Talk:Canadian cuisine

Yikes, needs improvement
Canada is heterogeneous, but this article attempts to ignore this reality by mixing information, which results in a messy and confusing hodgepodge. Just the introduction displays this issue perfectly: a first sentence that Canadian cuisine varies based on the region, followed by a overly-detailed ingredient paragraph, then finally a paragraph that names a bunch of regions around the world as having contributed something. Only the first sentence is even remotely useful or understandable for the common reader (for, after all, there are no descriptions at all of what the average citizen eats on a day-to-day basis). What is the point of describing random ingredients and immigration sources if the reader doesn't how they affect the cuisine? For example, this intro names pierogies as a dish. Naturally, the reader could assume that since this dish is mentionned, it must be a super common dish in Canada. Not so. Plus, the intro doesn't say this, but pierogies are only consummed in Western Canada. If somebody were to go to Quebec or the Maritimes and say they want to eat pierogies, nobody would have any idea what they're talking about. Another example is citing South Asia as a "contributing source". So, if I go to Newfoundland, should I expect to see South Asian-like foods everywhere? The text doesn't specificy, so an uninformed person could assume that the South Asian immigration from the 2000s-2010s to Southern Ontario has affected every part of Canada -and a lot somehow.

The main problem with the lead is that it correctly states that the cuisine varies depending on the region of Canada...and then proceeds to put all of Canada into one basket. May I suggest dividing the introduction into 6 small paragraphs: British Columbia, the Prairies and Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the Territories? Each paragraph could quickly go over the origins of the regional cuisine, followed by the names of a few famous dishes, followed by a short description of everyday foods, habits and ingredients if its not too wordy. This format is much better as it gives an accurate and much clearer synopsis of what types of foods can be found where. A 7th "general description" paragraph could also be included.

Most of the article suffers from the same main problem as the lead. It puts all immigrant origins into one section (history), followed by all foods in 4 sections (regional ingredients, Canadian foods, alcohol and street food). The info is also often displayed in large hard-to-read tables. A wiser approach would be to once again divide by region. I would like to suggest 6 sections based on the 6 regions I described above and each could have subsections based on already existing text. For example: 1.British Columbia -> 1.1)History 1.2)Ingredients 1.3)Foods and alcohol. The "meal format" section can be very easily and naturally integrated into such a format.

Most of the rest of the article's content (festivals, cultivars and breeds) consists of lists. These lists are not short and this article is already pretty long. Is it not possible to simply create a new article for these? The national food section is composed of polls of dubbious validity. May I suggest just mentioning foods that are sometimes considered the national food of Canada in the introduction and be done with it?

This article has nice info, but it is hidden away from the common reader behind poor organisation. 156.34.214.235 (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input. While I take your point that the lead is wordy, and that some of the information there can be redistributed, the information at it's core is still valid and provides context for the sections below. You are correct in that Canada is heterogeneous, but your concept of Canadian heterogeneity seems to be overly focused on the regional diversity of Canada and not enough on it`s ethnic/cultural diversity. Exploring the differences in culinary practices between regions is important, but not so important that it should completely eclipse the influences of various ethnic groups (such as those listed at the end of the lead, as you note).
 * Describing ingredients in the lead is meant to give the reader an impression of the importance of ingredients themselves to the very concept of Canadian cuisine, as supported by the research cited. There is an entire section below which expands on the importance of ingredients which make explicit references to various dishes they apply to (this also emphasizes regionality, by the way).
 * When we mention a dish like pierogies, we are respecting both it's regional particularity as well as it's contribution to the overall landscape of Canadian cuisine. As you acknowledge, Canada is regionally diverse, so all of these regional culinary practices should be recognized as contributory to the overarching concept of a "Canadian cuisine" (hence the title of the article). The very reason we make use of tables is to make it explicit that there are culinary distinction between regions, but that all these regions are parts of a greater whole. Even the historical timeline, which is subdivided by ethno-cultural contributions (you mention South Asian influences, for example); if you read through these subsections, the paragraphs are temporally linear, but they also make systematic reference to the regions these groups influenced (for example, Scottish immigrants in the Prairies/Rupert's Land during the 18th century). An important goal of this article should be to balance Canada's diversities of culinary influence (whether they be regional, ethnic, linguistic, etc.), while also serving a broader concept of national cuisine, and respecting the common themes observed in defining a national Canadian cuisine (which makes the "Definitions" section important, a section that also makes explicit reference to the importance of regionality in itself).
 * I think the lists are important to provide easy references for the reader, but I agree with you that the "National Food" section has dubious references, and I have labelled them as such. This article has been neglected for a long time, and at least what I try to do is not completely demolish what came before.
 * Again, while I appreciate the comments, I would caution you not to miss the forest for the trees. But of course you're welcome to edit/contribute. HadynMD (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a huge article and quite unwieldy, which makes it hard to navigate. I agree with the first poster that the page consists of too many lists and tables, and several sections rely too heavily on (very) small polls. Many of the source links are frankly weak (a random person's blog listing their favourite Canadian foods?) or the information within is inaccurate, out of date, or oddly specific. Examples include the AngloInfo link comparing the breakfasts of "Canadians" and "French Canadians", a link re: street food markets that includes in its list a business park food court, or the one suggesting that "afternoon tea" is commonplace as a mealtime in Canada. I think this page is trying hard to be all things to all people, which results in a bit of a hodgepodge (which, besides meaning "mishmash", is also the name of an East Coast dish not mentioned anywhere in the article). 821kat821 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)