Talk:Pasty/Archive 2

Fillings
While I realise that pasties with a variety of fillings {cheese, chicken, etc.) are available, I submit that no self-respecting Cornishman would regard such pasties as 'Cornish pasties'. Part of the trouble lies in the fact that the Cornish refer to genuine Cornish pasties (made with chuck or skirt steak, potato, swede and onion) as simply 'pasties'; the term 'Cornish pasty' is not used by the Cornish. What a non-Cornish might call a cheese and onion pasty is, in no sense, a Cornish pasty. Sbz5809 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but it would be excessive to have two articles, "Cornish Pasty" and just "Pasty". The article covers both traditional and "modern" pasties, and I think it makes clear what the tradidional form is. &mdash;dcclark (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to  list the different types of pasties (Pembrokeshire,  Devonshire, Cornish) and to specify the ingredients in each. For exampe, lamb is in Pembrokeshire; this would not normally be in a Cornish pasty, but a true Cornish pasty would always include vegetables as well as meat. If it did not, would it not be a Devonshire pasty?ACEO 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Four Generations of my Cornish family have used salt, pepper and Worcestershire Sauce on the steak... Shop pasties I've had also taste of Worcestershire Sauce - should that be in the fillings section? It's only been around since 1900 but is a main characteristic of a pasty these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.210.118 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is going to complicate the discussion a bit further, but many years ago I was under the impression that a "standard" pasty (if there is such a thing) included meat (usually, it seemed, mince meat), but a Cornish one didn't, and had only vegetables. Is there any basis for this?  I am in Australia, so if this usage exists, it may be local to Australia, since the article seems to suggest that Cornish pasties did include meat.  But I would be interested to know if there is any precedent for regarding a Cornish pasty as one without meat in it. M.J.E. (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a further comment on this, a day or so later. My mother is a good cook, and I believe she knows quite a bit about cooking. I asked her today about whether Cornish pasties lacked meat or not, and she didn't seem to think that was an essential aspect of it; but she did say that a Cornish pasty traditionally has lamb in it, not some other meat such as beef.

Again, I'd be interested to know if anyone can confirm or deny this as a defining characteristic of specifically the Cornish pasty. M.J.E. (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Cornish pasties traditionally have beef (chuck or skirt, and diced not minced). They also have potato, onion, turnip/swede, and salt and pepper. Historically, they would have had any meat available - I know of poor families that used to put bits of bacon into the pasty on a Monday, and the children had to save the bacon when they ate the pasty - it'd go in the next day's bake too. This way, they got a bacon flavoured pasty one day, and eat the bacon the next. See The County Book: Cornwall by Claude Berry. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard of that kind of thing too. If times were hard and money was tight, and skirt / chuck was not an option, basically a pasty could have contained any meat that was on offer. Generally, only if no meat was available at all would a pasty contain just vegetables. Pasties were often a main meal and meat was the main source of protein, so it was always included if at all possible. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a 1965 edition of a Cornish recipe book, first published by the Cornish Federation of Women's Institutes in 1929. The variations given are as follows; Apple, Broccoli, Chicken, Date, Eggy, Herby, Jam, Mackerel, Meat & Potato (the meat is not specified), Parsley, Pork, Rabbity, Rice, Sour (sorrell) Sauce, Star-Gazing, Turnip, Windy. (This last is a way of using up the remaining pastry by making an empty pasty. When cooked, open flat & put some jam, or cheese & chutney, or anything you like in the halves.) I intend to place all of the recipes in Wikibooks. (Mostly done now) It makes no mention of beef-steak as the meat. (Several recipes go back to the 1700's. And some of them are wonderful! One Saffron cake recipe starts with; "8 & 3/4 lbs of flour, 6 lbs of fruit & 5 lbs of butter &/or lard"... Or a cowslip wine recipe; "Take 50 lbs sugar, add 24 gallons water"...) Dick Holman. User:Archolman 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On fillings: Given that the pasties origin is probably as a poverty food, so the protein would have been the cheapest available. This would more than likely have been mutton, not lamb or beef. Cheap fish would have been an option for some, for instance cockles or oysters, sprats, etc. The traditional style of hearth uses a smaller oven let-in to the back or side of the hearth. A good brisk fire would be lit, normally using gorse faggots and branches, with fuel being placed in the oven as well. After the right temperature was reached, the fire was removed & all raked clean, the prepared food placed inside the oven, & the door replaced. The shelves were normally of slate, which were sometimes rested on a built-in ledge, and/or small blocks of stone were used as spacers/pillars between shelves. Archolman 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This type of oven is called a cloam oven. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Duncan, I did wonder about including the name, & now realise I should have :)

A note on the reference to figs. Probably not real figs, but the dialect word for raisins, as in Figgie Hobbin/Duff, a variation of the rock-cake or fruit-scone family. Archolman 03:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
I did a fairly major rewrite and reorganization of the article. In particular, I added inline references. If anyone feels like helping, we still need a few things: Drop a line here with any complaints. :) -- dcclark (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More references, preferably from print sources
 * More detailed history
 * Verification or disproval of the sweet and savory pasty (see above) -- even just a primary source talking about fruit in pasties would be good.
 * I've found an article published by the New York Times in 1988 which confirms the Devon Pasty stuff and the sweet/savoury reference. I don't have time to add the references now (or even read through the full article), but here's the URL to the online version in case someone else wants to add them before I get around to it: FARE OF THE COUNTRY; In Cornwall, a Meal in a Crust. &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very cool. I'll merge in some useful information later. -- dcclark (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see this NYT article has been taken as gospel truth, but I have to say it adds nothing. Firstly - the sweet-savoury "two-course" pasty. This is romantic rubbish - no question about it. No-one I have ever known, including many Cornish born-and-bred women of 80+, has either seen or eaten such a thing. I still haven't seen any evidence that it's possible to make, for reasons I stated in the relevant section above, nor primary evidence that anyone in those distant days had the free time or equipment to make one. Fruit pasties are never cooked for the same length of time as a meat pasty - they just can't be unless you like raw meat or carbonised jam - and no miner's wife would ever have had the time to pre-cook ingredients. No Cornish pasty-seller sells them today, and given the gimmick value - they would if they could! Hettie Merrick's "The Pasty Book" (Penryn 1995) states that "I have personally not found anything like it actually in use in Cornwall."

