Talk:Haggis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photographs

Come on, we must take a photograph (or several!) of a haggis to add to this page! --Kaihsu Tai 16:23, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

Unfortunately the picture contributed is appropriate for the Burns Supper article (where it also appears) but not for this one since the haggis takes up a very small portion of what is a very large picture. We need a more appropriate one for this article -- a smaller one which depicts a haggis rather than a man attacking a haggis. -- Derek Ross

I wholeheartedly agree. I put the current one here until a better one comes along! --Kaihsu Tai 13:09, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)

Sorted now. Cheers. – Kaihsu 18:27, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

That's great, Kaihsu, but I take it from the timing of these edits that you only eat haggis once a year, <grin>. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:23, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

I actually ate haggis about 5 times last year, about 4 times in Edinburgh and about 3 times for breakfast. – Kaihsu 11:34, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Removed Compare lutefiskFZ

History section

I see little about the history of the haggis in this section, just a short section about a poem by Rabbie Burns.....would be good if you could expand it a little Jcuk

"Superficially resembles Scrapple"

I won't alter the article to argue with someone else's national dish, but I've had a lot of scrapple and a reasonable quantity of haggis (yes, in Scotland, not an outland recreation), and IMO they are more similar (as compared to other foods) than different.

The first time I had haggis (in a small country B&B) it immediately reminded me of scrapple, and haggis may technically be a sausage, but it is more like scrapple than any sausage I've had. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I shall look out for scrapple so that I can do a "taste test" from the other direction. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Neeps

The article says that "neeps" are turnips, whereas the Robert Burns Day article, which links to haggis, says that "neeps" are rutabaga. I'm not familiar with Scottish culinary culture, but someone should correct one of these articles. (Unless the term is used interchangeably.) JD79 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See rutabaga. If that article is right, what American call a "rutabaga", Scots call a "neep" or "turnip" (and the English call it a "Swede", "Swedish turnip", or "yellow turnip"). What Americans call a "turnip" is -- I think -- either called a "white turnip" or not called anything, being relatively unknown. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Update. The turnip page is a little clearer, but the situation is even worse than I said before. The Scottish call the thing Americans call "turnips" "swedes", which is the same thing the English call the thing Americans call "rutabagas". My head hurts. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The turnip page is the one to believe. This page attempts to repeat what it says. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then...I guess I never knew that the rutabaga was so closely related to the "American turnip". Thanks, Wikipedia! JD79 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd Facts and pop Culture

Spicey McHaggis the former bagpipe player for the Dropkick Murphys, quite obviously named after the food delicacy was removed, surely that is a reference to popular culture connected to haggis. If the band called Enter the Haggis which no one has heard of (and was probably added by one of the band themself) can remain, surely Spicey McHaggis as a more famous musical artist can remain.

Not to mention the Ren and Stimpy character, Haggis MacHaggis.

I was about to add Enter the Haggis, after somehow coming to the article and recalling seeing them in concert. I wouldn't say it was probably added by the band themselves, but merely by a fan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.202.33 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Vegetarian haggis taste test

There's a comment in the current version of the article that vegetarian haggis is pleasant in taste but unlike the traditional variety. This is an oversimplification. In fact the flavour of the "traditional" haggis varies quite a lot since there are many recipes, some heavier on the liver, some heavier on the oatmeal, or with other changes. That goes for the vegetarian haggis too: the flavour tends to vary with the recipe. Surprise, surprise. The point is that there is an overlap in the flavour range and that means that some vegetarian haggis is indistinguishable in flavour from some traditional haggis, so it's not entirely true to say that all vegetarian haggis tastes unlike any traditional haggis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Goodness me: I quite like vegetarian haggis, but I've never encountered one that tasted anything much like a meat haggis! I think there's something irreproducible about the taste of animal fats. Ming the Merciless 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I speak from experience. The Henderson's veggie haggis fooled me completely. I did not realise that it contained no meat until I was told. Delicious! (Henderson's cafe is well worth a visit if you're in Edinburgh even for those who don't like haggis and aren't vegetarian.) -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've eaten a fair few haggis in my time, and tried a couple of vegetarian ones. Very nice, but more like stuffing than haggis. Would go well with a nice roast dinner, but that might defeat the whole vegetarian aspect... I will keep an eye out for Henderson's if I'm ever up that way, mind. Slavedriver 14:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

