|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cooking article.|
|Cooking has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of cooking, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|Click here to start a new discussion thread|
- 1 Fireless cooker
- 2 food safety
- 3 Definition
- 4 Rapeseed and Canola
- 5 History of Cooking
- 6 Food safety
- 7 recipes
- 8 Split into food heating and food preparation
- 9 Food Safety
- 10 Protien
- 11 Effect of cooking
- 12 Vitamins and Minerals
- 13 Probable copy-vio
- 14 there should be a section on burnt food.
- 15 Quality seems better than "start"
- 16 Vandalism
- 17 plagiarism in History of Cooking section
- 18 Cooking methods section
- 19 Home-cooking vs. factory cooking section - inconsistent style?
- 20 Inappropriate lead image?
Is there an article on the Fireless cooker, under a different name? I couldn't find one... it's basically an insulated basket or box for keeping food at a high temperature to finish cooking, while using less fuel (and creating less pollution) than usual cooking methods. If an article is to be created here, I think it should be placed in Category:Cooking appliances, Category:Appropriate technology and Category:Sustainable technologies. --Singkong2005 talk 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- This looks like a variation on haybox cooking, which is a form of retained-heat cooking, combined with a form of Slow cooker. --Coconino 10:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Do any of you think there should be a Wikicook book? I think there should. Come and tell me what you think! Asteroidz R not planetz 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to ask if there's anyone else that thinks having a Wikicook book is a good idea. I think it is. Tell me what you think! Asteroidz R not planetz 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, first of all, new comments/questions should be added to the end of Talk pages, or the end of any sections on that particular issue. Secondly, there is already a Wiki Cookbook in Wikibooks Cookbook. --Macrakis 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
the food safety section is getting too big, particularly since there is also a whole page devoted to the topic. I propose cutting it back to just the part about heating food, which would be appropriate in context (under the 'effects of cooking' heading). FiveRings 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"The term cooking encompasses all methods of food preparation including non-heated methods."
Says who? --MQDuck 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed this. Chris Cunningham 10:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Rapeseed and Canola
Canola is just a fancy marketing term for rapeseed oil. That isn't made very clear in the reference in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, canola is a specific cultivar of rapeseed, cultivated for it's lower erucic acid content. It's a subtle distinction, but not one without a difference, so the term gets a pass. -Munkel (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
History of Cooking
I feel that the history of cooking deserves its own section, in terms of why humans began cooking at all, and the cultural and physical changes that occurred as a result. In other words, at what point (besides after the discovery of fire) did the human race feel the need to heat their foods? JezSmitty (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would also like some archaeologists to weigh in on the claim of "systematic production of flint blades, the habitual use of fire, evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of animal meat, mining raw materials to produce flint tools from subsurface sources," etc. at the Qesem Cave, a site 400k to 200k years old.
- However, it's not outside the realm of possibility that humans were not the first hominins to cook.
(since nobody responded to my previous comment about this). There are already pages on Food safety and Food and cooking hygiene that actually have less information than the Food Safety section on this page. I propose moving this page's information to the main Food safety page, and also merging the hygiene page into it. Comments? FiveRings (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's been forever since you said this, so you probly did it already, but if not, then yes, I think your idea is good. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image that shows a lady using a chopping board seems an inadequate illustration for a food safety section, unless you want to show a bad example; she works with food with no hairnet, and even worse, wearing a few rings.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be a wiki coookbook that would be a great idea. Everyone could edit their favourite recipes. I like bread making for example. Wikicookbook would be the ultimate in recipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinefionarichardson (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook for thousands of recipes. Velela (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Split into food heating and food preparation
I think this article should be made a disambiguation page to the following articles:
- food heating
- food preparation (generally)
As it is not the article is a confusing mix of them both. The "Fat"-section for instance doesn't mention the heating effect on fats, but only deals with general preparation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a more complex problem, since some languages and dialects consider "cooking" to be any kind of food preparation (the Germans cook coffee, for example), and others consider it only to be food preparation that involves heat (see Levi Strauss' culinary triangle).
