Talk:Haggis

Haggipodes, really?

Heather's revert of the insertion of language about "haggipodes" was reverted as vandalism. Really? What's going on here? Ebikeguy (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's obvious nonsense ? Barry Wom (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I thought Heather had reverted the "haggipodes" insertion. That'll teach me to edit before my first cup of coffee. Never mind... Ebikeguy (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion all round; I managed to remove a Citation Required tag while asking for a citation ! I guess this article will always be a target for vandals around Burns Night ... Barry Wom (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The plural of haggis is indeed Haggipodes. It's in regular use in the West of Scotland. I wish you Sassenachs would leave well alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.132.6 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Aye, right. And they have one leg longer than the other due to West-coasters continually pulling them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

haggis ban

how can there be haggis in the US, if it is banned? I certainly can find places on the internet selling "authentic" scottish haggis. There is a ban on importing haggis from the UK, and a ban on haggis made with sheep lung. So obviously, they are making it without sheep lung. Also, it is sold in a can. There appears no mention of these variations. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The ban is on importing haggis into the US. But US residents are at perfect liberty to make their own. As for the US canned haggis, if you mean the one that I am thinking of, it actually seems to be pure minced lung rather than proper haggis -- going by the ingredient list printed on the label at any rate. Not nearly as nice as proper haggis made by a butcher with a decent recipe who knows what he's doing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

turnip/rutabaga

not the same thing. I think turnip is proper. ;Bear (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-English text

The following text should include a translation or be deleted:

For hagese'.

Þe hert of schepe, þe nere þou take,

Þo bowel noght þou shalle forsake,

On þe turbilen made, and boyled wele,

Hacke alle togeder with gode persole,

This is English. --90.206.128.63 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be a good idea to replace the obsolete letter, þ, with the modern equivalent, th. People might find it easier to read if that were done. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a translation in Modern English? As a non-native speaker I can't quite figure out the meaning, especially the words turbilen and persole. --Yel D'ohan (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A translation may be found here. It is recipe 131, "For hagese."

"Persole" is parsley. "Turbilen" is uncertain, but may be poetic fancified diction for "stirred well" (akin to "turbulent.") Just plain Bill (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Turnip/swede/neep/rutabaga

In the lede there is an explanation of the Scots term "neep" for the benefit of the rest of the planet. But using another term, "turnip" (more in the Scottish English register), which is particular in its usage largely to Scotland for a swede/rutabaga and in the rest of world means instead the white turnip, is not only not going to clarify; it will actively confuse. Readers will think they know what the term means and are unlikely to feel the need to follow the link. Per WP:ENGVAR it is appropriate to use terms in the variety of English pertaining to the article but if you are actively explaining those terms, substituting one term in that variety for yet another one does not serve that purpose and is actively counterproductive in this example. Either the term "neep" is left unexplained (which is not satisfactory) or a term or terms are used which will actually perform the necessary explanation to those for whom it is intended.

"Turnip" comes from "neep" not vice versa. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Turnip" is the common term used across the UK for the "neep" component of a typical haggis meal and is not specifically Scottish, and this is a UK-centric article. "Swede" is a common term for the vegetable too, but tends not to be used in a haggis context. "Rutabaga" is a primarily US term and is not used in the UK. As for explanation, it's linked and anyone who doesn't know what it is can click it. And please, do not edit war your disputed change into the article - when a disputed change is reverted, you are supposed to discuss first and only reinsert the change after you get a consensus. If you do it again, I will raise a report at the WP:EW noticeboard Squinge (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, though turnip is one of the terms used for this vegetable in Scotland and more widely to a degree, "swede" is by far the more widepread term used for this vegetable in most of the rest of the UK, where a "turnip" is another vegetable, what may be called a "white turnip" (or "white neep") in Scotland (if you can find one): swede, turnip. Whatever, even though both terms are applied to varying degrees, "turnip" has an ambiguity which "swede" does not. You have hit the nail on the head regarding "rutabaga": it "is a primarily US term and is not used in the UK", the very point of its inclusion here in the explanatory bracketed section, so as to explain to Americans what a neep is.

The term "neep" is used in the article, because that is what is employed in the context of the phrase "neeps and tatties". The section in brackets is to translate the term, in an unambiguous way. Who do you think this explanatory section in brackets is intended for, as it serves no useful purpose with the word "turnip"? Referring to it as a turnip in the brackets will (or at the very least may) make people outside of Scotland think it is a white turnip and those in Scotland don't need the explanation as they know what a neep is anyway. People will assume they know what a familiar word like "turnip" means to them so, as already explained, they will not click on it. Do you click on all the links in an article, even when you know what they mean? It must take you a while to read an article. If the bracketed section explained that "neep" means "swede" or "rutabaga" there is is no ambiguity.

