Content deleted Content added
Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) archived waste-of-time discussion |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{{archivebox| |
|||
==Listed the article as needing expansion== |
|||
# [[/Archive 1|March 2006 – June 2007]] |
|||
I listed the article as needing expansion in an attempt to find more sources. So far, I've only found references in [[Michael Crichton]]'s ''Timeline'', some medieval enthusiast pages on the internet and the brief passage about it in the source cited in the article. |
|||
}} |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 12:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Added links== |
|||
Ok, thanks for all the links. All of them clearly don't fit in the article right now, but I'll put them here so they can be sorted through and perhaps used to expand the prose of the article. |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Everything Imaginable Made of Sugar |
|||
Translation of the third course of The first banquet for Emperors for the early meal on a meat day, and re-creation of a selection of said third course from Ein New Kochbuch by Marxen Rumpolt |
|||
http://clem.mscd.edu/~grasse/GK_ASQPsugar98.htm |
|||
From Functional Feast to Frivolous Funhouse: Two Ideals of Play in the Burgundian Court |
|||
Paper given at the 5th Annual Indiana University Symposium on Medieval Studies |
|||
http://www.byu.edu/~hurlbut/perform/hurlbut.html |
|||
Illusion Dishes |
|||
Article by Cindy Renfrow |
|||
http://members.aol.com/renfrowcm/illusion.html |
|||
Ivan Day's website |
|||
Decorated food history and courses |
|||
http://www.historicfood.com/portal.htm |
|||
Subleties from "Le Viandier de Taillevent" |
|||
translation from the original manuscript |
|||
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/prescotj/data/viandier/viandier465.html |
|||
Trimalchio's Banquet |
|||
A Roman feast, containing many illusion foods, described in a contemporary satire |
|||
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/petro/satyr/sat06.htm |
|||
Feast of Illusions in 2 Courses |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FEASTS/ill-fd-feast-art.html |
|||
An illusion feast |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FEASTS/Valentines-Fst-art.html |
|||
A Great Pie |
|||
http://members.aol.com/renfrowcm/gretepye.html |
|||
A Recipe for Fake Fish |
|||
16th C Danish apple pastry disguised as a fish |
|||
http://www.coquinaria.nl/english/recipes/03.2histrecept.htm |
|||
A conceit of walnuts |
|||
http://home.comcast.net/~morwenna/Receipts/walnuts.html |
|||
Chastlete (Pastry Castle) |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/Chastlete-art.html |
|||
Coqz Heaumez |
|||
Gode Cookery reconstruction of a 14th c subtlety |
|||
http://www.godecookery.com/helmeted/helmeted.htm |
|||
Gode Cookery Illusion Foods |
|||
Recipes for subtleties (including translations) |
|||
http://www.godecookery.com/illusion/illusion.html |
|||
Illusion Food Messages from Various E-Lists |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/illusion-fds-msg.html |
|||
Incredible Foods, Sotelties and Entremets |
|||
Gode Cookery spectacle foods |
|||
http://www.godecookery.com/incrd/incrd.htm |
|||
Marzipan Messages From Various E-Lists |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/marzipan-msg.html |
|||
Peacocks and Pasties |
|||
http://www.coquinaria.nl/english/peacock/index.htm |
|||
Pommes Dorres |
|||
http://home.earthlink.net/~smcclune/stewpot/recipe_pommesd1.html |
|||
Sotleties Messages from Various E-Lists |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/sotelties-msg.html |
|||
The Cockentrice - A Ryal Mete |
|||
http://www.godecookery.com/cocken/cocken.htm |
|||
Warners |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/Warners-art.html |
|||
Consuming Wealth and Eating Words: Sugar Paste |
|||
http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/285chap9.htm |
|||
Sugar Paste Discussion From E-lists |
|||
http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/sugar-paste-msg.html |
|||
Sugar Paste a Cook's Playdough |
|||
http://home.comcast.net/~iasmin/mkcc/MKCCfiles/cooksplaydough.html |
|||
==St. George on horseback and slaying the dragon== |
|||
''OED'', subtlety, sense 5: |
|||
''Cookery''. A highly ornamental device, wholly or chiefly made of sugar, sometimes eaten, sometimes used as a table decoration. ''Obs''. exc. ''Hist.'' |
|||
?c1390 ''Form of Cury'' in Warner Antiq. Culin. (1791) 4 It techith for to make curious potages and meetes, and sotiltees. c1440 in Househ. Ord. (1790) 450 A soteltee Seint~jorge on horsebak, and sleynge the dragun. 1467-8 Durham Acc. Rolls (Surtees) 92 Pro le Tynfole empt. pro ornacione et pictura del soteltez erga festum Natal. Domini. 1517 R. TORKINGTON Pilgr. (1884) 7 They mad vs goodly Chere wt Diverse Sotylties as Comfytes and Marche Panys. 1552 LATIMER Serm. Par. King (Parker Soc.) II. 139 At the end of the dinner they have certain subtleties, custards, sweet and delicate things. [1768 H. WALPOLE Let. to Cole 6 June, I am no culinary antiquary: the Bishop of Carlisle, who is, I have often heard talk of a sotelte [printed sotelle], as an ancient dish. 1852 C. M. YONGE Cameos II. xxxi. (1877) 327 The feast was entirely of fish: but they were of many kinds, and were adorned in the quaintest fashions, with sotilties, or subtleties. 1875 J. C. JEAFFRESON Bk. Table I. 133 A subtelty, representing a pelican on a nest with her birds.] |
