Talk:Mince pie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2002

Couple of suggestions, since you mentioned you're not finished:

• How about using either metric or English measurements throughout, but not both?

• This isn't analytical chemistry - how about rounding off numbers like "1814 g" to 1.8 kg (or even 2 kg)?

• Please insert a space between a number and its unit.

Thanks!  :-) -- Marj Tiefert 18:41 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

2005

A couple of responces since I've finished:

• The 'spoons are the random variable of good cooking and the metric system. Otherwise known as "Too much!", or "Too little."

• The art of good desserts, MUST follow the strict standard of analytical chemistry. No comprimises will be allowed!

• No.

Spot the sarcasm.=P

---

Has anyone got a photo, please?

Photo added KevM 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2006

I added a ref in folklore section but I may not have it formatted correctly. Also removed shepherds. Angels appeared to them. Sdenny123 15:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggest merge from Mincemeat tart

There is little additional information on Mincemeat tart and that article acknowledges in it's first line that it is a synonym. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge done --MichaelMaggs 19:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Consuming mince pies on Christmas Day

I have removed the fascinating but almost certainly completely wrong factoid below. A cite tag has been in place for a month, which is plenty of time for someone to come up with details of the alleged law in question. It's the sort of thing one finds in 'did you know' sections of popular newspapers, which are never sourced.--MichaelMaggs 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is still illegal to consume a mince pie on Christmas Day in England, an old law that has yet to be repealed brought into force by Oliver Cromwell. This is beacause in the mid-17th century, a wave of religious reform transformed the way in which Christmas was celebrated in England. Oliver Cromwell -- a statesman and General responsible for leading the parliamentary army during the English Civil War -- took over England in 1645. Supported by his Puritan forces, Cromwell believed it was his mission to cleanse the country of decadence.

Father Christmas is left rich mince pies because he carries around spring in a sack and will not let it out unless well rewarded. Santa Claus is the guy who laves presents and he is a different character altogether. 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I have uploaded two pictures of commercial mince pies which you can use if you wish. One shows the pie cut in half. (I have another of the two on top of the box but not uploaded that one) --jmb 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mince Pie

Mince Pie

Beef

I just purchased some mincemeat from the store and it clearly has "beef" listed as an ingredient. Why does this article imply this is no longer the case?

Because Suet contains beef. The article does state the usual presence of suet. --MichaelMaggs 08:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems ridiculous. I've been eating mincemeat pie for over two decades and never did it not have a huge portion of meat in each serving.

Meat pies

Removed the New Zealand bit - meat pies have absolutely nothing to do with Christmas mince pies!

Grandmother Phelps

could someone explain to me the relevance of the Grandmother Phelps portion of the entry? It seems out of place.--jadepearl (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell vs Christians or Catholics?

Under History, the statement "During the reign of Oliver Cromwell mince pies were banned along with other Christian traditions and acts" doesn't sound quite right. Should it state instead: "During the reign of Oliver Cromwell mince pies were banned along with other Catholic traditions and acts"...? Ryanwiki (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I mean, eating mince pies wasn't unique to Catholics. Beastiepaws (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Puritans banned quite a lot of traditions and rituals practiced by Christians of the time, but which they felt were incompatible with Christianity of the Bible. That's part of what the 'Pure' means in Puritan. The current reading implies that it was Cromwell against the Catholics, but he was really against the celebration of Christmas as anything but a solemn religious holy day. I'm modifying the sentence, with source. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

suitablity for vegetarians

I don't think it's relevant or interesting to say that mince pies made with suet are not suitable for vegetarians. It's obvious and if we were to list every section of society and comment on the suitability of all foods then it would be very tedious.

Hang on a minute, mate!

The recipe for the modern mince pie has been dated to the 13th century, as crusaders returning to Europe from the Holy Land. As I see it, mince pies evolved from a quite different sort of pie over hundreds of years. The "recipe" certainly didn't appear in anything like the modern form in the 13th century. You might want to read mincemeat.

According to whom?

The addition of spices such as cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg was, according to the English antiquary John Timbs, "in token of the offerings of the Eastern Magi."

He may say that, but it's dotty nonsense. European cuisine of the Middle Ages features spices because they taste good and were considered a luxury. A pie without spices might require an explanation.

Early pies were oblong shaped; the jurist John Selden presumed that this was "in Imitation of the Cratch [Jesus's crib]",

Another bit of foolish speculation.

