Jump to content

Talk:Shepherd's pie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

meat pie

[edit]
Unproductively going around in circles and ignoring numerous reliable sources isn't going to being about changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why is this described as being a meat pie? its called shepherds pie because it looks like one. not because it literally is one. its a bit like how we brits say fools gold. to mean a mineral that looks like gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:5405:17D9:C87:DACC (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was kind of User:PriusGod to rescue this contribution from the 2009 additions, above, where it was mistakenly added; unfortunately neither PriusGod nor any of the rest of us can convert the contribution so far as literacy, punctuation, respect for Wikipedia's rules, or, frankly, common sense are concerned. Tim riley talk 17:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An IP (now reverted) removed the description "meat pie" from the info-box, on the grounds that two dictionaries, Collins and Cambridge, mention a pastry crust in their definitions of "pie". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "pie" as "A baked dish of fruit, meat, fish, or vegetables, covered with pastry (or a similar substance)" and The Oxford Companion to Food says "Early pies had pastry tops; but modern pies may have a topping of something else (e.g. the mashed potato topping of shepherds pie or cottage pie or even be topless (as in the USA)". We can safely take it that a shepherd's pie is a pie. Tim riley talk 07:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fit the definition of pie from two independent sources, Collins and Cambridge, which are consistent in stating that a pie requires a pastry covering. Two non-independent sources, both from Oxford, give conflicting definitions of what a pie is, one stating that it only requires any sort of covering and one stating that none is required. So no, we can't safely take that it's a pie based on two definitions from the same organisation that don't even agree with each other.
Also, under the Oxford English Dictionary Definition provided, a lasagna would be a pie.
Really you're just picking the facts you want and ignoring logic. It's not a pie, it's a casserole (see Britannica's definition).
Did you know soy milk and almond milk aren't actually milk? Same principle. 110.175.36.64 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the definition from several other sources. Just because two are narrower than others doesn't mean we slavishly follow them and ignore the others. You may want to look at the OED's definition of a shepherd's pie, which describes it as "A pie consisting of chopped meat and potatoes, covered with a crust of mashed potatoes browned". - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of our Wikipedia article on pie are on to this: "Shortcrust pastry is a typical kind of pastry used for pie crusts, but many things can be used, including baking powder biscuits, mashed potatoes, and crumbs." Correct in every particular. Tim riley talk 14:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Just because two are narrower than others doesn't mean we slavishly follow them and ignore the others' - This is called a strawman argument.
1. My original edit listed two sources because I did not think it reasonable to list all other sources saying the same (there are multiple). Merriam-Webster and Britannica also say pastry is required, and I could keep on finding more.
2. I said that your comment that we can conclude that it is a pie based on the four sources (two consistent definitions that exclude it and two inconsistent definitions that include it) was incorrect.
Also
1. A source can't reference itself, i.e. you can't use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.
2. You're again citing Oxford, a source you already used. This is ONE SOURCE, regardless of how many parts of it you reference. I have provided more sources than you.
3. You've ignored my point about lasagna being pie under the definition you provided. Should we edit its page and mark it as pie?
14.200.200.118 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster: "Shepherd's Pie: a meat pie with a mashed potato crust".
A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition: "Pie: Food cooked in a dish and covered with pastry; may be sweet or savoury. Also savoury dishes with a crust of mashed potato."
There are multiple definitions that state a Shepherd’s Pie is a pie. There are multiple sources that state a pie can have a potato topping. Please stop vandalising the article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So lemon meringue pie is not a pie? Key lime pie] is not a pie? Banoffee pie is not a pie? Duh! See also Larousse Gastronomique (1990 edition): "A pie can also have a mashed potato topping, as in shepherd’s pie or fish pie". I concur with SchroCat: please stop vandalising the article. Tim riley talk 08:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep they arent. Many things imitate pies 2A00:23CC:C204:4C01:A6D1:1C0F:C55F:2E4A (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its called shepherds pie as its the kind of imitation pie a shepherd could concoct without using pastry. If someone told me 'go and buy me a pie im hungry' and i came back with shepherds pie they would think I was winding them up/pulling their chain 2A00:23CC:C204:4C01:A6D1:1C0F:C55F:2E4A (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully we go by reliable sources, not by personal opinions, and the reliable sources all state that shepherd's pie (and cottage pie), are both classed as pies in numerous sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a work of supererogation to try to convey facts to people who prefer personal prejudice. Facts only confuse such folk. Tim riley talk 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
every respectable dictionary states that a pie requires pastry. If shepherds pie had a different name it wouldn't be considered a pie at all... 2A00:23CC:C204:4C01:5927:CF79:18E3:80D0 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, as the definitions above (from respectable dictionaries) demonstrate. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hachis Parmentier

