Talk:Dutch letter

Historical information about the Dutch letter in the U.S.

I think content about the Tulip Festival and Jaarsma Bakery (est. 1898) in Pella, Iowa that has been removed twice under the rationale of being promotional should be retained in the article. This is not promotional, but rather, it is historical in nature. The content is not promoting the bakery or Tulip Festival. Rather, it is informing the reader about these aspects of the food in Pella, Iowa, and is covered in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To my opinion it is plain advertising and should be removed. I have never counted them but I guess there are thousands of bakeries that produce Dutch letters. To pick and name just one is advertising. Especially as the four sources are rather useless (three book covers and one short mention). The relevance of the year of establishment of a bakery in an article about pastry is a complete mystery. Not to mention the irrelevance of the Tulip festival to this pastry. In the Netherlands, Dutch letters are traditionally mainly (I estimate 90%) eaten in December around the feast of Sinterklaas and Christmas. There is no need for an USA-centered approach here. The Banner talk 08:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The mention should be removed; not so much for advertising, but as WP:UNDUE. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Banket

It seems to me that that letterbanket is a specific variety of banket, so the article should be named Banket (food), and cover all the varieties (including the more common sliced-loaf style). We can include information about letterbanket in an article about banket, but not the other way around. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, only last December "Banket (food)" was merged into "Dutch letter". See the discussion [[1]. The Banner talk 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, and I don't understand why it was merged in the opposite direction of what was proposed. I grew up in Holland, Michigan and banket in forms other than letters is incredibly common. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To my opinion, after the USA-centred approach was removed, "Banket (food)" was already nearly identical to "Dutch letter". The Banner talk 08:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the appropriateness of doing a merger, I just think there's a problem with how it was done. This article makes it seem as if banket is only shaped into letters, but it is not. "Banket (food)"[2] described and showed that, and an image search[3] shows plenty of examples of the sliced-loaf variety. But we can't include that information in the article, because the name is wrong. The article should be renamed, and information about other varieties should be restored. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

See this for an example of how it could be done better. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Good heavens, no!!! Banketletters are a very specific type of pastry. What you try to do is widening the scope to cover far more than just banketletters. The Banner talk 19:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly what I am trying to do. This article is too specific. Having an article for banketletters, but none for banket makes no sense... it's like having an article for blueberry pancakes but none for pancakes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Then write a new article about the subject you want instead of demolishing an existing proper article. Demolishing makes no sense, a new (and related) article does. The Banner talk 20:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the previous discussion supported merging the topics, and I believe the decision to merge them was correct. So did you.[4] But the merger should have been in the other direction (as proposed). Wouldn't it have made more sense to incorporate the content of the more specific article into the more general one? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it makes more sense to write a new, wider article than to destroy an article about a specific subject that is part of the wider subject. The wider article can exist next to the specific one. The Banner talk 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I did write a wider article (not very new: it's mostly based on this one), which includes "Dutch letters" as one of the varieties, and you objected to it. Can you please articulate what the problem is with that article? I'm seriously at a loss to understand what your argument is... especially when you completely change positions from one discussion to the next. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• My mention in that earlier discussion of "banket" as a kind of food was hasty. I pointed to "een letter van banket"--but that's 19th century usage at best. Really, there is no such thing as banket as a food--it really only occurs as a kind of adjectival denomination for pastry chefs: if you ask a banketbakker what she makes, she might answer banket and raise her eyebrows, but the next question, "what is banket?", would be answered by a finger pointing all over the place. Banket does not relate to banketletter as blueberry pancakes relates to pancakes. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BTW, that image search for banket is useless, absolutely useless--after you get rid of the banketletters, you get a whole bunch of stuff only a few of which point at banket, that is, a very generic term for finer pastries. Een gevulde koek is not banket though, as Banner can tell you, in many ways it's really a round, flat banketletter. The earlier version of the article that was linked is likewise usual, since its links are dead and were unreliable (not to mention US-centric) to begin with. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The usage of the word in Dutch is interesting, but not relevant here. If you look up "banket" in any English-language cookbook, you'll see it refer consistently to almond-filled pastries of the kinds we're talking about here. Not finer pastries in general, and not just Dutch letters in specific. Obviously this article shouldn't be US-centric, but it is supposed to be English-centric. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a poor understanding of what Wikipedia needs: a neutral article without any geographical bias. You can take a look at nl:Banket (gebak), where "banket" is described at the finer type of pastry. It would include thinks like Danish pastry, Tompouce, Lattice (pastry), Choux pastry and much more.

