Talk:Roast turkey/Archive 1

Roast turkey

Current talk page

1, 2

First talk page of the article which started as "Roast turkey" and was moved to "Roast turkey (American). The page later was moved to a Recipes subpage.

---

---

Mary, CZ articles are not written just for American readers

Imagine that you are, for example, a citizen of Sri Lanka, China, Croatia, Turkey (especially Turkey), Morocco, Peru, Iran, Malaysia or Ghana:

• What is Thanksgiving?
• What is a turkey ?
• What is a stuffed turkey ?
• What is stuffing ?
• What is defrosting ?
• What are leftovers ?
• What are degrees F ?
• What is a pound ?
• Who or what is the USDA ?

Mary, please remember that you are writing for a much wider audience than a small town in the desert area of Southern California. Just as one example, we are the only nation in the world that still uses the degrees F to measure temperature and pounds to measure weight. Also keep in mind that the are many, many people in the world who don't have access to frozen foods (and would not know what is meant by "defrosting") nor would they have access to grocery stores that sell "stuffing".

This article, as it now stands, is an excellent example of what is called an "ethnocentric" article ... and that is not good. Milton Beychok 02:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Milt for your insightful comments. I have asked Hayford to take a look at the article and he said he would. Also, I do realize the article was more US oriented but I haven't had time to go back to work on it. Today, was a family celebration so I've spent most the day cooking and cleaning. My thinking too is the article is about a roast turkey. Wouldn't it be wise to use links for stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie as they are served as side dishes with the roast turkey which the article is about. And as always this is a wiki where anyone can edit any article at any time. And this being Citizendium a Food Science editor will ultimately edit the article too. BTW I have celebrated Thanksgiving in Canada, which should be today Oct. 11, and they celebrate much the same as we do. And for another comment try watching Mr. Bean as he celebrates Thanksgiving in a very unique fashion.Mary Ash 02:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW I cook using farenheight not centrigrade therefore it is written that way. I can, and may, find the conversion charts but I am sure with your scientific background you could easily add that information. What do you think Milt?Mary Ash 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the context of a recipe it makes no sense to give centigrade values up to two digits after the comma when converting from Fahrenheit. This is pretending an accuracy that is not needed and not possible. --Peter Schmitt 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving and other matters

Milt I just checked and there is an active link to Thanksgiving which should cover the issue you addressed. There is also an active link for Christmas. I have added internal links to the side dishes so the links will explain each food item. As I wrote earlier the article is about Roast Turkey not Thanksgiving. Thanks!Mary Ash 03:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

move to a new title

I agree with Milt that the present article is far too much directed to the American audience. French people, after all, roast and eat turkeys, and they certainly don't do it on Thanksgiving. They also stuff them with chestnuts. Brits love them. I have Italian recipes for them. Mexicans roast them, then serve them with mole sauce. I won't say anything more about the article itself, but I think that by moving it to this new title 99.99% of the objections that Milt has raised will vanish. Hayford Peirce 04:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If the new title makes you happy...a roast turkey is a roast turkey. You insert the defrosted turkey in the oven and roast it. Before you roast it you have to defrost it. I suspect defrosting and roasting turkeys world round are done the same way.Mary Ash 04:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you never heard of fresh, unfrozen turkeys? They actually exist. Hayford Peirce 04:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article does include this information. In fact, I've cooked a few organic, fresh roast turkeys as my Dad is allergic to a lot of the preservatives found in frozen turkeys. The article does address how to defrost and roast fresh or frozen turkeys.Mary Ash 04:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article states: Fresh turkeys can also be roasted. Purchase a fresh turkey two days before you plan to roast it. Store the fresh turkey in the refrigerator until you are ready to roast it. Mary Ash 04:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, in main articles at least, we tend to avoid writing in the second person. That being said, perhaps the EC or appropriate workgroup should consider a "How To" standard subpage with some style guidance. For some reason, I am reminded of a "how to" for drilling into the sole plate of a basement, using a boat auger drill bit that is supposed to deal appropriately with nails it finds in the wood. This occurred to me as my high-torque Milwaukee 1/2" drill had lifted me parallel to the floor before I could let go.