[edit]
Asked and answered

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If shepherds pie is unironically a 'pie' as claimed in this article why does the french language article regarding Hachis Parmentier state otherwise? 2A00:23CC:C204:4C01:F3AC:2DD6:2A49:B1C6 (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they haven’t used the same sources. The sources are clear on the point. It’s not the first time the French have been wrong on something. They are, however, right on their Shepherds Pie article, where they refer to the dish as “d'une tourte à la viande”, or, “a meat pie”. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)”[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formerly called Sanders or Saunders

[edit]

Is this vandalism? Ive never heard of the term and cant find any sources 2A00:23CC:C204:4C01:F3AC:2DD6:2A49:B1C6 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see the first paragraph of the body, where it says that was the name originally used in the days of Rundell and Acton. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, it might be optimistic to expect a certain type of anonymous editor to read a whole article. Tim riley talk 07:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it undue to mention an obscure historical name for shepherd's pie in the very first sentence? I restructured the lead to that effect a little earlier today, but Tim reverted it and accused me of making a bad "drive-by" edit. (The concept of drive-by copyediting is a new one on me.) Belbury (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For myself I shouldn't choose to put Saunders in the lead, but another editor with a long history of work on the article did so and it did not seem collegiate to interfere. Tim riley talk 16:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Belbury’s edit [1]. We must be collegiate, and this means working together to better the project, including accepting good changes from all sorts. I know you mean well Tim but your comment comes with a hint of an implication of WP:OWNERSHIP. — HTGS (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HTGS, I'm going to call you out on that nonsense. Tim has clearly said that he left in something a former editor left there - that's a collegiate approach taking into account the opinion of a former editor, and the exact opposite of ownership. Your personal attack is completely uncalled for and I suggest you strike it immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I understand Tim’s (good faith) intent. Maybe there’s some context I’m missing, but I disagree that prose should stay because it’s old, or because it was posted by someone else who put in a lot of effort. Whoever wrote the current lead will understand that Wikipedia rewrites and improves itself over time.
My comment was not a personal attack any more than your comment accusing me of “nonsense” was, so no, I won’t be striking that. But I also hope it’s understood that I wrote what I wrote in good faith, without any intent to cause offence, nor to attack anyone. — HTGS (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How contemptable. Your comment was clearly a personal attack and I've redacted it. Accusing someone of ownership is not the actions of someone acting in good faith. It is an attack and it does cause offence. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tripling down by edit warring to leave a personal attack in place? That speaks volumes about you and your approach to other editors. What an unpleasant taste to this whole interaction. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that is could and probably should be left in there. It's a very short lead as it stands, and the former name was important at one point. What harm comes from leaving it in there? - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belbury’s version [2] is not shorter, and adds clarity by emphasising first what is most important to the reader, then getting to the foreign and archaic terminology. This is, in my humble opinion, a better way to write the lead without needing to remove any names whatsoever. — HTGS (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two stubby paras that don't, up front, provide the names by which something is known? That's just sub-standard. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Belbury, his/her first version was dreadful, relegating one of the three current names of the dish to an afterthought, but his/her second attempt was less damaging, merely reducing the prominence of the former names of the dish. I hope we can hear from User:Macrakis, who added the latter to the lead, has been editing the article since 2017, and whose views would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 08:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your idea of being collegiate? My main edit here was fixing the fact that the lead illogically referred to "the two English terms" after listing four of them. You missed that in my first edit summary, falsely accused me of edit warring when I made a more localised fix of just that error and said so in the edit summary, and are now generously describing my correction as being "less damaging" than my other "dreadful" one, apparently still failing to understand what I was doing. You're welcome that I fixed a clear error in the lead of an article that you seem very protective of but which you hadn't noticed in the six months that it was there.
MOS:LEADCLUTTER discourages overloading the very first sentence with alternate names. I don't know whether hachis Parmentier would be considered a close and common enough synonym to be mentioned here (the French Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so, with their cottage pie article merely listing hachis Parmentier among other national variants), but it does seem like "Sanders" is an old and obsolete name which we don't need to put ahead of basic facts about ingredients. Belbury (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered to show modern use of the name Saunders too, so it can happily sit with the other better-known names. And we don't take our information from what other wiki pages may or may not say, whether in the French Wiki or not: the information on this page is cited to a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Modern use” is a bit of a stretch. Your single author in 1998 refers to it as a “cheat’s version of shepherd’s pie”, with corned beef and baked beans as the only contents. — HTGS (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other works that include it: 2008 is the most recent I have found, but that was only on a quick search. 'Variations on a theme' also count with recipes, given there is no one true method, and many people will personalise to some extent. - SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Links would be appreciated; that lonely little recipe just felt so anomalous that I had a hard time seeing it as support for the general claim. — HTGS (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names in lead