The parent article of the Dutch letter is Pastry. If you want to write an article about almond pastry, you are welcome as that is indeed wider than Dutch letter, but there is no need to rip up the present article. The is equal to demolishing the article about chestnut trees because there is no article about woods... The Banner talk 08:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

These repeated accusations that I'm trying to "rip up" or "demolish" articles are very counterproductive, and insulting. I came to this area of WP-EN to check a couple facts about banket, and found that a merger had effectively deleted the article about it, instead redirecting to an article about a specific variety of banket (effectively denying the existence of other kinds). The merger had been done backwards (by an uninvolved editor who apparently didn't read the proposal carefully), and I'm merely trying to fix that mistake. As proof of my good intentions, I even went to the trouble of creating and showing an article that would solve this: an article I stand by as a good piece of wiki-ing, derived primarily from this very article and expanding on it.

There is no "geographical bias" in suggesting that articles on the English wikipedia use terminology as it is used in English. What I see here is bias from your linguistic filter: you see "banket" and read it as the Dutch word. But it is not, not here in this context. It is a word used in English-language cookbooks and in English-speaking shops to refer to this. It is not a word in English for pastries such as Tompouce or Choux; that is objectively incorrect. I'm sorry if you feel we're using "your" word wrong, but that's English for you. If you won't take my word for it (as a native anglophone of Dutch descent who grew up eating this stuff every December), then research cookbooks and recipe sites and such as I've asked; they will confirm it.[5] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My Irish (English language) cookbooks disagree with you. And I have suggested it a few times now, please write an article about Almond pastry as you in fact want to do? The Banner talk 16:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

When your cookbook uses the term "banket", what does that refer to? Can you point to any sources available online that demonstrate this usage? Have you considered the possibility that it might be a usage peculiar to Ireland/Hiberno-English? (We don't want a geographical bias here, you know.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My cookbook doesn't use the term. Please point us to real books. Linking to a Google search is just not useful; what your last search suggested was that "Banket" should simply stay a redirect. We need better evidence--so far this is all just a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't easily link you to print books, but if you need proof of "banket" as the common English term for Dutch pastries filled with almond paste, there are literally hundreds of English-language recipes online that do that. For example, Cooks.com has a list of recipes simply labeled "banket" that immediately start listing almond paste, flour, etc as the ingredients, then tell you how to prepare it.[6] Some recipes include "Dutch" or "almond" in the title, for the benefit of people who don't recognize the term by itself, but whenever they talk about it, they call it simply "banket". And nearly all of them are not describing how to make Dutch letters (though some mention this as a variation). This demonstrates that the two assertions I'm seeing thrown around here – that "banket" is generic term for "fine pastry", or that it is merely another name for Dutch letters – are not correct.

"Banket Dutch Pastry: Banket is a Dutch treat -- a puff pastry-like dough filled with an almond paste mixture, then baked to a golden brown. It is a delicious morning treat (or anytime) -- a perfect match with a hot cup of good coffee.... Banket is a relatively easy Dutch treat that is perfect for gift giving during this holiday season. "[7]

"A Dutch Almond Pastry Called Banket: Banket is a traditional Dutch pastry ... that is made in long tubes of pastry, with an almond paste filling. Some people shape the tubes into letters–into “Merry Christmas”, for example. We just do long skinny “baguettes”."[8]

"Dutch banket: A wonderful Dutch pastry loaded with moist, flavorful almond paste wrapped in a puff pastry"[9]

"Banket: A New Favorite: Growing up in West Michigan in a family that is very proud of their Dutch heritage means that I grew up eating my fair share of Dutch goodies; boterkoek, Jan Hagels, oliebollen and windmill cookies to name a few. They're all delicious, but in my opinion there is nothing better than a stick of homemade banket, especially during the holidays. "[10]

"Banket (Dutch Pastry with almond filling): This wonderful flaky almond filled pastry is something that I grew up eating every Christmas. As with most food and family recipes...it always brings back such good memories of family and holidays. In Grand Rapids and really most of west Michigan it seems every one who is Dutch (which is many) has their own version or recipe for banket (pronounced bahn-KET) with a flaky buttery crust and almond paste (not marzipan) rolled throughout, not too sweet and perfect with a cup of tea or coffee."[11]

