Cookbook talk:Grilling

This module uses text originaly published in the Wikipedia article Grilling. The page history of that article at the time the text was coppied is included below.

* (cur) (last). . 07:46, 21 Apr 2004. . Stormwriter (Removed following line: ITOM 2308!) * (cur) (last). . 07:44, 21 Apr 2004. . 129.119.91.181   * (cur) (last). . 02:22, 14 Feb 2004. . Minesweeper (*George Foreman Grill) * (cur) (last). . 18:53, 26 Jan 2004. . 66.76.71.112   * (cur) (last). . m 05:23, 23 Nov 2003. . Wik * (cur) (last). . 19:35, 2 Apr 2003. . 24.60.35.134 (removed extra "a" before cooking in last paragraph) * (cur) (last). . 18:23, 16 Jan 2003. . 203.97.103.237 (add skewers) * (cur) (last). . 07:49, 6 Jan 2003. . 192.85.47.2   * (cur) (last). . m 05:05, 31 Dec 2002. . Modster * (cur) (last). . m 18:09, 12 Dec 2002. . 80.132.139.148 (de:) * (cur) (last). . 22:10, 19 Sep 2002. . 65.56.188.227   * (cur) (last). . m 21:44, 19 Sep 2002. . 203.192.36.156   * (cur) (last). . 21:38, 19 Sep 2002. . 203.192.36.156   * (cur) (last). . m 12:15, 22 May 2002. . Maveric149 (from ugly / page)

Edit war
OK, the anonymous IP had asked me to look this over... I'm not going to argue over which terms mean which because I don't know, although I must say which meanings are most common should be considered the "correct" meanings with the others still being noted to avoid confusion. Two sources (Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster) are not really enough to judge that unless they contain that info. There must be a way for you two to come into agreement without an admin putting his foot down.

I do see that User:AlbertCahalan seems to have his own idea of what the page should be like and until now was reverting anything to the contrary. I don't see why this should be done; what's wrong with expanding it? This is a wiki. We don't own pages. If somebody wants to expand them, let them, or if you insist on not doing so, at least point out why it's better not to ("this is a disambiguation page" does not cut it). Now, I'm not saying I'm on anybody's side as far as the edit war goes, I'm just saying useful content should not be reverted for no apparent reason -- and certainly not while calling the contributing party a vandal, at that! - Furrykef 20:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue was over whether the cooking method is "direct" or "indirect". I'm not sure how to make that distinction (how direct is direct; is microwave the only direct way?), but it doesn't matter in any case. So, best not to mention it. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by useful content being reverted, but the barbeque instructions were written by me and originally placed on the barbeque page. They belong there, not on the grilling page. Given that little is said about the distance from the flame, the instructions should suit either the normal barbeque definition or the strange narrow definition. I pointed out more info on the user's talk page. I think there is much less for him to object to now, ever since the removal of the useless direct/indirect distinction. AlbertCahalan 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't notice that content was moved rather than added, sorry. Still, I don't think it was worth an edit war. I do agree that "direct" versus "indirect" doesn't seem to be a useful distinction and we're probably better off without it. No comment on where things belong, though. - Furrykef 23:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to hear any suggestions for better ways to deal with someone who insists on a very non-standard definition of barbecue while making the Cookbook:Grilling page too wordy to serve as a disambiguation page. Note that I did attempt to discuss things on "his" anon talk page. When that fails...? AlbertCahalan 00:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia entry non-standard? I don't understand how one part of Wiki can say one thing and yet when I try to apply it into another part, its wrong. Read the Joy of Cooking. Read any barbecue cookbook. Read about Mexican history (barbacoa). Go to a barbecue competition or restaurant. And Albert did not try to discuss anything with me, he only accused me of being wrong. I've conceded that barbecue can be taken to mean grilling, but to professional cooks and purists it means something else entirely. The biggest problem with the original page is it confuses both definations. If you mean barbecuing as in grillign high heat/fast cooking then delete the the 'popular in the Southern US' as this is popular the world over but if you mean barbecue as in ribs etc, then its slow cooked which necessarily requires indirect heat. I hope my latest attempt shows that I am willing to compromise AND that I really know what I'm talking about. 207.171.167.101 07:44, 16 May 2005


 * Yes, the wikipedia entry is non-standard. I'm working to get it fixed. In any case, "grilling" means at least 3 different kinds of cooking. (double-sided frying, broiling, and all types of barbeque) So the grilling page needs to cover that. In general, it can direct readers elsewhere: Cookbook:Frying, Cookbook:Broiling, and Cookbook:Barbecuing. So I do insist that this page do that. I also insist that the barbeque instructions not disappear or get moved over here, but I might accept moving them to a different page. (they are somewhat specific to making beef burgers on a wood fire) DO NOT MOVE VIA CUT-AND-PASTE. Suggest a good name, and I'll move the instructions. All cooking uses indirect heat, except perhaps microwave (where the heat is generated in the food), so let's avoid that useless distinction. If you allow more than microwaving to be considered direct, then all forms of grilling and/or barbecuing are direct. AlbertCahalan 19:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your barbecue/grilling distinction fails because there is no place to draw the line. What would you call what I do with burgers? For brief moments, they may be in the flames. ("Grilling!" you may think) Often though, there are no flames at all and the burgers are bathed in smoke. They even get the reddish tint from carbon monoxide, just as is claimed by the "barbecue purists". So is it barbecuing then? Both? I have no trouble describing this, because I use the normal definition of barbecue. No matter what I do with the fire I'm barbecuing, which is a type of grilling. AlbertCahalan 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please sign posts in the future, using 4 tilde (squiggle, likely near your "1" key) characters. To you, it should look like ~ before you save the page. (you can see the result in the preview though) I signed your text for you; you should take care of it yourself. AlbertCahalan 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Great job being an idiot. If you acutally knew what slow barbecuing is (which by your burger analogy you obviously don't), then you would not mistake burgers on a gas grill for ribs and pork on a pit over slow-burning wood. Once again, grilling is the general cooking of meat with open flame, while barbecue is specifically cooking food over a slow-burning flame for a long period of time. Haverton 20:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Great job having a polite debate. I certainly don't use a gas grill; I cook over real chunks of mesquite wood. Sometimes they burn very slowly, with no flame and maybe lots of smoke, and sometimes they have flames. Outside your neck of the woods, barbecuing is normally fast and it is always considered a type of grilling. It might even involve a gas barbeque. AlbertCahalan 03:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As a chef
Grilling to me is controlling the Mallard Reaction using direct heat. Even throwing a tortilla on an electric burner is grilling to me. --68.127.162.10 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)