Talk:Perpetual stew

"Ingredients" Section only has one sentence & Medieval perpetual stew hoax

To take everyone's minds off the Bushwick perpetual stew, I noticed that the "Ingredients" Section near the end of the article contains only one sentence. In my opinion, I think it'd be better if we take that sentence and put it in the bottom of the lead.

On top of this, I saw on the talk page some claims that the whole concept of medieval perpetual stews was fabricated in the 70s. Such accusations (even if only accusations) sound like something that should be mentioned in the actual article itself. I'd like to hear some thoughts on if these things should be implemented. Horizon206 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with moving the ingredients section. I feel that definitely having it in the top section would be much cleaner, since a stew in general can really have anything. Also I guess we could add something about the concept being fabricated? If there's sources then I'd say definitely. Pacamah (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah and @Horizon206. So I did some digging, and I found this source which contests the historical accuracy of perpetual stew: [1]

Do we think that this merits inclusion in the article? Please advise or just be bold and add it in yourself.

Bonus note: That source raises some questions about the safety of eating perpetual stew, which are reinforced by this source:[2]. This could also be added. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into these and possibly add it. When I do, feel free to edit it as this is my first time I edited Wikipedia beyond grammatical fixes and translations. Horizon206 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources for possible intergration

Hi All,

So I've found some sources that could possibly be starting points for improvements to the article.

https://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1020358 - a student magazine calling for a perpetual stew to be established at their university? Not sure if people feel this is worthy of inclusion, but interesting nevertheless.

https://recipes.howstuffworks.com/perpetual-stew.htm - this makes some claims about the practice's history that aren't in the article? I haven't been able to verify, so I'd appreciate the input of others. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider howstuffworks.com a reliable source. With just a few minutes checkign the site I found this lovely example: this comprehensive article will equip you with the knowledge to decipher the messages from the divine realm and harness the power of this auspicious number to manifest abundance, success, and personal growth. [3] Alsee (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Grand dictionnaire de cuisine by Alexandre Dumas published 1873 is the source cited by the New York Times. It would be great to cite the 1873 book directly. Unfortunately I can't read French. It also appears to be over 1200 pages so I won't even attempt digging into it using an online translator. Hopefully someone who reads French can jump in and find the relevant content in this book.

Link to online viewable copy of the book: https://archive.org/details/legranddictionn00dumagoog/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater

Handy prefilled ref for this source: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Dumas |first1=Alexandre |title=Grand dictionnaire de cuisine |date=1873 |publisher=Paris : A. Lemerre |url=https://archive.org/details/legranddictionn00dumagoog/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater}}</ref>

Alsee (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned as being fake on this radio programme

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qd8x Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Update now that Annie Rauwerda has an article

@Chive Cream Cheese, Pacamah, Jpgordon, Bedivere, Horizon206, Tomorrow and tomorrow, Rhododendrites, Jpgordon, Theleekycauldron, Lukewarmbeer, Cpotisch, and Voorts: (apologies if I missed anyone) A lot of the arguments to not include Annie Rauwerda came to her not having an article of her own. She now has an article. I added her name with a link to the relevant area and added photos of the two stews mentioned (before I even saw there had been prior discussion). I was reverted by Bedivere here. I think given the existence of the article, the only path that follows the emphasis from sources and Wikipedia's standard of what is WP:DUE and what should be linked is to include her name and the freely available photos. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think a 2-month stew is perpetual, so I still don't think the mention should be in the article at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she should even have an article, but I will not bother nominating the article for deletion. There sure are some infuriating fanboys. I don't need any more toxicity in my life. Bedivere (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to follow sources and include free-to-use photos is not a sign of being a fanboy. I'd prefer you would WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think she's notable enough, but I've cut back on a lot of, as you would describe, fanboying. Details about her show, how the stew started, what ingredients there were, etc, are definitely not worthy of inclusion. Cpotisch (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's described as a "perpetual stew" by sources, not unlike the leek-and-rutabaga concotion that's slowly growing... other things in my fridge :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on that point: the lifetime of the perpetual stew is not relevant insofar as reliable sources refer to it as one. Given that it has ended and is thus unlikely to receive more coverage, I think the current weight given to the topic in this article is appropriate. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this edit I made, which also added a couple of photos of the mentioned perpetual stews and added a wikilink to Annie Rauwerda? Cerebral726 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine, especially considering the second photo is of two of the mentioned perpetual stews. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and I support re-adding it to the article. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that Annie Rauwerda's name should be included, as if she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article, her name is also probably notable enough to be included in a section of this article as well.

However, this is just my personal opinion, I'm not all that knowledgeable with all the criteria and guidelines of Wikipedia just yet. Furthermore, I wasn't all that involved in the initial discourse to begin with, and I do not intend to join this one any further. Horizon206 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with adding her given that she has her own article. I don't understand why to not link to her article, given that is essentially an extra step someone would have to go through if they were curious about who made the stew club and was responsible for caring about the soup itself.

To respond to some comments about whether the stew itself is perpetual, I think it qualifies as it is a stew that has items continuously added in. Even though it was only two months old, I find it distinctive enough from a master stock as it is not used to flavor other dishes, and the 2-month perpetual stew is a dish in and of itself. I guess it is a bit similar to hot pot in that it is a communal(-ish) soup/stew with different ingredients thrown in, and the combination of the broth and ingredients being the dish itself and therefore similar to a perpetual stew. However, hot pot isn't often stored to be used again, and as far as I can tell the perpetual stew was not used to cook the ingredients before eating immediately after as you would do in hot pot. I guess it could just be called a regular soup or stew, but I'd argue most people wouldn't think of a soup as a community-created meal.

Anyhow, perpetual stew or not, I don't see why not to add a link. It just makes it easier I feel. Pacamah (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully support the inclusion as well. Adding the link to Rauwerda's article contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic, thereby enhancing the overall value of the article. Linking directly to her page simplifies access to relevant information, which improves the reader experience. This approach aligns closely with Wikipedia's standards for including notable and verifiable content. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mathematical Model

Is there a source of this mathematical model section? Because as best I can tell, it's not correct.

After the first day, the amount of stew added to the pot should be $(1-p)$ times the original amount, which means all but the highest-order terms in the sum should have a $(1-p)$ multiplier, to give a sum formula of $\sum _{d=0}^{D-1}dp^{d}(p-1)\ +\ Dp^{D}$, which has a closed form that reduces to the ordinary geometric formula ${\frac {p(1-p^{D})}{1-p}}$.

This can be seen in another way, by treating the stuff with age $n$ as the subset of the stuff of age $n-1$ that was already there. The contribution of stuff with age $n+1$ contributes 1 more per part to the average than the stuff of age $n$, so the average age is $p+p^{2}+p^{3}+\ ...\ +p^{D}$ where the $i^{th}$ term represents the stuff with age at least $i$. 81.105.145.216 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the author of the math section was well intentioned, however another editor has removed^diff that section. I concur with that removal.

The content was unsourced and original research. It was also written in advanced mathematical jargon incomprehensible and useless for the expected audience of this article. For those reasons, I didn't bother trying to check whether the math was correct.

In short, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an accurate summary of what reliable sources write about a subject. I expect cookbooks and newspaper articles and books on the subject of Perpetual Stew typically consist of approximately 0% mathematics notation rigorously computing the limit of infinite summations. Therefore an "accurate summary" of those sources should consist of approximately 0% rigorous math notation and computation. Grin. Alsee (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)