"Banket (Dutch Pastry): If the old Dutch ladies at church were ever on the internet, I might get in trouble for sharing this recipe. Banket is a great Christmas gift! I could eat the filling out of the bowl. Tradition in our church involves an assembly line of people making large batches. Banket is definitely the Dutch secret that should be shared! "[12]

Banket: (comments) "My mother made banket for years! I finally got the recipe from her about 3 years ago, I make it every Christmas, and it's gone in a flash. I love making banket and look forward to when I can make it. " "After years of making banket for Christmas, and not getting the flaky crust I desired I tried this one and voila, it was great. " "I have made banket several times in the past, but this was by far the best ever."[13]

"Banket (Dutch Almond Bars): A Dutch treat, usually made around Christmas (when almond paste is available in our stores). We also buy the paste and freeze it so that we can make banket for our school auction in April."[14]

It is a beautiful long list, a prefect backup for my suggestion that you should write an article about Almond pastry. The Banner talk 20:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

But this list indicates that the proper name for the article would be Banket (food). Also, almond pastry is a much broader generic description, including countless foods unrelated to banket, or to each other.[15] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have asked you several direct questions over the course of this discussion which you have not replied to . I'm trying in good faith to understand your current positions; please start responding accordingly. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you bluntly ignore the arguments of others to promote your own views. Suggestions to diffuse the situation by writing another article are also bluntly ignored. This banging will not work. Period. The Banner talk 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Still ducking those questions. Look, I've explained repeatedly why I am not taking your ill-thought-out suggestion to create a content fork; I'm tired of repeating myself. I haven't "ignored" your arguments; I've pointed out the oversights/errors in them. However, if you can point to a question I've simply ducked, I'll try to answer it. But I can see that whatever good faith you may have started out with has gone, and now you're just playing the role of obstructionist owner. I'd be happy to take this into dispute resolution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Before we go to dispute resolution, I think you should consider that none of the things you linked are reliable sources, let alone printed sources. One of the links goes to Cooks.com and that seems to be the strongest thing--but that turns out to be nothing more than the result of a search--for recipes. Seriously, can you stop posting search results and start adding reliable articles? Finally, what on earth do you think this page proves--a recipe by an unnamed person on the website of a company selling vanilla beans? (And again, that's the exact same thing that Banner and I have been arguing all along: that recipe is for the exact same thing as banketletter, just not in the shape of a letter.) So until you come with actual reliable sources, there's really nothing to talk about here. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming that only print sources count in determining English usage? I guess I could go downtown to the library and make some photocopies of print cookbooks, and maybe fax them to you, but that's a rather imposing and antiquarian burden, the likes of which I've never had to deal with in a decade here. I would think that links to actual usage by actual English-speaking people would count as evidence that English-speaking people use the word the way they do. Meanwhile, where are your reliable sources? I've asked for Banner to explain what his local cookbook says "banket" means, but he won't say... I can guess why. You asserted that "banket" is not the name of a food, that it is just an adjective... at least in Dutch. But this is not WP-NL, and we aren't talking about Dutch usage. Sorry, but you are not a reliable source any more than I am, and citing "my cookbook doesn't use it" is the weakest ref I've seen in a decade on WP. I've provided links to English-speakers using "banket" as the name of a food. They prove you wrong. My sources may not be as reliable as you demand (of others), but yours are vapor, so I stand by mine, and can provide more if more objective editors require it. But you are right about exactly one thing: there is nothing more to talk about here. I'm requesting independent assistance. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"I can guess why". I hope you guess right, as it is your aggressive and pushy attitude that robs me from every willingness to make the effort. You refuse to engage in a meaningful discussion and you ignore suggestions to write the article Almond pastry instead of rewriting the present article. The Banner talk 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You keep using that word "ignore". I do not think it means what you think it means. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dutch_letter.23Banket -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