McSweens haggis (available every branch of Waitrose I come across - so i'm not sure about the "available in *some parts* of england" comment.. I can certainly get it here in Portsmouth whenever I want) comes in a meat and vegetarian variety.. I've had both, and at first taste, they're almost identical, but the aftertaste differs, and the meat one was certainly more addictive, but that said, they definitely qualify as being "similar". I've been considering converting to vegetarianism, and this is one product which makes the whole process sound less painful! Yum.

Similar dishes

Regarding dishes similar to Haggis:

Mutton 'Pancita'

In central Mexico, in the State of Hidalgo, one of its traditional dishes is “barbacoa” which is made from mutton. A “barbacoa”, although similar in name to barbeque differs from it in that it is a process of cooking consisting of making a hole in the ground, wrapping meats in maguey leaves and placing them in the hole which is then heated by embers that slowly cook the meat in its own juices. During the 19th Century, Hidalgo was an important mining centre that had a strong British influence with many Britons coming to live there, mainly in the town called Real del Monte. They left, among other things, the method of making pastries, now called “pastes” that are now the typical dish and perhaps a variation of haggis, the “pancita” or “little belly”. The innards of the mutton; lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen and such are placed inside a pouch made by the stomach lining, with a liberal sprinkling of spices including the typical chilli and cooked along with the rest of the meat. The only flavouring given to the rest of the meat is salt inferring that the “pancita” was a latter addition. Once cooked it is eaten with the flat maize bread called tortilla in Mexico, but then so is mostly everything there. Other thing the Britons left were the first football (soccer) teams.

Contributed by Rafael Maffey

What about (UK) west-country Faggots?

I realise this traditional English word has unfortunate connotations for North American readers: Faggots are large roasted meat-balls also made from minced offal - typically pigs lights (lungs), liver, heart, caul-fat etc. Lots of spices and pepper, but they have no cereals added. The result is a very dense meaty ball which is much more nutritious than sausages or beef patties. Nevertheless, I thinks it's in the same food-class as these and the excellent Haggis, i.e. offal-based preparations. I'm no expert in their preparation but occaisionally like eating 'em, accompanied by a pint of English beer - dark, tangy, frothy, unchilled, un-gassed and hand-drawn from barrel.

By Stewart Hall

We already have an article on them: see Faggot (food); and articles on various other kinds of faggot: see the list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

What's the criteria for being similar here? It seems that some of the ones added are only vaguely related to haggis. Perhaps some could be trimmed and the good ones given a bit more detail? Munci (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Drinks

I have a couple of issues with this new section that's just been added.

1. There isn't really a drink, traditional or otherwise associated with haggis. Most haggis is bought from chip shops, day in, day out, in the form of haggis suppers without any drink at all. Even if a drink is bought with it, that drink is far more likely to be cola or Iron Brew than whisky or wine.

After purchases from chip shops, the second largest consumption of haggis is in the form of supermarket haggis at family meals. Again I would suggest that most families would have it with water or fizzy drinks. Wine is a less likely possibility and whisky is highly unlikely.

The only place where it is likely that haggis will be eaten with whisky is at a special event such as a Burns supper or a St Andrews day dinner where haggis is on the menu as a Symbol-of-Scotland. So it would be much more accurate to say that whisky (another Symbol-of-Scotland) is a traditional accompaniment at these type of events than to give the misleading impression that it's normal to drink whisky whenever you eat haggis.