I am hesitant to comment too much, as an article might well be written on Howard's Great Kitchen Disasters while Roasting Turkey. While I do consider myself a very good cook, one must know one's limitations. Both my ex-wives had family recipes for stuffing and it was wise to turn over that task, while I concentrated on side dishes. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, do you have links to, or comments, on Art Buchwald's wonderful Thanksgiving and the French column, which runs every year in American newspapers? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had it around somewhere for years. Ought to be easy to find with a Google for "Kilometrique Standish" or "the only day that Americans eat as well as French people eat every day." Hayford Peirce 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Title Request

I searched the wiki to find out if there is a tag for a title request. I could not find one. I respectfully request the title be reverted back to Roast turkey. Roasting a turkey is the same no matter where you live. I will add the centigrade measurements later but I've been busy today. Thank you.Mary Ash 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is neither an article on "Roast turkey" nor on "Roast turkey (American)" -- it is a recipe that can be put on a Recipe subpage of such an article. --Peter Schmitt 08:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought also. A good example is Pancake, which has a main article about the history and culture, and a separate Recipes tab for recipes. This is just a variation on cooking turkeys, so would be better as a subarticle of the article on turkeys, on Thanksgiving maybe, or perhaps American cuisine. David Finn 08:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I am not sure if this is an encyclopedic article at all. It is more of a "How to" article than an encyclopedia article. What do you think? Milton Beychok 07:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I agree, Milt. This is certainly not a main page encyclopedic article. It is a yet incomplete "How to" that can be put on a subpage. (see the next section). --Peter Schmitt 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote the intro and removed any comments about the side dishes

I rewrote the intro and removed any comments about side dishes. The article now stands alone about roasting a turkey. I was only trying to jazz up the article earlier and make it a bit more interesting. The article is now without the side dishes, etc.Mary Ash 06:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This recipe concentrates on actions that are evident ("Remove the turkey from the refrigerator.") and general remarks ("Promptly refrigerate the cooked turkey"), but forgets to deal with points vital for a recipe (spices!), and the various types of meat offered by a turkey. --Peter Schmitt 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is not a recipe. It's basic instructions on how to roast a turkey safely. If you wish you could re-title the article to How to Roast a Turkey Safely I guess...shades of wikiHow :-) Mary Ash 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What else is a recipe as a how-to, a how-to-cook-a-dish? And how-to articles are not encyclopedic articles. They belong on a subpage of a corresponding article. But even as a recipe/how-to this needs more work: How to spice it? How to prepare the stuffing? Moreover, recipes should be based on fresh and freshly prepared ingredients, frozen ingredients are only a (second-choice) replacement if no fresh ones are available. Thus the handling of frozen ingredients should rather be mentioned at the end of the recipe (as a sort of post-scriptum). --Peter Schmitt 11:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Left the term stuffing in the article for food safety purposes

I left the term stuffing in the article for food safety purposes. Also, Merriam-Webster defines stuffing to mean: ": material used to stuff; especially : a seasoned mixture used to stuff food (as meat, vegetables, or eggs)" This would include almost any known worldwide cuisine using stuffing such as rice, vegetables, couscous, potatoes, bread, nuts and chestnuts. A very simple stuffing would be tossing in onions, carrots, celery and seasonings. I think this covers the stuffing "problem".Mary Ash 07:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A stuffing prepared separately is not a stuffing. For a stuffing it is important to be prepared together with the meat. How else should it develop its aroma? What is the safety issue with a (true) stuffing?? --Peter Schmitt 08:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is a recent Anglo-American obsession -- that it is a health hazard to cook the stuffing inside the turkey so everything has to be prepared separately. I have to say that I do not cook turkey at this high temperature (which is far higher than needed)and I do cook stuffing in the turkey, but have a much longer cooking time for these two reasons. I found preparation and cooking times given by professional chefs, which are very different from the government advice in the USA and UK. Generally, professional chefs are scathing about this official advice, which seems to be more concerned with minimising the risk of undercooking and food poisoning than actually giving the optimal cooking procedures (which are also completely safe, but less foolproof).Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you both about the stuffing issue. As this is supposed to be an encyclopedia with verifiable facts, I used the USDA recommendations. I don't normally stuff a turkey as I like to get the cooking done with quickly as I live in the middle of a desert and it usually warm outside. The USDA concern is that the stuffing will not reach a high enough temperature to safely "kill" off any pesky germs. The stuffing is also a breeding ground for bacteria, according to the USDA. Mary Ash 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, prepared wrongly, stuffing can produce bacterial problems. Perhaps we can find some sources on the web, but there is guidance on this from outside the USA. In particular, the stuffing must be cool when put into the turkey; it is recommended to fill the neck only with meat stuffing; and the large cavity should be stuffed with vegetable-based stuffing. And, of course, the cooking time has to be increased to ensure that everything is cooked to a high enough temperature. To prevent burning of the turkey flesh, there are some additional techniques such as cooking in foil for 3/4 of the cooking time; cooking mostly on its breast (the wings etc need a higher temperature) and an Arabic one that I use, consisting of coating periodically with thick yoghourt spiced with salt and black pepper. So, there are many variations in cooking turkey! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter said it best. Honestly, now! My mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and I daresay *her* great grandmother stuffed turkeys for *years*! To my knowledge no one ever died of the dread turkey stuffing. This is ridic!