Could we please avoid cramming this with silly speculation from Victorian "antiquaries" and other people with no connection to food history? Beastiepaws (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to rewrite what was a pretty awful article into something of interest. I haven't yet finished, but if you can volunteer authoritative sources on food history I'll be only too willing to integrate them into the article. There's nothing wrong with including the above opinions, they were very commonly held beliefs. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is something very wrong with it if it takes priority over factual information. "Today the mince pie remains a popular Christmas treat, although as the modern recipe is no longer the same list of 13 ingredients once used (representative of Christ and his 12 Apostles), it lacks the religious meaning contained therein." is also a nonsensical claim. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it nonsensical? Seriously. Why should I trust your opinion over that of a published author? Parrot of Doom 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty simple-- Medieval and Renaissance mince pies have varying numbers of ingredients. mincemeat, A recipe from Sir Kenelm Digby, one from the 15th-century Harleian manuscripts, not with 13 ingredients, another Harleian one, etc. Beastiepaws (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but I think you may need to read up a little on policies like WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Kenelm Digby is someone I'm a little familiar with, having written his father's article, and the recipe is certainly of interest, but I'm not about to add the sources you've offered into this article in any capacity as they would almost certainly not be considered reliable sources. I will, however, investigate further, as things like this can often lead to books and content which might improve the article.Parrot of Doom 23:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop cutting out parts of my comments, please? I think it's fair to say that a publish source is clearly not reliable if it can be substantially refuted with five minutes' research. Beastiepaws (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware I've cut out anything you've typed here. If you think a published source can be refuted with the synthesis of your own theorem based on "five minutes' research" on Google, I'm not sure what else I can say. Parrot of Doom 00:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "Published source" is not synonymous with "reliable source". Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Beastiepaws (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see its a waste of time arguing with you as you just ignore what you can't answer, so I'll bother myself no longer. Parrot of Doom 11:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, to answer your question-- yes. If your source makes a simple claim of fact that is easily demonstrated to be false, then your source isn't reliable. I'm not making a synthesis-- just pointing out an obvious error of fact. You are claiming that at some point in the past that mince pies had exactly 13 ingredients. I'm pinting out that the claim is mistaken. I'm not suggesting that the article needs to make a positive claim that "mince pies had varying numbers of ingredients" because it's completely trivial. Beastiepaws (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Cratch

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cratch Beastiepaws (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC) http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/creche?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=creche&sa=Search#922 Beastiepaws (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you use an appropriate English dictionary when translating English quotes, you arrive at the following for cratch: "a1225 Ancr. R. 260 Heo leiden hine up on heih in one crecche, mid clutes biwrabbed. c1325 Metr. Hom. 64 e sall fynd a chylde thar bounden In a creke, wit cloutes wounden. 1382 WYCLIF Luke ii. 7 Sche childide her firste born sone, and wlappide him in clothis, and puttide him in a cracche. a1569 A. KINGSMILL Man's Est. x. (1580) 55 A stable was his beste house, and a cratche his cradle. a1654 SELDEN Table-t. (Arb.) 33 The Coffin of our Christmas Pies in shape long, is in imitation of the Cratch. 1656 TRAPP Comm. Matt. ii. 13 From his cratch to his cross, he suffered many a little death all his life long. a1711 KEN Hymns Evang. Poet. Wks. 1721 I. 48 When we saw him in a cratch, a weak, And sucking Babe. 1884 C. D. WARNER in Harper's Mag. Dec. 9/2 The ‘cratch’, that is, the manger in which the infant Jesus was laid."

Whereas a creche is defined as "A representation of the infant Jesus in the manger, with attending figures, often displayed at Christmas; = CRIB n. 1b.". The two words clearly do not share the same meaning. One is representative of the small structure in which the infant Jesus was kept, the other describes the scene including that structure.

You are subtley changing the meaning of the quote. Please stop your reverting. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to exclude a perfectly good word for manger or crib because you personally aren't familiar with it. Even your own source calls it a "crecche". Beastiepaws (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It calls it a crecche over 400 years before Selden did. Selden was clearly referring to the crib, not the scene, as evidenced by the supporting citations. Its amazing that I find myself arguing over the meaning of a 400-year-old word on an article about mince pies, ffs. Do me a favour, read from half decent sources, not bloody Google. Parrot of Doom 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at my links, you would see that I'm reading from Webster's Dictionary and Collins' Dictionary, and that I have good support for "creche" as a synonym for crib or manger. I find it ironic that you are dismissing those in light of the fact that you are leaning heavily on the likes of The Table-Talk of John Selden. Beastiepaws (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Webster's is American and is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Collins' Dictionary isn't even worth a mention, it contains so little on its entry for the word, whereas the OED contains more than enough to prove that quite simply, you're wrong. It is the shape of the pie Selden was writing about, not a nativity. This is made quite clear in the supporting references, and I will not allow people to modify history in this way. Let me spell it out for you - for the 17th century Selden, a cratch was a crib, not the same thing as a creche. Take it to ANI or wherever you like, but stop reverting what I've written.

