Talk:Irish breakfast

Contents

1 Consensus and article development 2 Puddings 3 Kidneys 4 POV 5 There is a difference!! 6 Merging the articles 7 Fried soda farls 8 Calm down 9 Cod 10 some comments by a bystander 11 Health effects 12 Hash browns 13 Kidneys 14 Dispute on article's validity revisited 15 Picture 16 The Term 'Irish Breakfast'

Consensus and article development

The consensus on VfD and talk pages seems to be to keep this article. In spite of the arguing over how different or similar an English breakfast is, most subscribe to the idea that a seperate article is needed. For one thing, an article on Irish breakfast, and one on English breakfast, are likely to come to different conclusions on the true contents. (Regardless of silly pointless arguments on Tomatoes, Kidneys, Puddings - something even the Irish can argue about amongst themselves!). Both articles are VERY unlikely to come to the same consensus. By all means anyone Scottish, Welsh or otherwise should add their own pages. They are different places with different customs and habits. The general similarity of the fried breakfast is not of importance. This is also about more than names.

Thanks to the fuss kicked up, the article is coming along nicely. Thanks to Ludraman for starting the history thing, and I think hotel practices in Ireland and elsewhere can also be expanded. Thanks whoever added the ketchup point about breakfast rolls.

Someone could perhaps add some stuff about the salt content of Irish breakfast items (even higher than in Britain) and the health consequences. Also I heard somewhere that the fried breakfast is one meal where they scientists have detected noticable hardening of the arteries after just one sitting! (Apparently you recover unless you follow it up regularly with another the next day or day after).

Zoney 12:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Puddings

It is my assertion that English breakfast and Irish breakfast are the same thing. So why do we have two articles? Jooler

Because they are by no means the same. I am Irish, I know Irish breakfasts. There are a numbere of differences. I also object to your phrasing. You say soda bread is the single distinguishing feature. What about pudding? Pudding is rarely found in english breakfasts. It is not virtually identical to the english breakfast. I'm not going to get dragged into an edit war, I would like to settle it here. Ludraman | Talk 09:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had black pudding with my breakfast two days ago. Mintguy (T) 09:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Black pudding is part an English breakfast as mintguy has pointed out. White pudding is found in Scotland. Jooler

Puddings are 'mandatory' in Ireland (i.e. not a true Irish breakfast without them). This is NOT true of an English breakfast, I am aware that black pudding is often included - but not always and isn't necessary for tradition.

So much for being mandatory, I see no white pudding in this Irish breakfast http://www.se.fh-heilbronn.de/Dozenten/Permantier_WEB/Bilder/Schottland-Irland/dundalk/PB201301%20Dundalk%20-%20Full%20Irish%20breakfast.html it also has tomatoes and mushrooms, so obviously the person is lying about the nature of this breakfast and should be emailed to tell them their error -Jooler

Kidneys

Kidney MAY befound sometimes with an Irish breakfast see here http://www.bordbia.ie/recipes/breakfasts/11irishbreak.html Jooler

PS - about the kidneys, I have been to hundreds of places and never once have kidneys been available. I don't think one recipe including them should change the article. Ludraman | Talk 09:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You want me to find more to prove the point. I can gladly do that. Jooler 09:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who's eaten countless breakfasts around the country and elsewhere is qualified to say that VIRTUALLY nowhere in Ireland are kidneys found. It's not usually even a minor option. Kidneys, for breakfast. YUCK!!! Zoney

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jooler

I think the point being made is that anyone who has eaten copious Irish breakfasts (in Ireland) would know that you never, ever get kidneys with them. Perhaps they might be served in some places on Bloomsday, but that commemorates a fictional character called Leopold_Bloom who liked eating offal. It is not the typical Irish breakfast of today, nor I daresay 100 years ago. It is quite possible that you can find recipes that include kidneys, as I'm sure you'd find some that included chicken or some other atypical ingredient. Either way, it's not a constituent or even an occasional part of a normal Irish breakfast. --Cchunder 10:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm copying this earlier comment of mine from further down the page because it seems relevant. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just as a point of information: the inclusion of kidney in Bloom's breakfast is purely for literary reasons and has no relevance to this debate. For one thing, every chapter of Ulysses has an associated organ; guess what the organ is for chapter 4? Secondly, the fact that it is a pork kidney purchased from the pork butcher says something about Bloom's Jewishness, does it not. Joyce was writing a fiction, not a guide to Irish cusine. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