Y'know, I once put a very well seasoned pork roast on a very low fire, and fell asleep! It cooked all night and was the best pork loin I've ever baked in my life. I didn't know I shouldn't do that or it would apparently kill me...go figure....

Aleta Curry 04:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Low-temperature cooking is a very modern and trendy method used in some of the best restaurants. --Peter Schmitt 09:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuffings are not limited to turkeys. Now, I'm not sure whether "stuffing" or "dressing" is more appropriate, but I certainly make it on a stovetop when needed.

Apropos of recipes and even ethnocentricity, I understand that on his first Thanksgiving in the U.S., Enrico Caruso was served a turkey stuffed with spaghetti. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Added Gas Mark Conversion for oven temp

To widen the reading audience, and to make it less ethnocentric, I have included the Gas Mark temperature for roasting a turkey.Mary Ash 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, I am not trying to be difficult ... but what is Mark 3 or Gas Mark 3? Our gas oven is only a few years old and I can't find any "Gas Mark" on it anywhere. Also, I still think you need to define what a turkey is even if you only place place a wiki link around it like this: [[Turkey (fowl)| turkey]]. That formatting (including the word "fowl" in parenthesis is needed to distinguish it from the country of Turkey). Milton Beychok 02:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Gas Mark is a temperature scale for gas ranges or cookers. It is used by the United Kingdom, Ireland and some Commonwealth of Nations countries (source Wikipedia) although I first saw this measurement in a French cookbook almost 30 years ago. I found the cookbook at a used bookstore out in the middle of the desert. This was before the Internet so I used to take wild guesses on what temp to use but compared similar recipes and things turned out fine. I hope that helps. I will add an article about the turkey tomorrow. I have to go sweep and mop the kitchen.Mary Ash 03:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read "source Wikipedia" one more time I will scream. David Finn 06:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, if you are to keep the words "Gas Mark 3" in the article, then the article should explain what it is ... otherwise Americans like me with a GE gas oven won't know what you are talking about. Alternatively, reference it (but don't use Wikipedia as the reference, find another reference somewhere). I have to go do my exercises, sweep the patio free of leaves, check for applications from prospective new CZ members, and a dozen other things ... so we are all just as busy as you are. Milton Beychok 07:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Gas Mark is a standard European measurement. Just because it is not American, does not mean it needs and explanation unless you plan to explain Centrigrade (Celsius) to Americans (most Americans do not use metric) in articles or Fahrenheit to the rest the world (who do use metric measurements) who do not use it. It seems rather ethnocentric to assume that everyone would know these measurements, or not in the case of the Gas Mark for Amercians, if we started explaining such things. The Gas Mark has been in use in the UK and related countries since 1958 (not WP). Just because us Americans don't use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. BTW in the case of metric measurements we should explain those too. As the metric measurements are not equal worldwide. The Canadian, Australian and US metric measurements are all different for example.Should we break down and explain each measurement in every article. Just some questions.Mary Ash 15:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Gas Mark links:

• http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-cookers-d_130.html (Engineering Toolbox)
• http://www.oed.com/bbcwords/gas.html (OED)
• http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/pages/oventemperatures; (Practically Edible)
• http://hailbritannia.com/2009/01/12/a-british-cookbook-primer/ (Hail Britannia)
• http://www.circlecity.co.uk/kitchen/conversions/gasmark_temperatures.php (Another conversion chart)

As you can see the Gas Mark is alive and well in Europe.Mary Ash 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Gas Mark is a very old measurement for domestic gas cookers in the UK. I never liked it, I have to say, as I prefer to work in in units of measurement that I can more or less understand. From Mary's links, it looks as if it is still in use. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why "Gas Mark" values should not be included. An explanation can be given by a link to a short article Gas mark. --Peter Schmitt 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. The term "Gas Mark" appears to be used frequently in cookbooks published in the UK (at least the ones I have). Sometimes the word "regulo" (e.g., "bake 30 minutes regulo 3") is used as well. It seems to me that including "Gas Mark" (with link to a lemma) is a very appropriate response to the quite vigorous demands that have been made throughout the writing of this article to make it less Americo-centric. Bruce M. Tindall 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Mary, we do explain degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Kelvin, all of which are in use in one country or another. We have the Celsius (unit), Fahrenheit (unit) and Kelvin (unit) articles and those words should be wiki linked to as I have done here in this sentence. The only reason I didn't point this out earlier is that I didn't want to overload you.

