Talk:Gentleman's Relish

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mustard and cress

I think "mustard and cress" refers to the tradition of mixing the two seeds (mustard seeds and cress seeds) and germinating them together to form a more peppery tasting salad cress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.199.145 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not the mustard seed paste used as a condiment and cress but sprouts of the mustard seeds and cress seeds grown togetrher as a salad and garnish. Dabbler (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumour

Is there any truth in the rumour that it was invented after Soldiers in the peninsular war, desperately hungry, scraped the crushed anchovies from the boards of portugese fishing boats with their knives in order to render palatable the hard biscuits which were a part of Wellington's army rations at the time...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.80.185.239 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't, it just tastes like that.68.226.20.51 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Free advertising?

Isn't this article really just an advertisement for 'Elsenham Quality Foods' who get to squeeze in the fact that they also make 'Poacher's Relish'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.181.63 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't any article on Wikipedia about a commercial product an advertisement? Answer No, if it is not written as a booster for the product but a factual description. Dabbler (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Except it is a booster. It is written in an obviously non-encyclopedic, loaded language. The content is also not cited by any third-party source, like it should have been in the first place, further implying that this was written by someone directly involved with the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.183.39 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I do not have any relevant knowledge, sources or experience as a Wikipedian to write this article from scratch. But I know enough to know that this is exactly what it needs. 83.28.183.39 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unlikely that it will be deleted. If there's only one single edit, that you think would improve the article, you should go ahead and make it. Your action may inspire others to do likewise. It's not so productive to simply speculate on who "wrote it" and how they might or might not be "directly involved with the product." Regarding sources - there's already this one from The Daily Telegraph, in External links, that seems to have been unused so far? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem particularly promotional to me. There are much more egregious examples of WP articles created or manipulated for PR purposes. --Ef80 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)