Banketletter

The Banner, why isn't the article called "banketletter"? It's just as infinitely more prevalent as than "Dutch letter", but more unequivocal. First ten Google Book hits for "banketletter" are all actual hits ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]--and let's not say that not all of those are reliable, I know that (haha, Illuminati Bible: Hidden Wisdom of Alpha & Omega?), but they're all uses of this word to mean that pastry. "Dutch letter", in Google Books, is nothing--it has the already linked Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops, an impeccable sources, but lists it under "Other names". After looking at seven pages full of Google Book hits for "Dutch letter" I am convinced that the primary meaning of "Dutch letter" is "a letter in Dutch", and I don't care how many regional recipes or Michigan bakers also call "banketletter" a "Dutch letter". Drmies (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not know. The Banner talk 21:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Because most English speakers have never heard of that word, but "Dutch letters" is fairly common. -21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In a part of the USA, perhaps. The Banner talk 23:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of the USA is better than none of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Better a worldwide view then a localized one, my friend. The Banner talk 00:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be so sure of yourself that you have one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This invocation of COMMONNAME is really just absolutely silly. Jason A. Quest, you didn't sign that message, but that dash tells me it's you: the moment you find me one single book source, and not some grandmother's recipe book or a DAR collection, that makes your point, then we'll talk. In the meantime there are dozens of reliable book sources, including one that you cite yourself in the draft, that have "banketletter" is the first name, not one of many options in a list of alternative names. So no, "Dutch letters" is NOT "fairly common", and certainly not "fairly common" when compared to the ridiculously large number of reliable sources that have "banketletter". You should really consider finding a different hobby horse. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I do take breaks from Wikipedia from time to time, to cleanse my palate of the madness it seemingly fosters in those on it. Might be time for another soon. I recommend it. -Jason A. Quest (talk)

Requested move 29 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for this retitling. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 03:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Dutch letter → Banket (food) – This article was the result of the merge of two articles, one a type of Dutch pastry (Banket), the other a distinctly-shaped variety of it (Dutch letter). The original proposal was to merge the latter into the former, but instead the merge was performed in the opposite direction (by an uninvolved editor who probably thought they were interchangeable). In order for Wikipedia to cover the general topic of banket (including the common non-letter-shaped, loaf variety), the scope of this article needs to be broadened... restored to the general name. The most common name used in English for this group of pastries as a whole is "banket". For example, this was the uncontested name of the general article for the eight years before it was mistakenly redirected. "Banket" is widely mentioned or described in reference books,[26][27][28][29][30][31] in recipes,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] and on retail packaging.

There are other proposals, but they are clearly less suitable names: Banketletter is a Dutch term that is unfamiliar to most English-speaking people. It may be the root word from which the English-usage term was derived, but it never became part of the everyday English vocabulary, not even among ethnic-Dutch Americans. It also seems (and not being fluent in Dutch, I can't say for sure... which is a problem itself, I think) to refer specifically to the letter-shaped variety, which also doesn't solve the original problem of the name being too specific. The other proposal – "almond pastry" – is not a name, but simply a vague description with the opposite problem: it is too general, including off-topic items such as bear claw, almond puff pastry, almond danish, etc. There are plenty of sources that use the phrase, but usually not in reference to this food. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

object The arguments after the initial discussion and the fruitless forum shopping at "Dispute resolution" have not become a tiny bit stronger that it was original. Still it is an attempt to move a specific, clear item to another much vaguer term, based on an USA-centred approach. No a geographical neutral approach. The Banner talk 11:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeking wider input is not "forum shopping". That the term is not one you use personally does not make it "USA-centered". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As you stated above: But I can see that whatever good faith you may have started out with has gone, and now you're just playing the role of obstructionist owner. I'd be happy to take this into dispute resolution. So you did not get what you wanted, and went to DR for help (and failed). The Banner talk 12:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. There is no "banket (food)". There is "banket" as a regionally used abbreviation of the word banketletter, and "banket" is exactly the same kind of material thing that is used to make the widely verified banketletter. Note that many of the sources yoked together by the editor clearly point at regional US terminology; the recipe websites that they found have no authority. Note also that they chose to disregard the ridiculously widespread prevalence of "banketletter"--and yes, I am going to settle for a Google Book search because God knows how much time I have to live; I have spent too much of it already responding to this editor's useless fantasies and betweterij. Look that up in your Dutch dictionary, appelflap. At this time I would fully support a topic ban(ket) with added powdered sugar for incompetence, and a spanking for jerking everyone's chain around and wasting our precious time. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can see no way we'll ever get agreement on this, no way to determine a better outcome, and no reason to be excited about it. It's OK as is. Create redirects and move on. Andrewa (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.