Talk:Shepherd's pie

Ireland

Hello all, I noticed that this article is in multipel categories of Irish cuisine, but it;s not supported in the body of the article. Indeed, the body claims it is British and French. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Recommend you read the whole article and then you will see why someone has added the Irish category. Tim riley talk 17:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

Chaosdruid, perhaps you could stop edit warring long enough to discuss the matter, rather than try and force your personal belief onto the page. As it stands the article reflects numerous reliable sources that you are going against. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Quite! Extraordinary how many drive-by editors think their personal prejudices outweigh the reliable sources represented in this article. At least the most recent incursion has been reasonably literate, though still entirely wrong. Tim riley talk 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As you know, I am not edit warring.

It is a fact that these are different dishes, not a personal belief - one of lamb and one of beef. It does not matter whichever name is used, what matters is that these are, in fact, two separate dishes with multiple names used for both of them.

I am not sure why someone would think it is a prejudice - and it is not entirely wrong. If these were placed for testing, someone would ask "which dish did you prefer, the lamb or beef?"

How can it be possible that I am incorrect? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes, you are edit warring, rather obviously.

2. Shepherds Pie can be made with either beef or lamb. We’re talking about the dish “shepherds pie”, as a concept, not a series of dishes for tasting. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It would help, dear edit-warrior, if you were to read the whole article – only 745 words, which I'm sure you can probably manage. You will then see from the table that whatever one calls the dish it can be made with several different meats according to the preference of the cook. Tim riley talk 19:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So NOT cottage pie, or the french version then? Just shepherds ... The fact that there are two variants, with three names means it's just one thing then, of course.

Just love the nonsense round here from people who obviously can't even be civil. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry you’re unable to accept you’re in the wrong here. And yes, edit warring really is uncivil, but I’m sort sure why you did so much of it before being dragged to the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It would help, Chaosdruid, if you were to read the article. You will then see that whatever one calls the dish it can be made with several different meats according to the preference of the cook. So the dish can be made with beef or lamb and be referred to as shepherd's pie, with mutton, beef or pork and referred to as cottage pie, with beef, lamb, duck, veal and referred to as hachis Parmentier. The many editors who have worked on this page are not so illogical as to imagine that a dish of minced beef with a potato topping and called shepherd's pie is not the same dish as one of minced beef with a potato topping and called cottage pie or hachis Parmentier. It would also be useful if you would withdraw the accusations of incivility: there is nothing uncivil in what SchroCat or I have told you, above. Tim riley talk 08:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat - You need to re-read the definition of edit warring, it is certainly disingenuous of you to suggest that is what was going on.

Timriley - It was certainly uncivil to say that: 1. I did not read the article; 2. I was edit warring; 3. Obvious plurality is singularity; 4. I was a "drive-by editor"; 5. Claim that a fact is simply me "forcing a personal belief"; 6. That I have a prejudice when it is obvious that there is an entrenchment of "oh no, another person saying cottage and shepherds are different things"

Now, let's get back to improving wiki instead of this nonsense. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh joy. I thought this waste of time and pot-stirring had died a death... (I am well aware of the definition of edit warring, and yes, that's what you were doing; there was nothing disingenuous in describing your behaviour as such) - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear, oh dear! I too hoped this nonsense had ceased. But despite all the other wonderfully, bizarrely false statements s/he has made, we can surely agree with Chaosdruid that s/he should get back to improving Wiki(pedia), preferably on articles away from this. Tim riley talk 19:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Second-rate SYNTH from an IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@SchroCat This is false. I removed 'meat pie' as its type because it does not fit the definition of 'pie' in FIVE independent sources, all of which stated that it must have some sort of outer layer of pastry. This is, in fact, more sources than you provided. Here they are again:

- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pie

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pie

- https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pie

- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pie

- https://www.britannica.com/topic/pie

Given that I provided a greater number of reliable sources than you did, if either of us 'didn't accept the published sources', then it is you. You have, in fact, lied to support your point. 124.188.68.115 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Take your childish little insults and pop them somewhere else. Your ongoing disruptive edit warring goes against all the other reliable sources that call this a meat pie, despite the "research" that can be refuted far too easily. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Dearie, dearie me! Yet another numpty and rather nasty attempt to insist that one drive-by editor's views must prevail over the consensus. Interesting to see an Australian IP imagining s/he knows better about an English/French dish than everyone else. (And who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's", but that's no great surprise in this case.) Tim riley talk 15:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not overly wanting to join the pile-on, but have to comment that this is a name, not a technical or scientific description. I wonder if the IP thinks the person they're arguing with is actually a real feline that may or not be alive? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Quite agree. (And your second sentence would also work if it stopped after the sixth word!) Tim riley talk 17:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I know the difference, I made a typo - it happens. I'm from England originally, by the way, not that it's relevant because both Australia and England are English-speaking countries.

When you say that I think I know better than 'everyone else', are you suggesting that the sources I referenced weren't written by people? 124.188.68.115 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing childish about it. I produced more reliable sources than the other side of the argument, and then it was stated that I went against the published sources. This was a lie.

