahts the one reasone why Wikipedia has arised. I still insist on the point that present title should be renamed. As far as I know the term "medieval" is frequently used by Asian historians to describe the period of their national histories from 8 (12) - 16 (18) ctnturies. So no need to monopolize the name "medieval" for European history.--Alex Kov 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see a problem, start a discussion at Middle Ages not here. As you can see above, consensus is against you. 128.227.51.157 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact the whole series of medieval articles only deal with Europe:

Thats the consensus of Euro-centrists and the fact that so many articles deal with "medieval" as only European terms proves my assumption that they are written in biased Euro-centric way. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for all the nations so no culltural centrism should be in it. Medieval cuisine article is written only about European regions, so it have to be changed into proper name "Medieval European cuisine". No need to follow non-neutral euro-centric vision of the world history.--Alex Kov 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in the Medieval ages article it is stressed that nowadays the european historians dont use term "medieval" towards history of non-european countries. But it should be take into account that non-european historians do use this term in their works, despite the attitude of western scholars.--Alex Kov 08:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also find many article concerning the history of non-European coutries in Wikipedia where the term "medieval" is used in attachment to the history of these contries. Beacause of lacking neutrality i added the template.--Alex Kov 08:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the template. If you wish to propose a name change, use {{moveto|Medieval European cuisine}} instead. — Brian (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can say "China in medieval times" when referring to China during the period that in European history is called Medieval. It's just like saying Zimbabwe in the Cold War era even though Zimbabwe really wasn't involved in the Cold War. It's shorthand for a time period when used in that sense. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually using the term "medieval" for non European history would be eurocentric which is the reason why such classifications have been dropped among modern historians. We cannot classify other regions history by our system, as previously explained the 450-1450 (rough estimate of the medieval period) time frame does not necessarily represent a middle period for other civilisations. Therefore the current wikipedia praxis is correct and neutral. Though as a note, the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe example is not ideal as that country was indeed affected by the cold war (though one could say it was a "hot war" in that region).--Caranorn 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this was rather nicely summarized by Nunh-huh in the previous discusion:

...we disambiguate when we need to, not preemptively. When you write that article on how different "Medieval" Mongolian cuisine is from other Mongolian cuisine, I'm sure we'll rise to the occasion.

To those arguing that it's just a simple time scale issue, keep in mind that the Middle Ages ended at different times in Europe. In Italy, the Renaissance was considered to be up and running when much of Northern Europe was still in the Late Middle Ages. And if that doesn't convince you, just try finding literature that describes "medieval Aztec cuisine" or "Thai cuisine in the Middle Ages". Trust me, you won't find them. I've found one single exception so far which is a book of essays called Medieval Arab cookery, but I haven't read it yet and I don't know which regions it covers.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! I couldn't agree with you more, Peter. Sometimes I regret the fact that English has become an 'international language'. I'll bet that DA.WIKI [6] or NL.WIKI [7] don't have to put up with this kind of insignificant squabbling all the time. Kudos to the authors! It's a very well written English language article - I wouldn't change a thing. CanadianMist 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wealthy or noble or both

"only the wealthy nobility could afford imported ingredients such as spices".

The discussion (above) implies that consumption of spices by non-nobles was forbiden by the sumptuary laws. My scan reading of the Wikipedia article only found a couple of mentions of medieval food - both of which came from France. One was about meat and the other was fish, and in this case it is about princes.

I am a general reader seeking enlightenment and I don't have easy access to a good library. Is the article saying that there were widespread sumptuary laws across Europe that prevented non-nobles from eating spices? It seems to me to be likely that wealth, not nobility was important. My impression is that in England at least, non-noble but wealthy people ate spices - merchants and abbotts for example. Rjm at sleepers 06:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The sumptuary laws I've seen have been concerned primarily with the number of courses at dinner parties. I can't recall if any type of foods that were outright forbidden, but neither does the article say that. However, it did happen that monasteries and upper middle class townspeople ate spices, but if so it was on very special occasions and usually not exactly the same as the nobility. Though it does say quite a bit about how well-off (and powerful) both merchants and monastic orders could become in some areas.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while spices were expensive (on the order of 10x the modern price based on the wages for unskilled laborers), they were not necessarily too expensive for the growing middle class, or for the poor if purchased in very small amounts.

There's an excellent article about this available online [8]. In it, an Canadian economics professor shows the relative costs of various spices in the early 15th century. --Doc 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We know no details

"We know no details about the usual meals of the elite, or about the eating habits of the common people and the destitute."