2. There's an unwarranted assumption that haggis is spicy. While some haggis may well be spicy (because it may have a lot of pepper in it), there is a lot of haggis which is light on the pepper and thus isn't spicy at all. It all depends on the recipe. In my experience people who eat haggis for the first time are far more likely to say that it tastes like liver paté than to say it's like curry. And so, again in my opinion, you'd be much better served by thinking about wines to go with liver than in thinking about wines to go with chilli.

So if the new section is to remain, it should be updated to take these points into account. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states "Since fish and chip shops sell large amounts of haggis but do not serve alcohol, it can be assumed that haggis is frequently eaten in Scotland with the accompaniment of neither wine nor whisky." - The author evidently hasn't been to a Scottish fish and chip shop on a Friday night, where wine, whiskey and beer are abundant in the bellies of the establishment's inhabitants..

Ho, ho. You are a veritable wag, sir! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tampering?

Um, can someone with more experience take out the sub-plebeian attempt at humor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.158.78 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Done. But please feel free to do it yourself, next time. We always welcome helpful contributions like that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some more tampering, in the Modern Usage and Drinks with haggis sections. It goes as folows:Remember to scottish people it taste good. Not all people may like it. This is the most important thing about haggis, it is hazedest to your health. Also, Haggis is a bitchy food. apologies if I edited this wrong, this is the first time I've made any edit to wikipedia. 75.165.0.28 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done! That's exactly the right action to take when you see obvious nonsense in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Highlander?

Haggis had a prominent mention in the film Highlander (1986)

or so I married an axe murdererMbr1983 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Haggis

All the theories on this page regarding the history of haggis assume that it was invented in Scotland - although it's been a symbol of Scottishness ever since Burns's apostrophe, I'm not sure that its origins are Scottish. Does anyone have any evidence for that?

Ninj 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-writing the history section in view of the fact that no-one's come forward with an answer to the question above.

Ninj 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the BBC's [QI] program under a question on Scottish inventions, haggis was one of the booby-trapped answers, and was revealed to be of Roman origin. They didn't go into much detail though.

--MeteoriK 11:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Why is Image:Rabbie Haggis!.jpg this haggis smiling?

Deep-fried Pizza?

Regarding this sentence:

Haggis is one of several foods (e.g. pizza) that Scottish fish and chip shops serve deep fried in batter.

They really serve pizza deep-fried in batter?

rowley 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed what can be deep-fried in batter. Oh, wait a minute. You already are, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They do NOT sell deep fried battered pizzas in Scotland! That is a pure myth! They just drop them straight into the hot fat without battering them first! I haven't had one for years, but feel oddlly peckish now!212.203.97.66 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That very much depends on where in Scotland you are - I'll admit that they are most frequently sold unbattered, but for sure around the East Kilbride area, you CAN buy a battered deep-fried pizza - they call it a "pizza crunch"

79.68.15.45 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the case that on the East Coast pizza is usually battered and fried while in Central and Western Scotland it's more likely not to be and in a lot of cases there will be a choice of either regardless of the shops location 84.64.104.126 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

deep-fried mars bar 62.64.203.135 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the deep fried mars bars are very good, though i'm not sure what kind of batter they use, its a sweet tasting batter Mbr1983 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You should see deep fried creme eggs...--NeoNerd 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian "haggis"

Vegetarian haggis technically isn't haggis, so can someone who knows how to change the article to reflect this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.31.113 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. That's why we put the adjective "vegetarian" in front of it ... so that people will know that, technically speaking, it's not haggis, but practically speaking, it is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Earthworm Jim and What's It Taste Like?

I'm not sure if this is worth putting in the article anywhere, but a recurring gag in Earthworm Jim was where Peter Puppy would start eating something, say how much he loved it, ask what it is, then be informed it was some form of haggis and immediately stop eating it with a look of revulsion stating what it is. Just a random thought.