The crimping thing - in Merrick's book it is stated that there is no authentic manner in which to crimp a Cornish pasty - you just do whatever you find easiest. The hardest way is to crimp along the top, perhaps this is why many people crimp along the side. She also states that there is much debate over the "correct way", suggesting that there just is no correct way. I also contend that there is no such thing as a "Devon pasty" - this would just be a type of Cornish pasty which happens to be made in Devon. There don't seem to be enough differences between the two to merit it being a separate entity. My grandmother's grandfather was a master baker in Truro at the end of the 1800s, and the method of crimping that was passed down to my grandmother was along the top, no question about it.

But anyway, it's not my article, so feel free to put what you like. I'm not going to wreck it by editing it, but that's what I think. Anyway, any media article which suggests that a Ginster's "pasty" is even pleasant to eat, let alone remotely authentic, is clearly extremely dubious in my opinion. In Cornwall itself you can hardly give them away - they're only made for "export" to England. Bretonbanquet 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see that you feel very strongly about this. The article doesn't belong to anyone. If you wish to edit it to be more accurate, from your view, you should do so. For my part, I will stay with the print and web sources which I've cited, and which also tally with my own experience. If you can cite the book (Merrick) in the article, that would help a lot. -- dcclark (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've tried to edit it in keeping with all points of view - feel free to change it around if you like of course. I am not familiar with the footnote system but I will attempt to cite Merrick as well. If anyone can come up with a recipe for a two course pasty that doesn't involve pre-cooked ingredients, I'd be very interested to try it. Bretonbanquet 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent edits! The footnote came through fine. -- dcclark (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now I've learned footnotes as well :o)  Bretonbanquet 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I guess the New York Times footnote got slightly borked, but no problem. If you refer to a footnote before it's defined, you get some weird blank reference in the "References" section. I'm too used to the niceities of LaTeX which doesn't care about that. :) -- dcclark (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprised the "two course pasty" legend is still being presented here as fact. The Merrick book seems to me to be the best source for pasty history. If I had a copy here I'd edit it myself. I've little doubt that the present existence of such pasties in Cornish pasty shops is just to appeal to tourists, who love this story for some mysterious reason. Why would hungry miners want half their pasty taken up with apple, instead of meat and potato?

As for crimping, my grandmother (82-year-old Cornish lady) agrees that neither top nor side is necessarily right. She says side is faster and thinks that may be why Cornish commercial bakers often do the side, but top seems to be preferred for home use, as juices are less likely to run out the crimp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.123.74 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the section on the two-course pasty to where it was some time ago. I removed the unsourced statement about two-course pasties being available in Looe and Polperro - if this is the case, it should not be difficult for someone to be able to verify it. I restored the part about the ingredients being unable to survive the baking process, because this is undeniable. It is also sourced. Any two-course pasty available today is undoubtedly a modern gimmick, created using non-traditional methods, and certainly not the survival of some 19th century staple food, as was implied in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know since I can't cite any sources there is no point in trying to edit this article, but I ate a two course pasty at a pasty shop near Tintagel sometime in the mid nineties (95 or 96 I think, my family used to holiday in Cornwall regularly). Therefore, whilst they seem beyond doubt to be a modern invention, I think it is innacurate to say (as the article states) that such things are not commercially available in Cornwall. They certainly have been in at least one place in the not too distant past. --KharBevNor (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Worm. Nice work on the GA status!

Swede and turnip
"Other common ingredients include swede (rutabaga) (called turnip in Cornwall) and possibly parsley" -

Swede and turnip are different.


 * The Rutabaga article claims that they are different names for the same thing. You may want to take it up over there. -- dcclark (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see Turnip (disambiguation) Tubezone 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody calls a Swede a Turnip or vice versa. They are not the same thing either. A Swede has orange-ish flesh and a Turnip has white flesh. Some townie has now edited it to say that people in Devon and Cornwall call a Swede a turnip. Is this their idea of a joke?? I shall be changing this soon when I have the requisite supporting evidence.....Pafcwoody (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just a (confusing) dialect difference. In Cornwall the red skinned root veg with the yellow flesh has always been called turnip (I believe this is also the case in Scotland, and probably elsewhere too). In other parts of the UK this is called swede, and turnip refers to the smaller white fleshed root vegetable (In Cornwall this is called white turnip!). In North America Swede is called Rutabaga but I don't know the provenance - rutabaga is simmilar to the French word for Swede so maybe thats where it came from Mammal4 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rutabaga comes from the Swedish word rotabagge. Makes sense as this vegetable was first popularized in the US (although I should say introduced, it's not terribly popular) by Swedish immigrants. Tubezone 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What Mammal4 says is true, in Cornwall red skin + yellow flesh = turnip. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a newspaper story about this here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