As an Irishman and a devotee of the full breakfast, I can honestly say that I've never eaten kidneys with one, or considered them appropriate. I would note that I'd always consider a pot of tea to be part of a traditional Irish breakfast, however; any chance that could be added? Jmason | Jmason 20:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think black pudding was originally mostly a northern thing, but you generally find it in breakfasts throughout the country now. I've never had kidneys with my breakfast in England or Ireland. Mintguy (T) 09:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding kidneys. I remember now that Leopold Bloom in James Joyce's Ulysses begins his day with the purchase of Pork kidneys which he cooks up for breakfast to give his breath a faint hint of fresh urine. Mintguy (T) 17:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's Dublin - not Ireland. :o) Zoney 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh, Dublin is IN Ireland, so still relevant

POV

A number of people have pointed out that they have been offered Irish breakfasts abroad. The grossly POV second piece in Hotel and other fare should be removed. Why couldn't it be left neutral and factual? Ludraman | Talk 09:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But this is the whole point. Zoney objected when I redirected Irish breakfast to English breakfast, not because they are different things (he was quite happy to have one article at traditional fry-up covering both), but because he objected to the word English. Jooler

Jooler, setting it up at 'traditional fry-up' was simply a compromise - I was not happy! I simply did it as I mistakenly assumed you would leave it in peace then! Note that Irish breakfast was a seperate section under that page!!! You'll note that others (on VfD and elsewhere) think this is a silly idea!

Look. I've edited the article now so its reasonably NPOV. Please don't make it sound like the Irish Breakfast is simply bits changed from the English Breakfast. Notice in the article i try to have it neutral, not hinting either way. Ludraman | Talk 10:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't have a page with [[Tea with milk], tea with two sugars, tea with milk and two sugars, why do we need two pages about the same thing, except that one has soda bread? Jooler

Jooler, why is it so important to you to "prove" that an Irish breakfast is "virtually the same" as an English breakfast? I have to wonder what your true motive is. Several people have pointed out notable differences between the two breakfasts, yet you persist. Moncrief 10:12, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

My motve is simply to query - Why we have two articles about the same thing? That is all. What else would it be? What precisely is the difference other than soda bread (and white pudding that you also get in Scotland)? Jooler

Your example is largely irrelivant, Jooler. The reason the article is seperate is because not only do the contents differ, but there is important history and variations discussed. Most people on Vfd objected to the merge anyway. I am a member of the Harmonious Editing Club, so I am trying to be co-operative. I've relented on the virtually identical bit. What do yuo think of it currently? IMHO its nice and nuetarl. Notice theres nothing like there was on the original article, which started: The traditional Irish breakfast, to which the English breakfast is similar. I admit they're similar, but they definitely deserve two seperate articles which don't look down on each other. Ludraman | Talk 10:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The variations that you can add to an Irish breakfast are EXACTLY the same as the variations you can add to an English breakfast. So what is the difference? The question is simple - Looking at a plate of bacon, eggs, mushroom, grilled tomato, sausage with a cup of tea and toast - am I looking at an English breakfast or an Irish breakfast? It only depends on what someone has written on the menu no-more, no-less. Jooler

You're unlikely to be looking at an Irish breakfast. Fried tomatoes are not a common component - despite sometimes being an option. You do not seem to know much about Ireland, Irish breakfasts or accommodation of others views. Zoney

Ok try the google test! Go to google go to images, type in irish breakfast and what do you see in the first picture? Baked bean and grilled tomato and what's more no frigging soda bread!. Look at the second picture, grilled tommatoes and beans again, look at the fifth picture - grilled tommatoes again, go to the second third fourth and fith pages and what do you see? lots and lots of grilled tomatoes. So obviously it's not me who's wrong. Jooler