|||
:[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC). |
|||
==Dominicans/Monks== |
|||
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: Dominicans are not monks. Technically, they are friars. [[User:70.161.209.90|70.161.209.90]] 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Or in this case, deep friared. (Sorry, I'll go away now.)--[[User:Raulpascal|Raulpascal]] 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Nice and subtle == |
|||
Does the modern word "subtlety", referring to something made not obvious, derive from the name of the dish, or vice versa? -- Milo {{unsigned|81.171.2.42|21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)}} |
|||
:I suspect the general concept of "subtletey" probably existed long before medieval chefs started baking pies decorated with gold leaf and pastry battlements. |
|||
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 14:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm pretty sure the concept did, but was it already called by the word "subtlety" back then? -- Milo {{unsigned|81.171.2.42|00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)}} |
|||
:::The earliest usage is 1390 (see excerpt from OED above), but back then it was "soteltie" and some of the sources use the older spelling. What the English term was before 1390, I don't know. |
|||
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[New Oxford American Dictionary]]: Origin [[Middle English]]: from [[Old French]] ''soutilte,'' from [[Latin]] ''subtilitas,'' from ''subtilis ‘fine, delicate’.'' — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Entremet as main entry (for now) == |
|||
The point of clearing out most of the content of this article is because the term "subtlety" was far more specific than [[entremet]]. Though I'm still not entirely sure what it meant in the late medieval context, it appears that it did not include theatricals (I think they're called "pageants") and basically covered only table ornamentations of various kinds. To what extent they were actually edible, I'm also not sure. Anyway, there's no point in fleshing out both articles with identical content, and especially not when the content here was summarized in the other article some time ago. |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I strongly disagree with this. It's appropriate for the two articles to reference each other, but neither (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&oldid=131299895 Subtlety] before you reverted it again to a stub) is a substitute for the other. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 10:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A subtlety is as far as I know just a Middle English term for a specific type of entremet and the two terms are often used interchangeably by medieval food scholars, though some actually point out differences in usage. I chose entremet as the proper main article because it was more widely applicable to the concept of "medieval and early modern dinner entertainment provided between courses". After all, articles are for the most part supposed to be about concepts, not terms. The article at the Ricardian society website that you added as a source doesn't seem to be all that reliable, btw. It confuses "entrements" [sic] with what appears to be aperitifs, makes a weak (but still unforgivable) attempt at regurgitating the old myth about using spices to conceal spoiled food, and even confuses ''L'Mangier De Paris'' [sic again] with ''[[Le Viandier]] (de Taillevent)''. |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 11:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The reference you mentioned (which was so far the only citation with [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|proper format]] in the article) was for a single item: a spun sugar hunting scene. The Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|Ownership of articles]] [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy]] says: |
|||
:: ''"If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so."'' |
|||
:You seem to be [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic|discouraging participation]] by other editors. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Try stating your case about the differences between entremets and subtleties instead of quoting policy. |
|||
::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: "Like the [[Sphinx]] guardians of Greek mythology, Wikipedia "owners" pose a riddle to all who dare edit their article." ([[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Ownership examples]]) — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You haven't actually explained why you're insisting on the old version. What's the point after everything I explained about the two terms? |
|||
::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Consensus first=== |
|||
