Talk:Washington pie

Various points

@Spudlace: I made several edits to this page, and you have reverted them all. We may disagree on some of these edits, but others seem like clear errors, but you reverted to the erroneous version regardless:

• I removed "despite its name" from the lead because it is unclear what it means. Presumably the intent is that it is called a "pie" even though it is a cake. But wouldn't it be simpler just to say that: "Washington pie is a cake...". The way it is phrased now, it's not clear what is being questioned, and it is unnecessarily wordy (especially for a lead).
• I changed "There was another form Washington pie" to "Another version". "Another form Washington pie" is simply not grammatical, and I wasn't sure what was intended. I guessed that the intent was "Another form of Washington pie, and suggested "Another version" because that seemed like a concise way of saying it. You reverted to the ungrammatical version.
• I changed curly quotes to straight quotes, citing MOS:'. As it happens, I think this policy is outdated, but it is still policy, even within quotations.
• I removed the mention that it was a "recommended dessert for a Fourth of July luncheons". If I had just wanted to correct the grammar, I could have done so. But (as I said in the edit summary) I removed it because there is no WP:RS saying that it is any any way characteristic or common as a Fourth of July dish. foodtimeline.org (which is in itself not a RS, but may be a good way to find RS) pointed to one 1904 article which included Washington Pie on a Fourth of July menu. You have now added a direct reference to that 1904 article, which is an improvement, but it is still a primary source. Perhaps it was fashionable from 1890-1910? Perhaps this particular author just liked things named "Washington" for the Fourth of July. etc. A single menu from 1904 doesn't establish that it is a standard or common or canonical dish for the Fourth of July.

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think MOS should be interpreted change the title of a source. There are three sources now, and even if you disagree with the categorization as stated in your edit summary, you didn't explain why you were deleting reliably sourced content from the article. Washington Pie was served at Fourth of July and other patriotic gatherings, with recipes dating to the Antebellum period, but becoming more widespread after the Civil War and during the Westward expansion. I don't mind your being curious, indeed curiosity is a good trait for an editor to have, but have you considered doing some research on your own before reverting (and ruminating)? Spudlace (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Using MOS typographic conventions is not "changing the title".

I don't question that Washington Pie has been served at patriotic gatherings. But it is WP:SYNTH to take 2 primary sources (originally just 1) which mention Washington Pie being served at these gatherings and conclude that it is a traditional or standard or common dish at them.

The fact that there are recipes that date to the antebellum period is interesting, but I don't see the value of a category here. By the way, what counts as "antebellum"? Do Thomas Jefferson's French fries count as "Antebellum cuisine"?

Finally, kindly knock off the condescension. --Macrakis (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the "Historical foods" category in general? I didn't create that category but I find it useful and I don't think we should leave all historical foods in one unsorted category. To answer your question about French fries, it's in a gray area. There are multiple books that say french fries did not become widespread or popular until the 1920s, so I don't think it should be added based on the one story of Thomas Jefferson. Spudlace (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)