Talk:Subtlety/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Listed the article as needing expansion

I listed the article as needing expansion in an attempt to find more sources. So far, I've only found references in Michael Crichton's Timeline, some medieval enthusiast pages on the internet and the brief passage about it in the source cited in the article.

Peter Isotalo 12:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added links

Ok, thanks for all the links. All of them clearly don't fit in the article right now, but I'll put them here so they can be sorted through and perhaps used to expand the prose of the article.

Peter Isotalo 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything Imaginable Made of Sugar Translation of the third course of The first banquet for Emperors for the early meal on a meat day, and re-creation of a selection of said third course from Ein New Kochbuch by Marxen Rumpolt http://clem.mscd.edu/~grasse/GK_ASQPsugar98.htm From Functional Feast to Frivolous Funhouse: Two Ideals of Play in the Burgundian Court Paper given at the 5th Annual Indiana University Symposium on Medieval Studies http://www.byu.edu/~hurlbut/perform/hurlbut.html Illusion Dishes Article by Cindy Renfrow http://members.aol.com/renfrowcm/illusion.html Ivan Day's website Decorated food history and courses http://www.historicfood.com/portal.htm Subleties from "Le Viandier de Taillevent" translation from the original manuscript http://www.telusplanet.net/public/prescotj/data/viandier/viandier465.html

Trimalchio's Banquet A Roman feast, containing many illusion foods, described in a contemporary satire http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/petro/satyr/sat06.htm

Feast of Illusions in 2 Courses http://www.florilegium.org/files/FEASTS/ill-fd-feast-art.html

An illusion feast http://www.florilegium.org/files/FEASTS/Valentines-Fst-art.html

A Great Pie http://members.aol.com/renfrowcm/gretepye.html

A Recipe for Fake Fish 16th C Danish apple pastry disguised as a fish http://www.coquinaria.nl/english/recipes/03.2histrecept.htm

A conceit of walnuts http://home.comcast.net/~morwenna/Receipts/walnuts.html

Chastlete (Pastry Castle) http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/Chastlete-art.html

Coqz Heaumez Gode Cookery reconstruction of a 14th c subtlety http://www.godecookery.com/helmeted/helmeted.htm

Gode Cookery Illusion Foods Recipes for subtleties (including translations) http://www.godecookery.com/illusion/illusion.html

Illusion Food Messages from Various E-Lists http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/illusion-fds-msg.html

Incredible Foods, Sotelties and Entremets Gode Cookery spectacle foods http://www.godecookery.com/incrd/incrd.htm

Marzipan Messages From Various E-Lists http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/marzipan-msg.html

Peacocks and Pasties http://www.coquinaria.nl/english/peacock/index.htm

Pommes Dorres http://home.earthlink.net/~smcclune/stewpot/recipe_pommesd1.html

Sotleties Messages from Various E-Lists http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/sotelties-msg.html

The Cockentrice - A Ryal Mete http://www.godecookery.com/cocken/cocken.htm

Warners http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/Warners-art.html

Consuming Wealth and Eating Words: Sugar Paste http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/285chap9.htm

Sugar Paste Discussion From E-lists http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-SWEETS/sugar-paste-msg.html

Sugar Paste a Cook's Playdough http://home.comcast.net/~iasmin/mkcc/MKCCfiles/cooksplaydough.html

[edit] St. George on horseback and slaying the dragon

OED, subtlety, sense 5:

Cookery. A highly ornamental device, wholly or chiefly made of sugar, sometimes eaten, sometimes used as a table decoration. Obs. exc. Hist.

?c1390 Form of Cury in Warner Antiq. Culin. (1791) 4 It techith for to make curious potages and meetes, and sotiltees. c1440 in Househ. Ord. (1790) 450 A soteltee Seint~jorge on horsebak, and sleynge the dragun. 1467-8 Durham Acc. Rolls (Surtees) 92 Pro le Tynfole empt. pro ornacione et pictura del soteltez erga festum Natal. Domini. 1517 R. TORKINGTON Pilgr. (1884) 7 They mad vs goodly Chere wt Diverse Sotylties as Comfytes and Marche Panys. 1552 LATIMER Serm. Par. King (Parker Soc.) II. 139 At the end of the dinner they have certain subtleties, custards, sweet and delicate things. [1768 H. WALPOLE Let. to Cole 6 June, I am no culinary antiquary: the Bishop of Carlisle, who is, I have often heard talk of a sotelte [printed sotelle], as an ancient dish. 1852 C. M. YONGE Cameos II. xxxi. (1877) 327 The feast was entirely of fish: but they were of many kinds, and were adorned in the quaintest fashions, with sotilties, or subtleties. 1875 J. C. JEAFFRESON Bk. Table I. 133 A subtelty, representing a pelican on a nest with her birds.]