Lets start by getting consensus for the merge, then making a major change. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This is more productive approach. Here are the two versions in question: |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=116053934&oldid=116021952 Two months ago] ([[Special:Contributions/Peter Isotalo|Peter Isotalo]]) Edit summary: ''"degraded to a sub-category of entremet"'' |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=131296516&oldid=116053934 Two weeks ago] ([[Special:Contributions/Athaenara|Athaenara]]) Edit summary: ''"Restored version prior to mid-March 2007 reduction to a stub. Some copyedits & wikifying."'' |
|||
: I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=134406587&oldid=134047813 restored] [[Subtlety]] to aid comparison with [[Entremet]]. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You're supposed to make an attempt to argue your case ''before'' you start bonking people over the head with policy citations. |
|||
::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Isotalo [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=134446038&oldid=134406587 reverted] with ''"motivate your edit before demanding that it be respected"'' as the edit summary. |
|||
There are reasonable grounds, which I stated, for restoring [[Subtlety]] to its pre-stub state: to aid comparison for discussion here with other editors. I made no demand. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The content you insist on including really does concern [[entremet]] more than it does this article. I wrote that text before I actually wrote the other article, when I still thought that "subtlety" was a much more general term. If you really want to insist on expanding this article, then please do so with information that is actually specific to the Middle English term. |
|||
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Nor did I "insist." — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This type of petty quibbling over words will not make any of us the wiser. |
|||
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Third opinion=== |
|||
I am here as a result of a plea posted on [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]]. I know nothing about this subject, but I am rather disturbed at seeing sourced material relevant to [[subtlety]] being deleted. I see good material in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=134406587&oldid=134047813 this version] that ''should'' be merged into [[entremet]] if it's more appropriate there, after which this article can simply redirect to [[entremet]]. If that deleted material is more appropriate here, then the non-stub version of [[subtlety]] should stay. -[[User:Amatulic|Amatulic]] 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: The "How to merge pages" section on [[Help:Merging and moving pages]] says: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
:"… you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]s should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can '''propose''' it on either or both of the affected pages." |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
: The [[Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger|proposing a merger]] procedure seems to be a good one, but if either article is reduced to a stub |
|||
: ''("[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=116053934&oldid=116021952 degraded to a sub-category of entremet]" - "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subtlety&diff=134047813&oldid=131299895 revert to being a sub-category of entremet]")'' |
|||
: the process is impeded: the content under consideration is more difficult to retrieve. |
|||
: Because my edits have been reverted twice, with hostile comments in an edit summary and on this talk page, I have not restored the content again myself. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I do not believe the content should be lost. I have restored it, and added a tag to propose to merge it with the [[entremet]] article. Further discussion on merging should take place on [[Talk:Entremet]]. -[[User:Amatulic|Amatulic]] 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Good, this should be discussed instead of unilaterally decided. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(</font><font color="#c20">H</font><font color="#000">)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Motivations would be helpful to understand why this is pursued so eagerly. Why does the old material need to be salvaged and what was wrong about the definition in the stub version? |
|||
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I stated the reason at the beginning of this section and also explained on [[Talk:Entremet]]. Informative material that is backed up by valid references shouldn't be removed. If this article isn't the right place for said material, and the other article is more appropriate, then merging and redirecting are warranted. There isn't any point in maintaining an article that will likely be a stub forever, if the content can reasonably be contained in a broader article. In that case, the definition should be maintained in [[entremet]] and this article be deleted completely, changed to contain only a redirect link to [[entremet]]. -[[User:Amatulic|Amatulic]] 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you want to merge the material do so yourself. You don't need to start a big merge discussion since no one has opposed it. I'm restoring the article for now, since I don't see anyone actually opposing the definition of what a subtlety is. The notion that we should keep articles for reviewing purposes should be strongly discouraged since articles are intended for readers, not editors who know how to check edit histories whenever they like. Overall, please try making substantial and harmonious improvements instead of upholding mere reverts to versions that were dispensed with because they were deemed superfluous. Just because something is backed up by sources doesn't mean it has to be kept for all eternity. I thought someone would actually take a hint when I kept reverting material I had myself written... |
