Cookbook talk:Roast Beef

TimWright: I just noticed that this recipe is identical (word for word) with part of the recipe on this page: http://www.elise.com/recipes/archives/000457roast_beef.php - do we have a plagerism issue here?

Word for word ??? You clearly can't read as there is not one single sentence which is the same in my recipes as in the one you highlight

Oh, and while we are on the subject, you also cant spell. Plagiarism.

You come over all "johnny foreigner" when it comes to length measurements, and yet you use centigrade rather than fahrenheit. A true Englishman - merrily confused! Anyway, I'm about to try this.

Hi, this is a great recipe, and the writing makes for a bit of character... but it doesn't sound done. After I put it in the roast, do I just leave it and go to church, and then come back and it would be done? If this is so, it should say so in the article, or at least a ballpark estimate of how long it'll take. Thanks for the recipe; I'll try this soon. --Mathwizard44 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've added proper headings to this cookbook and removed some of the more casual language. Also when you add comments to this talk page please sign them with ~ so we know who wrote what. I've also removed some terms like "2.5cm to Johnny Foreigner". This term is not polite and certainly not true considering that only 2 countries out of 196 countries in the world still use imperial measurements. Xania talk 15:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

''Why are the Wikipedia self-appointed Gestapo always so agressive? Correct and comment on articles to get them to conform to the Wikipedia ideal, by all means, but can't it be done politely !!'' "This is awful".....Who says ? "Not polite".. It is perfectly polite. "Name dropping"... absoloute rubbish. And who on earth wrote that bit about not putting Fahrenheit temperatures? No one uses Fahrenheit in cooking, and if they do, they should get a life !!

Given this is meant to be a cookbook and not a work of gravitas I wrote this recipe in a manner that might provide some amusement to those that read and subsequently tried it. The feedback has been amazing... but I also phrased it thus to prove or disprove the notion that Wikipedia is run by the pedantic and self righteous for the pedantic and self righteous. I hoped it wasn't.. but was wrong. Name dropping ? For goodness sake... all I am doing is giving recognition that that particular improvement to the recipe was someone else's idea !! I don't actually KNOW Heston Blumenthal !

And lastly why don't you go and slag off my recipe for Roast Lamb as well, if you have nothing else to do.... here it is... http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roast_Lamb... but do yourself a favour, and try it first ! Peterkirchem 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * G'day Peter. It seems to me that you are the one being aggressive here. Please have a cup of tea and calm down, then look at the following.


 * Firstly, it's better if you are logged on when you make edits, and especially when you add comments on talk pages. This provides a clear trail of who made the edits, and allows you to easily sign your comments: just add the following at the end of your comments on talk pages and we'll know who you are: ~


 * Secondly, It was I, not the Irishman, who put the cookwork tag on this recipe. I did that because I thought it was poorly formatted and sounded like a glory piece, rather than a recipe. It also appeared to have been copied and pasted from a Microsoft Word document, complete with unnecessary line spacing and inappropriate ellipses (which I cleaned up). I left the tag there because there was (still is) more work to be done to make this recipe look like it is a part of the Cookbook. However, I was probably being a little too harsh, and have amended the tag text.


 * It is true that this is not Wikipedia, and there is much greater flexibility on what can be written here. However, there are still some guidelines that apply – I suggest that you take a few moments to read them: WB:PAG, Cookbook:Policy


 * Finally, please don't take offence if someone sees fault in something you put up on Wikibooks. Remember that Wikibooks is here for everyone, not just as a publishing point for you. Please join us in making Wikibooks more complete. Webaware 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is the frustration at having had quite a few comments from people who have both tried the recipe, and been amused by it's structure and have contacted me to say so - as I use my own, full name and do not hide behind a pseudonym, they were able to trace me through Google - seems to me to have fulfilled the purpose of a food recipe, even if it does not adhere stricly to the Wikipedia ideal. I have no idea how to set this out.

It has not been copied from anywhere and every last word and detail has been written and invented by me. I laid it out in a way I considered made it clear and easy to follow. The way it is laid out now makes it harder to follow... one does tend to print out recipes found on the net, rather than have a computer on one's worksurface...

I have no idea what a glory piece is, but assume it suggests that for some reason I wrote the recipe for my own gratification. What an absurd notion. The reference to Peter is purely to differentiate it from other recipes for the same thing people may put up and also to take a degree of reponsability for its content.

But at least you had the decency to explain your comments. I am afraid my own, and my friends' experiences with other Wiki editors have been quite shocking given their apparent air of graceless superiority, and makes us feel we never want to have anything to do with it again.