Bishonen | talk 12:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dominicans/Monks

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: Dominicans are not monks. Technically, they are friars. 70.161.209.90 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Or in this case, deep friared. (Sorry, I'll go away now.)--Raulpascal 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice and subtle

Does the modern word "subtlety", referring to something made not obvious, derive from the name of the dish, or vice versa? -- Milo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.2.42 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the general concept of "subtletey" probably existed long before medieval chefs started baking pies decorated with gold leaf and pastry battlements.
Peter Isotalo 14:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the concept did, but was it already called by the word "subtlety" back then? -- Milo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.2.42 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The earliest usage is 1390 (see excerpt from OED above), but back then it was "soteltie" and some of the sources use the older spelling. What the English term was before 1390, I don't know.
Peter Isotalo 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

New Oxford American Dictionary: Origin Middle English: from Old French soutilte, from Latin subtilitas, from subtilis ‘fine, delicate’. — Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entremet as main entry (for now)

The point of clearing out most of the content of this article is because the term "subtlety" was far more specific than entremet. Though I'm still not entirely sure what it meant in the late medieval context, it appears that it did not include theatricals (I think they're called "pageants") and basically covered only table ornamentations of various kinds. To what extent they were actually edible, I'm also not sure. Anyway, there's no point in fleshing out both articles with identical content, and especially not when the content here was summarized in the other article some time ago.

Peter Isotalo 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. It's appropriate for the two articles to reference each other, but neither (see Subtlety before you reverted it again to a stub) is a substitute for the other. — Athaenara ✉ 10:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A subtlety is as far as I know just a Middle English term for a specific type of entremet and the two terms are often used interchangeably by medieval food scholars, though some actually point out differences in usage. I chose entremet as the proper main article because it was more widely applicable to the concept of "medieval and early modern dinner entertainment provided between courses". After all, articles are for the most part supposed to be about concepts, not terms. The article at the Ricardian society website that you added as a source doesn't seem to be all that reliable, btw. It confuses "entrements" [sic] with what appears to be aperitifs, makes a weak (but still unforgivable) attempt at regurgitating the old myth about using spices to conceal spoiled food, and even confuses L'Mangier De Paris [sic again] with Le Viandier (de Taillevent).

Peter Isotalo 11:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference you mentioned (which was so far the only citation with proper format in the article) was for a single item: a spun sugar hunting scene. The Wikipedia Ownership of articles policy says:
"If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so."
You seem to be discouraging participation by other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Try stating your case about the differences between entremets and subtleties instead of quoting policy.
Peter Isotalo 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Like the Sphinx guardians of Greek mythology, Wikipedia "owners" pose a riddle to all who dare edit their article." (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Ownership examples) — Athaenara ✉ 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You haven't actually explained why you're insisting on the old version. What's the point after everything I explained about the two terms?
Peter Isotalo 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus first

Lets start by getting consensus for the merge, then making a major change. (H) 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is more productive approach. Here are the two versions in question:
I have restored Subtlety to aid comparison with Entremet. — Athaenara ✉ 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You're supposed to make an attempt to argue your case before you start bonking people over the head with policy citations.
Peter Isotalo 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isotalo reverted with "motivate your edit before demanding that it be respected" as the edit summary.

