From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Veal, pork, or chicken cutlets cooked in hot oil and generally breaded before cooking. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Food Science [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Thanks to Matt I used a reference tool maker

Thanks to Matt who kindly shared a reference tool maker I learned how to insert the references in the article tonight. I'm sure there are plenty of things wrong with my humble attempt but I am tired after spending about four hours researching and writing. Feel free to edit away! Thanks again Matt I sure do appreciate your help! Mary Ash 04:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your references looked pretty good. Just made some minor edits needed to get references to follow sentence-ending periods without any spacing between the period and the reference. And when there are two references at the end of a sentence, the second one should start immediately after the first one, again with no spacing between the two references. All in all, your references were very much better than previously in other articles.Matt's tool worked quite well. Milton Beychok 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
One other thing, Mary. All articles should have an introduction of some kind (even if just a few sentences) before the first section header (History, in this case). Milton Beychok 06:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent Mary! Haha, I'm impressed!!! Looks good!
The picture needs a the author's real name. I assume the one we have is a pseudonym. See if he'll give us permission using his real name. D. Matt Innis 19:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Matt I added a new photo to the article based on my newly learned information. I spent awhile last night trying to find a "real" name but could not. This newest photo has a real name. The photographer has asked that he be emailed letting him know how the photo was used. I'll email him later today with a link to the article. Thanks for the compliments. I couldn't have done it without the reference tool you sent to help me. It really, really helped. Many thanks!Mary Ash 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Good News! You are quite welcome. Keep an eye out for other reference makers, too. Some make it easier for magazines, or journals, etc. The picture looks good! D. Matt Innis 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good edits Milt

Thanks for helping bring the article up to Citizendium style. I was in the kitchen making breakfast so I had to leave the ivory tower of writing for awhile. Thanks again for all your help.Mary Ash 16:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


The introduction to a CZ article does not include a header (i.e., ==Introduction== is not needed). Also, the first sentence should include the article's title in bold font (i.e., schnitzel in this case). As you can see by looking at other CZ articles, that is our accepted style. I have already made those minor corrections for you. Milton Beychok 17:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew about the bolding but I had to attend to household duties. As to the introduction, thanks for letting me know.Mary Ash 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this article

Before this article is further developed there should be agreement on its topic: Is it "schnitzel" or "Wiener schnitzel"? Is it about the international (English-speaking) use of these food terms, or about the German (Austrian) meaning? A third article could be about the "original" Wiener Schnitzel. --Peter Schmitt 17:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin (Radetzky)

To my own surprise, one of the first news I found when looking around was the discovery that the Wiener Schnitzel is not derived from the Costoletta alla Milanese. (I'm not sure if I have heard the Radetzky story before.) This requires more research.

One quite definitely advances one's knowledge when collaborating at CZ! --Peter Schmitt 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you check the reference links one German link (translated thanks to Google) and one German American web site both cite the Radetzky history. I'd appreciate further assistance, if needed, as I only eat schnitzel and they are very good. I'm also quite fond Spatzle and have been known to make some when the weather is cooler. Mary Ash 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And Wikipedia, which I did not check, seems to agree with the Radetzky story. See: It would be interesting to see what you find out as I am sure it will help improve the article. Thanks! Mary Ash 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Mary. I know that you did not invent the story, and I would have told you that it came from Milano, too. It was a surprise for me. (But I knew that I would have to check some books ... not yet done!) The pointer was on the German WP, though. --Peter Schmitt 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Much to my Dad's regret I never could learn to speak or read German. I am dependent your expert skills to make this article the best it can be. BTW family history says my ancestors came from PrussiaMary Ash 18:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


I have two homemade pix, one of the uncooked, one of the cooked. I'll put them in later today. Hayford Peirce 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That will work! Did you just cook it? D. Matt Innis 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Missed your message and I did had a new photo with hopefully the correct information. I made sure to find a photo with a real name attached. Mary Ash 20:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's it! I see he asked for an email, too. DId you send him one? D. Matt Innis 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture that Mary put in is much too dark. And too large. I have reduced its size but left it there -- I will let others decide if my picture is superior. I will now put in a picture of an *uncooked* cutlet. Hayford Peirce 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Mary's picture may be too dark, Hayford, (this can probably be changed with a picture editor), but it is the better picture. It shows a Wiener Schnitzel as it should be, with a lemon (I do not need it, but it is tradition) and potato salad. Apple sauce (you are thinking of Apfelkren, apple sauce with horseradish, for a Tafelspitz, I suppose) and the other items (peas, and what is that on the right?) are not at all usual. Moreover, the schnitzel is rather small and the coating does not look right. Sorry, Hayford :-) (This shows that I was right (see above) to say that we need articles on the true one, and one on all the others ... --Peter Schmitt 20:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Peter different folks eat food in different ways. Most, if not all, the schnitzels I made were not large. Although after looking through numerous Wikimedia Commons photos I discovered the schnitzels came in all sizes. I don't eat schnitzel much any more as it gives me heartburn. When I do eat schnitzel, it is Jager Schnitzel, which I love, with spatzle. Some people like it with egg noodles or potatoes. All a matter of taste. Mary Ash 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is just the reason why it is necessary to agree on the topic of this page. Is it on dishes internationally called schnitzel, or is it about a Wiener schnitzel (international), or a Wiener Schnitzel (the Vienna version that gives it its name)? --Peter Schmitt 20:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wrote about schnitzels in general. There are may types of schnitzel not just Wiener Schnitzel which is an outstanding dish. I usually eat Jager Schnitzel with spatzle. If I were to eat Wiener Schnitzel I sure wouldn't be eating applesauce. The lemon is the best way to eat this dish along with some good potato salad.Mary Ash 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser Basileios

No one in the 9th century was called a "Kaiser". Also, the story itself sounds nonsensical -- it definitely needs a footnote authenticating this assertion. Hayford Peirce 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

About what are you talking, Hayford? It seems I am missing something. --Peter Schmitt 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
About this statement: "Kaiser Basileios (867 to 886 AD) liked eating his meat covered in gold which eventually lead to cutlets being cooked in bread crumbs. The bread crumbs were substituted to represent the gold leaf covered meat as a cost saving measure." Are you telling me that a byzantine emperor was called "Kaiser"? And that he ate his schnitel covered in gold? If so, please give me a reputable source for this statement. Hayford Peirce 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not telling you anything. I never saw this statement (on this page). But it is told on German Food Guide and probably elsewhere. It is a legend like the Radetzky story. But there is more research needed before reasonable statements can be made. --Peter Schmitt 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For your reference: The German is here: Basileios II. der Bulgarentöter (griechisch Basíleios Bulgaroktónos Βασίλειος ὁ Βουλγαροκτόνος, bulg. Василий българоубиец/Wasilij Bulgaroubiez; * 958 in Didymoticho; † 15. Dezember 1025 in Konstantinopel) war von 976 bis 1025 Kaiser des Byzantinischen Reiches. Seine Regierungszeit gilt allgemein als ein Glanzpunkt der byzantinischen Geschichte.