|||
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The lastest revert by Athaenara was done without even attempting to reply to my queries. I've posted a request for a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|RfC]] to get some more insight into this. |
|||
:::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 06:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Article talk pages=== |
|||
User {{user|Peter Isotalo}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&diff=prev&oldid=134795564 posted] on my talk page about issues with these two articles. I removed it with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&diff=prev&oldid=134918155 suggestion] that he post where the discussion is located. |
|||
He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&diff=prev&oldid=135030858 posted] on my talk page a second time. I removed that as well, again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&diff=prev&oldid=135031476 requesting] that he post not on my user talk page but on the article talk pages. |
|||
There are many other articles on my watchlist (more than 180 at the moment, down from nearly 300 a few weeks ago). I avoid obsessing about any of them. I rely on the fact that many other [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] editors have valuable insights to offer, and I do what I can in cooperation with them to improve articles. |
|||
I won't [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]. This is not avoidance. The two articles need more, not less, [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] attention, and it is on article talk pages that [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages|article improvement discussions]] are centered. The removal of nearly all of the content of one of the two the articles does not aid the process. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:What content needs to be included and why? If there's a problemt with POV, then which POV is being pushed? The more you actually elaborate about your motivations, the easier it is to resolve the dispute. |
|||
:[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I was supposed to take a wikivacation, but when even H (who so far hasn't weighed in with an opinion on anything subtlety-related) made a revert I noticed something had to be done. The point is that I made an over-generalization when I wrote the material that you're now fighting me in keeping here. I've made a compromise and removed only the material which was included here when the article was supposed to cover the entire concept of "medieval entertainment dish", which included [[entremet]]s. That was ''before'' I came across material that noted that a subtlety appeared to be a very specific English form of entremet. I do not recommend re-adding the stuff about the orange meat balls either because I'm not sure it was a subtletly as much as it was a fancy type of illusion dish. Same goes for the blackbird pies and fake maggots. Even if they are distantly related as "food that can astonish", there's no mention of them being defined as subtleties. |
|||
I would really like to have some motivations from those insisting on reverting me all the time. Why are you questioning my presentation of it and what alternatives do you propose? I'm also being accused of violating NPOV, but I'm still at a loss as to the reason for this. How am I being partial? What POV are other editors insisting on for that matter? |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The removal of content which is discovered to be inaccurate, and by the editor who originally wrote the questionable material, is grounds for kudos, admiration, applause and supprt, '''not''' grounds for accusations and edit warring. I am at a loss here to understand why there is so much resistance to improving articles. Lacking any better or more obvious possibility, I can only wonder if perhaps some of you have an obsession with orange balls. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Your most recent explanation is really what we needed. If you had just explained this to begin with then this would not have been any sort of issue. Communication will take you much further than stubbornness. [[User talk:H|<small><sup><font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">H</font>)</font></sup></small>]]<!-- Was HighInBC --> 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:45, 5 June 2007
![]() | Food and drink Redirect‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|