Right, because Google images are more reliable than someone who actually lives in Ireland (sarcasm, in case it's not clear). Google images are random - they only appear when the name of what you're searching is explicitly part of the image itself (i.e., "Irish_breakfast.jpg.") It is not a realiable test, and looking for images is even less reliable than looking for text in Google. Both of which are much less reliable than listening to real-life people who actually LIVE IN IRELAND. Moncrief 11:11, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is you who is wrong! Despite often being included, they are not required. (Posh hotel breakfasts and stuff usually offer them, I accept, but at home, not so common, hot counters? Never AFAIK) As someone whos eaten Irish breakfasts up and down the country since I was kneehigh, I know this. (Vegetable matter? Pah, that's for wimps! :-) You on the other hand, have to resort to Google. Oh yes, the all-knowing, factually correct Internet! So, tell me, how many images said, this is an official Irish breakfast - or a commonly accepted Irish breakfast? Zoney 11:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a question of resorting to google, it's simply that by quoting something found on google I can demonstrate that it exists. I would guess I could (although you would say that I couldn't) go out onto the streets of Dublin and do a poll and get similar results, but that is somewhat less practical and more time consuming. Jooler

But you can only speak from your subjective experience. Just because YOU have never had a tomato with your breakfast doesn't mean that other people haven't. I have proved that at least some people do, because these are pictures of breakfasts being served in Ireland. I can also menus from ireland using google which show that at least sometimes kidneys are served. You cannot argue with that. Also you are wrong about how google finds images. The search terms are not part always of the image name Jooler

Mushrooms are also not traditionally required. Essentially the example you've showed might be found in Ireland, certainly, but judging it critically most would accept it isn't a true Irish breakfast.Zoney

I'm not sure what else your motive might be: maybe some weird lingering political thing. By the way, to get the timestamp, just type 4 ~ s. ~ ~ ~ ~ [but with no spaces between them]. I recently learned this myself. Moncrief 10:18, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference!!

Irish breakfasts can also have Boxty or potato bread which I think are mainly Irish.

Well my lad.. according to Zoney you have been eating an Ulster fry and not an Irish breakfast. Jooler

Big deal - people are free to re-edit the article. You on the other hand wish to remove it! Besides, you'll note that the Ulster fry and details are on this 'Irish breakfast' page! Zoney

I wish to have one article about one thing and its variation with appropriate redirects and not articles all over the place about what is basically the same thing. Jooler

Well, it seems many agree with my position, that the article isn't redundant. Zoney

Merging the articles

As the person who created the full English breakfast article and someone of Irish descent who has enjoyed breakfast in both countries, I think we can settle this argument by merging the articles under bacon and eggs. Mintguy (T) 13:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This has been suggested before when the English breakfast was moved to traditional fry-up, but English breakfast is the most common name. Jooler

As you point out, there's not much point imposing a neutral and ultimately meaningless title on all breakfasts. But neither is there point in imposing an incorrect title (English breakfast) on a subject (Irish breakfast) about which suitably different background exists.

But more that just the title, the subject matter is treated quite differently depending on cultural background. A single article would have to accommodate all views (tricky) as well as having a suitable title (as mentioned above, just about impossible!)

If someone wants to lay out the specific background and details on Scottish, Welsh, Yorkshire, Cornish breakfasts - they should be free to do so. The discussion/voting on VfD seems to be supporting this.

Zoney 14:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any chance you could just leave it go Jooler? The article as stands is a good Wikipedia entry, regardless of there being an English breakfast article. I don't believe it is detrimental to the aims of Wikipedia, in fact some on VfD suggest that to remove the diversity would be setting a bad precedent. Zoney

Fried soda farls

I don't think that frying the soda farls is typical in an Ulster fry. I have eaten Ulster fry in Belfast many times and I dont think the soda farls were ever fried, except when I fried them myself. When I did make my own breakfast, I fried the farls, and the folks with whom I was staying seemed to consider this a surprising innovation. -- Dominus 14:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not. At home we usually grill them too. Eating one does however stick in the memory (and gut!) Quite tasty, but it's like frying a sponge!!! Zoney

The article says "The traditional Irish breakfast dates back centuries." Well maybe a century, I think for most of the 19th century and before, most people in Ireland lived on potatoes and the few scraps of meat they could get when they were lucky, only wealthy farmers could have afforded this kind of rich food for breakfast. Jooler