Inhaltsverzeichnis [Verbergen]

  • 1 Leben
    • 1.1 Die frühen Jahre
    • 1.2 Kämpfe gegen Bulgaren und Behauptung im Osten
  • 2 Bewertung
  • 3 Anmerkungen
  • 4 Quelle
  • 5 Literatur
  • 6 Weblinks

Leben [Bearbeiten]

Or translated: Basil II of the Bulgarians slayer (Greek Basil Bulgaroktonos Βασίλειος ὁ Βουλγαροκτόνος, Bulgarian Василий българоубиец / Vasily Bulgaroubiez, * 958 in Didymotiho; † December 15, 1025 in Constantinople) 976-1025 emperor of the Byzantine Empire. His reign is generally considered a high point of Byzantine history. Contents [Hide]

  • 1 Life
    • 1.1 The early years
    • 1.2 fights against Bulgarians and contention in the East

Which refers to the Byzantine emperor as a Kaiser in German. Hubby dearest, who loves Byzantine history is not here as he's out on an errand, but I'm sure he would agree with the terminology. I also found numerous independent sources all stating similar tales.


Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz: Die Kriege Kaiser Basileios II. gegen die Bulgaren (976-1019) [Gebundene Ausgabe] Paul Meinrad Strässle (Autor) Noch keine Kundenrezensionen vorhanden: Schreiben Sie die erste! Preis: EUR 119,00 kostenlose Lieferung. Siehe Details.

Alle Preisangaben inkl. MwSt.

Auf Lager. Verkauf und Versand durch Geschenkverpackung verfügbar.

It seems the German translation would include the term Kaiser. Kaiser means emperor and Baileios proves this out as he was Byznatine emperor or Kaiser.Mary Ash 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And for more references:

"Wiener" means Viennese (from Vienna) in German. As the name suggests, the Austrians are accredited with the creation of the Wiener Schnitzel. The Wiener Schnitzel was perfected by the Austrians to become the delicious dish known today by every German and found in most German restaurants. However, the origin of the Schnitzel actually goes back to the 7th century Byzantine Empire.

The story goes that the Kaiser Basileios I (867-886AD) prefered his meat covered with sheets of gold. And what he liked soon became popular with the wealthy. But, this practice became too expensive, so an alternative was created - "yellow gold" (bread crumbs).

Over the years, the use of bread crumbs in coating meat spread to neighboring lands. It was in Milan, Italy, in the 1800's where the Austrian Joseph Graf Radetzky discovered a dish called "Costoletta alla Milanese" - a thick veal cutlet, coated with bread crumbs, and sauteed in butter. Radetzky, who was commander over the Austrian troops in Italy (1831 to 1857), reported military, political, and even culinary information back to the Austrian Kaiser.

We are up to several INDEPENDENT references stating the history of the schnitzel. Three of those references include the term Kaiser and reflect back to the Byzantine Empire. The schnitzel evolved from gold leaf covered meat to the more affordable golden bread crumb crust for the masses to enjoy. I'm sorry but that's what the research says which was correctly referenced in my article. I welcome Peter to do research as he is closer to the source than I am. It's always easier to get information when it's near you. I'd love to read what he finds out. Mary Ash 21:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"revert wars"

Mary, we do NOT have revert wars at CZ. I removed that statement once, and wrote about it on the Talk page. You have restored it without attribution or discussion. I am now removing it again, and if you put it back I will call for a Constable to examine your behavior. Hayford Peirce 20:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There were numerous sources all stating similar things. Did you check the sources listed? Also, I have included an explanation on the talk page for you to read. Please read and check the sources before making unfounded claims. As to the constable go call him/her as I suspect they will find YOUR actions were not within Citizendium guidelines while mine were. Check your research please. Mary Ash 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Mary, Hayford is a Constable, who has recused himself because he is also an Author on this article. Might I suggest he has more relevant CZ experience than you do, and your counterchallenge is not constructive?
When someone questions the sourcing of one of my statements, it is my obligation to respond with the relevant source, perhaps even putting that source on the questioned article. We aren't as insistent as WP on sourcing everything, especially when the author is demonstrably an expert in the subject. Nevertheless, saying "numerous sources" isn't much more specific than saying "Google it."
Unfortunately, my personal expert in Byzantine history is more concerned, at the moment, with rendering safe improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan; it will take weeks to get a reply.
I am really, really trying to be supportive in explaining our customs, so there is less conflict. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To both Mary and Peter

If you are putting in legendary stories translated from other languages then you MUST provide references AT THAT POINT IN THE TEXT, ie, by putting in a footnote at the exact place that you make the assertion. Not just in some vague reference somewhere else.

As for Kaiser, in an article about Ancient Rome, would you refer to "Kaiser Caesar Augustus" because you were reading a source that was written in German. No, you would call him "Emperor".

As for reverting, I made a deletion of a very questionable item that had no clearly identified sources and I said why I was deleting it. You then instantly restored it without attribution or any discussion on the Talk page. This is what we call "revert wars" and, as you should know from your very first day here when you were involved with the UFO article, we do not permit them.

If you want to restore this item, then reword it so that it reads something like, "A charming, but improbable story relates that the Emperor so-and-so of Byzantine is said to have etc. etc.<Ref)put in here your sources, and tell us if they are in German, or what</Ref>." If you don't do it more or less like that, then you are simply putting in fairy tales.... Hayford Peirce 21:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hayford I haven't a clue about what you are trying to communicate. I have not reverted anything concerning the article after you started making edits to it. I did add two words: famous recipe. As this is a wiki, anyone at anytime, can add to an article. I could even remove text, if so desired as long as I stated what I removed on the talk page. I did not remove any text but I ADDED to it. Also, the "charming fable" as you call it was backed up with RESEARCH done in both German and English. I wrote a good article which you have proceeded to discount my numerous independent sources. I listed them correctly in the reference section. I also added sources to the exlinks this morning that were not used in the article but support what was written. So go check the sources again including the exlinks. You might learn something. BTW this is a good article, especially since Matt kindly shared a reference tool to create the ref links needed. At least he's trying to help me. How about you? I have contacted an constable for assistance based on your repeated harassment. Mary Ash 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, you seem to believe that I defended this statement. That is not true. I asked (because I never saw a statement involving a Kaiser Basileios on this page). I did not look at the history and thus did not know about it. After you inserted the statement I commented on it. It was not invented by Mary and that there are several places where it can be found and referenced to. This did not imply that I believe it, and I did not ask you to include it once more. On the contrary, I called it a legend. While researching the other legend (Radetzky) I learnt to my surprise that even the commonly claimed Italian origin is probably not true. On the same time I read the gold legend (before it appeared here). Thus I already knew that it is highly improbable that it has a true kernel.
To write a section about the true history of the Wiener schnitzel needs more research.
Having said this, since both stories (in particular, the Radetzky one) are frequently told the best solution would be to include them both, clearly identified as legends, to be supplemented later by facts. --Peter Schmitt 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the "revert" happened unintentionally, just as the "random" material removed from this talk page by Matt.
Mary, do not read this as accusation, only as advice: You should look at the page after saving. Sometimes edits go wrong because one looses orientation -- in particular, if the material is much too large for the edit window (material that was pasted or cut without being noticed) or in case of edit conflicts. --Peter Schmitt 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Missed References

