Talk:Curate's egg

Examples[edit]

The examples section looks odd and resembles a trivia section a bit too much. It should, in my eyes, be removed or integrated into the text. Akita86 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)[edit]

Eggs are never partly bad. If something is a 'Curate's egg' it is wholly awful. It is only described as "excellent in parts" because of political constraint or the inferior's wish to flatter. When used properly (e.g. in letters to newspapers about new legislation) the phrase implies that any positive comments that attempt to mitigate the faults are worthless. Posted by Anon user on: 192.102.214.6

I'm not sure that I agree with this statement - and it is certainly not how the phrase is used in the media - or by me! The curate's egg 07:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly awful would, I agree, have described the egg, and the curate describing it otherwise a matter of political constraint; but that is not how the expression is now used. Even where the speaker fears offending no-one, the appeal of such a quaint and delicate expression over it stunk is a lightly intoxicating one.

Nuttyskin 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My father used to say that the phrase could only have been ironic, since in reality if an egg is addled it is addled through and through, it cannot be good in parts. He also pointed out that strictl speaking it should be "excellent in parts". PatGallacher (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any cited authorities or examples to support the claim that the term refers to something that is wholly bad, the claim appears to violate WP:POV. I've therefore replaced it with a definition reflecting the debate, but supported by cited authorities and examples. Robma (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the cartoon is the difference between the normal egg the curate eats and the absurd egg he describes, which is an invention all of his own. The phrase "curate's egg" is more likely to refer to the second type of egg, which *is* good in parts even if it doesn't exist in reality. Trmsw (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for edits[edit]

My edit served the following purposes:

Reduce the image size per guidelines (pictures should not be wider than 400 px)
Add a caption providing context and title per guidelines
Format periodical name per MoS title guidelines
Bypass a redirect and link directly to the relevant article.

By all means revert if you feel these edits are in error, but please explain why they're damaging the article. --Muchness 10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My gripe was that the narrative to the picture just duplicated what was already set out in the article - the revised version looks fine. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I originally added it because I wanted to reproduce the exact caption from the original publication, but you're right, it was redundant. --Muchness 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase used in Punch?[edit]

From the article:

"The phrase first appeared in a cartoon in the humorous British magazine Punch on 9 November 1895. Drawn by George du Maurier and entitled "True Humility", it pictured a timid-looking curate taking breakfast in his bishop's house."

Just educated guessing on my part but... That is not true; the phrase came about as a reference to the du Maurier cartoon? --Charles Gaudette 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary meaning?[edit]

Can examples be given of the claimed secondary meaning? The OED examples are consistent with the first, raising the suspicion that secondary uses arise from a simple misunderstanding of the original context. 86.158.25.8 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed, on no knowledge, that the curate is interested in higher criticismm and considers the bible good in parts. Hence the bishop's shock. I do not see the curate as diffident but somewhat smug. Flobster (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, assumptions and perceptions don't help Wikipedia here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicar's Egg?[edit]

I ended up here after seeing a 1939 NYTimes movie review, with this sentence: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E03E7DE113CE73ABC4951DFB2668382629EDE "Those notoriously uncompromising gentlemen, the drama critics, found it and its star good in spots, like the vicar's egg." A bit of research led me to this: http://www.word-detective.com/092906A.html "If you've been searching for an explanation of "the Vicar's egg," that may be part of the mystery right there. The phrase is actually "a curate's egg,"" which led me here. Given likely other searchers having this problem, can we forward searches for "vicar's egg" here? I'd love if anyone was up for doing research into how/why/when the 'vicar' entered the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebug (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did the vicar enter the picture? We can easily conjecture. In Britain the person in charge of the parish/cure is the vicar, and their assistant is the lower-ranking curate. In France the person in charge of the parish/cure is the curé, and their assistant is the lower-ranking vicaire. The point of the joke is that the person with the egg is low in rank, so the word used will depend on local religion and usage (America probably varies greatly in that respect). FangoFuficius (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior use[edit]

Use of the phrase in 1878 at Resurgam#Resurgam_I. This suggests the phrase predates the cartoon. Drutt (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but before changing this article I'd like to see a source for the prior use of the phrase, contemporary to the sub. It could be a nickname given only in retrospect. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books has 3 prior uses of 'curate's egg' going back to 1866.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22curate%27s+egg%22&biw=858&bih=565&sa=X&ei=hMQOUtnHJsKRygH97IA4&ved=0CCUQpwUoBA&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1800%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1888&tbm=bks

70.79.142.83 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust the dates you see on Google Books. For one thing, Google's treating these sources as if they're under copyright, which wouldn't be true if they actually pre-dated 1895. Furthermore: There's a "review" on The Freethinker saying that this item is actually from 1965[1] (1881 is when the publication was founded). The "J. R. Hinnells" whose by-line appears in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society excerpt is credited in JRAS articles dating to the 1970s,[2] which suggests that this is another dating error by Google. Capital features a rather 20th-century looking cover photograph and includes a reference to Haribhai M. Patel, India's Finance Minister in the 1970s. No evidence of prior use. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any "authentic" examples?[edit]

Are there any examples which indicate that the object of discussion is actually bad overall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.138.117 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written[edit]

The article is badly written, full of mumbo-jumbo and over emphatic. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to improve it then? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, but I think it is worth pointing out when there is clearly a problem with an article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't help. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]