Your last paragraph seems to me to be a contradiction. You say Wikipedia is not here as a publishing point for its contributors, and in the next sentence encourage me to make Wikibooks more complete.

COuld it be that Wikicookbook needs to be a little less dogmatic in what it demands of its contributors? It appears I am not the only renegade on the team, but basically our intentions are good... cookery is art, and you know what a pain artists can be !!

Peterkirchem 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * G'day Peter. I can quite understand your frustration, as I have had problems myself. In particular, there can be a sort of policy tunnel vision, both here and on Wikipedia, where the spirit of the policy is forgotten but the letter of the policy is upheld – sometimes to the detriment of the respective projects. Fortunately, that is less the case here than on Wikipedia.


 * Please don't read into what I wrote, that I am accusing you of copying someone else's recipe. What I said was that it appeared to have been copied and pasted from a Microsoft document, thus requiring some additional cleanup. This is nearly always the case, because Microsoft editors nearly always make a mess when text is copied from them. That isn't to say don't use them – merely that you need to check what was brought across, and cleanup the mess as you go.


 * As to the notion of a glory piece being absurd, you'd be surprised what people get up to on the Internet. I see nothing wrong in taking pride from publishing one's favourite personal recipe, by the way, but there are some books on this site... anyway, let's put that one to the side!


 * I see no contradiction in my last paragraph. Wikibooks is here for all of us, not for each of us to get on our soap boxes – that is all that I meant when I said not just as a publishing point for you. When contributing to Wikibooks, one has to bear in mind the readers, and also the accompanying books. The guidelines help to maintain some sense to what is published here. They are not set in stone, but it does help to follow them at least a little. Recipes that look like recipes are easier to scan when looking for what ingredients need to be bought, for example - and that was one reason that I tagged your recipe with.

once I have learned how to work all the templates etc.
 * As for cookery being art, and artists being a pain, well ... I dare say that I resemble that remark :-) Webaware 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, YOU didn't accuse me of plagiarism, that fellow Wright did at the top of the discussion page, and I was only amused how on earth he might have reached such a conclusion when comparing my recipe with the one he makes reference to. Anyway, I am sure you have better things to do than pander to my rants, so I shall slowly Wikify my recipes, but need to learn how to utilse the templates etc first. You see ? I even learned where the ~ is on my keyboard and how to indent a line...


 * What is interesting though is that your attitude to my hot-headedness (not really, but I do enjoy being a little cantankerous on occasions!! Must be my age) has brought results, as opposed to the really quite virulent and condescending (and at times frankly bloody rude) attitude of many of the Wikipedia editors some of whom I have made a point of studying over the past few days.It seems ones based in the US are the absolute worst.


 * Is there a code of practise when dealing with with contributions that offend the Wiki code of presentation, as, contributors of more serious topics than roast beef, who may be genuine experts in their learned fields, who are then slated for their efforts by WIki staff because the presentation (as opposed to the content) does not fulfill the WIki ideal, must at times feel there is little point in contributing further, which, at least in my opinion, would seem to potentially erode the stature of WIkipedia as a whole. Btw.. Are you an Aussie?Peterkirchem 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conversation shifted to your talk page (in a minute...) Webaware 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made quite a few minor changes in some of this wonderful recipe, just to improve clarity really. I have tried to collect the ingredients a bit more systematically in one section, so that people know what to get before they start cooking on a Sunday. Nothing worse than trying to find goose fat on a Sunday! I have tried to use metric and imperial measures and temperatures consistently throughout. I hope I haven't detracted from the spirit of this charming writing which has inspired me to make the recipe very soon! Some wonderful tips my mother never taught me! Should I include the traditional Yorkshire Pudding recipe in another page? SuW (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A delightful edit ! Thank you so much ! It is so nice to see some editing which does not totally trash to original text, and is done so with such good grace. I personally cant stand Yorkshire Pudding (Despite a Grandfather who was Bishop of Bradford!) but, of course it should be included..!! Lol. There are loads of other recipes I have put it. Maybe we can start a partnership and come up with some really good ones. You never know, we could even write a cookbook together ! Peterkirchem (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Name change from "Roast Beef" to "Roast Dinner"
I wanted to suggest chaning this recipe name from "roast beef" to "roast dinner" as the recipe outlines an entire roast dinner, not juse how to make a roast beef. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, scrap this. I will nest "Roast Beef" under "Roast Dinner" so that other variations can be included, e.g. roast chicken, etc. Jamzze (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)