3 ms·
The relevant part from the article: > Hughes has spent years challenging the Victorian roots of brown Windsor soup—“I keep trying to correct the Wikipedia page
by Freak_NL 5y ago
The relevant part from the article:
> Hughes has spent years challenging the Victorian roots of brown Windsor soup—“I keep trying to correct the Wikipedia page, but I’ve given up”—and has faced considerable fury for his efforts.
Once Wikipedia decides something is a fact, it can be hard to alter it; no matter the sources you bring. If something stood there in an article for over a decade and the article is guarded by a certain type of editor, just give up.
- pwagland 5y agoAs I mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29969166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29969166, it is unclear what they were trying to "fix" given that the article has said for the last nine years that Brown Windsor Soup doesn't appear to exist before 1950, (later updated to 1920) and appears to have been a joke.
- Freak_NL 5y agoThe article is conflating 'Windsor soup' (referring to a number of soup recipes created by Windsor chefs) and 'Brown Windsor soup' in one article, and even starts of with both terms in bold in the introductory paragraph. The second sentence literally states: > While commonly associated with the Victorian and Edwardian eras, the practice of calling it 'Brown Windsor' did not emerge until at least the 1920s, […] The article is written around this vague 'it'; a soup that according to Wikipedia has Victorian origins, but wasn't called brown Windsor soup until the 1920s. If Hughes was right, than the article shouldn't treat brown Windsor soup as synonymous with 'Windsor soup', but clearly mark it as a special case with a curious history that doesn't seem to go back further than the 1920 at the earliest.