If I am wrong, please produce more reliable sources showing this instead of attempting to insult my intelligence. You may convince me that I'm wrong, but you're wasting your time if you think you can convince me I'm stupid - I have multipe degrees, a Mensa membership and a lifetime of experience that says otherwise.

To reiterate, I have provided five sources, at least four of which are reliable, and the opposition to the argument has provided one, Oxford University Publishing. The evidential consensus so far is that a pie must contain an outer layer of pastry, hence shepherd's pie is not a pie. If I am wrong, please demonstrate this by limiting your responses to the actual evidence. 124.188.68.115 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No-one has lied to you, so knock off the childish insults. In a previous discussion you were provided multiple sources that state this is a meat pie. I am sorry that you are struggling to understand this, but I’m sure therapy will help you get over it at some point. So, stop wasting people’s time on this silliness and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 1 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NYJetsfan899 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NYJetsfan899 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I advise caution about letting your pupils loose here. The article is prone to frequent attack by people who imagine their personal conceptions outweigh the published facts. I fear your innocent pupils might be hurt by the attacks of such editors. But I'm happy to answer such questions as I can from your charges, and so, I am sure, will other long-term editors be. Tim riley talk 17:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Shepherd's vs Cottage pie distinction

Bemusing that this point even needs be debated, but it seems I'm stuck in an edit war. The fact is that in contemporary usage, and in the vast majority of cases today, the distinction between Shepherd's and Cottage pie is clear: Shepherd's pie is made with lamb or mutton, while Cottage pie uses beef. I provided SIX reliable sources, including from the BBC, Jamie Oliver, Delia Online, etc, to support this.

These good faith edits were then reverted without any sources/reasoning to the contrary. Once fair sources are provided, the onus is on those with the less-commonly-supported views to raise it/justify it on the talk page. I do rather think it's just a couple of idiosyncratic users (or perhaps the same individual) sitting on the page and trying to make it their own.

Worth noting, also, that many of the supposed printed references cited for this article are pre-war if not from the 19th-century, which I'd argue hold less weight than the good modern online references.Tomsega (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? See the sortable table. The permutations of titles and main ingredients are multiple. Tim riley talk 17:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Also I hope you will withdraw the suggestion of sock-puppetry, which I find offensive and hurtful. Tim riley talk 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well done for finally finding the talk page after so much edit warring. The whole article is filled with sources that say the exact opposite of what you are edit warring to include. In the mix of your "sources" are blog sites and dead links that say the opposite to what you are claiming. Before your disruption the page already made clear that there is an erroneous belief that the type of meat changes the name, but now we have a lead that differs from the rest of the article. The superior sources were in the article before the dross you added - food historians and modern chefs were included in the range of heavyweight references, not the lightweight unreliable nonsense you think counts as reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read the article—including the table—but that actually reinforces my point. Much of this stems from the article leaning heavily on historical or archaic sources to define terms whose meaning still changing and has since evolved.

This isn’t about denying that naming conventions may have overlapped in the past. It’s about how the terms are used today. In modern usage—reflected in cookbooks, food media, and common understanding—Shepherd’s pie is made with lamb, Cottage pie with beef. That’s consistent across every contemporary source that it's easy to cite.

Of course early references didn’t draw a clean distinction—when a dish is just emerging, definitions tend to be fuzzy. But that doesn’t mean a general encyclopaedia should continue to privilege origin-story sources over what’s now widespread and widely understood. Of course I can't cite a survey showing 90% of British people getting the answer right on this. However, modern usage should take precedence here.Tomsega (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Bit of a give-away your saying British people don't get the answer right if they disagree with you. How dare they! Yours, Supposed Sock Puppet, Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite staggered by the hostile nature of the way in which you're choosing to comunicate. I'm not sure why this is such a sensitive topic for you. As for immediately getting very defensive over "sock puppetry", this to me seems to be quite suspicious in itself.

Bringing this back to the topic, would you like to comment anything in relation to what I've actually written in my previous comment? Tomsega (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This gets more and more offensive and contrary to WP:CIVIL. Kindly withdraw. Tim riley talk 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Rather than calling offence for very little reason, would you kindly contribute to some sort of logical discussion/response? Tomsega (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The terms today are probably intermingled more than they were in the past. It's just a lie to claim the the article relies on historical or archaic sources, although they are certainly used where appropriate. There are a stack of modern chefs and up-to-date reference works that overwhelm the lightweight unreliable sources.

Read WP:CIVIL and drop the name calling. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I want more than "drop the name calling" and want an apology and withdrawal by Tomsega for his or her repeated accusation of sock puppetry. As I have sixty featured articles to my name and SchroCat has, I think, even more, the libel that we are the same person abusing the Wikipedia system is shocking and reprehensible. – Tim riley talk 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Note I did attempt to bring this back to the topic at hand.

I've been a Wikipedia user for over a decade and, I must say, I’ve never encountered a user as sensitive to fair discussion, as dismissive to constructive criticism, or so unnecessarily hostile. With that said, I’ll be ending this conversation here. Tomsega (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

So no apology for the libel, then? So be it. Glad you are ending the conversation. Tim riley talk 18:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)