England
It is very unhelpful that England has not been mentioned at all in this page, despite the fact that Cornwall is in England, and the Cornish pasty is included on the cuisine section of the article about England. Please could people refrain from changing 'England' to 'United Kingdom', in many places, and acknowledge that the Cornish pasty is an important part of English cuisine in general, not just Cornwall. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The country of which Cornwall is a part is the UK, England not being an independent country. If you want to add that the pasty is an important part of the regional English cuisine, please add it, without removing other information, and including the relevant references. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add that the IP seems intent on adding UK to articles about Scottish subjects, while removing it from articles which are or could be construed to be about English ones. His edits are similar to those of another IP, a couple of currently operating SPAs, and at least one editor who has been blocked or banned for disruptive POV pushing. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bretonbanquet, look at any article about a place of item from Wales or Scotland. You will notice it refers to them coming from the constituent country, not the UK. it is only helpful that all articles use the terms England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, rather than have most use these terms, and one article about a pasty using the term UK due to a biased opinion from an editor (yes thats you Bretonbanquet). Whether it mentions England being in the UK or not it does not matter, so long as it notes that Cornwall is in England - seeing as that is a fact, and Wikipedia is a factual website. The cows want their milk back (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever your opinion, please read and abide by wp:assume good faith, rather than calling me biased, which will not end well. This article was edited to read "United Kingdom" long before I came along. The pasty is associated with Cornwall specifically, not England as a whole, therefore the correlation with items coming from Wales or Scotland etc is not valid. The facts are satisfied perfectly well by explaining that Cornwall is in the UK, which it is. The inclusion of England in the explanation of location as well as the UK is not relevant, in my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, continuing to edit-war on the article to suit your point of view while this discussion is ongoing is bad wikiquette. Wait till this discussion is over before making any changes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinion? No, I clearly stated that what i wrote was a fact. Look it up and stop being disruptive 'Bretonbanquet'. The cows want their milk back (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cows, you need to stop imposing your changes in the absence of a consensus supporting them. If you do not, it is highly likely that you will be blocked for disruption and a Suspected Sockpuppet Investigation begun. Looking at your edit history and talk page it is clear that you have difficulty working with others, Please take time to read the links in the welcomebox on your talk page, and try to shew a little mpore restraint in your edits. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This should certainly be "England". The world knows England by it's stereotypes, and Pasties are one of them. A lot of people would think Britain is a totally different place. It's like saying that something made in France was just made in "Europe". – MissAlyx   talk  23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that pasties are associated with Cornwall, not with England as a whole. Your France / Europe analogy is a non-sequitur - England is not the sovereign country we are dealing with here, the UK is. It is important to indicate that to non-British users who may not be familiar with the make-up of the UK. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sovereign country is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about conveying information to those requiring it. Stating Cornwall, United Kingdom conveys less useful information than does Cornwall, England. I approve of a change in this article to Cornwall, England. And - Cornwall is not a region, it's a county. FootballPhil (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does any guideline say "sovereign country is irrelevant", or is that just your opinion? Saying "Cornwall, England" provides no extra information at all - in fact it provides less information as the sovereign country is missing and those unfamiliar with the geopolitical make-up of the UK may be misled into thinking that England is a sovereign country. As you say, Wikipedia exists to convey information to those requiring it, not muddying the waters. There is nothing whatsoever that is inaccurate, misleading or incorrect about saying "Cornwall, UK". And - unless I'm mistaken, nobody here has said Cornwall is a "region". Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Well yes, the article info box puts Cornwall as a region or state. I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying - maybe my fault. Sovereign country is irrelevant to this article. That's an opinion if you like. I hardly think stating Cornwall is in England is muddying the waters. Ask most knowledgeable people where Cornwall is, and ten to one you'll get the answer "England". England is a more definitive location, and if it's linked in the article, anyone who didn't know, would quickly find out that England is part of the United Kingdom. Someone earlier said UK is a bit daft because you might as well say Cornwall is in Europe, and I agree with this. England is the next biggest unit up from Cornwall, so it's natural to relate the one to the other. Apart from anything else, Cornwall, United Kingdom just sounds peculiar (maybe because no-one ever says it). FootballPhil (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, that info box is really naff. All we need is Place of origin: Cornwall. That's good enough. No need for countries or regions at all. Should we go with this suggestion? FootballPhil (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I see what you mean. I guess that's just the way the infobox was designed, and I agree that "region" isn't the best description for Cornwall. It's not a good description for England either. I guess it's like that because the infobox has to deal with food from various countries. I disagree with the rest of what you say - it's not relevant where people might think Cornwall is, the relevant and most useful thing is to display which country Cornwall is in. To use your example, anyone not sure which part of the UK Cornwall is in could just click on Cornwall and find out. The comparison with saying "Cornwall, Europe" is frankly ludicrous, as Europe is not the sovereign country that Cornwall is in. Geopolitically, we deal in countries, not subdivisions of countries or large groups of countries. Those are the political units the world is divided into. Actually, South West England is the next unit up from Cornwall, being one of the supposed regions of England - but no-one advocates putting that. I don't agree that "Cornwall, UK" sounds peculiar. In other articles, some have been happy using "Cornwall, England, UK" or just simply "Cornwall". Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, I'd be happy for it just to say "Cornwall", if others agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually - Anyone with sence would put UK if there has to be a mention: It's far more neutral. Many Cornish people consider themselves Cornish, not English and Cornish culture is often regarded as being separate. There is also the political part of teh argument: Cornwall trying to get more of it's own powers similar to Wales. Simply because Cornwall is officially England, that matter is debated; It IS however part of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 April 2010