Mary, when I write an article for CZ, I do my best to write it so that it will be understood by the world ... not just the U.S. or Europe or Asia. I also do my best not to assume that anyone knows what has been in use for years in other countries. This is an online encyclopedia available worldwide and terminology must always be explained. I also do searches to see if we already have articles that can be wiki linked to for explaining certain terminology. I find that writing articles is about 75% the actual writing and about 25% formatting, wiki linking and providing the subpages with content. Milton Beychok 16:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce has an excellent idea about creating a lemma article. I'd also create a lemma article concerning metric measurement as metric is not the same world round. I discovered this when using Australian, British and Canadian recipes. Fortunately my ineptitude didn't hurt the recipes much. I now have a set of Australian measuring cups and spoons thanks to an Australian friend. I use those when cooking with Australian recipes. The rest of the recipes I do my best. As to the Gas Mark, I did some research and a good chunk of Citizendium readers are from the UK and Europe. Adding the Gas Mark measurement "removed" the Roast Turkey article from "ethnocentric" as Milt rightly pointed out to one that reached out to our UK and European readers.Mary Ash 17:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that lemma articles are a good solution. I rather suggest a page on Quantities in recipes(title?) where these data a collected. (Could also be a subpage of Recipe --Peter Schmitt 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(Puzzled) how is metric (SI units) not the same all the way around? Did you mean measurements? --Howard C. Berkowitz 19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Roast turkey" or "roasted turkey"?

That's the question. --Peter Schmitt 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always "roast" for some reason...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for roast turkey (present tense) as the article is about how to prepare roast turkey. Roasted turkey would mean (past tense) the turkey was already cooked and ready-to-eat.Mary Ash 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about tense (the title is not "(to) roast turkey") but how the dish prepared is called. Martin has answered my question. --Peter Schmitt 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Conversion of pounds to kg

Mary, if you will look at the main article's History, you will see that I converted your "8 to 12 pounds" to read "8 to 12 pounds (3.6 to 5.5 kg)" and explained how to do it. As you will see in that History comment, there are 0.454 kg per pound. You should do the same sort of conversion and re-write for all of the other measurements that you gave in pounds ... again to make the article less ethnocentric. I am too busy to do it for you or I would. Milton Beychok 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: We already have a Kilogram article to which you can also wiki link the kg. Milton Beychok 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Milt and Degrees

Spelled out degrees as that's how the rest of the article is written. Don't know specific CZ policy so if my spelling out degrees is wrong feel free to change it. Thanks Milt!Mary Ash 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "°C" throughout. --Daniel Mietchen 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel the C degrees do not match the F degrees. So do we spell out degrees as I wrote or do you use the degree symbol? Right now the article has a combination of the two after you edited it.Mary Ash 20:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Converted the remaining occurrences of degrees F and C to °F and °C. Did not check whether the conversions are correct, nor anything else in the article. --Daniel Mietchen 04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trained to use the AP Stylebook which I believe says to spell out the term degrees. Also, common recipe writing does the same. I inadvertently started spelling out the word until I discovered David had converted everything. I went back and added ° mark. Hopefully, I found them all. Sorry for the confusion. BTW I discovered that Citizendium uses the Chicago Manual of Style so I'll have to learn that one. Mary Ash 17:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem! The Chicago Manual of Style has some errors in my book, one specific one concerning use of 'which' (are you listening Hayford ol' buddy ol' pal?). We do have to consider internationalisation, (is that a word?) which American books tend not to (not a negative criticism, why would they?). But that's for another day.... Aleta Curry 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Internationalisation is indeed a word, although it might be internationalization. Some of the human factors literature treats internationalization as at the level of character sets and perhaps language, adding localization (localisation) to deal with such things as AE/BE, and even dialects below that level. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we use Wild Turkey or Domestic Turkey?