Hayward did not check the TWO independent references concerning his "fable". Below are the references I gave concerning the Kaiser and the history of the schnitzel. Straight from my original article:


  1. . ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 German Food Guide - Schnitzel.
  2. . ↑ 2.0 2.1 Google Translate.
  3. . ↑ Gary, Joy; Schuler, Elizabeth (1983). German cookery. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-50663-7.
  4. . ↑ Wason, Betty (1967). German cookery. New York: Doubleday and Company. ISBN None.
  5. . ↑ Sheraton, Mimi (1965). The German cookbook; a complete guide to mastering authentic German cooking. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-40138-7.
  6. . ↑ Becker, Marion Rombauer; Rombauer, Irma von Starkloff (1975). Joy of cooking. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. ISBN 0-02 604570-2.

Retrieved from "" Categories: CZ Live | Food Science Workgroup | All Content | Food Science Content Hidden category: Food Science tag

OR the comparisons from the original article to the one Hayford edited:

Schnitzel From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium (Difference between revisions) Jump to: navigation, search Revision as of 04:12, 8 August 2010 (edit) Mary Ash (Talk | contribs)

The references were there why weren't they checked before accusing me of poor research. Mary Ash 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Constable Comment

I see four authors working together on an article and there seems to be some question about a sentence about a Kaiser without an inline reference. Mary, if you have one, just place it inline. Please, everyone, be patient with each other. This looks like an article that is turning out well. Please don't type in all caps as that seems to be yelling. If you are yelling, perhaps we should step away for a little while. You are all good people and are quite capable of working together. Rhetoric about CZ custom really isn't helpful as customs change depending on who you are working with. You all should find a way to work with each other if you want to work on similar articles. Otherwise, the wiki has unlimited space and we need many, many articles.

I'll keep an eye here, but I get the feeling you can work it out. D. Matt Innis 21:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Marching crumbs

"...bread crumbs spread through Europe..."

Why can I not get rid of the image of a long line of ants, each bearing one crumb? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back to Milt's last good edits while incorporating other edits

I reverted the article back to Milt's version and to the best of my ability incorporated everything back into the article. If I missed an edit feel free to add it back. I also bolded could which certain editors missed. The bolded could was removed by Ro. If anyone had taken the time to read the article and checked my multiple independent sources my afternoon would not have been wasted trying to put back together an article. I now have to feed the cat. Please read and check what I've written before jumping to conclusions. Or at least do a bit of research. Case-in-point was the term Kaiser. Kaiser is German for emperor. The term could have been used anytime during German history including the history reference I used. I have now clarified the term so anyone will understand what Kaiser meant. I guess I should have been clearer but I thought the Citizendium reading audience could understand it. In the future, I will make my writing abundantly clear.Mary Ash 23:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ro

The article was pretty well proofed and copy ready but it spent the afternoon getting the editorial royal treatment. I ended up rewriting it and trying to incorporate everyone's edits so I may have missed a few things. I'm glad you caught the accent marks on saute. If you could fix the references so they are all numbered correctly I sure would appreciate it. I'd do it but I have to do housework. I spent most the day trying to work on this simple no-brainer article. Sigh....Mary Ash 23:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nada. The refs should be okay as they are self-numbering - as long as you've put the right ones. I'm puzzled, though, by au natur, since the correct French would be à la nature, but you already have the usual term au naturel - perhaps it's a Franco-German corruption. Ro Thorpe 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Added Photos

I sure don't remember seeing those photos but thanks for adding them back Peter. Mary Ash 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sauce with schnitzel

A breaded schnitzel should never be served with a sauce -- what is the use of a crispy coating when it gets wet? Sauce (or Sosse or Tunke) with a Wiener schnitzel (breaded) is only served in northern Germany where they do not know better ... --Peter Schmitt 00:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So there goes the Jaeger Schnitzel??? I happened to like this dish with spatzle.Mary Ash 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You can order it in Austria, too. But it will be served without a breaded coating. --Peter Schmitt 00:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired. I wonder why. I've always eaten Jager Schnitzel without breading. I do agree with you as the breading would be a soggy mess. BTW did i translate Kaiser to Emperor correctly. I've run the word through several translators and they all came up with the same answer. See below:

I checked the word using the above translators. Thanks!Mary Ash 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

one last question about Kaisers

I see that "An often told legend about its origin says Kaiser (German for emperor) Basileios (867–886 AD) liked eating his meat covered in gold" is back in the text, modified, of course, and with footnotes.

But, here is my question: Basileios was, apparently, a 9th-century Byzantine emperor. I'm *pretty* certain that he, and his court, did not speak German. So why is an article, in English, about this character calling him a "Kaiser", even if the sources of the gold-eating story were originally written in German?

(And, yes, yes, yes, I realize that "Kaiser" is the German word for Emperor, the same way that "Tsar" is the Russian word for Emperor.)

Let me put it another way: Napoleon Bonaparte at one stage of his career was formally called "Emperor" -- let's postulate that a German book about him calls him a "Kaiser". Is that a reason for us, writing in English at Citizendium, to refer to "Kaiser Napoleon" in our article about him?

If you can say honestly "Yes" to that, I will then never raise another objection to the use of "Kaiser Basileios" in this article.