Infobox
Devon? Cornwall? Neither? I have dropped this contentious bit. This seems to be shrouded in the mists of time, and is adequately thrashed out, I think, in the body. I don't see the value in keeping it in the infobox when it is in contention. Easily restored if wp:consensus is against the change. - Sinneed  19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I now see this was discussed previously, immediately above...my apologies. I suggest the change I made already.- Sinneed  20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a slightly different discussion, and nothing to do with Devon. The addition of Devon to the infobox is one editor's work. I would like to see the infobox say "Cornwall", as it done for a very long time, unless someone can come up with a decent reference to say that pasties in Devon came first. Simply saying "UK" is not descriptive enough in my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been a point of contention for some time now. The body covers the squabble over where the Pasty originated rather well.  The England/UK bit itself has been a point of contention. Simply saying "UK" would not be descriptive enough, but of course no one is proposing that it is... just an adequate 1-work summary for an infobox.-  Sinneed  13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Devon
I think that this page is bias towards Cornwall. It dosent show all the evidance that the pasty orriginated in Devon. I know there are alot of people (probably from Cornwall) who say that Devoners have no evidence that the pasty originated in Devon (ill imformed people). If you want to know what sources Devoners have, please contact me.(Kinghenrimck (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
 * New threads at the bottom. If you want us to know what sources, please add them here. wp:PoV and wp:AGF might be good reads.-  Sinneed  20:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This fellow (Kinghenrimck (talk) to be clear) has been harassing me at my talk page for a while now, about this topic. He's cited some very questionable articles as evidence. You can check some out there if you're interested. -- dcclark (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is the article doesnt make it clear that the 'Pasty' wasn't 'invented' : it developed over hundreds of years and was popular all over Britain and possibly France. The 'Cornish pasty' (or oggie) became popular and 'standardised' (using cheaper cuts of meat, not vennison), with the boom in the Cornish Mining industry in the 18th and 19th centuries and was then taken by the miners of Cornwall all over the world. This is known fact. One recipe for a vennison pasty found in a Devon archive proves nothing. --Talskiddy (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the article has the oldest referrencce to the pasty coming from Devon, and several histroic referrences from the rest of England, to have Cornwall as the sole place of origin is not reliable. I have changed the info box to reflect this.Serpren (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In other Cornish-influenced regions (Bottom)
I'm not sure the stuff set in Mexico is --Frank Fontaine (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A) Factually accurate
 * B) Notable
 * C) Well written
 * D) Encyclopaedic.
 * Agreed. It was also a copyright violation from, so I removed it. &mdash;David Johnson (T|C) 11:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pasty of the year
Whilst this remains pending controversy arose when the British Pie Manufacturer Association voted a product from CHUNK OF DEVON the "Best Cornish Pasty 2009". This caused such a fuss amongst the Cornish producers that CHUNK were banned from entering the 2010 awards and a media storm arose with CHUNK appearing on GMTV and various other radio and tv shows. Some people now suggest that awarding PGI prompts some producers to then become complacent as beaurocracy then determines who makes the best product rather than popular choice. Ironically, in 2010 very few Cornish producers entered the competition and standards were so low that the judges could only find one prize worthy pasty and were, therefore, unable to propose a runner up

This doesn't belong in protected status, it didn't work, and it isn't encyclopedic. Maybe a much briefer bit, located more appropriately?- Sinneed  12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion.- Sinneed  15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could do with a trimming.

 * The "See also" section seems to mention everything that even resembles a Pasty. Isn't this a little over the top?
 * The Dubner incident...an entire section on one small incident? Perhaps not very notable. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Crib and croust
Re deletion of: "Tradition claims that the pasty was originally made as lunch ('croust' or 'crib' in Cornish dialect) for Cornish tin miners who were unable to return to the surface to eat." The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) has "Food, provisions, light meal, etc." (dialectal) as one of the meanings of "crib" giving several examples including quotations from M. A. Courtney's Glossary (1880) and Rowse's Cornish Childhood (1942). "Crowst" is often explained as a variant of "crust" ((outer layer of bread) so may possibly be a loanword from English to Cornish.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In "An Gerlyver Meur" 'croust' is given as meaning 'picnic lunch, meal taken to work, snack', and says it is attested in Origo Mundi, line 1901 (written in the 14th century). It also says it comes from Middle English 'crouste', which in turn came from Old French 'crouste'. So it appears that the word was indeed a loan from Middle English but it was in use as part of the Cornish language long before the language died out, and seems to have entered the Anglo-Cornish dialect from the Cornish language. -- Joowwww  (talk)  15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The history is complicated and interesting, perhaps it could be usefully added to List of Cornish dialect words. Unless "crib" exists in Cornish the present wording is not ideal though it is only a small aspect of the subject "Pasty".--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom...
While Cornwall is not a country, having "United Kingdom" in the info-box as the place of origin is factually incorrect, the United Kingdom didn't exist when the Pasty was even first recorded in Cornish History, so how can it be its place of origin? Unless it's just where the pasty is generally associated with today, which is still Cornwall primarily. What would be more accurate would be "Cornwall, England" because at the time Cornwall was a part (Or, more accurately, considering Cornwall's distinctiveness then and now, "Administered") of England, and still is (regardless of a few peoples personal opinions, which have no place on this Encyclopaedia). Thank you --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At what time? The date of origin of the pasty is not known, and it may well have originated at a time when Cornwall was not a part of England. If simply "Cornwall" is not acceptable (and I'm not saying it is), then the usual "Cornwall, England, UK" will suffice, as per the lengthy discussion a while back somewhere else. "Cornwall, England" and "Cornwall, UK" were not considered satisfactory by various parties. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * UK seems like a good compromise to me. The origins of the pasty are disputed, with claims that it originated in Devon, Wales and various other places (so specifying Cornwall or England doesn't work). What I don't want to do is is allow people to push their non-neutral points of view using this article, which has happened in the past. Heck, I'm almost tempted to change it to "unknown" just to end this once and for all. &mdash;David Johnson (T|C) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The pasty came from Cornwall, claims made by Devon have been shown to be inaccurate. If "United Kingdom" is not acceptable (which I think it is) then "Great Britain" should suffice as a geographical description. -- Joowwww  (talk)  18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about British Isles?...No, that was a joke. Seriously. I would say that UK will do, and saying that claims it originated from Devon as inaccurate or truth is of course POV nationalist tit-for-tat as far as I'm concerned, it's always funny though (I personally think that the pasty belongs to mother nature, as that is where it REALLY comes from). Origination is hardly relevant really, what's important is how undoubtedly the pasty is entwined with Cornish culture. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