I wrote an earlier article at Citizendium concerning the Wild Turkey. Should we use that link to describe the turkey or should there be an article about the domestic turkey. Both are basically the same critter. See: [[1]] or from Cornell University: [2] Comments please.Mary Ash 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I started turkey (bird). There is more than one type of turkey, and some other creatures which are turkeys but not turkeys (Meleagris). I'm afraid I didn't think of turkey (fowl), Milt, probably because I don't think of bush turkeys as fowl, indeed, I don't know if they are. We can certainly think of moving it, because in my view, turkey (fowl) is the more elegant name. I also have domestic turkey and I'm afraid that Wild Turkey=bourbon and what's there at present should live at wild turkey for the sake of consistency, even though I personally prefer Mourning Dove! Aleta Curry 04:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Aleta, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys and pheasants are all fowls ... are they not? I wasn't trying to be elegant ... just specific, that's all. I think one of the dictionary definitions says that fowl are birds whose flesh is eaten as food. I don't know about ostriches ... they are birds, but I don't think they are generally eaten as a food. Milton Beychok 06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Milt, they are. Let me try to be more clear. There are animals such as bush turkeys and brush turkeys that are not the same species as the North American turkeys. I mean, I don't even think they're the same genus. I *do* think of fowl as encompassing both the poultry that you name AND wild birds hat are suitable for eating; game birds and waterfowl and the like. However, such things as swans, are, I believe, waterfowl, but not usually eaten, though one can eat them. Some people call pellicans and herons waterfowl; I don't think those are eaten. Same goes for the ostriches you've already mentioned and peafowl, all landfowl, but, as to eating...though actually, come to think of it, I do remember an episode of Two Fat Ladies where one talked about shooting a neighbour's peacock accidentally and then dressing and eating it. She might have said she'd been drinking? Aleta Curry 09:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Being non-English I cannot argue about fowl. My dictionary says "any other bird (than domestic fowl), esp. gallinaceous bird, that is used as food or hunted as game". According to that "Turkey (bird)" should treat it from a biological point of view while "Turkey (fowl)" should deal with the culinary aspects.

Swans are eaten, and considered a delicacy. In the UK, wild swans are the property of the Crown and it is a criminal offence punishable with prison for killing one. Historically, their meat may be tasted only by the monarch (and his/her buddies). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As for ostrichs: They are eaten (Aleta knows) and even in Austria we have ostrich farms. Swans have been eaten, I am not sure about peacocks. We shall have to check some old cookbooks.

--Peter Schmitt 10:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(unidnent)The Meleagris gallopavo (Wild Turkey), source Cornell Lab of Ornithology, where the domestic turkey was bred from. Similar but different. The wild turkey tastes gamier, according to most sources.. Also, the domestic turkey is bred more for eating as they now have more white meat, etc. Same bird different tastes. The question was do you want a separate article concerning the domestic turkey? I personally think there should be a domestic turkey article as it could discuss the breeding, raising and marketing the domestic turkey.Mary Ash 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

By all means, we should have an article on the domestic turkey, if for no other reason than comic relief. Domestic turkeys are notable for being at the bottom of the avian intelligence scale, although the story about their opening their mouths to drink from a rainstorm and drowning because they forget to close them is probably an urban (rural?) legend/

Presidents of the United States pardoning turkeys is always worth noting. Is it too much of American exceptionalism to suggest that Vladimir Putin, Kim Il Sung, and Nicolas Sarkozy would probably never pardon one, certainly in public? (For people that have no idea to what I refer, consider yourself lucky). Howard C. Berkowitz 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has become a recipe, more or less, which it is not allowed to be

It was decided a long time ago that CZ articles cannot be simple recipes. A recipe belongs on the Recipe tab.

BUT, it was also decided that just not anyone can place his/her favorite recipe there, otherwise we would inundated with hundreds of recipes, say, for Apple pie. There can be a generalized article about, say, Bolognese sauce, and THEN a recipe for it in the proper place. BUT, the recipe has to be referenced to someone notable, such as, in this case Marcella Hazen, or Julia Child, or The New York Times, or James Beard or some such. In other words, we can have a recipe for a Reuben sandwich as it is prepared at the Carnegie Deli, as related in a NYT article of so-and-so date. We cannot, however, have a recipe that is "Hayford's way of preparing it".

