CZ Talk:Food Science Workgroup

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the Discussion Page for the CZ:Food Science Workgroup

Culinary arts

I think Culinary Arts is needed. Food Science is just that, and concentrates on safe and nutritious food. Or it could be called Culinary Arts & Science, so it includes Food Science and Culinary Arts. But yes, we need this workgroup! Nancy Sculerati 23:57, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

The mailing list for the Editorial Council is set up...a high priority for me is to start using it, and this can be one of our first topics. --Larry Sanger 00:13, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

I like Culinary arts and science. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:39, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Culinary Arts & Science sounds better...that would encompass other important aspects of food and cuisine. --Kelly Patterson 01:08, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Need input on Workgroup Name change to Culinary Arts & Science!

I don't know much about culinary arts & science, but it sounds plausible to me. I think we need the opinion of some chefs and some food scientists. --Larry Sanger 16:08, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

how do we going about finding chefs and food scientists? put up a flyer? :) -Tom Kelly (Talk) 17:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Help! (?)

I think we need opinion/input from others as well-- food is one of those things that is part of every culture, so even those who are experts in certain cultures/ethnicities/geographicaly locations could be of great help. Where do we find that? Kelly Patterson 16:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

What to put into each national Catalog of cuisine

I asked on the British catalog if we were doing 'origin form' or 'popular in'. You replied, "I think it should clearly be food that is popular *in* Britain. Hayford Peirce 23:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)" Likewise shouldn't the Chinese list be 'popupar in china'. Curry should also feature on the British list as it's one of, if not the most popular dish in Britain. Likewise french fries should be listed on the American list as the are excedingly popular in the USA even if they didn't origonate there. Derek Harkness 05:40, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

My brain must have had an overdose of spotted dick or toad in the hole or some such -- I clearly hadn't thought the implications through. Here are my present thoughts:
  • Each national cuisine catalog should limit itself to items that *originated* in that country. Even if people *mistakenly* think they come from elsewhere. So that Chicken Tikka Masala would be British. Chop Suey (shudder) would be American. Curry would be Indian. Etc.
  • HOWEVER: we could make certain exceptions. What about abominations like Pineapple and Ham Pizza in the United States? Its relationship to *real* pizza is just about zero. So we could list that as American cuisine -- BUT with an explanation. I will leave the Curry item in Chinese cuisine but I am going to add an explanation from a big Chinese cookbook I have.
  • A while ago Stephen Ewen proposed a Catalog of global cuisine. I created it and put in french fries, hamburgers, and mayo. We could expand this to include Curry, Chicken Tikka Masala, Pizza, and whatever else seems worthy of inclusion.
What are your thoughts on this? I will also ask Stephen for input. Hayford Peirce 22:22, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
But what are the implications of setting 'origin' as the decider. Would the American or Australian lists have anything on them at all? The current two on the American list are Hamburger, Rhubarb pie. The first may be German or American depending on who you ask, the second is I think an English import. Apple pie is also a European import to America and you don't get much more American than apple pie. Requiring origin is going to make some odd lists. Derek Harkness 05:40, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I nominate "Disgusting sandwiches made from incompatible ingredients" for both the USA and Australia, as originating from there. My particular (non)favourite is Jam and peanut butter sandwich. :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:25, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
The deeper we get into this the more complicated it becomes! There may well be no absolute definition or classification we can come up with concerning origin and population that will always correctly place an item into the correct catalog. Suppose, however, we put the following into the header and then tried to act in consequence of it (I am saying "French" just as an example):
  • "This is a Catalog of ingredients, dishes, and recipes that are widely or commonly associated with French cuisine, no matter what their actual origin is; pizza, for instance, is now widely associated with American eating habits, even though its origin is Italian and it is also listed in the Catalog of Italian cuisine. Similarly, Chop Suez, although clearly of American origin, is also listed in the Catalog of Chinese cuisine because of the widely held perception that it is of Chinese origin. In this specific catalog, french fries are listed, even though their origin is most likely Belgian, in which Catalog they will also be found."
Long-winded, perhaps, but that ought to cover most items.... Hayford Peirce 12:11, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I have been giving some thought about whether to include things like spaghetti and meatballs and garlic bread in the Catalog of Italian cuisine and was about to discuss it there when I saw Hayford's post suggesting I come here. My first observation is that a cuisine is not only geographic, but is essentially a cultural expression. So chop suey and spaghetti and meatballs were invented by, respectively, Chinese-American and Italian American immigrants, who were culturally at least partially Chinese and Italian. Are they "authentic" Chinese or Italian dishes? Most would agree that they are not. Are they found in China or Italy? No, except possibly to restaurants catering to foreigners. (I did see, in Florence, those awful squashed grilled ham and cheese sandwiches misnamed "panini" by Americans. A panino in Italian is a bread roll and by extension a sandwich in bread roll, but I digress). Are chop suey and spaghetti and meatballs considered Chinese or Italian? Yes by a large proportion of our potential readership. So they should be in their respective articles. I don't think we should take a position on whether certain dishes are "authentic", this would violate the " Neutrality policy. On the other hand, we should point out their origin, which would be Chinese/Italin immigrants in North America rather than a Chinese or Italian region. In the Catalog of Italian cuisine, there is a column for "Origin" and I think we should do this for all cuisine catalogues. It would also solve the curry and rhubarb pie conundrum for British and American cuisine, where it could be pointed out that the origins of these popular dishes were India and brought to the US by English colonist(?). Nothing wrong with having curry in both the British and Indian cuisine, or rhubarb pie in the British, American and Canadian cuisine catalogs. In summary, I am proposing including them all, but also pointing out their origin. Luigi Zanasi 14:30, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I strongly agree with everything you've said above and will take steps to implement your suggestions -- after we've had, hopefully, a little more input from others.... Hayford Peirce 15:39, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I broadly agree with Luigi. Cuisine = food + culture. If we are listing cuisine then we should list the items that people eat that are part and parcel of their culture. This would exclude modern fashion foods, but would allow immigrant foods that have embedded in that culture. It's not a hard and fast rule, it requires a knowledge of the culture in order to make the catalog. However, where I differ form luigi is in the perspective of the culture. I'll have to research chop suey carefully before I use that as an example, but I can give a reverse example. There is a very popular chain in china called 'California Beef Noodles'. This is part of contemporary Chinese cuisine and culture, however it's not part of Californian cuisine or culture. Even though many Chinese associate this dish with America, it shouldn't be on the American cuisine catalog. Derek Harkness 19:05, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Suppose that in the Chinese list we put in "Chop Suey" with a simple notation to See Catalog of American cuisine? "California Beef Noodles" is just a chain; Chop Suey is something that hundreds of millions of Americans have grown up with for over a hundred years. It's almost certainly *far* less embedded in the culture than, say, 40 years ago, and certainly less than 60 years ago, but for a while it's what Americans thought Chinese food was important So it's important.