Now, on to the meat (no pun intended) of why I make this post... Does anyone have any idea what haggis tastes like or anything it could be compared to that would be accurate? I really want to try it, despite knowing what it is, but heck, I figure I may as well see if I can get a fix as to what it tastes like if possible! ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Liver pate flavour; crumbly texture. If you like liver pate, you will probably like haggis. It doesn't taste as strong as pate though. Probably because of all the oatmeal in it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooh... That's a pretty detailed description! I like crumbly. Kind of iffy on meat paste, but like I said, I do wanna try it. Thanks! ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 09:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of liver pate myself. I'm not sure what I would think of, mind you, but certainly haggis has spice to it which I wouldn't think of liver pate. Certainly, the best way to find out what it tastes like is to come to Scotland and actually eat it. Munci (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I have a new life goal! Then again, I wanted to go to Scotland anyway, so... Pretty convenient. ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 09:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not identical in flavour and I agree about the "spicier". However that's what I've been told by quite a few "first-timers" at the private Burns suppers which I hold/take part in every year. Mind you the flavour can vary quite a bit depending on the recipe used by the individual manufacturer so it's only possible to give a vague answer really. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Haggis Hurl

I deleted the Haggis Hurl link. It has absolutely nothing to do with the food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.176.240 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone add a good photo of what the dish actually looks like? Maybe cut in half would be good so we can see the inside? Turning on the lights would be a help, or is this dish only served in darkness? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that that haggis and oatcakes picture is VILE? And whats more, that doesn't look much like haggis, and those certainly don't look like oatcakes! Anyway, you don't eat oatcakes with haggis, you eat oatcakes with stovies!212.203.97.66 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, whatever is pictured there isn't haggis and oatcakes. I can't say I'm a good Scot and eat haggis very regularly but I'll try and remember next time to take a proper picture of haggis, neeps and tatties. 84.64.104.126 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I eat oatcakes with stovies, cheese, ham, pate, hummus, jam, butter or just about anything edible that I can fit on top of them. The oatcake police haven't arrested me yet, so I would say it's probably safe for you to eat them with haggis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Safe enough, but surely no-one actually does this ? I've gone ahead and replaced the photo with what's surely more recognisable as haggis, neeps and tatties. Barry Wom (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, those pictures are terrible. I would say delete them all apart from the top one. On a separate note, as a Chef I can confirm Haggis is really lovely - my favourite food in fact!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Haggis platter at a Burns Supper

Here's one I hope is better. It was taken just after the Address to a Haggis at a Burns Supper in Minnesota. Jonathunder (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA version of 'Address to a Haggis'

IS there a Scot among you able to provide an IPA version of this poem? (see here) --Surturz (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are Scots among us and we have considered providing an IPA version. However there's a problem with IPA. It's extremely specific. If Scots was a single dialect like Scouse that wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. In fact there are several different Scots dialects and if we were to provide an IPA version, it would have to be for just one of them. Naturally this would cause complaints from those who speak the others. What I can do however is to provide an English phonetic spelling version, as I have already done for the poem, Auld Lang Syne. I hope that that will be good enough for you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be brilliant. I've memorised the poem, but as I am not Scottish, I'm sure my pronunciation of most of it is completely incorrect. --Surturz (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. You should be proud of memorising it, no matter what pronunciation you use. Of course if you want to improve your pronunciation we will do our best to help. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this, wouldn't Robbie Burn's dialect (or as near as we can approximate it) be the 'correct' pronunciation? --Surturz (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too so I plan to do a version in West Central Scots. Where should it be posted by the way? Munci (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably best. I have just finished a North-east Scots version but please go ahead and replace it with an Ayrshire one. You can post it here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finished by the way. Munci (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FANTASTIC! Thanks heaps. --Surturz (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar dishes (June 2009)

