Talk:Cassoulet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Palominos001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

"by tradition, at the start of World War II, there was an excellent cassoulet in a country restaurant in the departement of Lot that was then over a hundred years old."

What was that supposed to mean? David.Monniaux 20:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

That a hundred years earlier some restaurant had made a cassoulet in a (huge) pot and then gradually served it, added ingredients, recooked it, served some more, and ainsi de suite for the next hundred years. I've read the same thing about some sorts of meat stews in French restaurants and think it's more probable with the stews than the cassoulet.... Hayford Peirce 19:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cassoulet

French colloquialism refering to the aroma and residue of an unwashed vagina. Napoleon Bonaparte is reputed to have asked Josephine not bathe while he was away at battle so that he would be able to enjoy her aroma or cassoulet upon his return.

I'm french and I have never heard anything about the colloquialism you speak about (???)

I'm removing this, as it's almost certainly vandalism (and would put anyone off their food). In the unlikely event of someone finding a reputable source, we can think about putting it back. Bbird 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any history sources? I remember reading that the history of cassoulet is that it was made in winter when only preserved meats (confit, sausage) were available. Lhq (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The word is "cassolette", used for this meaning in "She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman" by Ian Kerner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.50.8 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Confit

I've just read claims that the cassoulet of Castelnaudary uses only quadruped meat. That's not so. All recipes I've seen use both confit d'oie and a whole roast duck. I've updated the page accordingly. See my references at http://www.lemis.com/grog/recipes/cassoulet.html for discussion (but, alas, not a good recipe). Groogle 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In the end, the true liturgy of cassoulet isn't in the recipe, but rather in the special moment when friends gather around a large, steaming earthenware caçòla and a meal becomes Mass. "Cassoulet has such a religion around it because it's the plat de partage — the dish of sharing, When a cassoulet arrives at the table, bubbling with aromas, something magical happens — it's Communion around a dish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.103.100 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Joke section

The paragraph called "The Joke" about some obscure incident is completely irrelevant and distracting and should be removed. Please do it, someone. May 15, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.119.164 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I also have never heard of this, and I was glued to election and post-election coverage. It's surely exaggeration to say it had a "burst of unexpected fame." Therefore I will do as the anonymous commenter suggests and delete it. Cmprince (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The video of the french show : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-doAmxrKouI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenjer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with history

The article states that this dish goes back to 14th century France, and supports it with a link to a puff-piece article from "Dining Chicago" - hardly an authoritarian source, the article itself cites no sources whatsoever.

The big problem I have with this is that haricot beans - a defining ingredient in the recipe - are not native to Europe, and were only brought in after the discovery of the Americas in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. ( see the article on beans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean )

Add in the fact that as far as I am aware there were no recipes until at least the 1600s that even vaguely resemble cassoulet, and I think the alleged origin is completely bogus. Unless someone has some stronger support for a medieval origin for cassoulet, I'll delete it. --Doc (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cassoulet and cholent: yet changes the meaning

Reverted an edit adding the word "yet" to the sentence ending "a definitive relationship has not been established". Sorry if my reverts were insulting to Irondome. I'll try to clarify. The way I read it, the word "yet" adds an implication to the claim that isn't supported by the rest of the article: namely that someone is trying to (or will) prove that cholent/solet and cassoulet are definitively related. That's really the only difference between "it has not been" and "it has not yet been". If some source is making the claim that cholent is the origin of cassoulet, or vice versa, that would be an interesting addition to the article. But until such a claim is sourced and added to this article, there's no reason to add "yet" except to imply something not in evidence. Richigi (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont insult that easily. I would suggest adding "yet" as culinary research, as are all subjects, is in constant development. The above edit implies the case is closed, when we simply do not know. In any event, "yet" should therefore be a stimulus for editors, or even a new user to improve the article, if they are aware of a relevant source. Yet is good. Stop press. Actually there is a source which confirms that Cholent and Sholet are the same thing. See http://www.chew.hun/solet Irondome (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice response. Even though I'm not sure I agree (since "has not been" does not imply "will never be"), I yield to your very positive view. It's cool that you found a source for cholent/solet relationship, but that goes in the cholent article, right? Does it say anything about cassoulet? I think the link is actually http://www.chew.hu/solet (no "n"), but it's not coming up for me: looks like it's temporarily offline. Richigi (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks my friend. It seems to confirm their virtual interchangability, I got the site add from the solet google image list. The one on the left. Another site goes into more detail and mentions a Hungarian chef of note, who provides a reciepe here http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/05/17/2394842/rhapsodic_hungarian_recipes The Cholent article may need to be revisited. Irondome (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article image subtitle

"Cassoulet served in Carcassonne in cassole sized for single serving"

Well done to the person who crafted that superb sentence. 185.103.96.147 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why I remove caçolet

Sorry my english is not very good.

I have changed caçolet in cassolet. To be transparent, sincere and honest: neither of the two spellings (cassolet and caçolet) are approved by every occitan speakers.

However, I don't understand who have created caçolet (and why) ? It's a totally ideological spelling, which deliberately departs from french and inadvertently from it sister catalan.

The word cassoulet come from the occitan word. French have ç like occitan and catalan. Why french would it write cassoulet with -ss if occitan spelling with -ç ? It's a non sense : Mistral (nobel prize) and Honnorat use the -ss form.