...and fish.
Has fish ever been used as a filling in the Pasty? It seems strange that it never has. Pastry and fish isn't generally fancied, but certain types of shellfish would seem to fit...I think. Just a random thought I had when looking at the Cornish cuisine article. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, mackerel, amongst others. See my bit on Fillings, up the page. Archolman 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

County
I see that once again this article is becoming a warring place for people who want to deny that Cornwall is a county in England. Why? One IP editor today states it isn't a county (despite the former article stating that it is) but it is a duchy. Interestingly the lands owned by the Duchy of Cornwall covers a number of counties and half of it is in Devon. I have no objection to the article mentioning the Duchy of Cornwall, but I do strongly object to the constant removal of county status, a fact which is relevant to the article. Obviously related topics have been debated in this article's talk page before, but let's have a sensible discussion instead of reverting to erroneous arguments in edit summaries like "Cornwall is a Duchy - historic fact, so your edit is erroneous." or "You learn your history from Wiki Simple Bob? No wonder you're confused...". (And yes I know I didn't help with my own first edit summary today). --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the age-old problem of how to describe places like Cornwall. Some want to remove all reference to England, while others want to remind the reader of England's existence at every opportunity. I've had my fill of arguments about this, but I would like to point out that Cornwall's political situation doesn't really have anything to do with pasties, and lengthy descriptions of Cornwall's administrative status are rather irrelevant. I would also like to point out that previous arguments on this subject have resulted in a consensus that both England and the UK are mentioned when describing Cornwall's location, and this article should probably follow suit. To that end, I suggest a simple sentence along the lines of "...commonly associated with Cornwall, in the south west of England, UK." Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. My edit was because I think the construction "...English county of Cornwall in the United Kingdom"" is clumsy, & excessive verbiage. I just wanted to improve the look & readability of the sentence, which should be part of what we do. Or am I being to much of a copy-editor? (I should declare that I am of Cornish descent, but am not bothered by calling Cornwall an English county. It has been for several centuries. And the Duchy (with a German-descended Duke!) is not all of Cornwall, nor confined to Cornwall, etc. etc. ad infinitum) :) Archolman 01:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated question - for example, Cornwall has only been an administrative county since 1889, not for several centuries, and the whole county/duchy construct is open to the kind of edit-bitching that we've seen recently here. Technically, it is a county and in some legal senses, also a duchy. I just think that, given that the article is about pasties, the administrative status of Cornwall is not relevant, and we'd avoid a lot of headaches by leaving out that part of the sentence. Let's leave it to the constitutional status articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bretonbanquet's suggestion "...commonly associated with Cornwall, in the south west of England, UK." works for me. I'm very happy to see a sensible outcome. The IP editor is definitely mischief making as evidenced by his edit summary at Geevor Tin Mine. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to get Pasty up to GA status over the next few days, so wasn't too happy to see a small edit war! Good suggestion indeed from Bretonbanquet, though the pasty is associated with the county of Cornwall, not the duchy. Both are very different areas... as mentioned above. I know there is some argument from Mebyon Kernow that Cornwall isn't a county and it's an understandable one, as Cornwall was never conquered, just... absorbed. Anyway, not an argument for the Pasty article :)  Worm    TT   08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Worm... No war meant on my part. I had, in fact, forgotten some earlier 'brisk discussions' on the very subject of Cornish/English identity/etc, & just tidied up a bit, not really thinking of much beyond, "Hmmm, a pasty would be nice". Then all these arrows started! I left. :) @Bretton... My English civil history is poor, so thanks for that. What had Cornwall, or other counties, been regarded as before 1889? Archolman 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think it was an IP editor who was warring, not your good self. I've been making a lot of changes to the article, so that might be something to do with it appearing on your watchlist a lot! I hope you don't mind my answering your other question, but interestingly up to at least 16th century Cornwall was considered a "country" with the same status as Wales. 1535 Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia describes Britain as being made up of "Scots, Welsh, English and Cornish people" and that "England is limited on the West part with the bounds of Cornwall and Wales." I did read something that said Cornwall was "absorbed" into England rather than conquered, and it's unclear when it happened.  Worm    TT   09:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * About the IP, I sort to educate him with some well balanced words of truth :P --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Worm. Thanks for the civic history, & I don't mind at all that you answered :) (I just spotted that I didn't sign this when I posted it) Archolman 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Recipe images
If this article is to go forward to GA, then I really think we should drop some of the how-to stuff. I especially dislike the image gallery used for the two course pasty, and the undue weight that section gives to something that is a relatively minor and very uncommon type of pasty. At most it should have one picture. The images in the previous section showing how a regular pasty are made are fine because they are clear, succinct and add value. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I put them into a gallery, because they were spread all over the page and looked horrible. But I agree, a single picture should be sufficienct, one where it shows the cooked pasty with different ends IMO. I do think that there should be a bit about the "two course pasty", because "everyone knows" that it was "traditional" (from my experience in Cornwall anyway), however I'd like to find a few decent sources and put a little less "how to" in it. I'm not keen on a lot of the sections in fact, I'm going through them one by one, nearly done on history - though I'm not keen on the modern usage section.  Worm    TT   09:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that one picture would be ample for this two-course pasty business. I think more sources are imperative for this thing, since it's my belief that the two-course pasty is a bit of a joke. They're impossible to make unless you cook the meat separately first, which means they're not proper pasties anyway. If they were possible to make (and halfway edible) then someone would be selling them, and they're not. We mustn't descend to any kind of "quirky regional folk food" level. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, I'm vaguely hoping that if "everyone knows" something - then surely it's sourceable. Right? ;) I've done alright getting south west food up to good article status in the past (Clotted cream, Stargazy pie, Squab pie) but I have a feeling the good ol' pasty is going to be my biggest challenge.  Worm    TT   12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with sourcing the two-course pasty! Stuff like "my great-grandmother used to make them, therefore everyone ate them" is pretty common online, and of course no use. There's a lot of woolly history surrounding the pasty, and finding concrete sources is hard. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can find enough sources to discuss the concept - good reliable sources too. But I can't find any evidence that they were actually made, or any references to a two course pasty from before 1980 or so. Interesting that. Don't worry, I'll cut the unsourced stuff down when I do it.  Worm    TT   12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done on the History and Recipe's section. Need a little more citations, but I trust everyone's happy? Let me know if not  Worm    TT   12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's looking good. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. A definite improvement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now in for GA. Let's hope this goes well! Worm   TT   13:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Worm. Nice work on the GA status!Archolman 03:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These images should of been removed ages ago. Stop turning a blind eye to things, honestly. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm...pasty or bridie, anyone?