[edit]

This edit re-adds the text "in its French version" to the lead, characterizing the name "hachis Parmentier", with the comment "per sources". What exactly is the point of that phrase? Which sources claim that hachis Parmentier is different from shepherd's pie or cottage pie? It is simply the French name for the same dish, and is used in English sources as well as in French. For example, Dishy Stories" by Ian Grierson says "it is French cottage pie".[3]. --Macrakis (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point entirely taken, but all the same just "hachis Parmentier" without some preliminary introduction looks a bit odd to me. Tim riley talk 14:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an alternate name, which happens to be French. The same way we have both rocket and arugula or burnt cream and crème brûlée. --Macrakis (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fair enough. I'd prefer the prefatory words but I don't make a fuss about it. Tim riley talk 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

[edit]

Add to Category:Irish-American cuisine. 2600:6C50:7E00:316:6889:61F7:2917:C84A (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not mentioned in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I just wandered by because I happened to be thinking about shepherd's pie. It seems rather astonishing that this article requires semi-protection. I trust that other editors are right in protecting it, but how controversial can the subject be? CAVincent (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the history, and you'll see an IP has strong views on the topic that are at odds with the sources. Staggering that some people can't accept what published sources all say on the subject of an commonplace meal! - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this very afternoon I have had to revert - twice - an editor who didn't accept what the published sources, in this case the Oxford English Dictionary, say about the plural of "shrimp". Tim riley talk 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was meant as a light-hearted dispute about a trivial matter, and apologies if the spirit wasn't clear. "Shrimps" really does sound grating to my ears, but fine I guess if it sounds better to your ears. (And, no, citing the OED isn't definitive here.) CAVincent (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted, naturally, but it isn't a question of what "sounds right" to anyone's ears: it is what is correct that matters in Wikipedia. The Oxford English Dictionary is internationally recognised as the ultimate authority on the King's English, and so far as "shrimps" is concerned the OED's entry is corroborated by the Chambers, Collins and Encara/Bloomsbury dictionaries. It goes without saying that had the article been written in AmE we should heed such as Merriam Webster – which, well, well well, gives priority to "shrimps" but also admits "shrimp" as the plural of the crustacean. Tim riley talk 17:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shepherd%27s_pie&oldid=1242597907"