There are many dishes listed here, I am not familiar with many of them but I did see tripas which is really dissimilar to haggis, it being simply grilled intestines. It's like saying pizza and lasagna are similar because they both have cheese. While delicious in it's own right, I've removed tripas from the list. --71.110.82.178 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, it seems to me that the list of similar dishes in haggis badly needs an overhaul. For instance, the list contains many items that are variants of blood sausage, not haggis at all. It would be nice if someone with the right expertise could start weeding out the inappropriate entries. --Zlerman (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Claim that origins of haggis are English

Just to note an article in today's independent

The gist of the article is that someone refered to as "food historian Catherine Brown", claims to have found a recipe for Haggis in an recipe book by Gervase Markham that was written in 1615. She claims that the first recipe she has been able to find in Scotland was in 1747. Various Scottish butchers seem to have, seemingly without grounds, dismissed the claim. Probably worthwhile waiting for more learned opinion, but thought I would mention it now. Thehalfone (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article now. What should be remembered ;

• earliest recorded written mention is not in itself definitive proof of earliest use.
• in all likelihood neither Scotland nor England 'invented' the dish. It's probably been around since the year dot.
• earliest use doesn't change its status of a national dish.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted again the change of nationality on the lead. It needs to be made clear; the earliest recorded mention does not necessarily indicate earliest use, and this mention in the English cook book makes no claim as to where haggis originated. Changing its nationality is therefore unsubstantiated by this evidence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The word 'haggeis' is mentioned in the Scots Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie, reportedly from around 1508. Could of been written before it was printed as I've seen earlier dates online. It's over 100 years before this, so the opening of 'almost 200 years before any evidence of the dish in Scotland' is wrong.

"As thow wald for ane haggeis, hungry gled" (Quod Dumbar to Kennedy)

The Scots Leid dictionary [1] already had this mentioned and also something reportedly from 1420. haggeis, haggies - a haggis. It also states "Now regarded as a traditionally Scottish dish, but also popular in England until the beginning of the 18th cent. and still made in n.Eng. with some variation of the ingredients." --Revolt (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent information refers to the earliest possible recipe found which is the listed in ref [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Your dictionary ref does not refer to the recipe of haggis,its origin or the Country of Original origin but simply the name "Haggeis,Haggies". Johnsy88 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent theories are already well covered in the History section. Please stop adding them to the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

== I believe with reference to your last message to my Wiki that you assume i am "Edit warring" is incorrect. I also believe that by changing the fact that the most original copy of the RECIPE of haggis( Which was first recorded in “The English Huswife” by Gervase Markham 1615) should not be mentioned in the LEAD section of the article is incorrect as this information has caused much recent controversy ( as noted in my original edits and also my orignal sources) and needs to be mentioned in the LEAD Johnsy88 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you are including this fact in a paragraph questioning the origin of the dish, leaving the clear suggestion that this is somehow evidence of its origin, which it is not. The history section handles this debate in a clearer and more even handed way. You have also left the History section in a mess of Misplaced Capitals. Please revert your changes and bring them to this page where they can be discussed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that as there are no sources available to explain or shed light on the Scottish Origin of Haggis it is important to give information on the current controversy highlighted in my UNDONE original edits which did cover this and showed the topic in a far more fair and unbiased light. With refrence to this i feel that my original edits should be re instated as this does cover both sides of the argument and also the recent media controversy.Johnsy88 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy88 - the reference is from Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie written by a Scot from around 1508. It's in print. He died in 1520, so wasn't after it. Again wiki is stating "1615 mentions haggis, 132 years prior to its first recorded mention in Scottish literature." This precise wording of 'first recorded mention in Scottish literature' is incorrect. And I agree with Escape Orbit. There is no real need to add it to the lead. --Revolt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly worth a mention. Can you give a good cite for it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Silly season ! The popular press in England have gone to town on this non-story. The Gervase Markham book in 1615 gives the earliest known recipe - but the existence of the haggis in Scottish literature pre-dates it by about a century. The Oxford English Dictionary is a more reliable source than those quoted in support of the "Haggis is English" theory and I have changed the text to reflectBoulet rouge (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) this.