Calm down

I think everyone needs to calm down. If you're reading this, stop. Take a deep breath. In and out. Feel the air. Now. Are we all ready? Good. There are some editing disputes going on here. I would ask that before people edit, they would discuss them. No need to get angry. I will try and lead by example. Heres my question:
Jooler, before I (once again) remove the POV and slightly offensive bit in the second paragraph of "Hotel and other fare", I might ask you why you want to leave that insulting and infactual comment there. Insulting because it sounds like people just call them irish breakfasts to humour the Irish. Infactual because numbers of people (myself included) testify that they have been offered Irish breakfasts abroad. I freely accept that the term English breakfast is used abroad too. It's just not the only one. And people aren't just trying not to cause offense to the Irish. Nearly everyone here and on vfd agree with zoney and myself's standpoint. Could yuo please be a little more co-operative and a little less biased? Ludraman | Talk 16:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you are taking offence seems to prove my point. Well, I'm not sure what to think of what people have said, as Zoney appears to have rallied support around this article from as many Irish Wikipedians as he can find. It's not really an unbiased opinion poll. Nevertheless I maintain that a plate of eggs, bacon, sausage, toast and a cup of tea is only an Irish (or English, Scottish etc..) breakfast if that's what it says on the menu, because frequently these things that make an Irish breakfast so distinctive are not always served with the dish, as the evidence I have provided. It's like what makes an Irish stew depends on who you ask, everyone's go their own recipe, but in this case the term English breakfast is far more prevalent and we should attest to this fact Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't have multiple definitions for the same thing, it is an encyclopedia where each page is about a distinct thing. As far as being served Irish breakfast abroad is concerned. I believe the two concrete examples given were the Bronx and Prague. Well New York is famous for people who are more Irish than the Irish and Prague is full of Irish pubs, so that doesn't surprise me in the least. Jooler 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jooler - I only contacted Ludraman and Kwekubo (who voted for merge). (Also FearÉIREANN who hasn't yet contributed). So the general votes and sentiments expressed on VfD are indeed unbiased. Zoney

I don't think anyone is saying that English and Irish breakfasts are completely different with no similarities. The fact is, they are similar and comparable. What we're arguing is that its not about just the contents, its about the history, culture and variations involved in the irish breakfast. And please remove the POV bit in the second paragraph of Hotel and Fare. We're not really getting anywhere here. Ludraman | Talk 18:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone has changed it and I'm not going to re-introduce the controversy. However, I dispute the history section as it now stands. It gives the impression that the general population in Ireland were living on a rich diet of 'Irish breakfast' for centuries, and this is clearly nonsense. As I pointed out above, this kind of food is a 'rich man's fayre' and would have rarely been consumed by the majority of the population in Ireland. As you well know most people would have eaten potatoes and whatever they could scrape together. A similar state of affairs would have existed in the rest of the UK (as it was), but of course not relying on potatoes as the staple. The cooked breakfast is basically a 19th century invention served to the gentry. Jooler

The recurring reference to the difficulty in distinguishing between a hypothetical Irish and English breakfast strikes me as being largely irrelevant. If I were to put a boiled potato, carrots, and beef in front of you, is it French, Belgian, German, English, or Israeli? The fact that a particular example is not easily classified does not mean that differences do not exist. As with any arbitrary concept applying to human creation, the distinction may be fuzzy, just as it is with different architectural or painting styles. The fact that it may sometimes be difficult to classify a work as Modernist, Futurist, Expressionist or Constructivist does not mean that the concepts themselves have no meaning. The same applies here. Anonymous | 19:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think your contribution to the debate is largely irrelevant. We all know what Danish pastry, French toast, Irish coffee, Scotch whisky, Belgian chocolates, Swiss roll (which BTW is listed under Jelly roll) etc.. look like. but these names are the ones most associated with these products wherever they are served. (later edit.. (obvious exception of Swiss roll, which is known as Jelly roll in the USA))Jooler 09:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Freedom is the freedom to have an Irish Breakfast page. If that is granted, all else follows.

