Talk:Medieval cuisine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Medieval cuisine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 18, 2007.
Middle Ages Icon This Article is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on food and drink on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
To-do list for Medieval cuisine: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Improvements

  • Dietary norms:
    • The Church/Religious restrictions: laymen/clergy ducking restrictions, diff east/west churches, illusion foods(?)
  • Meat(s): discussion of pre/post-Black Death consumption, price comparison with cereals/vegetables
    • Fish and seafood: more (precise) sources for quantities

New sections

  • Medieval cooking/Food preparation: differences from and similarities compared with modern cookery
    • The medieval kitchen: equipment, cooking methods
    • Illusion foods (?): entremets/subtleties and Lenten food

Last updated by Peter Isotalo 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. September 2006 – February 2007

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Removing fact-tags

Regarding this[3]. 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. HighInBC(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. HighInBC(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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? HighInBC(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? HighInBC(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. HighInBC(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? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Regarding addition of fact tags, HighInBC's first addition of a this tag [4] 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. —Angr 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. —Angr 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. —Angr 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. HighInBC(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. HighInBC(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. HighInBC(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. HighInBC(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 nth 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)

[edit] 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. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. HighInBC(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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedieval_cuisine_1a8a.html"