I will also resign from the Constabulary, effective immediately, and also withdraw completely from Citizendium, hoping that somewhere I will find a wiki where both scholarship and common sense are respected. Hayford Peirce 01:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite embarrassed, Hayford. I think it's a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. And there are a lot of trees. Ro Thorpe 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ro, I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I'm seeing antagonistic responses to what I'd consider ordinary give-and-take in the context of improving an article. To me, that's acceptance of a newbie. I know I'm working with several other new people and the focus is the content of their contributions, not personalities.
In the context of both royalty and food, someone once suggested that the heir to a Tsar should be a Tsardine. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant: I am seeing the same antagonistic responses, and many other things; I should also have noticed the Byzantine Kaiser. Ro Thorpe 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
While searching for the Tsar definitions on Wikipedia I found this final tidbit:
German history and antecedents of the title
The Holy Roman Emperors (962–1806) called themselves Kaiser,[citation needed] combining the imperial title with that of Roman King (assumed by the designated heir before the imperial coronation); they saw their rule as a continuation of that of the Roman Emperors and used the title derived from "Caesar" to reflect their supposed heritage.[citation needed]
So the correct term is Kaiser Basileios based on that fact.
We also elect to call monarchs by their chosen national attributions. For example we have King George or Queen Elizabeth. We do not have Emperor George or Empress Queen Elizabeth (although I do believe at one time Queen Victoria could have been called an Empress since part of her royal title was Empress of India). If the Germans choose to call Basileios Kaiser so be it. That's what several independent sources called him. See: or or or this page translated gives a brief history of the kaiser: We also use the term Tzar or Tzarina when discussing Russian rulers. So what's different than calling Basileios Kaiser? Not much. It is accepted practice to call the country's ruler by their chosen title whether it be King George or Kaiser Basileios. By-the-way the term is Tsarevich for a male royal heir to the throne. Have I done enough research to document this subject or is my research lacking?Mary Ash 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Resignation is not something I can advise you on. I am too close to the subject. I would encourage you to think about the situation we are in. Every article I have contributed here has been discounted based on 1) Not doing the references correctly or 2) Poor research. Thanks to Matt I used a reference generator and did a reasonable job getting that done. As to poor research: I supplied numerous independent resources to back up this article. The article is now up to 10 references. Look at your most recent Croque Monsieur article and it has, I believe, four references. Of those references two are duplicated. Some how my article concerning the schnitzel is far out sourced and better documented than your sandwich article. I didn't start writing over your article, or complain about the references, as this is a wiki where everyone is supposed to respect each other and work together. Some how my visit to Citizendium has been far from that. The Reuben sandwich article is now featured on Rational Wiki for CZ's current serious interest in whether that article is referenced enough. I suspect Citizendium looks kind of silly. I am biased though I can not seriously evaluate this. The one thing I do know is that Matt was correct about me being a nice person. I am a nice person who is willing to work with nice people. Has that happened? I don't know. Mary Ash 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the important thing, Mary, is that the article is looking very good. I know you have taken a lot of critique, but it has led to a better article - and well sourced! And, it appears that you have managed to have the most collaboration as anyone on the wiki with your articles. I'd say that is a good sign. I'm thinking they like you :), but then I do tend to be an eternal optimist. If I had it my way, every article would have exactly this kind of collaboration! I do like it when we talk to each other rather than at each other. D. Matt Innis 02:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am quite aware that the male heir to a Tsar, as with Alexei, last of the Romanovs, was quite properly styled Tsarevitch. Humor needs to be a two-way street.
Why should we care if Rational Wiki does or does not pick up an article of ours? "I didn't start writing over your article, or complain about the references, as this is a wiki where everyone is supposed to respect each other and work together." But changing is exactly what we want at CZ. Sounds like your idea of "nice" is permitting ownership. Now, if you want to check some of my sourcing -- and, I will admit, these are areas where I think I'm accepted as having specific expertise and experience -- look at Wars of Vietnam, intelligence cycle management, extrajudicial detention, restructuring of the United States Army, intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration, Routing Policy Specification Language. Look at collaboration, including article spinoffs, starting at vasculitis. Indeed, look at an approved article such as Domain Name Service, and the amount of discussion.
Unfortunately, "Have I done enough research to document this subject or is my research lacking?" comes across as "have you quit beating your wife?" I shall, however, answer. As has been mentioned by several people, Wikipedia is not an acceptable source &mdash especially when the key points in the WP quote are tagged with citation needed.
There is some language mixing going on here. "Basileos" is Latinate; "Basil" would be the English, and quite possibly German. One reference [1], which is at the level of bibliography, doesn't settle it: it gives "kaiser" in the context of a title of a contemporary German translation: Historike diegesis tou viou kai ton praxeon Vasileiou tou aoidimou Vasileos. Book 5. (not sure of the language here); German trans as. Vom Bauernhof auf den Kaiserthron : Leben des Kaisers Basileios I., des Begrunders der Makedonischen Dynastie. In other words, "kaiser" there may simply be the German for "emperor", not what Basileos called himself.
Other references do not seem to use any title for the Basils: Bury, J. B. (John Bagnell), A history of the later Roman Empire, a supplement containing the emperors from Basil II to Isaac Komnenos (A.D. 976-1057), and other essays on Byzantine history, ( Chicago : Ares Publishers, 1974; original pub 19??) --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am confused why the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires are being interchanged here. The HRE was based on the western provinces of the real Roman Empire, while the Byzantine was on the East. They aren't the same. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm including a page link to a history of the Kaiser Basilieos. See: The text here is excerpted from the link page "During an expedition against the Arabs, Basil convinced Michael III that his uncle Bardas coveted the throne, and murdered Bardas with Michael's approval on April 21, 866. Now Basil became the leading personality at court and was invested in the now vacant dignity of kaisar (Caesar), before being crowned co-emperor on May 26. This promotion may have included Basil's adoption by Michael III, himself a much younger man. As Michael III started to favor another courtier, Basil decided that his position was being undermined and preempted events by organizing the assassination of Michael on the night of September 23/24, 867." So the sources calling him kaiser were correct. Basil or Basilieos was indeed called a Kaiser.

I'm having a terrible time with the wifi connection tonight as it keeps giving out. Basil or Basilieos are both correct names for the emperor or kaiser. It depends if you want to use the English name or the Greek name. He was born of Armenian parents and knew Armenian as his primary language followed by Greek. I think I've researched this subject enough to know that Basil, as that's easier to spell, did assume the role of kaiser (caesar) and was coronated (sp?) as and emperor. If the Austrians and Germans choose to call him kaiser, and he assumed the role of kaiser then it's safe to write Kaiser Basil. I do believe my extensive research has proven this out. The neat thing is I learned something new too. I've also included this information in the exlinks for this article.Mary Ash 03:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, Mary, we do not accept Wikipedia as a source. Now, if the statement you quote in that article had a citation, we could check it -- but there is no citation in that paragraph.
At CZ, with the real name policy, if there's a question about the provenance of information, someone can be found to be responsible for it. That is not the case at WP.
I have, however, offered a specific source that shows "kaiser" may have been used only in German translation of Emperor, and no other titles. Now, do I think it proves what he was called? No. I would want to do more checking, and, while I took German and Latin forty-plus years ago, I don't remember much.
There is an immense amount of argument here for what seems a relatively trivial point, but it seems very important for you to be right. I will defend my points, but I will either come back with analysis or reputable sourcing, or will variously remove the material in question or accept a correction. While I am expert in insurgencies, for example, I discovered I simply did not know enough detail about the Irish Republican Army, and moved the article to my userspace until Mal McKee could do the primary work and I could support. No ego involved. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