Now that I've read this article, I'm fairly hungry. Good job to the contributors here. Would any of you happen to know anything about bridies such as to improve that article? I've eaten a number of them but apart from recipe books, I'm not sure I could do that article justice. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pasties and mining
There are still a couple of aspects of pasty-eating by tin miners in this article that owe more to retrospective romanticism than any kind of common sense. They might be moderately sourced but they're still, well, rubbish. These sources just regurgitate the same old fantasy ideas. Dropping pasties down mines to be caught by miners - terrible rubbish. Thousands of feet deep, you only have to stand at the top of an open one to know that they're not straight - you can't drop anything down a mine and expect it not to hit the sides and be smashed to bits. In any case, miners didn't work at the bottom of the main shaft, they worked down side shafts and tunnels at various levels, well out of earshot of the surface. Another thing is the idea of miners holding pasties by the crimp - I've never seen a period photo of anyone holding a pasty by the crimp, and one is hard-pressed to find an old photo of a pasty with a side crimp anyway, regardless of what the Pasty Association will tell you. The postcard image in the article is a good example. All the photos I've seen of miners eating pasties are of them holding one end in a rag or piece of paper and eating the thing end-to-end. The idea of a miner throwing the crust away is also highly unlikely - you're down there, working 8-10 hour shifts in the filth and dark, breathing in untold fumes and poisonous gases, doing extremely dangerous work which will see you dead by 36 (on average) - you're hungry and you're not about to throw away a big chunk of your food. It would be nice to see this crap weeded out or at least tempered with a bit of balance - it's actually pretty insulting to those people who had to do the job. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be WP:BOLD. Rewrite it as you think best! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No arguments from me. JFDI. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a small caveat from me. I agree that there is a lot of romantacism around the pasty and as you say the vast majority of the information does not withstand scrutiny. However, I caution you to beware of original research. Just because you haven't seen periodic evidence of something doesn't mean it didn't happen - and given the plethora of sources (which I think are varied and reliable) which say it did - I would suggest that care is taken over the weeding. For example, I get the impression that pastry on the tin-miners pasties were not eaten at all (similar to a peel of an orange) - they would be made to an unpleasantly heavy density - keeping the actual meal in the centre warm. This would support the "leaving the crust" and the "tradition" that it could be dropped down a mineshaft - a concept that has been long before 1900 & . So, go ahead, be bold, but remember that the encyclopedia is not trying to tell the truth, just report verifiable information.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, everyone. I am aware of OR and there won't be any in my edits. I don't readily accept the idea that the pastry wasn't to be eaten at all - have you seen anything to support this? Pastry would have been a bit rougher than it is today, probably made from barley flour, but I see no reason at all to make something that was inedible. I also doubt the seemingly imperative aspect of keeping the thing warm. Don't forget it was impossibly hot down there, 40-50 degrees, and the claim you sometimes see of a pasty being kept close to the body to "keep a miner warm" is laughable. Of the two sources you gave I would say the second is clearly a humourous poem designed as a joke. You could make a pasty with wooden pastry, drop it 200ft and it wouldn't be in one piece at the bottom. I'd say the tale in the first source is also designed to be humourous. One has to treat secondary sources with great care - the words may say something, but is the source designed to be taken as fact? Wikipedia does stipulate that verifiablity > truth, but not all verifiable sources actually aim to tell the truth at all, including modern ones that interpret older non-fact sources as fact. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source for the pastry not being eaten, which is why I didn't mention it in the article. I just got that impression from the sources I did read - for example based on the toughness. I agree that the sources were for comedy effect - which is why I didn't include them in the article, but they do show that the stories have been around a while and should (in my opinion) be included in some form in the encyclopedia. Research I've done of tin mining in general (I say "I've" done, I mean my ex-wife did - since she included it in her degree, but god did I have to hear about it... if you ever want to know about ankylostomiasis give me a shout...) showed that the miners would often work naked due to the heat, so keeping the pasty close to the body would be difficult. Whether they return to the surface to eat would depend on the mine. The chances of a pasty actually being thrown down a mine for a miner to eat are certainly nil, but the tale is well associated with the pasty.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree with all that. I think the balance is in mentioning the stories without suggesting that they are in some way incontrovertible fact. I suspect I'm every bit as wearisome on the subject as your ex-wife was, although silicosis is more my cup of tea (!)... I agree that miners often worked with as few clothes on as possible (a compromise between comfort and safety), and that some mines had their miners return to the surface to eat, while others didn't. Some carried knapsacks in which their food was kept, others used pockets. Some (shock horror) didn't always have a pasty about their person at all, but sometimes had bread with cheese, or the previous night's left-overs. A lot of this doesn't fit with the widely-held beliefs about pasties and mining, and it's hard to source. I'm happy to keep the various tales in the article, just with a bit of balance. I'm not even looking to do a huge edit. Hopefully when I do it, everyone will be happy with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I wish you the best of luck  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your perception is partly anachronistic. Remember that mining in the 20th century is nothing like mining in the 19th, and that mining in the 19th is nothing like that in the 18th or 17th. There has been vast changes in mining technology over these past centuries, particularly after the introduction of the engine. Before the engine, mines were highly limited in a number of aspects (particularly if the mine was located anywhere near water). Being thousands of feet below ground was not likely before the engine. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