The Roast turkey article should have a *lot* of info about different *ways* of roasting turkeys -- this is a matter of great contention. High temp? Low temp? Medium temp? Turn the bird? Cook it on three sides? Carve off the breasts first, then continue to cook the body? Cover it with cheesecloth drenched in butter? Cover it with sliced salt pork? Cook it with stuffing? Without? Drape it with foil? Or not? There are a *million* things to cover in this article, including HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO CORRECTLY ROAST A TURKEY, that are not even mentioned here. Why it is so difficult to maintain juicy, tender breast meat AND to cook the thighs. All of these matters can, and should be discussed here (as well as Heritage turkeys, but a single recipe, with cooking times, should NOT be given here. Otherwise CZ has become a Hot-to manual. Which it is not supposed to be.

Eventually, I suppose, that the new EC will have to review this matter, and hand down definitive guidelines. In the meantime, you might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/CZ:Recipes, where there is some discussion of this. There are also a lot of other pages, including Talk pages, with discussions. Hayford Peirce 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Mary does come from a 'how-to' environment, and by her own admission that's what this article is, so let's treat her gently.

This is one more thing the EC should formalise. My understanding is the same as yours, Hayford, that encyclopaedias, at least in their modern incarnation, are not 'how-to' manuals. There was some confusion about this in CZ's early days.

It must be sorted, one way or the other.

Mary, you must agree to live with policy, however it turns out. Keep in mind that there is no reason you cannot continue to provide recipes and insights under the auspices of the Food Science work group. Or wherever this ends up. Oy, things get complicated!

Aleta Curry 04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, both Peter Schmitt and I agreed that this was a "how to" article (see above "Title request" section) and it has always been my understanding that "how to" articles were to be avoided. Even Wikipedia frowns upon them. Milton Beychok 05:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disputing that it's a how-to. Aleta Curry 09:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this different than articles about pancakes or french fries? Just curious as they feature recipes and preparation methods. This article originally started out featuring a method to prepare a roast turkey (something people like to know especially if they don't live in North America and don't know what a roast turkey is) and was criticized for being a recipe. I expanded the article to feature historic recipes from famous cooks. I also added historical recipes showing examples of how things evolve in the world of cookery. I am confused as this article was criticized for being a recipe, now it is criticized more for being a recipe after I expanded it to include history; and yet it is OK to feature less complex articles (recipes too) about pancakes and fries. I'm stumped.Mary Ash 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blast, blast, and blast! I made what I thought was a brilliant start to answering this, and have apparently lost it. Mary, you ask a fair question and I shall try to explain. First I'm going to see if I can find my answer in another window....

Back after an interruption. Don't ask.

Okay. Mary, remember about 5,000 years ago in school we were taught to write answering 5 'W's? Who? What? When? Where? Why? What the people who are commenting are saying is that that is how we conceive of an encyclopaedia article - answer What? (or Who?) first.

Later, some teacher would say, okay, now write with 5 'W's and an 'H' - 'How?'

You've started with a How? You have correctly said that you originally started with a method, or how-to. That's still not a 'what?' You've also pointed out that there are other places on the wiki where people also answer the question how?. The point is that in those situations, they've given us the Who and What first.

Our system (rather brilliantly, if you ask me) allows us to combine all of these questions into what we call a 'cluster', a main article about the subject with a collection of subpages that give readers supplementary information. We have trusted to writers' good judgement to know just where subjects begin and end, and when they can't tell, you can be sure that other authors and editors will jump in with suggestions.

That is, do we need a cluster on aluminium frying pans with red handles or are aluminium frying pans with red handles simply one section of the bigger group 'frying pans', or, should there be just an even larger group 'pots and pans' or even larger 'cooking implements' encompassing utensils and implements, and under implements we find pots and pans, then fry pans, separated into steel, cast iron, electric and aluminium fry pans....

You ask what the difference is between how to prepare and roast a turkey, and 'pancake'. Again, consider the cluster format. If you look at pancake, the authors have answered What? first. The how? as in how to make pancakes, isn't its own article, it's a subpage: there's a 'recipe' tab at pancake.

Begin to make sense?

No one is telling you that they have a problem with turkey recipes. They just think turkey recipes should be identified as turkey recipes.

Aleta Curry 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, who was Fannie Merritt Farmer and why is she historic??