Kidneys have been removed, but I have shown you that kidneys may form part of an Irish breakfast, despite you protestations. Similarly baked beans have been pushed down the hierarchy to suggest that they are hardly ever served with an Irish breakfast, but I have given you numerous examples of so-called Irish breakfasts that include baked beans. You should not try to create an article based upon your own subjective experiences, but one that represetns the true state of affairs. Jooler

Cod

I have just finished reading Mark Kurlansky's great book "Cod", which adds further weight to my assertion that what is called an Irish breakfast is the same as an English breakfast. Thus:

Until recently, cod roe was the central feature of an Irish breakfast. Most Irish today do not eat cod roe for breakfast because, though they do not seem to realise it, what is called an Irish breakfast is increasingly similar to English breakfast. In the old Irish breakfast, the roe was sliced in half and fried in bacon fat or simply boiled. Jooler

Similar certainly - but that's all. There are indeed differences with what English/Irish expect to be usually served, or available. You could always add the cod/roe bit to the history section. Certainly I've never heard of it or seen it served. I don't know about the "until recently" comment - I suspect the word is stretching things a bit! Zoney 13:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You make a point, certainly, Jooler. How about a section on traditional varients of the Irish breakfast, or something along those lines? LUDRAMAN | T 20:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

some comments by a bystander

At the suggestion of Ludraman, I looked over this article. He was looking for a disinterested, not to say absymally ignorant, observer, and he found one. I didn't even know there existed such a thing as an Irish breakfast (however you capitalize it). So, my observations have nothing to do with facts, but with presentation and structure and the effect on the new to Irish breakfast reader.

The article appears a bit muddled, especially in the intro section. Perhaps this is due to the back and forth editing documented above? Anyway, it's confusing.

Newspaper pyramid style would be a good way to avoid this effect on the general reader, poor fellow. I suggest that the 2nd para in Hotels (at least as it currently stands) is a good intro para candidate. Thence might follow variations (historical, geographic, purveyor variations, and fast food commercial takeoffs), comparisons with other similar sorts (the English, the Scottish, the Welsh(??)), and then perhaps some economic history, relative costs of ingredients and such.

I found this last (the economic history stuff) most interesting, but I wonder if it belongs here. Perhaps in an article on breakfast history in the British Isles, since there seems to be some commonality? Or in one on culinary or nuitritional history of Ireland, together more on the effect of the potato, and perhaps an aside noting Dean Swift's satire on economic policy re Ireland. Maybe Dr Johnson's famous jibe at the Scots re oats might find a place.

Do we know anything about Irish diet prior to say 1000? Or prior to the Vikings? I find I'm now interested to hear.

Finally, a nit or two. It's my understanding that the Masai don't do as here suggested. But perhaps I'm out to sea on that one as well. And, could Kurliansky be right for the ordinary Irishman? Surely cod roe presented shipping and preservation problems which would make it affordable only by the economically fortunate?

Best of luck. I'm now interested and will probably check in in a bit to see if anything I've had to say was found helpful.

ww 20:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello ww, imagine seeing you here! I just stumbled across this little dispute and thought I should throw my .02 in too. I'm from Australia, a country with a large number of both English and Irish migrants. Here, "English breakfast" usually means a type of tea (which, as it happens, I am sipping on right now). As a meal, it is mainly found on the menu of a "bed and breakfast" which is striving to be Englishy; you do not commonly see it on the menu of a city café. It is generally toast, bacon, eggs and tomato, with tea or coffee, very occasionally with kippers as an option. Aficionados will want HP sauce on it. "Irish breakfast" is also a type of tea, but it is also a common menu item in cafés serving "all day breakfast", and is especially popular rather late on a Saturday morning... It is a much bigger meal. At a minimum it has sausages as well as bacon, and usually also black pudding, mushrooms and perhaps some sort of fried potato. As you can't get soda bread here, instead you get very thick buttered toast. (The current fashion is to make the toast too thick to fit in one's mouth.) Essentially an English breakfast is a moderately substantial but more genteel meal, while an Irish breakfast is suitable if ravenous or hungover. Incidentally, if you subtract the black pudding and replace the potato with baked beans, the café will probably call it an "Aussie breakfast" although actually few Australians would have such a breakfast at home. Securiger 16:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Health effects

Because of the high contents of meat, and subsequently grease, fat and cholesterol, the Irish Breakfast is widely considered unfit for very regular consumption.