And calm down and get off your high horse - my initial edit summary evidently unclear to you, you asked that I explain on the talk page, so I did, for your benefit, before reverting to the version before your intervention, which was itself before, and different to, mine. Officiousness and premature and needless threats are no substitute for clear debate and a rational argument. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, high horse unintended, but what you actually did was revert to the disputed change itself. It wasn't initially your change, but it was the change that triggered this disagreement and it should not have been reinstated without consensus. I'll comment more below. Squinge (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, swede is the more common English word for the orangey-yellow with a hint of purple vegetable and turnip for the white with a hint of purple vegetable. If you went in a greengrocers round here and asked for "turnip" you would get the latter. and the same online from Tesco. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How about a compromise of "swede/turnip" or "turnip/swede"? But definitely not "rutabaga/swede" as rutabaga is not a British English word. Squinge (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize that rutabaga is not used in the UK but it does have the inestimable advantage of removing the ambiguity associated with the swede/turnip terminology where the meaning of the words swaps over when you move north of Birmingham, so it's never clear what's meant by either. A neep might be a turnip or a swede depending upon who is doing the talking and who is doing the listening. But it is always a rutabaga. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Using "rutabaga" does not remove any ambiguity at all, as the Rutabaga article starts "The rutabaga, swede (from Swedish turnip), turnip, yellow turnip, or neep (Brassica napobrassica, or Brassica napus var. napobrassica, or Brassica napus subsp. rapifera)...". My thought is that the guiding policy here should be WP:ENGVAR and we should not us an American English word in place of a British English word in a UK-centric article. Squinge (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is, still, looking at the matter from completely the wrong way round.

Yes there is a wide number of terms in English for the vegetable Brassica napobrassica - that has nothing to do with ambiguity. Some of the terms employed may be ambiguous, some are not. This vegetable is known as a "neep" in Scotland (in both the Scots and Scottish English register) and used in the phrase "neeps and tatties": the appropriate WP:ENGVAR term is used in this article. However the term "neep" can not be expected to be widely understood by speakers of other WP:ENGVARs, hence the insertion of an ENGVAR translation in brackets, which should thus actively be in other ENGVAR(s) to clarify.

"Rutabaga" means one thing and one thing only - it is not in any way ambiguous; but it is not widely understood outside North America. Likewise the term "swede", in the context of a vegetable, means one thing and one thing only - it is not in any way ambiguous; but it is not widely understood inside North America. The term "turnip" is, though, ambiguous, meaning variously a generic term for this broad type of vegetable, or for the specific vegetable of this type which is favoured in a particular geographical sphere: "turnip" is largely synonymous with neep/Brassica napobrassica in Scotland (and possibly some other parts) but synonymous with Brassica rapa/white turnip in many or most others. It is thus ambiguous and not helpful in this explanatory bracketed section for other ENGVARs. So we have two clear and unambiguous terms – “rutabaga” and “swede”, and one ambiguous one, “turnip”, so we can start off our choice of term by ditching the ambiguous one. The two unambiguous terms are each largely only understood in one part of the “English-speaking world outside of Scotland”, whom we are addressing, and not largely understood in the remaining part. We could choose one term over the other and though “swede” is probably more widely understood in Scotland, because of the proximity of the parts of the UK that use this as the primary term for this vegetable, neither “rutabaga” or “swede” is in the Scottish English WP:ENGVAR, so neither is primary, and we are actively and specifically addressing readers of other ENGVARs anyway. To use one term over the other is thus either Anglo- (plus Australo-, rest-of-the-Commonwealtho-) -centric or North-Americano-centric. @Docclabo’s edit, which uses both terms to cover all non-Scottish ENGVARs is a suitable solution. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You know what? You're convincing me that it's an issue of unambiguity rather than ENGVAR, as there's no unique British/Scottish English usage of "turnip". OK, how about a slight variation on Docclabo's edit as "swede (rutabaga)", as "swede" is the unambiguous British word with "rutabaga" offered parenthetically? (As an aside, this is making me hungry - I haven't had a nice haggis in ages). Squinge (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's good that we are moving closer but per above, no. This is an issue of WP:ENGVAR in respect of stating the term in the article in the correct ENGVAR, Scottish English, but as this term is obscure in other ENGVARs, clarifying it for those of other ENGVARs. “Rutabaga” is an other-ENGVAR term but so is “swede”: neither is the term used in the ENGVAR of the article subject. There is no reason to give primacy to one term over the other as, by definition in the context, they are terms not of the ENGVAR of the article. That, of the two unambiguous terms, “swede” is used in parts of the world closer to Scotland (and probably thus more familiar) is neither here nor there, it’s inclusion in these brackets is actively because it is from an other ENGVAR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