I am not the one who called the references into question. An admin did. I have submitted the following German texts for your review:

Papst Hadrian II., zu erreichen besessen von dem gleichen Stolz und Ehrgeiz wie sein Vorgänger, ausgebeutet ein psychologisches Moment in Ost-Angelegenheiten zu dem, was Papst Nikolaus konnte es nicht. Emperor Basil, who was refused Holy Communion by Photius because he murdered his foster father, Emperor Michael, in 867 deposed Photius from his throne and brought back Ignatius. Kaiser Basil, der Photius Heilige Kommunion verweigert wurde, weil er vom Thron ermordet seinen Ziehvater, Michael Kaiser, im Jahre 867 von seinem gestürzten Photius und Ignatius

English translation:

Papst Hadrian II., zu erreichen besessen von dem gleichen Stolz und Ehrgeiz wie sein Vorgänger, ausgebeutet ein psychologisches Moment in Ost-Angelegenheiten zu dem, was Papst Nikolaus konnte es nicht. Emperor Basil, who was refused Holy Communion by Photius because he murdered his foster father, Emperor Michael, in 867 deposed Photius from his throne and brought back Ignatius. Kaiser Basil, der Photius Heilige Kommunion verweigert wurde, weil er vom Thron ermordet seinen Ziehvater, Michael Kaiser, im Jahre 867 von seinem gestürzten Photius und Ignatius zurückgebracht. Pope Adrian II took advantage of this situation and demanded from Basil the condemnation of

Naked URLs are not sources

"Leo was born, on September 19, 866, to Eudokia Ingerina who at the time was the wife of the Caesar, Basil the Macedonian, and also the mistress of the Emperor Michael III. While Basil acknowledged Leo as his son, his later treatment of Leo was such as to suggest that Leo was Michael's son. Leo was Basil's second oldest son.

A year later, in 867, Michael was assassinated by Basil who then succeeded as Emperor Basil I. In 870, Basil placed Leo in the line of succession after his older half brother Constantine. Leo was educated by Patriarch Photius and developed into more of a scholar than a warrior. With the death of Constantine in 879, Leo became the direct heir to the throne. However, Leo and his father hated each other, to the point that Basil almost had Leo blinded as a teenager. On August 29, 886, Leo came to the throne when Basil died after an accident while hunting. Basil on his death bed claimed the accident was an assassination attempt in which Leo possibly was involved."

On Michael's orders, he divorced his wife Maria and married Eudokia Ingerina, Michael's favorite mistress in around 865. It was commonly believed that Leo VI, Basil's successor and reputed son, was really the son of Michael. Although Basil seems to have shared this belief (and hated Leo), the subsequent promotion of Basil to Caesar and then co-emperor provided the child with a legitimate and imperial parent and secured his succession to the throne.

I think this should establish that the term Caesar was used in reference to Basil 1 also known as Basileios. The term Caesar was used in reference during this time period as another word for emperor. Mary Ash 05:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First, we have no admins

CZ does not, in any general way, have Admins. We have Authors, Editors, and Constables. It does hurt your argument when you use improper terminology for the people here.

Second, it's completely plausible that the German translations would use "kaiser" for "emperor". The important thing is what Basil called himself in his own language. Could it be, perhaps, the Caesar, Basil the Macedonian?

Third, Wapedia is a Wikipedia clone. Why do you keep citing Wikipedia?