If this were true, where did everything in the article come from? I suspect that whoever wrote this meant something else, but I can't figure out what. Rjm at sleepers 07:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It means we know a lot about hand washing, carving, table manners, dining hierarchy, cutlery, etc of the upper class, but just about nothing of the lower classes. If you find highly detailed info about the dining practices of lowly peasants in the article, do let us know.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike today, even in upper class, many could not write at all so what record we have are heavily restricted and limited to "special occasions" when those few with writing skills could be bothered to record. So instead of "Today, I ate bread and sausages, for all meals, again, for the whole week. I'm getting sick of this.", we have "Oh what a great feast we had today, our lord be praised! Dishes are finest that I have had in a whole year!". The second group of sentences are actually more meaningless than the first group but guess which would likely be written? So we have to guess a great deal about how those "unrecorded occasions" might have been. Some clues can be found from "special occasions" record, for example, by someone grumbling that usual bread are much coarser, but those record are very few and rarely helpful enough. It's almost like trying to reconstruct what we eat today from only TV commercials. --Revth 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Largely, that's seems to me like a good general description of what sources recorded, but it's an over-simplification to say that only feasts were recorded. In great detail, yes, but there are plenty of other sources like chronicles, account books, illustrations and, to some extent, recipe collections. Extrapolating at least some information from that those sources isn't all that dubious.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing

This is a particularly long article and overall is very well written and presented. I would note, however, that a practice of not having a space between the period and the first letter of the following sentence occurred in the last two sections. I suppose that both those involved in copy editing and those who passed it for FA were a little tired after reading through the earlier sections and simply missed it. In truth, it didn't spoil my enjoyment of the article. LessHeard vanU 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Early modern dietetics

A section on how the view of dietetics changed after the Middle Ages was introduced, but I moved it here since it seemed a bit out of place to discuss it in an article concerned with medieval cuisine.

This prevalent theory of digestion changed with the widespread introduction of brewing. Jan Baptiste van Helmont believed digestion was similar to brewing, a concept that was both expanded on and reduced in scope by Franciscus de la Boë Sylvius in the 17th century. This theory explained why grains, especially cooked grains like bread, were so important for a proper diet. It was also thought this explained several features of the human metabolism, notably the heat of the body, and flatulence, believing this to be similar to the outgassing during brewing. This change in the theory of digestion led to changes in what was believed to be a good diet, and indirectly to the modern restaurant, originally a way for the the middle class to afford a healthy balanced meal.^[1]

There's also an odd statement in there; it is implied that brewing wasn't introduced until after the Middle Ages, which is rather obviously contradicted by the widespread popularity of beer since... well... Ancient Egypt. And discussing indirect development of modern restaurants, which didn't really happen until the very late 18th century, seems a bit premature. However, with some tweaks I think it might be a good addition to a future early modern European cuisine.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally any article on history outlining a period is improved dramatically with the addition of a "before" and "after" section. This was the "after". I didn't know the "before" so I couldn't add it. Unless you have some better arguement than this, I think it should be re-added. Of course, I wrote it, so... Maury 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's odd information in there. What's with "changed with the widespread introduction of brewing"? Again, people have been brewing beer for thousands of years. And why would one need such a theory to explain why grains were important for one's diet? They had been the staples of almost all of Europe since antiquity; they were seen as essential and indispensable. Much of what was held to be true in the Middle Ages also remained true long into the early modern period. From what I've read on dietetics in Food in Early Modern Europe by Kenneth Albala, there were many different theories competing with the Galenic extrapolations.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Very, very nice and interesting article. Keep up the great work. I enjoyed reading this tremendously.Cameron Nedland 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting! 70.16.30.85 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript references

When an illustration is taken from a medieval manuscript, would it be possible to say where it comes from? This can be done in a footnote, though personally I would just stick it in at the end of the legend under the picture. There is a standard form for doing this, for example:

London, British Library, ms. Harley 235, fol 25v.

That is, town, library, shelfmark, pagenumber. This would be very helpful, and together with the date of the manuscript it allows the reader a far better orientation. Thanks. --Doric Loon 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of information is available if you check out the image info by clicking them. Most of the them have fairly detailed information about which manuscripts they have been taken from.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

hello. i just noticed that someone added some crap between the introduction and the table of contents. i went to try to edit it out, but i couldn't find it. maybe someone more experienced could fix it? thanks

It has already been removed. --Luigi Maniac 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a featured article???

The first two or three sections have absolutely no citations! None at all! I don't know how this got on the front page, but it doesn't deserve to be there. M.U.D. 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There are some very broad sweeping statements there, which are not referenced. The article is about food in a whole continent over a time period of 1000 years! Most statements, I'm sure, would need to be qualified a great deal. --345Kai 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the introductory sections summarize detail found later in the article, citations there would just be distracting. IMHO. Nandesuka 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kai, M.U.D., if you have specific criticism of specific statements based on something other than vague suspicions (or lack of familiarity with the topic) please elaborate it for us. The article cites many fine sources and is reasonably specific in how those sources have been used. If there are references, you trust those references or go and verify them yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While this article is very well sourced, it holds the appearance of not being sourced because an unusual citation style is being used. While most articles have a citation after every fact that is cited, this article seems to have all it's citations lumped together to leave the reader to figure out which citation goes with what fact. I tried to clear this up, but got an unhappy reception. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You said before that you didn't want to be fighting "battles" of this kind, and the same goes for a lot of editors that have actually contributed something substantial to the article. I'd appreciate if you honored those kinds of proclamations instead of resuming this frustrating horse-beating every time someone adds another 0mfG! m0AR |\|0tEZ!-post.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how belittling the concerns of others is productive. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When these certain "others" show even a minimum of a commitment to more than simply trying to force their personal opinions of an unspecified guideline on articles I'll take them seriously. I mean stuff like adding prose, copyediting, verifying sources, providing constructive criticism, etc. You're not really in a position to lecture me about being productive.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just read through this article again with the "Featured Article" designation in mind, I cannot see how this article rates much better than a "B". As I've mentioned elsewhere, it relies almost entirely on tertiary sources (books other people have written on the subject), makes some overgeneralizations, and presents speculation as fact. It's a very nice overview of medieval cuisine, but is not an authoritarian source and is not highly accurate. People well researched in the cooking of any particular region of medieval Europe will not find this arcile at all helpful (and may find parts of it misleading). Further, the way that sources are cited here makes verifying any of the dubious assertions almost impossible. --Doc 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