…but on reflection, choosing one of the terms “swede” and “rutabaga” and wikilinking it probably suffices as those are unambiguous and largely unknown in the other’s sphere, readers who don’t know the term will unambiguously recognise this and click (or hover over) the link and the prose is neater without the slash in “swede/rutabaga”. Per my reasoning above, there is no reason to choose one term over the other so we could toss a coin but if you are particularly attached to “swede” as a term, I won’t object if it bring this to a close. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go for swede, as it's a British English word and rutabaga is not - as you say (and as I said earlier), it's linked for those who don't know what it is. Squinge (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, do I have to explain yet again, after going into meticulous detail more than once, why the fact that "swede" is "a British English word" is neither here nor there? In that sense neep is as much "a British English word" but it clearly requires translation for other ENGVARs, even within the UK. Neither "neep" nor "swede" is the primary term in the whole of the UK and as "swede" is not the primary term in the ENGVAR of this article, Scottish English, in this regard it is no more preferred than "rutabaga". I have tried several times regarding this and you are the only participant who appears to find fault with @Docclabo's edit. The consensus does not appear to be with you and I am loathe to devote more time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm lost now. I thought we had just agreed on "swede"? You said "if you are particularly attached to “swede” as a term, I won’t object if it bring this to a close" and that it is "neater without the slash in “swede/rutabaga”", did you not? Whatever the preferred British English term is, it is surely not rutabaga as that is a solely US term. I've changed it to swede in accordance with what I thought had been agreed, so please stop reverting to the disputed "rutabaga/swede" until we actually do come to an agreement here! Squinge (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do seem to be very confused. I have spent considerable time and effort laying out my thoughts on the matter and your every response show that you are either not even reading what I have said or you are disregarding it, then you re-state a position which I have just argued against without addressing or seemingly understanding my point, again. I can't make you read what I have written, I am not prepared to repeat myself ad infinitum and you are the only person advocating your position. I offered "swede" as a concession but you keep battering on about it being a "British English" term: it is not the preferred term in Scotland, the geographical entity that has clear and obvious ties to the article, so that it is the preferred term somewhere that happens to be nearby is of no consequence. Are you purloining this article for the bits of the UK where a different ENGVAR to that in Scotland is used? As you can't even be bothered to read or address my points but just re-state your own, why should I continue to extend my compromise? You are the only person advocating your position but you claim to seek consensus. Please revert. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You offered "swede" as a concession and I agreed! So why are you still arguing? Squinge (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, could you try to be a bit less condescending? And perhaps assume a bit more good faith, the way we are supposed to? Squinge (talk)