You have not, in any way, responded to examples of articles that have had much more work on references and, at times, much harder criticism. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about persecution and how nasty everyone is to you. Of course, it's all our fault, and we don't listen but you do. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ignore sourced articles. I provided links to several books and a couple other wikis, all sourced, stating the same information. The preponderance of the evidence, and thorough research, shows the term Kaiser being used in reference to emperor for Basil the First.
For your review:
Both sources plus the Wakapdia articles are SOURCED. Go check the links and you'll see what I mean.
The call was for research and I have done so. An admin said the article lacked research well now you have it. More so than the Reuben sandwich or the Croque Monsieur. The article is gone beyond stub and should be approved on research and historical merit alone. I've done my homework. Goodnight. Mary Ash 06:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Admin = constables. A constable claimed I did poor research and in fact I did not.
By-the-way a good constable (admin) should teach not criticize newbies like me. I can truly think of one constable who has tried to help and that was Matt. Mary Ash 06:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Local custom seems to state the term Kaiser was used in reference to Caesar which also meant emperor. If you check the links and read the information post it clearly states that Basil was known as Kaiser Basil or Emperor Basil. Mary Ash 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hayford was not acting as a Constable, but as a very experienced Author. I am utterly amazed how certain you are that your research is usually correct and by CZ standards, when you've had little experience with them. You seem to want to set the standards for Constables: "By-the-way a good constable (admin) should teach not criticize newbies like me." If anything, that's an Editor job, but you didn't like it when Engineering Editors did it. Are you sure you understand the Approval process to say it should now be approved?
The relevant text in WP: Basil I was not sourced. There's also substantial confusion between Holy Roman and Byzantine Empires. You have not yet addressed the point that if a German translation uses "kaiser" for "emperor", it says nothing about what the individual was called in his own language.
It really is important that you understand CZ mechanisms. You suggest the article be approved, which is usually a lengthy process. Most importantly, there are no active Food Science Editors, so there's no one to nominate it for approval. I don't remember if it's in the History workgroup or not, but, if I were ruling as a History editor, I'd question if the Basil material was (1) important enough and (2) well enough sourced for an approved articles.
So, it seems, you like the constable that agrees with one and accuse the other of harassment. You regularly tell everyone how CZ should change, but, if you haven't noticed, we are about to go into Charter ratification. Want to change some things? Run for the Editorial Council. Otherwise, no matter how much you demand, things won't change because no one has the authority to make major at present. Constables and Editors do have certain authorities, such as Editors being able to rule WP and Wapedia are not acceptable references. End of discussion pending an appeal, if you can set one up.
Mary, I am not being sarcastic to say there is a style here, which may or may not fit you. I would suggest, though, since it won't change in the near term, you do less attacking and more trying to use sincere guidance. I would encourage you to stop taking article-specific matters to talk pages, and, especially as you did with Hayford and myself, posting character development and Christian links --Howard C. Berkowitz 06:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. Kaiser is just German for emperor. What we call emperors they call Kaisers.
  2. The title caesar was used from the time of Diocletian for the designated successor to the throne, not the reigning emperor.
Peter Jackson 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary - you have just cited a website which you say shows use of both emperor and kaiser. That website is in English, and the word emperor is English. However when that site uses the word kaiser it is part of a German book title, "Eine unbeachtete Quelle über die Abstammung des Kaisers Basilios I., des Mazedoniers". So in German it may be kaiser but, as the website you have provided clearly shows, in English it is emperor. And this is the English version of Citizendium, so of course we use the English word. The website you have referenced simply does not use the word kaiser in English. The second website you reference does not use the word kaiser at all. Even if it did, being a Wiki based site, it is useless to reference it. You say that site is well cited (although I don't see how that matters since the word kaiser is not mentioned) but then it is up to you to evaluate the sources they used and present those - encyclopedias do not cite other encyclopedias, they cite sources, and so must you. Please consider listening to the advice of all the other members of Citizendium on how to properly cite information as it leaves much less room for disagreement. David Finn 12:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter - you have altered the article text to say "Kaiser"(sic!, Kaiser is German for emperor), and you reference this assertion to a website that describes German food for Americans. I do not think that this website is an authority on Byzantine history. Do you have a better source to back up this assertion? There certainly seems to be many sources that use the word emperor in English, and Kaiser in German. I am not sure that "the complete online guide to German food in America" is such an authority on Byzantine history that it is necessary to reproduce their use of the word 'kaiser' with the 'sic' note afterwards as we can easily replace this reference by many that use the term emperor, the English version of kaiser. David Finn 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The who we are page of that website casts further doubt on the idea that they are authoritative enough on matters of history (or, in fact, anything at all) to reproduce their words with a 'sic' qualification. David Finn 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
David, my intention is not to defend the story. On the contrary, all I have tried to do is to express as clearly as possible that this a story that is not true. The "sic" is meant to indicate that the story is told (on English speaking websites) using "Kaiser". It is meant as a citation, not as historical item. As I argued in the next section, a legend should be retold, unmodified, as it is told in the source. "Improving" it would only make it more credible. If you think that the "sic" is misleading, then we should try to do it differently, but I think that the "Kaiser" should stay, not because it is correct, but because it is part of the story. --Peter Schmitt 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point, however while the act of putting golden breadcrumbs on food may be legend, the person they refer to in the legend is not - he is a real person, with a title already defined in English. I do not think there is any doubt that the legend refers to the real emperor, but of course there is doubt that the legend of the golden breadcrumbs is true.
My point is that the only source we have referenced for this legend is a small website about German foodstuffs. In the retelling of legends, we have no way to say that this website is authoritative. They must have read this story somewhere and that is the source we should be presenting - not the assertion of an amateur food fansite.
Let me put it another way - you say the legend should be retold as in the source, yet we have picked an unreliable source of historic fact to be that source. I think our goal should be to look for the source the food fansite used. Attributing a story, word for word, to a site requires that that site have some degree of authority as to the details of the story, and so far I see nothing that would identify as an authoritative source.
We have no way of knowing how this site has treated the source they used, for it is not presented. That site has no credentials that would lead us to trust that it has reproduced the story accurately, or that they might understand the nuances of emperor vs kaiser, so really I am not sure at all that we should even be using that website as a source on Citizendium, unless it is for recipes. David Finn 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ps, one of the sources used to support that passage is simply a mirror of the page - I will remove that now (they both use the same words, so if you like you can replace the one I leave behind with the one I removed). Note also that the remaining source, apart from germanfoodguide, is a translation from German by Google translate which is highly likely to use kaiser instead of emperor, although it must be said that it uses neither. David Finn 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why all this mess and quarrel?

I am not going to read all the arguments which have piled up while I slept :-) It really is completely irrelevant for this article whether the title of Basileios was Kaiser or Emplorer (most likely something else in Greek, anyway). This is not a historical article about him.

This is only a legend -- an incorrect legend -- told in connection with the origin of (Wiener) schnitzel. The sources only prove that such a legend exists, not that it is true. But the sources (also the English sources) use the term "Kaiser" and thus it is quite reasonable to include it here, too.

What really is known about the origin of the Wiener schnitzel has still to be researched first and then included in an article Wiener Schnitzel.

--Peter Schmitt 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Basileios (βασίλειος) is the Greek word for "king". --Daniel Mietchen 11:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Brockhaus distinguisches "Basileus" (king) and two rulers named "Basileios". Still, this does not need to concern us here. --Peter Schmitt 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. This is getting very far afield of the subject, and I am still interested in the variations of schnitzel. Doesn't one require a fried egg on top?
The Basileus/Basileios/Basil and Emperor/Kaiser distinctions are interesting and might be the basis of a different article focused on the issues of forms of address for monarchs in the Byzantine Empire -- although I'm now confused about the relationship to the Holy Roman Emperor. Does the potential of adding the gold legend to this article really justify the emotions and the divergence from food? Were I a relevant Editor, I might well rule that the golden ruler issue is at least temporarily locked, so the food issues can progress.
Put some of these open issues in Related Articles, as long as you also put chicken fried steak there.Howard C. Berkowitz 14:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The arguing started when Hayford called my contributions this:

"No one in the 9th century was called a "Kaiser". Also, the story itself sounds nonsensical -- it definitely needs a footnote authenticating this assertion. Hayford Peirce 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (undent)About what are you talking, Hayford? It seems I am missing something. --Peter Schmitt 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

About this statement: "Kaiser Basileios (867 to 886 AD) liked eating his meat covered in gold which eventually lead to cutlets being cooked in bread crumbs. The bread crumbs were substituted to represent the gold leaf covered meat as a cost saving measure." Are you telling me that a byzantine emperor was called "Kaiser"? And that he ate his schnitel covered in gold? If so, please give me a reputable source for this statement. Hayford Peirce 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"
Hayford, who is a constable, should have searched the two independent references (and footnoted) I included and done a bit more research before calling my research nonsensical. The references were footnoted thanks to the Wiki reference tool that Matt showed me how to use. Hayford didn't check the references. There are now numerous references showing the term Kaiser was used way back when. As to the gold leaf meant, there are three independent references stating this could be true. Somehow my research far outshines Hayford's Croque Monsieur article and I never, ever called his article nonsensical.Mary Ash 15:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Mary, you are again not understanding the CZ roles. I mentioned Hayford is a constable, but that was to establish his knowledge of CZ procedures. He is also a prolific author.
Nevertheless, there is a sharp separation between the official roles of Constables and Editors. It is the role of a relevant Editor to question or check facts, not of a Constable -- Hayford was doing so as an Author, which is perfectly permissible. Constables are the experts on user behavior, but fact checking is not their role unless something is blatant and drifts into behavior. We don't have any active Food Sciences Editors. Croque-monsieur, I believe, was also put into the History Workgroup, and I, and others, am History Editors.
Noting it's not "Hayford's article" but a collaborative one, your comment about "my research far outshines Hayford's Croque Monsieur article" comes vary close to the professionalism rules and a {{nocomplaints}} removal of your comments by a neutral Constable. I would encourage you, hoping I don't embarrass him, to look at David Finn's comments: he has been here only a few weeks longer than you, and is collaborating without complaint.
Several people have now observed that the kaiser etymology is beyond reasonable scope for this article. If I were to rule as a History Editor, I would say you can't interchange the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, there are not three independant references stating the story is true. There are two references (the third being a mirror) and the two that remain are not what we might call reliable historical sources. That makes two independant, yet highly questionable, sources, and none that have any authority to speak about history. David Finn 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is another misconception, Mary. The number of references is irrelevant. It is the quality of the references that counts. A single reliable reference is sufficient while a hundred references going back to the same incorrect source is completely useless. --Peter Schmitt 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymological Citations for the Meaning of Kaiser