Mary, you should not simply throw in a name of someone who wrote a recipe in 1918 (before even I was born ... and that was a looong time ago) and expect me or anyone else to know anything about her. You really should introduce her to us with at least "... well known, American cookbook author" or something to that effect. Milton Beychok 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know about Fannie Farmer. I cook, and my mum was a devotee of The Fannie Farmer Cookbook (there have been several - many? - editions since nineteen hundred and and whoosy whatsit). But I agree, an introduction is needed. Aleta Curry 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC) edited to add - since the cookbook is still in print, would we be allowed to reprint a whole receipt? A quote, yes, but...? Aleta Curry 09:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know both Julia Child and Fannie Farmer as authors of well-known American cookbooks but, yes, their recipes have to be put into context.

Moreover (bear with me, Mary), simply importing recipes (with a few slight changes) and put them one after the other is not good enough. They need revision and have to be merged to a uniform whole. Currently, the article lacks organization. For instance, advise on defrosting should be collected and transformed into a coherent section. Similarly, the technical advise on weight/temperature/cooking time should be clearly arranged and compared.

--Peter Schmitt 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuffing or dressing?

I tend to think stuffing is more evocative, but both terms are used. "Dressing" might be more the term in formal cookery, but my Escoffier is not at hand. Opinions? I did put an entry for stuffing (cookery) into Related Articles.

Some food safety experts will disagree with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and say that stuffing is safe, as long as:

• It is put into the bird just before cooking
• It is removed quickly and completely after cooking, and does not remain in a cool bird.

Personally, I consider roast turkey an excuse for stuffing, so I usually both stuff the bird and put one or more pans of stuffing into the oven. If one bastes the pans with the juice from the roaster, the flavor improves. --Howard C. Berkowitz 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

'Dressing' has regional use. My late grandmother said 'dressing', and there was nothing formal about her cooking. Having said that, it may indeed be the formal term, Howard, you might have hit on something there; I'm thinking of 'to dress' as in arranging/embellishing a whole range of things for better display. i.e. one dresses a house, one dresses an antique table (the better to sell it, my dear), that sort of thing.

'Dressing' is also used for stuffing prepared outside the bird (cough, splutter, yes, I know this is oxymoron), particularly in modern stuffing-the-bird-will-kill-you-but-then-how-can-we-call-it-'stufffin' use. But that's not definitive; as I say, I am absolutely sure that you are right and in regional America, people interchange dressing/stuffing.

Aleta Curry 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to use "stuffing" in American usage. When I hear "dressing", I think of a vinaigrette or the like. Your grandmother's usage, at least in cooking, might be closer to "plating" (current professional cooking-speak), "presentation", or even "garniture". Howard C. Berkowitz 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grandmama, she should rest in peace, was a very plain spoken woman. She never used 'dressing' in the sense of 'presentation' unless she was talking about clothing oneself. When she used 'dressing', it was a noun meaning 'stuffing'.

What I meant to say was that nowadays (some) people use 'dressing' for stuffing not cooked inside beastie.

Aleta Curry 23:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably only because they want to hide the fact that they did not do it properly ... --Peter Schmitt 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that in context this can be misunderstood: I wanted to say that those who use "stuffing" for an item prepared outside the turkey want to hide this ... --Peter Schmitt 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Googling gives a 3-1 ratio for "turkey stuffing" to "turkey dressing". I couldn't swear to it, but my old Maine relatives, plain people who called pancakes "fritters" and frying pans "spiders", always used the word stuffing for anything that went inside turkeys and chicken. Dressing went on salads and (maybe) for some of the smaller side dishes. I'll bet that if you walk down the aisles of the supermarket you won't find any boxes of Stove Top Dressing.... Hayford Peirce 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

While I can't say I have ever heard of a dressed turkey (thinks of turkey in modish clothing, and looks for Sarah Palin or a moose), but "dressed" certainly has significance with respect to game meat. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Amelia Bedelia (fictional character) could be recruited as a CZ author to enlighten us on dressing poultry. Bruce M. Tindall 00:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As Aleta points out, the usage of the words "dressing" vs. "stuffing" has regional differences. This is a point on which the Dictionary of American Regional English (which remains gloriously inaccessible from the Internet, as far as I know, God bless it) could enlighten us. Whoever next goes to where the liberry's at (there should probably be an article on that phrase, too) could perhaps look it up. If it's I, I will. Bruce M. Tindall 00:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Buchwald column

Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112302056.html Hayford Peirce 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Kilometres Deboutish. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny stuff! Many years ago, I read a Buchwald column with his version of Christmas Carols, which I committed to memory. I still sing them! Aleta Curry 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of your earlier problem with finding your brilliant solution, you are familiar, I hope, with Isaac Newton's beloved dog, Diamond, who literally ate Newton's homework? We always have to wonder if Isaac reconstructed it all. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference between this article and others

If you look at, for instance, Bolognese sauce, Navy grog, Bearnaise sauce, Tartiflette, Reuben sandwich, Pancake, Alkaline noodles, and Croque-monsieur, you will see that these are generalized articles *about* these foods, including, maybe, their histories. The *recipes* for them are in a *separate* place, called "Recipes", accessed by clicking on the Recipe tab. There, the recipes have been reformatted into a standard template developed a year or so ago.