I could have been this condescending from the start, or just reverted but I expended considerable effort explaining and re-explaining matters which, from your answers you responded as if you had not even seen what I had written rather than even actively disagreeing with what I said. If you are either incapable or can't be bothered to read my posts, can you be surprised that I get exasperated at having to repeat what you appear to be ignoring rather than even debating? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, please stop being so combative here. I'm simply trying to discuss this with you in a good faith manner, and I really thought we were close to a compromise! So why the fighting approach and the unfair accusations of canvassing? Squinge (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think enough effort has been squandered on this. The article is in UK English, and more specifically Scottish English, where the vegetable is called a turnip. Any readers confused with what a turnip is can click on the wikilink for a full and proper explanation. That's the beauty of a wiki. I do not see any consensus to change what is a perfectly good and clear explanation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you see also see my posts above as to why the term "turnip" is not the best position, a position which Squinge him/herself came around to? The people for whom the explanatory bracketed section is intended, non-Scots, will not click on the link because they will wrongly assume what is intended, and those who do know what is will have known what a neep is in the first instance and don't need it explained to them. When having to explain a term from one ENGVAR, using an ambiguous one from that same ENGVAR is next to pointless (as I've said repeatedly above). The editor who made the initial edit, myself, Squinge and two other participants above have all voiced concerns about the term "turnip", only you are advocating it now. If you are somehow stretching this to say there is no consensus to change, there is certainly considerable doubt from almost all parties that the term is a helpful choice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is not common practice to embed words from one variety of English into an article written in another, simple because people might not have heard of it. The point of having wikilinks is so that people can follow them if the article introduces words/concepts/topics that they do not know or understand. I believe turnip to be the more common term, and that's what has been in the article long enough. But there is no easy answer to what appears to be a confused and disputed issue. Personally I would just link "neeps" itself to the Rutabaga article, and let it sort the subject out. It is not central to this one. Let the wiki do its job. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's along the lines of my original thought. Squinge (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That was exactly my original position. Thank you for your input. Squinge (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked Mutt Lunker to again revert his change, for which he has no consensus. I do not think this is a difficult issue to handle. The article is in UK English and therefore should use most common UK terms. It's that simple. I would also ask him to stop taking such a combative stance and assume good faith in his comments and edit summaries. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have raised an edit-war report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mutt_Lunker_reported_by_User:Squinge_.28Result:_.29 Squinge (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am happy with linking the term "neeps" to the rutabaga article and dispensing with the translation in brackets but (though it may be an incorrect memory and I have not trawled through the history) I think at one point, that is how this section of the article stood. Then, again if I remember correctly, it was apparently deemed that a bracketed translation was more suitable and this was added and the link from "neeps" removed. If a bracketed translation is the suitable solution, the term therein should not be potentially misleading to those who the translation is for, and "turnip" has an ambiguity. As I have said several times above, that "turnip" is one of the terms used in Scotland is no clincher in a choice of terms when unambiguous translation to non-Scots readers is the intent. If the bracketed section is the solution, an unambiguous term(s) should be employed. If the bracketed section is not the appropriate solution, remove it and link "neeps" and "tatties" again (but it wouldn't surprise me if someone wants a bracketed translation back in the text).

I don't have a problem with someone actively disagreeing with my view but I do have a problem with what appears to be the simple repeated ignoring of my re-stated and unaddressed disputes with a viewpoint, the response from the other party simply restating that viewpoint without even acknowledging my concerns. That is a simple courtesy. To have, continually over the course of a full day or so, attempted to return to a point of dispute that is being ignored, holding off from touching the article text, evidences considerable patience and assumption of good faith.

My last edit was to Squinge's last stated preferred version, after him/herself acknowledging the ambiguity of using the term "turnip", as had all other participants before that point. I would be content with leaving it at that, or, as stated, with the direct linking of "neeps and tatties" but as the latter has only been raised recently by @Escape Orbit, this would reasonably require further discussion before being adopted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have reverted to the version before the disputed change was first made, as per WP:BRD, and I would ask all participants in the discussion not to change anything further until a consensus has been achieved. Now, I'm off for the rest of the evening and will be happy to read all further thoughts (including the above) and to contribute further some time tomorrow. Squinge (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• After further thought, I think Escape Orbit's proposed solution is the best - don't use parenthetical translations at all, and just link neeps and tatties directly. Squinge (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And there is no reason why a small section can't be added further down noting the confusion and dispute, over which vegetable a neep is exactly, and which should be used in this context. Suitably cited from good sources, of course. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good to me too. Squinge (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Per above, I also believe linking the terms directly to be a suitable solution. There is no ambiguity about what a neep is (when unqualified by e.g. "white...") and about what vegetable is served with a haggis, only about some of the alternative terms if such were to be put in brackets as an explanation of "neeps and tatties". If we link directly and ditch the bracketed section we ditch any chance of ambiguity therein and with the choice of which term to translate to. Glory Hallelujah. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So would it now be appropriate to edit from "neeps and tatties" (Scots for turnip and potato)" to simply "neeps and tatties"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :-) Squinge (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

I note that some recent changes have been made and reverted, and I agree with the reverts. I don't think microwaving and baking are of sufficient note for the lede (as haggis is traditionally simmered), but could be mentioned further down the article as alternative ways of cooking. I also don't think that unsourced statements like "It is believed that food similar to haggis..." have any part in the article - if there are sources that make the connection, fine, but without sources it's just personal speculation which contravene's WP:OR. Squinge (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Squinge posted on my Talk page about this; I responded the following (slightly clarified) before coming here. I think the article is better for Squinge's deletion of detail; friendly disagreements usually improve articles. By the way, I made a lot of other changes to the article; is anybody unhappy about them? (If so, just change them per WP:BRD; they can always be discussed later if disagreement remains.)