Add referenced sections concerning the meaning and roots of the word Kaiser. Used the Oxford Dictionary and Online Etymology Discretionary as sources. Cited references in document. Mary Ash 14:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, this is not the article about kaisers - extended etymology sections on the word kaiser are inappropriate in an article about food. Please consider starting an article about kaisers if that is your wish. David Finn 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The references were included, with an explanation, as Hayford called into question whether the term was used in reference to the topic of making a schnitzel. The explanation clearly states the term Kaiser was used back then and adds a historical perspective to the food history of the schnitzel Mary Ash 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Rolled back David's edits for the reasons given above.
Mary, you are now edit warring to insert unreliable sources, including mirrors of the same exact words, into an article despite authors, editors and constables telling you it should not be done that way. In addition you are edit warring to have an etymology section about the word kaiser as the third paragraph in an article about a food item. I will not contribute to the war except to note that I shall refer the matter to a constable for an opinion on your actions. David Finn 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I managed to figure out how to add the historical section as part of the whole section. I originally created the etymological section so I would not interfere with any other edits. I added to the article and did not remove any text. I am not sure how adding referenced information to add historical perspective deserves an "edit" warning whatever that means. I added to the article and did not remove any text. The additions were made after Hayford so clearly said more verifiable references were needed. I also made the edits with an explanation on the talk page. Mary Ash 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Twice Removed Etymological References For Hayford Who Said The Term Kaiser Was Not Used

Below is the information removed from the article I added. This was done this morning. See below:

Of historical note, etymological sources indicate the term Kaiser was used by all Germanic and Slavic peoples in reference to all Roman emperors. "from Bavarian and Austrian spelling of M.H.G. keisar, from O.H.G. keisar "emperor," an early borrowing of L. cognomen Caesar (q.v.). The Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to have called all Roman emperors "caesar" (cf. O.E. casere, O.N. keisari). Said to be the earliest Latin loan word in Germanic."[1] [2] [3][4][5]

  • Citations Below for Hayford and anyone else to read:

Mary Ash 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Constable comment

constable comment) Just to clarify, every Citizen on this page is acting in the capacity of an author as there are no editors for the Food Sciences Workgroup. I am the only Citizen acting as a constable on this page as Hayford is also authoring. I am here to keep the behavior professional and cannot make determinations about content and leave it to you all to work out those details. You can seek to get some editorial guidance through the EiC and Editorial Council, but neither are functioning well at this point. I would suggest (meaning that you don't have to listen to this suggestions) that you move on and wait until we do have a method to settle content disputes such as this one before someone gets unprofessional and then I have to act on a constable level. Does that help? D. Matt Innis 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt! I am tired and a bit grumpy after spending most of yesterday trying to justify my nonsensical research. Have a lovely day!Mary Ash 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Without taking a side in the current discussion, I'm going to propose a change in the structure of the article. The current structure goes: Origin Legends, Ingredients, Similar Dishes. I believe that the Ingredients headline is more central to the article than the Origin Legends headline, and as such should go before it. The structure should therefore be: Ingredients, Origin Legends, Similar Dishes. This is because in my opinion, How to make a schnitzel?, Whatever goes into a schnitzel?, and What is a schnitzel called when there is no bread? are more relevant questions than Who ate the first schnitzel?. Johan A. Förberg 15:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC); 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The article lacks structure. There has to be a more systematic list of schnitzel dishes (and there names) than in the ingredients and similar dishes section. But perhaps this should be a catalog instead? --Peter Schmitt 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
To Howard: With a fried egg it is a Holstein schnitzel (schnitzel à la Holstein). --Peter Schmitt 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is a chicken fried steak a Texas Schnitzel? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Howard a chicken fried steak from Texas could be considered a variation of the schnitzel. Lots of German Americans live in Texas and they adapted their cultural foods to their region. I don't have any sources to back this up, as of now, but I have read about it. Also, I use chicken instead of veal to make schnitzel as 1) It's very hard (well impossible) to find here and 2) If found it is very expensive. So this is another case of cultural adaption. Mary Ash 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all the people who have made reason prevail!

A million words ago, all I wanted was the removal of the word "kaiser" and a note that the story of the gold-eating emperor was a charming legend. This could have been done in 30 seconds. As three or four people, mostly Europeans, have now pointed out, whatever they were speaking at the court of the 9th-century Byzantine empire, headquartered in Constantinople, it would not have been German. And that the Holy Roman Empire, where Germanic languages *were* in large part spoken, was not the same as the Byzantine empire far to the east. So then: two distinct empires; two sets of emperors; at least two different languages. And a charming story about the origin of a breaded piece of meat.

And thanks to the people who reorganized the structure of the article itself! Hayford Peirce 16:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you're not quittin', lol! D. Matt Innis 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to correct you, Hayford: Since this page has only about 65000 characters, your estimated number of words is not realistic. Sorry ... :-) --Peter Schmitt 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It sure seemed like a million words when I struggled to read them all first thing this morning! Hayford Peirce 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And it seems to have been forgotten the following information given:

"Of historical note, etymological sources indicate the term Kaiser was used by all Germanic and Slavic peoples in reference to all Roman emperors. "from Bavarian and Austrian spelling of M.H.G. keisar, from O.H.G. keisar "emperor," an early borrowing of L. cognomen Caesar (q.v.). The Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to have called all Roman emperors "caesar" (cf. O.E. casere, O.N. keisari). Said to be the earliest Latin loan word in Germanic."[1] [2] [3][4][5] "

The Bavarian and Austrian peoples did indeed refer to nobility as Kaiser. This was also referenced out by three independent sources. Two English sources and one German source. memory is feeble.Mary Ash 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have only just looked at this article, prompted by Hayford's resignation, and I have to say that the historical arguments here are plainly absurd. In the Greco-Roman Empire (which in the East was known only as the Roman Empire) the head of the Empire was known as the Vassilias -- Greek for king, usually translated in this context as Emperor. It is not correct to say that because Germans used their own word --Kaiser -- or other languages, theirs -- that those were his titles. It is acceptable to use the English word Emperor, by academic convention. I also note that Mary seems to be very confused about which emperor Vassilis is involved here: the article's text refers to Vassilis I and in the discussion she gives the dates for Vassilis II.
Of course, we cannot expect people to be expert on things such as the complex history of Byzantium. However, it is clear to me that a confrontational approach was followed here, with a consequent failure to co-operate and establish the facts. In the end, it seems that Hayford was quite correct in his assertions; perhaps others should note that, and reconsider their behaviour in this affair. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the end product is looking promising and many heads were better than one. D. Matt Innis 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture placement

I had earlier moved the uncooked cutlet image from right to left with a brief explanation in the subject line, saying that I thought it looked better there. Mary has now moved it back with, as usual, no explanation as to why.