PGI status
I hope this article won't turn into an advert for the group of companies behind the pasty's PGI status. It's important that recipes and suchlike don't state that the only way to make a pasty is their way, i.e. the generic knock-off. The modern pasty firms that make this rubbish have now pushed their recipes and methods of preparation into law, so that the legal definition of the "traditional and correct Cornish pasty" now fits their generic knock-off. If anyone can find a decent reference to state that pasties with minced gristle beef in them are the cheap ersatz pasties most people know them to be, please put it in the article. It's sad that a poor-quality, cheaply-made pasty, churned out by poorly-paid Eastern Europeans on an industrial estate in Helston and sold for £3 at a filling station is now the legally-binding genuine article, but we should try to strike a balance in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I hadn't considered that the PGI refs (and the ingredients associated with such) might be WP:UNDUE. I'll look around a bit, and see if I can't find some WP:RS on traditional ingredients, etc. to balance.
 * BTW, although I'm a latecomer to editing this article, I think it is terrific that involved editors got it to GA status. I'd love to see it become an FA (if that's possible).
 * Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a difficult balance to strike, since the PGI recipes and methods are legally the "correct" ones, but that status is undeniably favouring the large, modern commercial bakers, and it is only they who have deemed other recipes and methods "non-traditional" - well, they would, wouldn't they? But if someone finds a hundred-year-old Cornish recipe that differs from their modern one, it's a bit daft to call it untraditional, even if the PGI status demands it. Hopefully we'll keep a decent balance. Joe, your edits so far have been great - we have some good editors working on this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point worth making is that the PGI status only applies in the EU, so you can make pasties in the US or Japan or somewhere, and call them Cornish pasties even if they don't fit the PGI status requirements. So the article should reflect the worldwide view, and maintain that the PGI recipe is not binding outside the EU. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very difficult one, the same dish seems to have gone through many different guises over the years. Early references to the Pasty implies it was an upper class dish, before it became the dish of a miner, followed by the current offering. It used to be filled with whatever was available, so the current "traditional" recipe is probably no more than 100 years old. Having said all that, the decent sources only really go into the current recipe, probably due to the strong associations that recipe has with Cornwall. For example, if you were to suggest putting carrot in a pasty I wouldn't like to be around to see the consequences. Anyway, I've found a possible useful source whilst doing some research for Cornish fairings - Food and Cooking in Victorian England explains that families would have one pasty a week, - made according to the family member's preference - if meat was available it would go to the men. It also points out that mackerel and pilchard pasties were popular at fairs. I'm keeping half an eye on what's going on, but don't want to interfere too much because I will end up getting a little WP:OWNy, so instead I thought I'd see what happens and offer suggestions later...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent reference. I'll see if I can't work in some variations to the recipe, particularly one(s) from history. Don't be shy about contributing more - I'm not concerned about WP:OWN. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it :D I'll see what I can do, would be great to get this up to featured. (Do give me a slap if I'm start to show OWNership tendencies though!)   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - don't worry about OWNing the thing, what's important is that the result is the right one for everybody. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Primitive pasties
I've removed the following from the article:
 * Cornish historian, Les Merton, states that evidence could be found that the pasty was eaten in Cornwall as far back as 8,000 BC, passed down without written records.