Certain person may come and change the page to reset caçolet. It's their right, but they won't be more right than me. They will cite organizations that have no legitimacy (neither elected nor appointed) to rule on the language. CLO, EIO... it has as much right to have an opinion as I do. --Biyo Dio (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You claim that the spelling caçolet is ideologicaly motivated, but have no source to support this claim. Mistral and Honnorat are not exactly modern references and were both speaking a particular occitan dialect, thus not entirely representative. Gyrostat (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Image discussion

no need for second, redundant image advertising a restaurant when infobox already has better photo

User:Eric, this is a fascinating argument. I’ve never heard anyone say that we should only use one image per article. Which guideline or policy are you deriving this line of reasoning from? They are not duplicate images, they display differences and variations based on preparation, display, and region, and appear appropriate in their uniqueness. What is your objection? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't see how I could further clarify what I wrote in the edit summary. The uploader seemed to be on a bit of a campaign to flood the project with her snapshots, which I thought might merit some mitigation. Now, when prompted by your comments, I take a closer look, I see that she has uploaded 500 of her photos to Commons since the end of November, and made over 3,000 edits there in that time period, most or all on her uploaded files. Could make some people wonder if her principal goal is to improve the project. Eric ^talk 15:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you doubting their motive? If a person uploads a trove of photos that do improve the articles in which they're placed, then we thank them for their effort. The only reasons to remove their photos are the reasons that apply to a single photo uploaded and added to an article by a user. If there's a pattern of problem photos, then we provide more general guidance for the user on the issues that have arisen. Largoplazo (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the behavior as having the goal of improving the articles. Others may differ. In any case my edit on this article related only to the utility of the one photo. Eric ^talk 15:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You've missed my main point. You have no business removing a photo solely because you have (unfounded) suspicions over the motivation behind it. If a user had uploaded only that photo and added it to an article and you would have left it in that scenario, if there was otherwise nothing wrong with it, then you should leave it when a user who's posted 500 photos adds it to the article, regardless of what you imagine their motivation to be. In addition, when you attribute improper motivations to another user without just cause, you're in breach of WP:AGF. If the user is improving the project, then without something more substantive than whether it "could make some people wonder if her principal goal is to improve the project", you're making an unwarranted leap to an ill-founded judgment and acting confrontationally on it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, your reaction is as though you'd come across a new user whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to upload 500 photos and display them, in which case you might toy with the idea that the person is using Wikipedia primarily as a personal photo album. Rather, Viriditas has been editing here for 19 years and has accumulated over 158,000 edits in that time. It's worth considering that Viriditas' focus is, as much as anybody's could be, on the improvement of Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Re missing the point: Read the third sentence of my above post.

Re Viriditas' activity: Viriditas is not the uploader of the images in question. Given the concern you show in your comments, you might take a minute to follow the links I provided above. Eric ^talk 21:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't helped your case. Viriditas found images on Commons that would be useful in articles and inserted them. So: whoever uploaded them, we see that at least a couple have proven to be they're proving to be useful additions to Wikipedia (at least, this one is, as well as the one you removed at Jerusalem artichoke that Viriditas had also placed there)! Yet you reverted Viriditas' insertion of them because you had manufactured ulterior motives on the part of the uploader. That seems to me a non-sequitur.

Now that you've pointed out that Viriditas wasn't the uploader, let's see who that is: User:Missvain, who has been editing here since 2006 and has made over 234,000 edits, more than 50% again over the number made by Viriditas. She has created over 1,000 articles. I'd say she has amply demonstrated her dedication to improving Wikipedia and is not here purely out of self-interest. When you find her surge of uploads suspicious, is it because you think that only users who have uploaded fewer than—how many photos? 100? 10? 3?—to Commons are above suspicion? Your third sentence, to which you've directed my attention, reads Now, when prompted by your comments, I take a closer look, I see that she has uploaded 500 of her photos to Commons since the end of November, and made over 3,000 edits there. And? Why is the most suitable reaction to that not "Thank you for your enormous contribution!"? Largoplazo (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm also an admin and founded numerous projects here and trust me...I'm not an new hand. I've also made it my project in 2024 to get almost every photo off my phone that is of quality and usable for educational purposes onto Commons. Hence the growth in contributions recently.

I love that I'm being accused of having a weird promotional agenda. After almost 20 years of editing Wikipedia and 13 years, seven months and eight days (LOL) of contributing to Wikimedia Commons I've never been accused of my freely licensed images being promotional. I don't even know what to say. I'm a foodie and I eat and drink a lot. And honestly, our coverage of food and beverage stinks on Wikipedia and Commons. Having great photographs of food is important for the project.

I was taken aback when I saw I was being targeted for my photographs and the editors involved were not able to provide a policy-based reason for reverting my work.

Thanks User:Largoplazo – I appreciate you pinging me.

BTW, I'm the one who placed the Jerusalem artichoke article and it was reverted by User:Velella and then returned it and appears it was removed again and Viriditas returned it. I just added it back. We have no photographs of that vegetable being used as food aside from it cooking in a pot and looking not too appetizing. Just happens I ate at a French restaurant that made a nice looking bowl of soup and a cassoulet and I thought the photos were helpful and educational in value.

As Julia Child used to say... "Bon Appetit!" and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

And in case anyone is dying to know I've uploaded over 15,000 photographs to Wikimedia Commons. You can find them all here. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Beyond me to counter such compelling arguments. And I'm happy to learn that edit count is a measure of excellence. Eric ^talk 16:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a measure of how thoroughly unfounded your suspicions were about Missvain and of your failure to abide by WP:AGF in publicizing them and acting on them when they were nothing but air. Largoplazo (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)