I am leaving it there for the moment, but personally think that all articles with more than one image benefit from having them descending the page in the right/left/right/left order. Or vice versa. That's a personal opinion, of course, but I do think that staggering them that way is easier on the eyes. Or more pleasing to the mind's eye. Any other thoughts on this subject? Hayford Peirce 23:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the placement, but the legend of your image states "in Germany it is frequently accompanied by apple sauce". I think this is a myth: Apple sauce is quite popular in Germany for similar dishes (e.g. potato pancake) but I have never seen it being served with schnitzel. --Daniel Mietchen 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
How strange. Years ago, in the 50s and 60s, whenever I had a schnitzel they always brought a big serving bowl of apple sauce. This was in sort of middle-class bistros or brasseries. If I'm obviously wrong about it, then we should rewrite it. Hayford Peirce 00:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I already said so. Perhaps "apple sauce" is the "Apfelkren" accompanying beef? --Peter Schmitt 00:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Have no idea -- I never had beef in Germany. I sailed first class on the Bremen from England to NYC in 1968 and sure ate a lot of wonderful food but, I think, never had schnitzel, so I don't know what they did. Hayford Peirce 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is about the international idea of schnitzel. Thus everything -- well, almost everything -- is allowed as long as it is not described as Austrian, original, or similar. --Peter Schmitt 14:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I left no photo placement notification as I did not know that was required. As to applesauce: I have never seen applesauce served with schnitzel. It is usually serves with potato pancakes for example. In the future, I will notify anyone and everyone of any photo changes.Mary Ash 15:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


From my (English) dictionary I got the impression that "escalope" is an imported word (like "schnitzel" is) and thus need not be classified as French. For instance, this dictionary described Wiener schnitzel as "A large thin escalope of veal, coated in egg and crumbs, fried, and traditionally served with a garnish." (and escalope as "a thin slice of meat, usually veal, coated with egg and breadcrumbs, fried, and served with a rich sauce." I wonder about the "rich sauce" ...) --Peter Schmitt 09:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is much confusion about the terms, plus "scallops", "scallopini", and "cutlets". It would be madness to try to sort them all out, but maybe a mention could be made of the fact that many terms, most of them loosely defined, are used. As Howard says somewhere, a so-called "chicken-fried steak" is also actually a schnitzel -- with a flat piece of pounded cheap beef, usually, being used. Hayford Peirce 16:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But now that I think of it, in NO American restaurant except one that was *clearly* called a French restaurant, would the word "escalope" be used, nor is it used in even up-scale meat markets. So I think we ought make clear in the text that the *French* word for the exact same dish is escalope. Ie, in a restaurant in France, it is escalope de veau a la milanaise, etc. Hayford Peirce 16:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is an AE-versus-BE word. As I said, the dictionary I cited was British (sorry, I used English: Collins English). --Peter Schmitt 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkey schnitzel

Is cheating with turkey indeed common enough to be mentioned here? I have turned the link to a "turkey recipe" into a comment: It is a link to a Slovenian-English dictionary of food terms, hardly appropriate here. --Peter Schmitt 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it constitutes a significant trend, I can't say, but there is quite a bit of substitution of turkey for veal in U.S. cooking. For some, it's a protest about the way veal animals are raised, and for others, it's simply a matter of cost. I've long found turkey cutlets a quite acceptable substitute in daily cooking. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I dunno if it's common enough to warrant a mention. Thirty years ago I *did* see an article (NYT, IHT?) about unscrupulous restaurateurs using turkey instead of veal to fool their customers. A year or so later I attended a science-fiction convention in which the grand ballroom dinner featured breaded veal cutlets -- sure enough, it was really turkey. I'm trying to find an actual quotation. But times have changed -- now people (and restaurants) are *proud* of serving turkey, so now it's probably advertised as such rather than being surreptitious. Hayford Peirce 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hayford: Then it can be included as a historical remark. Howard: Are turkeys treated better? --Peter Schmitt 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(thinks about the difference between wild and domestic turkeys) I think the answer is yes. Domestic turkeys are not tightly caged and receive a normal diet, not a deficient one intended to whiten the meat. In domesticating the bird, the brain seems to have fallen out; there is a tale of a Texas town, one of the major turkey producers, that annually parades the turkey flocks down the main street.
Their greatest fear is that it will rain. If it rains, the turkeys are apt to raise their heads and open their mouths for a drink, but then forget their mouth is open and drown. I don't care if it's true or not, as it's a great story -- and might be true. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In Austria you can buy veal from small (non-industrial) farmers, and Biofleisch (organic meat) raised under controlled conditions. --Peter Schmitt 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

veal Orloff

I have removed some of the description of the veal Orloff, as this is clearly more of a roasted dish than a simple pan-fried schnitzel, which is what the rest of the article is about. Veal Orloff, however, deserves a separate article of its own. There are two basic ways of doing it:

  • An escalope version, as described in this article: a cooked, breaded cutlet, then covered (up to a point, NOT smothered) with soubise, then quickly browned under a broiler. (And, even more frequently, the veal is NOT breaded first.)
  • A much more elaborate version as described in the recipe that I removed; also a similar dish as prepared by Julia Child in which an entire large piece of veal is first braised, then cooled, then sliced, then stuffed with the soubise, then put back in the oven to brown. I think I have some pictures from the last time that I made it. And I'll maybe start an article. It's a *wonderful* dish and I love it -- but it's a lot of time to cook! Hayford Peirce 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"cutlets" and "leg of veal"

Peter, there's confusion here, at least in English. At least to my understanding of it, many, many "veal cutlets" do come from the leg. There are, of course, other parts of a calf that can be cut as to yield "cutlets", but I'm certain that no American who is paying a fortune for a small piece of thin veal that can be turned into a schnitzel is telling his butcher that it has to come from the leg! If you insist, we can probably add the "leg" part back in one way or another, but let's not get the situation confused by comparing it to "cutlets"! Hayford Peirce 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. definition of kaiser from Oxford Dictionaries Online. Retrieved on 2010-08-09.
  2. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on 2010-08-09.