As it happens I wasn't intending to do anything more. I agree that details of cooking are irrelevant in the introduction and I totally agree with your removing them; I added them because a ridiculous time of 3 hours, unsourced, was given—actual time for a typical haggis bought at a supermarket (450g) is stated as 45' on the label, a bit longer in a thermal oven. Taking it all out of the intro is fine. It could belong in the body (I haven't checked if anything is said). A haggis only needs heating; how you do it is irrelevant, and some manufacturers suggest a microwave (or thermal) oven. Again, unimportant. I think some comment that the haggis is basically a standardised version of the age-old "stick all the guts in the stomach and cook them" idea belongs in the introduction (a short sentence), but it's in the body and is not that important. I'll now have a look at Talk, and maybe edit this to suit. Best wishes,

Ah, I've just seen in the article's Talk that your objection to the mention of the ancient way of cooking is not due to its content but because it it is stated to be unsourced. It is sourced in the article; for avoidance of doubt I'll repeat the sources, which responds to the objection. Signed Pol98

Yes, if there are sources out there that link haggis to earlier similar foods, I would support the inclusion of that - but we really would need sources making the link. Squinge (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the text to summarise what's in the body. However, as it was challenged, the sources need to be cited explicitly (WP:LEADCITE)—now done. Pol098 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It's amusing that the history of haggis, discussed at detail in the text, was challenged as unsourced in the introduction (the challenge is quite OK per guidelines, I have no objections at all), but the actual definition of what we're talking about ("haggis is offal in a sheep's stomach") was simply stated in the first sentence with no source anywhere in the article, with no objection from anyone ever. This happens with a lot of articles ... Pol098 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I suspect it stems from earlier times when good sourcing was not considered so important, and when people notice new changes today that could do with some source improvement it can initiate a look back at previous material that isn't well sourced. The end result is a better article overall, and I thank you for your work. Squinge (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Have only had the chance to a very quick scan through the latest changes but no objections from this and think there are some valuable additions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haggis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101033153/http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/39042/haggis-hail-to-thee to http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/39042/haggis-hail-to-thee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots

According to Will Cuppy in his book The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, Mary Queen of Scots hated haggis and forbade its exportation. This resulted in a custom of throwing a pinch of it into the sea as a token gesture of "compliance" with her wishes. Anybody hear anything else about this? Kostaki mou (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's satirical. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haggis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409013011/http://www.thehaggis.com/EZ/sh/sh/page08.php to http://www.thehaggis.com/EZ/sh/sh/page08.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109192302/http://www.masters.org/en_US/course/landmarks.html to http://www.masters.org/en_US/course/landmarks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

See also's deleted

I've deleted half-a-dozen items in the See Also section with this edit, as none of the pages even mention haggis. Few of the rest are particularly similar either (they are mostly types of sausage), but they all claim to be akin to haggis, so I have left them for now. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree it's largely a pretty arbitrary collection of products that have the loose connection that they contain cereals and meat, offal or blood but that's a very broad field. Haggis doesn't have blood so the blood sausages probably don't have a place. Some examples may be superficially quite similar - kaszanka for instance might just about fool you - but in regard to ingredients are only slightly so. I've whittled down the list a little in the past but thought it could be reduced further and wouldn't be unhappy to see this done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Per recent edits, these points are as relevant as ever. The section should not be a repository for every unrelated worldwide pudding/sausage-type combo of carbs and dead thing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The very fact that many users in the past (and I today) have independently added several similar dishes to the See Also list should have been more than enough to alert you that your editing behaviour might not be in order and that your opinion on this is not shared by many other editors.

Of course, different people may have different opinions on something and it isn't always possible to convince the fellows, but collaborative editing does not mean that one user enforces his opinion by reverting other editors' valid contributions. Going through the edit history of this article it can be derived that you have a long track record of reverting other editors' valid contributions (and you did this twice today with my additions). This is not quality-assurance, this is a form of attempting to WP:OWN an article. This is counter-productive to the development of the article. By all means, remove junk, and, if you can, try to further improve on valid contributions, but otherwise leave other edits alone for other editors to improve on them later on.