Hayford asked me to contribute here. This really belongs on CZ talk:Food Science Workgroup, doesn't it? Let me decompress and I will see if I can say anything helpful. --Larry Sanger 04:25, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I've had a think about this over the last few days and here's what I suggest. We should be explaining the culture surrounding the food of the various countries. Not reinforcing any external stereotype but instead explaining how things really are. The catalogs should provide information about what life is like in that country. What do the people there really eat? What do they not eat? Are our stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? How does that countries food differ from our learned impressions of their food?
We may want to mark entries on the list as traditional and contemporary in cases there the cuisine has changed markedly in recent years. This I think is particularly important for the UK list as the large number of immigrants bringing new ingredients and recipes has changed contemporary British cuisine if a very significant way. It may be less important for other countries depending on their history and culture.
Foods that we associate with a country, but are not actually form or eaten in that country, should be omitted form the lists. So no chop suey on the Chinese list, maybe no spag bol on Italian (though tagliatelle boll seems to be possible!) and I need to check the boiled leg of lamb on the British list since I didn't know about that one till it was mentioned here. Derek Harkness 10:51, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, you have given us much to think about! How about an addition to certain catalogs, say at the bottom of the regular list (with a brief explanation in the header, also) such as this:

(the Reference and Source should be BELOW the table -- I can't make them go there on this page....)

English Name Chinese Name Restaurant Name(s) Description
Chop Suey Dep Suey[1] Chop Suey Various dishes invented in America in the 1800s and early 1900s by Chinese immigrants and widely eaten since then; they are unknown in China

Dishes Erroneously Perceived to Be Chinese:




''The Chinese Cook Book'', Wallace Yee Hong, Crown Publishes, New York, 1952 — an early cookbook of mostly Cantonese recipes


Hi Foodies!

This page looks pretty bare, but I know we've had other discussions. I suppose they're at specific article pages.

Anyway, I was looking at Talk:Caipirinha and it brought the question of recipes to my mind. How do we want to handle them?

Aleta Curry 18:33, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Edited to add: Okay, someone's gonna explain to me why there's a table with Chinese food types beneath this, right? Aleta Curry 18:37, 7 February 2008 (CST)

dat is Hayford's biz, dems who you must ask. --Robert W King 18:46, 7 February 2008 (CST)

It's *supposed* to be up higher, in another section, but I can't make it stay there, and no one else has fixed it either....Hayford Peirce 19:19, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Funny you should bring this up, I was just thinking about this yesterday. WP, of course, says it is NOT a how-to-do manual, and eventually they set up a separate entity for recipes. I was wondering if CZ wants to slavishly follow their lead. It seems very strange to me, for instance, that under Mai tai or Zombie (cocktail) or Bolognese sauce I couldn't afix a recipe, particularly when I have 3 or 4 of the old mai tai ones, for instance, and they could be tied to a historical background. For the Bolognese article, I've put in about 8 great pix -- I hardly see how a recipe could degrade the article. Is this something where we are going to have to get a Ruling from our revered Editor in Chief? Hayford Peirce 19:25, 7 February 2008 (CST)
I'm for recipes. Here's why: Normally we don't do 'how to' surf. However, we now have subpages which allow for other types of content. For example in math articles we can have 'Tutorials' subpages explaining how to do the math. Likewise recipes is a food tutorials are they not? Though I think we need a different name for the subpage. Derek Harkness 20:41, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Aleta agrees:

  1. I'm quite sure that our Fearless and Exalted Leader came out in favour of "how tos" ages ago. See "How to choose a dog/cat/horse etc."
  2. I think Hayford's right about the value of recipes here.
  3. I don't think this is an exec decision, we need to justdoit and if people object, deal with it then.
  4. I don't much care if we eventually use subpages or a WP-esque different space altogether for manuals. At present, however, we have clusters and I agree with Derek we should use 'em.
  5. Can we just go ahead and ask Chris the Great for a "recipes" tab for food clusters?
  6. Aside to Derek: thanks for fixing the table glitch, it was driving me mad.

Aleta Curry 15:58, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Okie, three of us at least make a quorum. Later today or tomorrow I'll put a recipe for Bolognese sauce into the article, in the main text, either just above or below the photos. Or maybe the photos can be moved around in different ways in order to accompany the text. Or someone else can put the recipe into a subpage or whatever. Hayford Peirce 16:33, 10 February 2008 (CST)
  1. Hong, pages 120-124