The way this was phrased struck me as rather POV (e.g. "grease" as a reference to dietary fat, "unfit", etc.). But more importantly, it uses "widely considered" to make claims which are rather difficult to support. The idea that dietary cholesterol is a significant cause of hypercholesterolemia has very little medical support these days. The simplistic "fat = bad" formula is rapidly losing support, with burgeoning evidence that two decades of low fat diets are a major cause of obesity, especially childhood obesity (see e.g. [1] (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2540), [2] (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2074)). And who exactly (except perhaps for vegans or PETA) claims that meat is per se unhealthy? While the overall size of this meal is fairly large and probably suited only for a quite active person or iregular consumption, the proportion of meat in this meal is not greatly different from that recommended in the food pyramid. Securiger 08:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had heard that the traditional fry is one of the few meals after which there's noticeable hardening of the arteries. Apparently one recovers unless it's followed up by another the same day, or possibly the next. I don't remember where I read of this experiment result though. It may have been Ripley's believe it or not, AKA BBC News Sci-Tech. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hash browns

This item was removed by an anon IP. Where exactly in Ireland have people not heard of hash browns? They are quite common in Limerick, especially in breakfast rolls. zoney ♣ talk 15:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kidneys

No mention of bloomsday breakfast. According to [3] (http://in.news.yahoo.com/040429/137/2cu60.html) this includes two of the disputed ingredients i.e. tomatoes and kidneys. IVoteTurkey 23:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha!! you see - I was right all along. Tomatoes and and Kidneys, as much a part of the "traditional" Irish breakfast as any other ingredient. There is no doubt about it - the Irish breakfast and the English breakfast are the same thing! The only difference is what someone calls it. Therefore we do not need this duplicate article. Jooler 11:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a duplicate article, a bloomsday breakfast is not "the" Irish breakfast and Dublin looks east not west anyways!

This is a perfectly good article as is, though at some stage I would like to find out from the Irish tourist board if there was a deliberate marketing effort of the "Irish breakfast" (as it certainly has similarities to the English one).

Please do not go dragging up this whole dispute again.

zoney ♣ talk 13:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute on article's validity revisited

I was editing this article in order to remove some of the myths about the so-called "traditional" Irish breakfast. All through you have tried to make claims about what a thoroughly Irish tradition it is and I have been trying to demonstrate that it is no such thing. Remember at one point Ludraman added a complete fantasy history which stated quite erroneously "The traditional Irish breakfast dates back centuries. It originated on farms when, especially approaching the cold winter months, a lot of animals would be killed for food. There also existed a tradition among neighbourhoods for the sharing of meat, as one family would not eat a whole animal before the meat went bad. " - what a load of tosh. - Are we writing an encyclopaedia here or the screenplay for a new version of Finian's Rainbow? Forget the fantasy tradition sold to tourists alongside the shillelaghs, leprachauns and shamrock and lets keep to the facts. The Irish breakfast and English breakfasts were invented by the Gentry in the late 18/19thC. and only became common in modern times. Baked beans, tomotoes kidneys etc.. can all be found when the breakfast on both sides of the Irish sea and the only basic difference between the English breakfast and the Irish breakfast is that you sometiems get soda bread. Let's cut the crap eh? Jooler 17:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to conveniently forget your listing of the Irish breakfast article on VfD, and denial of its right to exist as a separate article, not to mention your hostile and aggressive attitude to the earlier disputes.

You also seem quite sure of yourself. The supposed "load of tosh" has not by half been proven to be such. Ireland has always had more well off people (and not just the English) who could have eaten such food, even before the C18/C19 - and even the peasantry was not always as poor as it was around that time. You have provided no proof to back up your assertions (even as much as I accept there is no proof for Ludraman's version of events).