That said, there are a still a *few* articles with recipes in them that were developed *before* the template was created and approved (by Larry, among others) for standard usage. The French fries article, for instance, goes back a number of years, to the very beginning of CZ. In my opinion, the methods given in the "cooking" section of that article are *general* enough, and *short* enough, to remain there. Perhaps not -- perhaps there should be a Recipe tab.

And the new Editorial Council should examine this question at some point and come down with a firm ruling on what goes into articles about foods. And what does not. And how specific recipes should be treated. Hayford Peirce 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they are going to listen to those that know best... (Food authors) Nothing wrong with making some preliminary workgroup decisions now so they have something to evaluate, right. When the Editors come aboard, they'll change it all up anyway. D. Matt Innis 23:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If the workgroup structure is retained, please change it to Food. Could we please avoid, however, Food Sciences and Food (art)? Someone could indeed be an expert in cooking without understanding caramelization or the more specific Maillard reaction. Some fast food, however, should be transferred to chemical engineering. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Caramelization and the Maillard reaction are not identical, although many people confuse them. One deals with sugar, the other with proteins. Hayford Peirce 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You have just demonstrated that a brilliant expert in cooking needs to know about brown glazes, but need not have a clue that proteins and sugars exist, much less monosaccharides and disaccharides. Caramelization is the "food" term, with the reactions being "science". Howard C. Berkowitz 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, there are going to be edge cases, such as red-stewing. That article is about a technique, not a specific dish, but I think it's appropriate to list ingredients of the core "master sauce". Were I to write a specific recipe for red-stewed beef with golden coins, that would go under the recipe tab. Garniture probably belongs in the main article, but I can think of Escoffier recipes that really just differ in garniture. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely with you, Howard. I have, in fact, been stewing over this particular item for a couple of days now. A few days ago I made Chairman Mao's favorite dish, Red-cooked pork belly, or Hunan red-cooked pork belly or whatever, and I have an actual recipe for it already on my computer. I'm been trying to decide if I have enough energy to reformat it and rewrite and put it into a Recipes tab at this article. (One can also use my dish to make delicious Chairman Bao buns, which are the latest fast food sensation, particularly at food trucks in Los Angeles.) Hayford Peirce 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This probably should move to Chinese cuisine or red-stewing, but I will be fascinated to see it. Unfortunately, my favorite Chinese cookbook, Chinese Gastronomy, is among the missing on the shelf. I'm surprised to see that what I think of as pork belly stands up to the rigor of red-stewing. While I hadn't given it too much attention, I had assumed it was a different dish, which is a very gently simmered fatty pork cut of which the fat is an integral ingredient. The cooking process holds it in place while it becomes transparent and silky. Doesn't appeal to me by the sound of it, but I have found quite a few authentic dishes that taste much better than they sound. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I used about 2 lbs. of porkbelly with the skin on cut into pieces about 1.5 inches around. Simmered for exactly three hours in two kinds of soy sauce, sherry, and various other things including rock sugar. Let cool and refrigerated overnight. Reduced the sauce somewhat and thickened with cornstarch. The pieces of pork are *meltingly* tender *but* hold their form perfectly. They can be cut, or pulled apart, easily, like pulled pork, to put in the steamed Chinese buns. Other recipes for *whole* pieces of pork belly that I've been doing lately, and braising for 4 to 6 hours before cooling, pressing, and browning, really *are* in danger of falling apart and have to be handled *very* carefully. But that's another story.... Hayford Peirce 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section

If it were about the major American (yes, U.S. and Canada) holiday rather than the bird, the section title suggests there is a Haggadah of Thanksgiving. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Page Deletion

Requesting page deletion as article does not fit Citizendium standards. Mary Ash 04:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Impetuous; don't delete - you worked hard on the content, which should be integrated elsewhere. Aleta Curry 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That didn't work with Marian apparitions, and I hope it won't work here. The information just needs to be put in the right place, not deleted. David Finn 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)