There are reasonable grounds, which I stated, for restoring Subtlety to its pre-stub state: to aid comparison for discussion here with other editors. I made no demand. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The content you insist on including really does concern entremet more than it does this article. I wrote that text before I actually wrote the other article, when I still thought that "subtlety" was a much more general term. If you really want to insist on expanding this article, then please do so with information that is actually specific to the Middle English term.
Peter Isotalo 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor did I "insist." — Athaenara ✉ 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This type of petty quibbling over words will not make any of us the wiser.
Peter Isotalo 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I am here as a result of a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I know nothing about this subject, but I am rather disturbed at seeing sourced material relevant to subtlety being deleted. I see good material in this version that should be merged into entremet if it's more appropriate there, after which this article can simply redirect to entremet. If that deleted material is more appropriate here, then the non-stub version of subtlety should stay. -Amatulic 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The "How to merge pages" section on Help:Merging and moving pages says:
"… you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages."
The proposing a merger procedure seems to be a good one, but if either article is reduced to a stub
("degraded to a sub-category of entremet" - "revert to being a sub-category of entremet")
the process is impeded: the content under consideration is more difficult to retrieve.
Because my edits have been reverted twice, with hostile comments in an edit summary and on this talk page, I have not restored the content again myself. — Athaenara ✉ 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe the content should be lost. I have restored it, and added a tag to propose to merge it with the entremet article. Further discussion on merging should take place on Talk:Entremet. -Amatulic 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Good, this should be discussed instead of unilaterally decided. (H) 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Motivations would be helpful to understand why this is pursued so eagerly. Why does the old material need to be salvaged and what was wrong about the definition in the stub version?
Peter Isotalo 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I stated the reason at the beginning of this section and also explained on Talk:Entremet. Informative material that is backed up by valid references shouldn't be removed. If this article isn't the right place for said material, and the other article is more appropriate, then merging and redirecting are warranted. There isn't any point in maintaining an article that will likely be a stub forever, if the content can reasonably be contained in a broader article. In that case, the definition should be maintained in entremet and this article be deleted completely, changed to contain only a redirect link to entremet. -Amatulic 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to merge the material do so yourself. You don't need to start a big merge discussion since no one has opposed it. I'm restoring the article for now, since I don't see anyone actually opposing the definition of what a subtlety is. The notion that we should keep articles for reviewing purposes should be strongly discouraged since articles are intended for readers, not editors who know how to check edit histories whenever they like. Overall, please try making substantial and harmonious improvements instead of upholding mere reverts to versions that were dispensed with because they were deemed superfluous. Just because something is backed up by sources doesn't mean it has to be kept for all eternity. I thought someone would actually take a hint when I kept reverting material I had myself written...
Peter Isotalo 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The lastest revert by Athaenara was done without even attempting to reply to my queries. I've posted a request for a RfC to get some more insight into this.
Peter Isotalo 06:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article talk pages

User Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs) posted on my talk page about issues with these two articles. I removed it with the suggestion that he post where the discussion is located.

He posted on my talk page a second time. I removed that as well, again requesting that he post not on my user talk page but on the article talk pages.

There are many other articles on my watchlist (more than 180 at the moment, down from nearly 300 a few weeks ago). I avoid obsessing about any of them. I rely on the fact that many other NPOV editors have valuable insights to offer, and I do what I can in cooperation with them to improve articles.

I won't edit war. This is not avoidance. The two articles need more, not less, NPOV attention, and it is on article talk pages that article improvement discussions are centered. The removal of nearly all of the content of one of the two the articles does not aid the process. — Athaenara ✉ 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What content needs to be included and why? If there's a problemt with POV, then which POV is being pushed? The more you actually elaborate about your motivations, the easier it is to resolve the dispute.
Peter Isotalo 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was supposed to take a wikivacation, but when even H (who so far hasn't weighed in with an opinion on anything subtlety-related) made a revert I noticed something had to be done. The point is that I made an over-generalization when I wrote the material that you're now fighting me in keeping here. I've made a compromise and removed only the material which was included here when the article was supposed to cover the entire concept of "medieval entertainment dish", which included entremets. That was before I came across material that noted that a subtlety appeared to be a very specific English form of entremet. I do not recommend re-adding the stuff about the orange meat balls either because I'm not sure it was a subtletly as much as it was a fancy type of illusion dish. Same goes for the blackbird pies and fake maggots. Even if they are distantly related as "food that can astonish", there's no mention of them being defined as subtleties.

I would really like to have some motivations from those insisting on reverting me all the time. Why are you questioning my presentation of it and what alternatives do you propose? I'm also being accused of violating NPOV, but I'm still at a loss as to the reason for this. How am I being partial? What POV are other editors insisting on for that matter?

Peter Isotalo 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of content which is discovered to be inaccurate, and by the editor who originally wrote the questionable material, is grounds for kudos, admiration, applause and supprt, not grounds for accusations and edit warring. I am at a loss here to understand why there is so much resistance to improving articles. Lacking any better or more obvious possibility, I can only wonder if perhaps some of you have an obsession with orange balls. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Your most recent explanation is really what we needed. If you had just explained this to begin with then this would not have been any sort of issue. Communication will take you much further than stubbornness. (H) 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)