The article should mention that there are several English cookery books from the 1400's that have recipes for haggis. In particular, there is an English recipe book, the 'Liber Cure Cocorum' from 1430 that has a recipe for haggis written in Middle English:

For hagese.

Þe hert of schepe, þe nere þou take,

Þo bowel no3t þou shalle forsake,

On þe turbilen made, and boyled wele,

Hacke alle togeder with gode persole,

Isop, saveray, þou schalle take þen,

And suet of schepe take in, I ken,

With powder of peper and egges gode wonne, <<53>>

And sethe hit wele and serve hit þenne,

Loke hit be saltyd for gode menne.

In wyntur tyme when erbs ben gode,

Take powder of hom I wot in dede,

As saveray, mynt and tyme, fulle gode,

Isop and sauge I wot by þe rode.

http://www.uni-giessen.de/gloning/tx/lcc3.htm

http://community.livejournal.com/favorite_words/267102.html

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=haggis

The balance of evidence seems to suggest that haggis was first known as a dish, by that name, in England and later became popular in Scotland.

Jacob Davidson

If you can cite the 'Liber Cure Cocorum' it may be worth a mention. Of the links you show there, only the livejournal one actually mentions the "hagese", and that's just a blog. But the conclusion you reach from it appears to be unfounded. You may as well conclude that this is evidence that recipe books originated in England. All it is evidence of is that haggis was known in England, and English writer wrote about it at the time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the entry for "haggis" at the livejournal blog site was taken from the Oxford English Dictionary. Please note that I did not say that haggis was invented in England. I said only that evidence suggests that it was in England that this particular culinary item was first known by that name.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Haggis reference in The Simpsons

I created a new section called "In popular culture," and added this to the article, but Escape Orbit removed it, saying that it was "trivia."

I am curious to see what the consensus is on this content:

In an episode of The Simpsons titled Lisa the Beauty Queen, at the Springfield Elementary School Carnival, Groundskeeper Willie runs a booth trying to sell Haggis, and shouts, "Get your Haggis right here! Chopped heart and lungs boiled in a wee sheep's stomach! Tastes as good as it sounds!"

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding this would be like catching up to the Simpsons and bacon article (which is no more). If we add this trivial reference to the Simpsons we just would open up the article for all kinds of trivia. So let's leave it out as it doesn't add to the understanding of the article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. We'll keep it out. Thanks for commenting. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Heaven forbid Wikipedia be as infomative as possible.

Intestine or Stomach or Both

Hello, The lead states: Haggis is a dish containing sheep's 'pluck' (heart, liver and lungs), minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and traditionally simmered in the animal's stomach for approximately three hours. Haggis is a kind of sausage, or savoury pudding cooked in a casing of sheep's intestine, , as sausages are.

So - is it cooked in the stomach or the lining of the intestine or both?Uncle uncle uncle 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stomach (or artificial) casings are used. Not intestines which are big enough for sausage but not for haggis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Any suggestions how I can fix the sentence that states: "Haggis is a kind of sausage, or savoury pudding cooked in a casing of sheep's intestine" Should I just remove it? Uncle uncle uncle 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Folklore

I resent the line under the Folklore section that "According to one poll, 33% of American visitors to Scotland believe haggis to be an animal". Lagit or not, by stating only American visitors it fails to state that there is a certain percentage of visitors on the whole who think haggis to be an animal. By that it seems to take another swipe at Americans -- in my travels, I've met smart people everywhere and I've met dumb people everywhere, I've met rude people everywhere and I've met polite people everywhere ... people are people, and the lowest common denominator of humanity exists everywhere, not solely in America for the sake of people in other countries to one-up themselves. I think this line is in poor choice and I feel it is outside the charactre of Wikipedia and its guidelines for writing. ManOnPipes (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)