I will not allow this kind of petty nonsense to stop me from improving this article. If you want to join in, fine, but I suspect that you're not at all interested in that. Meanwhile, I'm going to carry on working here, so that when Christmas comes, people at least have a half-decent article to read, and not a list of trivia as this article once was. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spammed links

Editors wishing to add external links to the article should review Wikipedia:Spam and also WP:3RR. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to the WebSite 'Pie Club' on this site

Finally, I have gotten around to presenting my argument for the inclusion of a link to Pie Club on the mince pie page of Wikipedia. I have been partly hindered by not entirely understanding the process of how to submit my argument. First of all, apologies if I have unwittingly broken protocol by attempting to reverse what I considered to be incorrect changes by other parties. Secondly, I am in no way associated with the site and know no-one who has anything to do with it. I am simply a fan and I will explain why I think it important to include such a link.

My argument for inclusion is simple. The purpose of this page is to give the reader an understanding of the historical and cultural significance of the mince pie. The historical aspect is covered adequately enough. What the website in question provides is a current assessment of mince pies available on the market. It is updated on a yearly basis around Christmas time and occasionally around the year.

As further reading then, for me, this alone would be adequate. The website has been around for longer than Wikipedia so I don’t think we need doubt its credentials or its seriousness in attempting to inform the reader of modern mince pies.

To call the link to the site Spam is incorrect. The link is very specific and relevant to the topic in hand. The site does not benefit from advertising and sells no merchandise. It clearly does not make a profit. It is a labour of love for the very subject that the page seeks to discuss. It is therefore pure.

However, as a Professor of English (and a woman I find myself wanting, for some reason, to make clear), I believe the site has an extra cultural significance. It provides the reader with what is almost a modern equivalent of the comfort referred to in the above article against the ‘Barrenness of the Season,’ and the ‘Scarcity of Fruit and Milk.’

The very prose of this website is that of the mince pie. It provides comfort and it does so with a gently intoxicating and supple irony. However it is never not serious. It has substance. This is what T.S. Elliot referred to as the objective correlative. The prose, the imagery, the sense of refined amusement represents to me a formula that unlocks the emotion of the comfort supplied by the mince pie. And this makes it relevant. This makes it current and significant and historical and consistent and entwined with the history of the subject. Not that this means a great deal or even needs spelling out or should it do, anyway, because it should all be painfully self evident. It is just that I have been forced to deconstruct it because of what appears to me, I’m sorry to say, as some absurd middlebrow attempt at censorship. Rosinante2001 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly a fansite and expounds nothing that helps the reader understand the history of mince pies. You might find it comforting, personally I find it more than a little in love with itself and therefore irrelevant to this article. If you wanted to link to a professional review undertaken by notable food critics then I'm sure we could add that in somewhere. Parrot of Doom 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Not that this means a great deal or even needs spelling out or should it do, anyway, because it should all be painfully self evident. It is just that I have been forced to deconstruct it because of what appears to me, I’m sorry to say, as some absurd middlebrow attempt at censorship." Lack of good faith and attacking the editors, not the content does not help your case. Read about reliable sources and WP:FANCRUFT. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pie club link spamming again

The link:

• Pie Club http://www.pieclub.org.uk/ Pie Club

Prior discussions:

• Talk:Mince_pie/Archive1#Spammed_links
• Talk:Mince_pie/Archive1#Link_to_the_WebSite_.27Pie_Club.27_on_this_site

Lastest edit warring to insert:

• [1]
• [2]

JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

History

I find this article too historical and I think in unnecessary detail. The key thing is that it should describe what a mince pie is nowadays. They are pies that contain mincemeat made of dried fruit, spices, sugar and suet (veggie suet is often used now). They don't have meat in nowadays! The article implies that they do! Citing mutton pie and shred pie as alternative names isn't very helpful - this should be quite clearly as a historical perspective (if at all).I tried editing the article, but it was reversed almost immediately. So I'm trying the talk page this time! 84.13.26.227 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article does tell the reader what a mince pie is now, but I wouldn't expect anyone who clearly hasn't read (or comprehended) it in full to realise this. That is why your additions were reverted - they repeated information already written. Parrot of Doom 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that there's no meat in nowadays, just that it's sweet. It doesn't say that they are made of mincemeat (just implied by one of the pictures). It says that "mutton pie" is an alternative name under a picture of a modern mince pie, which it isn't. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as I thought - you obviously haven't read the article in full. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the the reader who suggested that the article is too historical. Although the introductory section describes mince pies as sweet, it then goes on to talk about mince pies as the were in C13! Why not start with the present, then work back? Anyone standing in a supermarket and looking up "Mince pie" on their phone to check what they were about to buy would get completely the wrong impression. Finally, User:Parrot of Doom really isn't upholding the ideals of Wikipedia in his commentary on this page. Comments like "you obviously haven't read the article in full" are hardly conducive to the development of a high-quality resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.37.35 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and write your own article on Mince Pies. Perhaps you can use a good, reliable source on the modern mince pie (I'd be interested to see you find one). Or you can use the ingredients on a box of 12 ASDA Minces Pies as a source, if you like. Once you've written your article, submit it here for review. I'm sure it will be a work of unbridled academic excellence. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at this page's edit history, it seems at least one person has had a go at improving the article but their edits have been quickly reverted. Consequently, it seems that any efforts to improve the article would be short-lived. (Not really in the Wikipedia spirit, especially during a fund-raising drive, eh?) As for a good, reliable source than the modern mince pie, I can think of nothing better than BBC Good Food. Their Unbelievably easy mince pies recipe was published in 2002, whilst their Sandham family mincemeat article was published in 2007: both marginally more modern than the (unreferenced) C13 examples given in the article. I can only suggest that User:Parrot of Doom gives both a try, maybe with a whiskey. Might encourage him/her to relax a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.68.45 (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is uncited. Go on, get writing your article. I can't wait. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is why I stopped working on this article. PepperBeast (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The author does not seem to appreciate previous attempts to improve this article. What's the point of suggesting someone write another article on mince pies? Does wikipedia need more than one? I believe that this article needs clarification along the lines suggested above. It's not at all clear in this article that the modern mince pie contains no meat. The article begins by telling us what it's ingredients were, but not what they are now, other than that it is sweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.168.117 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to read. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, if you want to know exactly what's in a mince pie, go and buy one. I'll waste no more time on this pointless discussion. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

'This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia' - which seems to have been lost on you. Do you not wish to collaborate with the suggestions above to improve this article? Wikipedia believes that the article does 'not meet the good article criteria', there are some good suggestions here for fixing this! All it needs is a few additional lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.168.117 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have read the article a number of times and don't appreciate the implication that I don't know what I'm taking about (of course, referring to "Just as I thought..." comment above). The only implication I can see that mince pies don't contain meat is the rather strange phrase "the addition of meat had, for many, become an afterthought", (whatever that means). Having "mutton pie" as an alternative name is simply ridiculous, especially under a picture of a modern mince pie. And where's the evidence that "minced pie" is use? But there's no point me repeating myself - it will be clear to anyone reading the article. The fact that my additions (reversed) apparently repeated information in the text (which they didn't) isn't a good reason for reverting, because one should expect the intro to summarise the salient points of the main article. Looking at old versions of this talk page, there have been many challenges to the obsession with weird historical references, yet they remain (e.g. "...list of 13 ingredients once used..." sounds like nonsense to me). Wikipedia articles should be the work of a community, not an individual with a mission to maintain an unhelpful page by being obstructive and unpleasant to suggestions of improvements from the community. I agree we don't need a recipe - we just need a a nice simple description of what a mince piece is, with a prominent reference to wikipedia's mincemeat article which isn't too bad. In the intro, where I tried to put it. 78.149.194.90 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, however, the ingredients serve to illustrate that the modern mince pie is sweet, and is in many cases suitable for vegetarians. This isn't clear from the summary paragraph, an especially important section, as this information will often be scraped and used with only a link back to the original article. Telling otherwise enthusiastic Wikipedians to "learn to read" is not in the Wikipedia spirit, neither is an invitation to write a competing Wikipedia entry. There isn't anything wrong with the article; it's simply in need of some improvement, as others have pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.37.35 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

' Today the mince pie remains a popular seasonal treat enjoyed by many across the United Kingdom.' - it would be nice if the summary informed the reader what was actually in this popular seasonal treat, rather than requiring the reader to go through the whole article to piece together this information (i.e. that meat has generally no longer been used in mince pies since Victorian times). Unfortunately, the author constantly reverts the changes that others have made when they attempt to add this information to the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.236.218 (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the author does at least admit to having issues with WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL on his Talk page. Probably best to leave his article alone and look elsewhere for information about mince pies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.248.158 (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)