breakfast reference

I have added a {{Fact}} tag to the following:

"Because the church preached against gluttony and other weaknesses of the flesh, men tended to be ashamed of the weak practicality of breakfast."

I think this needs a citequote for three reasons:

Althought I don't dispute that the "church preached against gluttony and other weaknesses of the flesh", a reference might be nice.
Can one cite a source that men (people in general or just males?) were ashamed of breakfast?
"Weak preacticality" is nice prose, but I think the attitude that breakfast was considered "weak" needs to be backed up by sources.

Thus I have added the fact tag. Please do not remove it. 167.80.244.204 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)chevalier3

I've removed the tag since I don't believe citation requests are appropriate to add without counter-arguments that don't actually question the available sources. In fact, (re-)adding the tag seems more like a unilateral demand to me. Especially when the facts aren't dubious or even doubted by the person commenting.

That the Catholic preached, and still preaches, against carnal sin is extremely common knowledge. Anyone with even a minimum of knowledge of the Middle Ages and religious history will know that, and no one could reasonably question it. It doesn't seem like it would be counter-intuitive even to someone with a lot of prejudices against medieval religion.
Yup, Henisch, Chapter 2. It's the footnote closest following the statement and should be the one consulted before asking for more.
"Weak practicality" is a way of expressing 1 and 2 in, as you say, nice prose.

Breakfast was conspicuously absent in Europe well into the 17th century, and only in the last two centuries has it become a proper meal in some parts of Europe (and the US). I can't recall the exact pages or chapters right now, but I'm pretty sure that Adamson confirms this. It might seem unfamiliar, but this is not my own interpretation, and I don't recall that it appeared to be merely the authors' opinions.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I response to point 1, this is not common knowledge(unless you have been exposed to Catholic beliefs). Not everyone knows even the first thing about Catholics. When claiming a real group holds a certain view point, a citation is important. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation is still Henisch, Chapter 2.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think the problem is that the citations are not being placed directly after the facts they support. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that's not reasonable. This material is already cited, and it's cited in a closely following footnote. That someone decides to challenge the material without bothering to read the provided citation is hardly a problem with the article. Littering the article with footnotes after every word besides "and" and "the" will not make you (or any other reader) more likely to read the references that have already been provided. Nandesuka 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me that this talk page has a history of editors mistakenly thinking that facts are not cited, this seems to demonstrate a failure to associate the citations with the facts. This is not a question of confirming citations, but making it clear which citation goes with which fact. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that when editors fail to check their citations (for example, by putting a "citation needed" tag on a fact that is already covered by a cited reference), they should be corrected, ideally on the talk page of the article. Those editors should also be encouraged to ask questions on the talk page, rather than embarassing themselves by spamming inappropriate tags on the article before asking here first. Nandesuka 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying that a user adding such a tag is "embarassing(sic) themselves" or "spamming", could you not even consider the possibility that the citations are marked in a less than clear fashion? The citation given for this statement is not even in the same section, so it is a very understandable error when a person thinks it is not cited. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would guess that many of the "less than clear" citations become clear upon actually examining the reference given. If this is all for the sake of form — checking that each fact is identifiable with some reference but not that the reference actually asserts the fact — there is a certain air of the picayune to the procedure. Choess 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add that extra footnote, but I must say that your presence on this talkpage is getting to be pretty annoying, BC. You're trying a bit too hard to impose your subjective preferences for citations without actually showing good arguments for it. Worst of all, you still couldn't care less about doing any research despite asking for direction on how to conduct such research. I'm taking a wikivacation now, not because of stress, but because I have other things to do. I would appreciate if you stopped fighting what appears to be a fairly clear consensus against random footnote sprinkling.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, please stop taking this personally. I am simply offering my opinion, and I am allowed to have a different opinion than you. I suggest you hold back from making personal editorials about me, it is not really the subject at hand. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a different opinion from most of the other editors active here. Should we start tallying how many times and by how many individual editors you've been told to be a bit less cantankerous? Or is that just taking it personal too?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cantankerous? Polls? I am not trolling this page or anything, I am simply responding to the concerns of the various editors who come to this page who are confused about the citations. Please do not view this as an advesarial situation, we should be able to discuss opposing points of view without getting upset. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

^ THE SHORT HISTORY OF GASTROENTEROLOGY

[1] THE SHORT HISTORY OF GASTROENTEROLOGY

[1]