Finally - you will damn well not find kidneys in any Irish breakfast in this or most other parts of the country. Bloomsday and Dubliners aside. Neither are kippers part of any IRISH breakfast. I can assure you that you would do well to leave writing about Irish breakfasts to the Irish - who regularly eat them.

zoney ♣ talk 20:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hadn't forgotten that I wanted the article deleted. I wanted it deleted because I wanted the articles consolidated at English breakfast. Danish pastry served in Ireland is still Danish pastry; French Bread served in Ireland is still French bread; Turkish deleight served in Ireland is still Turkish deleight, and English breakfast served in Ireland is still English breakfast. You now seem to want want suggest that I am up to some kind of historical revisionism. What kind of proof do you require? As for Ludraman's tosh - it is tosh as any self-respecting historian of Irish history will tell you. And how many examples of breakfasts served in Ireland do you want me to show you in order to convince you that kidneys may be served. Your response is simply that YOU have never had it. I'm sorry but you're subjective experience of not having kidneys cannot contend with direct evidence such as this (http://www.hayfieldmanor.ie/breakfmenu.html) and this (http://www.bordbia.ie/go/consumers/recipes/breakfasts/11irishbreak.html) and a thousand other references. Jooler

I can assure you that you are completely out of touch with the average Irish breakfast (and not some fancy-pants modification) as served in restaurants, B&Bs and cafés the length and breadth of the country, not to mention eaten in the normal Irish household. Your insistence on kidneys being a normal presence on an Irish breakfast table clearly marks out how little knowledge you have of the situation "on the ground" as it were. I don't care if you can succeed in being served kidneys somewhere - it's not part of the Irish breakfast. You are unclear on other distinctions also. Baked beans may be served sometimes as part of a breakfast labelled an "Irish breakfast", but they are seen as a more English breakfast item, and not considered part of the Irish "canon". And I can outright assure you that cereal, porridge, kippers, kedgeree or devilled kidneys are NOT part of an Irish breakfast (even if cereal is a common breakfast item in Ireland - it isn't seen as related).

It's absurd suggesting consolidating the article based on the similarity to an English breakfast, considering the important place the Irish breakfast has in our culture and global presence. It is irrelevant as to whether it's just an English breakfast subset rebranded - it is a clear distinction and famous the world over.

zoney ♣ talk 00:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can not assure me of anything that is outside of your specific experience unless you have conducted a survey or found such information recorded somewhere. You reckon I am out of touch. What did you have for breakfast this morning? Was it a bowl of cereal? Would that be the average breakfast in Ireland today? Or are you speaking of the average traditional breakfast. If there is such a thing then where are you likely to get it? What is the bloomsday festival about if it is not tradition? My point, is that there is no such thing as "canon" as far as Irish breakfast is concerned because it is a morderen invention. You seem to want to take this article into the realms of fantasy. I do not understand why you want to persist with this incorrect mythical unhistorical bullshit. Jooler 00:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, please, arrogance and rudeness will not get us anywhere. My argument for keeping the two articles separate would be that although the two breakfasts are similar, they are different culturally in both countries. I reread the English breakfast article and it speaks of how Englishmen consider a weekend with out a fry up a weekend wasted, and much other discussion of its cultural status. This is not at all the case in Ireland. Most people do not eat a full Irish once a week, and don't care either. The weekend is fine for them without one. So merging them would be awkward as it would have to discuss their cultural statuses totally seperately. That's my view.

TBH, I think one of the best solutions would be to get a few other Wikipedians who are not from England or Ireland and know nothing of this dispute to comment. Cheers, JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludraman&action=edit&section=new)) 00:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the article on English breakfast says "Englishmen consider a weekend with out a fry up a weekend wasted" then it is just as much of a fantasy as this article. To paraphrase "Most people do not eat a full English once a week, and don't care either." This particular "spin" or argument therefore is without any substance. As far as the breakfast habits of the British and the Irish are concerned they as close to each other as makes not difference, and this is preciseley my point. Jooler 17:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But it would be perfectly logical to have one article entitled "fried breakfasts in England" and another "fried breakfasts in Ireland" discussing the similar breakfasts in their national context... except for the fact that, guess what? We have two commonly used terms for those topics - "English breakfast" and "Irish breakfast".