The purpose of See Also lists per WP:SEEALSO is to link to other articles which may be in some way associated with and might be interesting to know about in the context of this local article. Such relations can be some form of similarity (on various levels, it could be the look, the taste, some ingredients, the cooking process, the history, the name, or a lot of other things) or even being the opposite of something - it all depends. It is in the nature of associations that different people may have different associations depending on their context, knowledge, experiences, interests, etc. So, something that you find useful might not be found useful by others (but should not be removed unless it is junk), and vice versa. I, for one, read the Haggis article and my first thought was "well, I've seen something similar in Germany called Saumagen". Yes, it also has differences (otherwise it would be called "Haggis"), but there are enough similarities for other editors to mention this in the Saumagen article (and also in the German article on Haggis). So, it is obvious, that I'm not alone with that association, therefore this link belongs here (even if you do not share this association). The article is not for you, but for a pool of readers, some of which might be very happy to learn that there are similar dishes in other countries as well. It is not up to you to preempt their decision.

Likewise for "Grützwurst", another German dish with similarities (and also differences). The similarities are mentioned in the German article, the English article only has a redirect to Kaszanka (a dish I do not personally know, so I can't comment on it, but apparently it is similar in some way as well given that it was added by another editor in the past and removed by you).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, See Also lists, particularly for food items, are often magnets for similarly vast lists of ill-thought-out, tenuously-connected, if connected at all, items. If one was to add every food item that was as distantly-related to haggis as Sauamgen is, the list would be enormous. The main constituents of saumagen are pork meat, ie. muscle from pigs plus potatoes, whereas for haggis it is sheep offal, i.e.organs, and oatmeal. They do have onions in common but so does Scotch broth and it has mutton, so is that to go on the list? Even porridge is closer, largely consisting of oatmeal as it does. To add this kind of cruft is of no assisistance to anyone. I'll add List of sausages to cover the lot. There must be of the order of 100 entries therein with about as many closer, if not actively close, to haggis than saumagen than there are ones less similar. That is no justification for listing them all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a red herring in several ways.

First, we are not talking about adding 100 entries, but a handful of entries, which editors, according to their valuable editorial judgement, added in the past. Obviously, those editors felt that the addition would be useful to readers, because it would have been useful for them to find these entries here in the first place. Who, do you think, you are to declare that these entries are "ill-thought-out, tenuously-connected" and of "no assistance to anyone"? That's exhibiting a denialist and article-owner mentality and is not only annoying because you are thereby wasting other people's time and resources, it is harmful to the project.

Second, your argument based on constituents is misleading as well, as (explained above) associations do not need to be in any way related to ingredients to be useful as See Also links. Nevertheless, I will give you some examples, why some of these entries were added: In the case of Saumagen, one obvious similarity is that it is cooked and served in the animal's stomach (from sheep in the case of Haggis, from pig in the case of Saumagen), another is the look. There are probably a few (but not many) other dishes sharing these properties, if they do, they should be listed here as well. In the case of Grützwurst, the look is typically different (but not always), but some of the ingredients are similar: offal (including heart, liver, lung, kidneys, other inner organs and intestines), and depending on the actual recipe various types of cereals.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your reasons for adding these are sound enough. However;

• The reader is not told this, and may not know, so their association with haggis remains a mystery.
• The section itself does not establish any parameters for inclusion. So really, any foodstuff that vaguely consists/prepared/appears/tastes similar to haggis, according to any one editor's opinion, is fair game for inclusion. This could result in a long, useless list.

Adding something like your explanations to the links could address this, and discourage poorly related links being added. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re red herrings, I did not say there were 100 potential entries for the See Also but that saumagen was pitched no better than mid-table in the list, regarding supposed similarity. That still leaves an unwieldy amount, much more than a handful. (Incidentally, and I'm not inclined to count it exactly, my revised estimate is that there are upwards of 300 entries in the list, some possibly overlapping, so maybe there are approaching 100 as-or-more-similar dishes.) If such patently largely dissimilar dishes are to be regarded as eligible it's either going to be unhelpfully large and crufty or not-so-large and crufty but arbitrary. And drop the high horse stuff. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:HAGGIS which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the stomach encasing eaten or discarded?

Images show haggis served on a plate without the stomach. Does this mean the stomach encasing is just for transport or presentation, and is discarded? Is the stomach edible? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Purely a casing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Can this be added to the article for people unfamiliar with haggis? I had thought that the casing was eaten like the intestine casing of a sausage is eaten. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course you can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's served without the casing. Traditionally it was a sheep's stomach, but today other artificial casings are often used. It isn't eaten. It's use is not for transportation or presentation, but for the steaming. Haggis is a steamed sausage (a pudding, like black pudding). It's already cooked before it is sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:CB92:F900:C03:7B8F:C2F1:9257 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)