" 

  
 == Gordon Ramsay - English? == 

 I think he should be removed from the list of English foodies. I think he's great but he is Scottish.    

 A list of English foodies has nothing really to do with English cuisine. A list of foodies (of any nationality) who cook and contribute to English cuisine is more appropriate, and would include Ramsay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 I have now made this edit, the original wording was ambiguous and indeed could be read to imply everyone on the list was English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 ==Rewrite required== 

 This article consists, as earlier editors have noted for the past 8 years or more, mainly of personal opinion (that's WP:POV and WP:OR for standards-lovers, and only a step off jokiness at that). Almost every section needs to be substantially rewritten, starting from published sources, with new citations. 

 The list of cooks probably needs to be hived off as a separate article, divided into centuries with far more weight to earlier times (WP:RECENTISM probably applies to much of the rest of the article also), and cited throughout. 

 Given the widespread lack of citations and of historical perspective, almost any degree of slash-and-burn editing would seem justified. The article currently favours a slightly nostalgic look at some mythical, mid 20th century period (avoiding the wars and the great depression) when everyone had a full English breakfast, ate a Sunday roast for lunch, and sat down to dainty Edwardian tea, before slipping out to the Dog and Duck for a swift pint. That rose-tinted picture is true neither of the historical past nor of the present. 

 I'd hesitate to suggest how to reshape this article, but an emphasis on actual periods of time would be a marked improvement. There might be 'Middle Ages', 'Early Modern', 'Enlightenment', 'Victorian era', 'Twentieth century', and perhaps even 'Twentyfirst century', though it may be a little soon for that last one. 

 As for what should come out (apart from everything that's uncited), 'Food establishments' seems out of place in the article, and it's hard to see why there are separate sections on 'Dessert' and 'Sweet dishes', or similarly on both 'Savoury course' and 'Savoury dishes'. However, if all the sections on (mythical era) foods, meals and dishes become subsections of 'Twentieth century' (perhaps in a subsidiary article), with uncited claims removed, then most of the problem will disappear.    

 ::The new historical approach is a a start but, Oh dear...there is so much missing. The nineteenth and Twentieth century sections are essentially records of cookery writing (and other media) , with no mention of  what people were actually eating. The medieval section needs to mention the peasant diet. Pre-medieval introductions by the Romans, etc, need to be mentioned. 16th century additions from the New World need to be mentioned, as does the effect of World War II on diet,. and the development of processed food in the twentieth century.  

 ::There is virtually no treatment of important dishes like Roasts, and Fish and chips. There is virtually no mention of regional specialities. I could go on.    

 ::: @: Glad to hear there's someone else interested in improving the article. Feel free to add some of these things, with suitable sources - Wikipedia hath no hands on earth but ours. I'm less sure about the material on cafes, tea rooms and so on - we could arguably remove all of that as it's only marginally about cuisine, more about food outlets: but if it is to be here, then it must be fully cited, using the {{cite web| title= |publisher= |accessdate=}} and similar templates. On roasts and fish-and-chips, their importance has been much exaggerated in people's imagination. Roasts were never of the importance some people imagine (certainly not in the Middle Ages, for instance); and fish-and-chips was a very late introduction from Europe, as the article states (""Panayi