""There are caves at the Lizard in Cornwall with line drawings of men hunting a stag and women eating a pasty. At that time it was wrapped in leaves and not pastry, but the leaves were crimped, so I would say there is positive evidence of pasties in Cornwall from primitive times."" This isn't historically accurate. Les Merton would appear to be an author and poet, and both the BBC and the Guardian appear to have missed the point that the Official Encyclopaedia of the Cornish Pasty is a joke, as spotted by the Telegraph, the Independent and The Cornish Pasty website. If there were such ancient cave drawings at the Lizard I suspect they would be rather famous! —S MALL JIM   10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - it made me chuckle though. Might want to have some balance to the Devon claim of invention though, I can see it becoming an issue.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing it...I didn't believe it and assumed it was revisionist BS. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never thought to check it... good work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert
This edit seems like a pretty big revert, and at least in part against prior consensus on this page. Of course, consensus can change. Can we please discuss the long list of changes. As an aside, is it really OK to revert so many changes when they're not vandalism? Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The revert is out of line, removes references, and restores a hoax. The editor needs to review his edit to make sure this is what he intended. If it is, he needs to provide rationales for the changes. I would guess this is a mistake and he should self-revert. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Joe & Hunter, I thought I was simply reverting to the (my) original sentence about crimping... Thanks for cleaning my mess. I think the crimping note should be included, as it helps to explain the two shapes of the pasty, & why most shops sell side-crimped pasties. Ta, Archolman 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! Per your comment, I reverted your revert here: . As for the crimping note, OK, I'll look for that and put it here for discussion (or put it back, depends upon what was said re the removal of that part). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, these things happen. Was going to say there's a lot reverted there, including some very sensible changes. I'm a little busy, but JoeSperrazza and Berean Hunter seem to have everything in hand.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm done...except I get hungry every time I look at this article. :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Phew! Glad there's no big revert being planned here! The crimping note could go back (not sure if the bit I'm thinking of is the bit that Archolman wanted put back though). If it isn't sourced, it could do with sourcing, since the standard of sourcing is now fairly high in this article and it'd be nice to maintain it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Breton, I can only claim a senior moment :) Archolman 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens to the best of us ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The note referred to the difference between commercial & domestic crimping. Side-crimping is quicker for commercial production, because you work to the base of the pasty, instead of picking up two sides & bonding them. Cheers, Dick. Archolman 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that note hadn't gone back in. It's undeniably true, but it will probably need a source. Any leads? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is this note about crimping? DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's this: "Top-crimping is easier, but slower, and less likely to leak, while the side-crimping technique is quicker when learnt, and thus more likely to be commercially used." - it was introduced in an edit a while ago but was reverted because the editor accidentally removed a bunch of other stuff at the same time. It could go back in, but needs a source, I think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my note. Trouble is, I can't find the reference. I think it was an on-line article, but wouldn't swear to it. So leave it out until a source can be found. (it is also mentioned on this page, in "Rewrite") Dick Archolman 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So it is, up there with a five-year old rant of mine... I must have been having a difficult day. I can't find a specific mention of side-crimping being quicker or commercially-used in the Merrick book, unfortunately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "...up there with a five-year old rant of mine... I must have been having a difficult day..." :D Archolman 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between a Pasty and an Empanada?
Sorry for the question. Could anybody explain me please what is the main difference between a Pasty and an Empanada? How may I distinguish one from the other?--189.217.247.66 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox "Place of origin"
The latest bout of edit-warring regarding "England" and "UK" is pathetic and very, very, very old news. This is topped off by someone reverting to their favoured version, then inviting a discussion. Never mind reverting to how the article was when it gained its GA status or anything vaguely sensible like that. The fact is that England, by almost all definitions, is not a country. The country in which Devon and Cornwall are located is the UK. That's what your passport says, that's the country of which Devonians and Cornish people are citizens. This of course does not matter to anyone who just doesn't like that idea. Suggesting that one or other will emerge as a consensus shows an amazing lack of experience in this type of discussion - it won't happen. Weeks and a very long argument later, we'll be nowhere. I suggest the age-old compromise of "England, United Kingdom" as the only suggestion which will remain remotely stable, to appease all the nationalists and also those who are aware of what country they live in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've even been through this once already! Just above, in the "county" section. How come that solution isn't good enough for the infobox? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point is that we don't even know when or where the point of origin of the pasty was, nor will we ever know. It certainly originated before the advent of the UK, but probably predates the term "England" as well. It almost certainly predates the time when Cornwall became part of England. Some people even think it came from Wales, and it's impossible to disprove that. If "England, UK" is unacceptable to people, then it'll have to be left blank, or "unknown" could be inserted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor who kicked this off has had his/her edits to two other articles reverted - all of which have been the same "take cornwall out of England" nonsense. There are people who clearly won't rest until England is erased from every single Cornish-related article. It is pathetic and very, very, very old news to use your own words. I reverted the article to how it was before this IP editor started his silly games. I'm surprised you are carrying on with it. If the pasty were developed in Cornwall and Gwent, or Devon and Perthshire then that would be justification to use United Kingdom, but it was developed in two English counties. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is, as I have said, we don't know where it was developed. It is now most associated with Devon and Cornwall, but even I, as a Cornishman, cannot claim with any certainty that it was developed in Cornwall. If it did, it was indubitably at a time when Cornwall wasn't part of England, if England existed at all at that time, and certainly not a county of anywhere. I'm not going to condone the mass removal of "England" from articles, but the removal of "UK" is similarly unacceptable. Why is "England, UK" fine for the text (you agreed with it), but not for the infobox? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, why hasn't this article been reverted to the GA version, rather than some random other point in time? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any response to those questions, in a few days I will change the infobox field to read "England, UK" in line with the consensus achieved for the text in the lead paragraph. Unless of course, there are any objections or further debate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oggie or Oggin
I'm not sure that the Cornish or Devon pasty is an 'Oggin'.....Surely it is an 'Oggie"? Oggin is a slang Royal Naval term, or use to be when I was in the RN (Andrew), for the sea!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.194.63 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right - thanks for pointing this out. I've changed it in the infobox, though "tiddy oggin" does seem to crop up as an alternative, so I've left that one for now. —S MALL  JIM   12:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I've seen - Tiddy Oggin, which I think probably derived itself down to Oggie.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Differences between different types of pasties
This article does not clarify the real difference between a Cornish pasty, a Devonshire pasty and a Pembrokeshire pasty:

1. A Cornish pasty contains beef and vegetables 2. A Devonshire pasty only contains beef. 3. A Pembrokeshire pasty contains roast lamb and mint sauce. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * for that, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, wholly wrong. A "pasty" in my head is a shape of pie, a "Cornish Pasty" is to a specific recipe. A "Devon Pasty" is a "Cornish Pasty" made in Devon. There is no such place as "Devonshire". Guess where I grew up ;) <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> Worm TT( talk ) 07:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Also, the first google hit for Pembrokeshire Pasty - the "official company" - mentions nothing about mint sauce or the lamb being roasted. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> Worm TT( talk ) 07:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pasties are not just Cornish.
Pasties are not exclusive to Cornwall, nor are all pasties shaped like a CP. Pasties are widely eaten in the North of England as well and there are many different shapes and sizes. This article needs a great deal of editing to move away from its Cornish Bias... CrossHouses (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say pasties are exclusive to Cornwall, nor that all pasties are so shaped. They are widely eaten in a lot of places, but that isn't necessarily notable. This article has reached WP:GA status, which suggests that there's no problem with bias - maybe you could be more specific. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well let's see, apart from the "History" section, the whole article is basically focused on the "Cornish" variant – the sidebar even offers "Cornish pasty" as the first alternative name of "pasty", "In Other Regions" focuses on destinations of Cornish immigrants, "In Culture" is dominated by references to Cornwall, "Recipes" only really discusses what people from Cornwall put into their pasties, etc. The article implicitly subscribes to a "pasties are Cornish" perspective, in spite of evidence that its historical origins may lie elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.63.245 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Find good sources that say something about non-Cornish pasties, and any text you write based on those sources can go in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Of course, it may just be that pasties are predominantly associated with Cornwall, hence the protected status etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)