The consensus was clear against merging the articles or deleting this one when the article was pre-emptively put on VfD by Jooler before any conflict resolution was attempted.

This has simmered on long enough. There is no consensus to merge the articles.

zoney ♣ talk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the article on English breakfast says "Englishmen consider a weekend with out a fry up a weekend wasted" then it is just as much of a fantasy as this article. -- It does. So maybe rather than complaining about the fantasy in the Irish article, you could take the time out to read and improve the English one? JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludraman&action=edit&section=new)) 19:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zoney - I was responding to Ludraman's request on my talk page to respond to his latest contribution to this talk page.

Ludraman - I will indeed fix the English breakfast article; but I will still question the need for two separate articles about about the same thing. As far as i'm concerned the only reason this article exists is because of jingoistic nationalist pride. There is no rational reason. Jooler 00:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just as a point of information: the inclusion of kidney in Bloom's breakfast is purely for literary reasons and has no relevance to this debate. For one thing, every chapter of Ulysses has an associated organ; guess what the organ is for chapter 4? Secondly, the fact that it is a pork kidney purchased from the pork butcher says something about Bloom's Jewishness, does it not. Joyce was writing a fiction, not a guide to Irish cusine. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

That's not an Irish breakfast; where's the soda bread? Jooler 00:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly not available in the shop where I bought the other ingredients. Tragic. And I was too hungry to bother looking elsewhere. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludraman&action=edit&section=new)) 21:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Someone needs to teach you how to fry eggs properly. 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You rarely, if ever get soda bread in an Irish breakfast. It's more likely to be white toast. Soda bread is usually served with or before lunch or dinner in a restaurant. --Cchunder 18:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, you almost invariably get soda bread with breakfast in Belfast. -- Dominus 18:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Belfast is different. In Belfast you get an ulster fry which contains a soda farl and / or potato cakes. Soda bread as it refers to the Republic is a dense brown slab of "bread" that smells vaguely unpleasant. Some places might serve it but they're a small minority. Almost everywhere serves regular toast. I enjoyed a great ulster fry in a Belfast cafe called Hardy's - it wasn't haute cuisine but it was memorably stodgy. --Cchunder 18:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're all making my point, an Irish breakfast is only an Irish breakfast if that's what the menu says. It is the same thing as an English breakfast. Jooler 22:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Term 'Irish Breakfast'

Jools, you seem like a xenophobe. The term 'Irish Breakfast' is used to describe a breakfast that is very similar to an 'English Breakfast'. However, this is completely irrelevant. The term does exist. Stay at any B & B in ireland and you will receive a full 'Irish' Breakfast.

It's not like we're talking about something made from a recipe here. It's a stack of very greasy food thrown on a plate. Noone calls it an English breakfast when we throw some sausages and eggs on a plate in Australia... It's just called sausages and eggs. You didn't invent sausages or eggs.

If you're right and the Brits invented it first, that was probably because at the time your, and my, ancestors were opressing and starving the people of Ireland. I can't imagine there being too many Irish breakfasts being served in 1846.

Wikipedia is not about "terms" it is about things. No-one said "the Brits invented it first", certainly not me. Wikipedia is about thing, things like Turkish delight or the Belgian bun or French toast or Canadian bacon or Welsh rabbit or the Swiss roll or Swiss cheese or Danish pastry English muffin or Irish coffee. It's what the thing is generally known by. Jooler 20:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's referred to as a McChicken Sandwich in Europe is called a McChicken Burger in Australia. What's referred to as Irish Stew in Ireland is called 'Stew' in Australia. What's referred to as Ketchup in the USA and Europe is called Tomato Sauce in Australia (we don't distinguish ketchup from T sauce). What's referred to as an English breakfast in England is referred to as an Irish Breakfast in Ireland and not referred to at all in Australia because we wouldn't eat that shit if you paid us.

Ever wonder why nobody likes the English?

Hey sign your posts. You illustrate a very good point. If Wikipedia had an article on the McChicken Sandwich/McChicken Burger there would be ONE article on it, not two articles about the identical object with two names. Geddit? As for you comments "Ever wonder why nobody likes the English?" - I'm not English you moron. Jooler 18:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)