Talk:Fat rascal

Class of article

If I am not in error the expansion has moved the article from stub to start class. Otr500 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Raised from stub to start class. If I am in error please let me know. Otr500 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevant and appropriate information

Reference to the main article of biscuit under etymology was removed. Removing the reference as being inappropriate is "inappropriate". The "Fat Rascal" is considered a biscuit, cake, and a cookie, as according to Reference.com "the exact meaning varies markedly in different parts of the world." A Fat Rascal is referred to as a biscuit that to some is a type of cake similar to a scone. It is also referred to as a cookie. The word biscuit means one thing in American English and something else in British English. A short cake is considered a biscuit in the United States and the ingredients are similar. A scone is also sometimes referred to as a biscuit and in North America is used interchangeably. A "biscuit" in British English is a cookie in the United States.

The etymology in the article biscuit gives some clarity to the confusing names. The article on cookie also deals with the differences. Wikipedia states, "Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.", and therefore the reference. I do not have the "academic credentials" professed by some but do have a grasp on word association.

The sum of my argument, that would not be needed with responsible editing, use of talk pages, use of tags, and less arbitrary deletion, is simply that reference to biscuit is appropriate and in this case mandated by WP:WORLDVIEW. I placed it under etymology for what I considered obvious reasons but did not link it to that section in the biscuit article. The relevance, therefore appropriateness, can not be questioned even with much verbiage. Placement might be an issue and can be settled through the "appropriate" tools provided by Wikipedia. This would be more useful and not force me to wonder and try to understand how an editor that might be considered educated, certainly by my standards and far more importantly by their admission, deem important and relevant information to be inappropriate. I would like to surmise that it was just a mistake in wording, possibly because of a belief that it was in the wrong section, but suppositions can be avoided. I will be addressing this in the future and hope that other editors will make corrections or contributions, according to Wikipedia standards, that can enhance the article or address concerns through talk pages or tags. If other editors, and certainly any with enormous literary backgrounds, have ideas as to how or where they believe such relevant information should be placed then I am open to such suggestions or edits.

Intentions

I will be including references to biscuits and cookies in future edits to this article, especially considering the relevance, worldwide definition differences, and the need for the etymology, so any help would be appreciated. Otr500 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to update this entry

I propose to update this entry to;

• remove content where citations have been requested but not supplied;
• base the history/etymology principally on two sources. The first is the website “foodsofenglandco.uk”. This is

already shown as an external link in the current entry. The second is “A Yorkshire Cookbook” (1980) by Mary Hanson Moore.

• introduce content to show the changing recipe for “Fat Rascal”;
• add some detail about the creation of Bettys Fat Rascal and introduce a link to the relevant trade mark;
• remove footnote 1 (Waitrose recipe no longer online) footnote 2, (no source cited in the article to which it links and largely the same information is provided in the Foods of England article) and footnote 3 (the The Ruby Pear Tree Parlour seems no longer to be trading and we cannot find any source to substantiate the final paragraph of the current article);
• I also propose to remove the external link to a recipe for “Bettys of York Tea Room Fat Rascals- Fruit Buns/Scones” because, as a number of reviewees of the recipe have commented, this is not, in fact, the recipe used by Bettys to make its Fat Rascals.

The article will be posted shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treasurechest1919 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed your improvements and make the following notes:

• I restored some elements that you removed, such as the see also section and categories. I let stand your removal of the interwiki boxes, as these are already covered in the infobox
• You were right in the judgement that the lead section had a lack of verifiable information and was in need of attention. However, an article must have a lead section, so it would have been better had you rewritten it, rather than remove it entirely. I have added a new lead section to bring the article back up to standards.
• Please be aware that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy that governs what contributions may be made by someone with a personal or professional connection to a topic, as you appear to have. In my opinion, your recent edits were appropriate and did not violate this policy, but do take care in the future, as violation of this policy may lead to your being blocked or banned.

Ibadibam (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I watch this article as well as a bunch of others on topics related to biscuits, scones, bannocks, and similar food items. I rather like what is going on here. Keep up the good work. We Yanks are usually in the dark about common British foods.

Treasurechest1919, I'd suggest that you use the four tildes to sign every one of your posts here, and that before making edits you propose them on the talk page, including references to your conflict of interest. That might do a lot to prevent overzealous reversions of your edits by people who revert anything with a COI. I've been involved with this at the IRRI article (look at its talk page). The IRRI's public relations person has a lot to contribute to the IRRI article, but there aren't many outside sources that do. So there's a line to be walked between avoiding COI and having good content in the encyclopedia. (BTW, I wouldn't mind receiving a tin of Fat Rascals for Christmas, even if it arrives late and a little stale. To get a taste of a real British scone I had to impose on a neighbor who was traveling to the UK for a family visit. The scones were great, and he even provided some clotted cream and strawberry jam.) Lou Sander (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ibadibam and Lou Sander – thank you for your feedback – very helpful. As per my signature, I am the archivist at Bettys & Taylors Group. 2013 has been the thirtieth year since the launch of our Fat Rascal and we are keen to help ensure the Wikipedia “Fat Rascal” article is accurate. I posted the proposed edits for the recent changes on the Talk page and will continue to post further suggested changes in that way. I am mindful of the COI issue and will keep my identity apparent. If you have any further suggestions in this respect, please say.

I have a couple of comments on the article in its current form;

• Lead section – we can find no evidence that fat rascals were ever called “Yorkshire tea biscuits” and have no idea why this claim appeared in the initial article. We have found a source that suggests that “fat rascal” was used in Yorkshire in the early twentieth century to describe a form of turf cake and will update the History section accordingly. However, the sources cited in the History section have established that the earlier forms of Fat Rascal were not similar to scones and I propose to adjust the lead section to reflect this;
• First sentence under “Bettys” heading - whilst there are historical references to different recipes for “fat rascals” – including up to the 1980s, - the only “fat rascals” which are now encountered are scones containing fruit and containing a face made from cherry and almonds – ie closely modelled on Helen Frankel’s recipe. A Google images search for “fat rascal” will confirm this. Accordingly, it is more accurate for the first sentence to open with “The

widely recognised form…..” etc.

We are, as suggested, adding evidence in support of the statement that the Fat Rascal is Bettys’ best known and best-selling bakery product.

Lou – Glad you enjoy real British scones. If you are ever near any of our tea houses please drop in and we will give you a very warm Yorkshire welcome.Treasurechest1919 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you responses, and sorry for the delay in my response. A "Yorkshire tea biscuit", as near as I can figure, doesn't mean anything but the T-shaped biscuit produced under the Yorkshire Tea brand, so no, it has no business in this article. Thanks for removing it. As for turf cakes, this book indicates that currants may have been used, so there is at least some similarity. I regret that this source is not fully available, as it may contain further useful information. I also find a 2010 cookbook entry that predates the mention in this article and uses the term North Riding turf cake to identify a separate but related cake, along with the rock cake. I wonder whether we wouldn't do better to discuss all three cakes in a single article, as they seem to be closely related. Ibadibam (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)