- I would propose creating a new page called "food preparation" that encompasses all preparation forms (with many, many, links to other pages), and leaving this one to the heat methods. FiveRings (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. This article may then be tagged with:
Nevermind no hairnet, the section is not about health, its about safety, just by the way she is holding the knife, sitting down instead of standing up and a series of factors that are just completely wrong with the example are just inadecuate. I'm a Chef by profesion and know at leats how not to chop my fingers of. I'll try to find a more adecuate example. .lrodilg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm deleting the part about broccoli having more protien that groung beef because it is incorrect. I did various comparisons using the Calorie King website and, whether you compare by wieght, proportion of calorie content, etc., broccoli has nowhere near the protien content of ground beef. I know this wasn't exactly s scientific comparison, but it wasn't even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Effect of cooking
I removed a reference to cooking improving the digestibility of meats as that is controversial, while the reference to cooking improving the digestion of a few foods such as grains is factual, and undisputed, so I included the latter statement. I can cite another scientific study, as an example, to show that cooking actually reduces the digestibility of meats:-
Vitamins and Minerals
I have remove the paragraph "Vitamins from fresh vegetables and fruit may be destroyed or eluted by cooking and the greatest benefit is derived from uncooked material. Vitamin C is especially prone to oxidation during cooking and may be completely destroyed by protracted coking. Minerals may also be eluted by extended boiling." As stating that uncooked food better needs a citation given the content preceding it and the destruction of micronutriants is already mentioned and I see no reason why vitamin C needs any special treatment in this section. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
the content of the cooking methods section seems ot be lifted from this source:
Judging from the tone of the content (its concentration on minimizing fat addition) i would say it was copied from there (a diet site) instead of the reverse. It should be deleted. Vinithehat (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was introduced in this diff. It is clearly the same text. It was introduced by a very infrequent contributor who probably saw the tag requesting expansion and didn't realise that he was doing anything wrong. I am going to rip the text out but keep the links to various individual methods. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
there should be a section on burnt food.
I often hear that eating burnt food can cause cancer. is this true? Either way, i think there should be a sub-section in the food safety section about this, that adresses the possible dangers of burnt food. First of all, is it true that burnt food can cause cancer?--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to the synthesis of Acrylamide in overcooked starchy foods - please see the Acrylamide article for further information. This already mentioned in Cooking#Effects on nutritional content of food. Velela Velela Talk 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well I've just read a bit about acrylamide, and maybe that is something that's formed when food is burnt, but this is not the section i'm talking about. I came to the article to find out whether if food is burnt, this causes cancer, or other deseases. So At that point I dont know what acrylamide is yet. And the section on raw foodism first of all, doesn't say anything about burnt food, but food cooking in general. and second. this is not where people will look, if they want to find out whether burnt food is dangerous. This is not a section where this should be discussed, or at least it should be very clearly stated, and the word "burnt" should be explicitly used. Even still, there is nothing in the section that clearly adresses the question of whether burnt food specifically is dangerous. Also you can't put that section in the acrylamide page, because people don't know what acrylamide is until they read that it is caused by burning food (I don't know if it does, but IF it does...).--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Quality seems better than "start"
plagiarism in History of Cooking section
An entire portion is lifted word for word from this article: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99. ("in earnest ...").
Cooking methods section
Does the phrase "cooking methods" have a different definition than "methods of cooking"? If not, shouldn't one of the sections be deleted and have its contents merged into the other section? Thought I would ask before deleting the Cooking methods section.Music+mas (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Home-cooking vs. factory cooking section - inconsistent style?
In the following line:
Home cooking can be done by the "reasonable cook in the street" using simple (non-heating) recipes (of which there are heaps!). Cheers.
I'm not sure if this is intentional, but has the language/style/register changed, a bit (too) casual? The language doesn't seem to sound consistent from the previous paragraphs, but I'm not too sure. Weaktofu (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate lead image?
Is it me, or does it seem odd that an article on cooking specifically by heating leads with an image of a dish (the fruit salad/cheese pastry) which, I assume, needs no heating at all? --TheSophera (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I've gone ahead and cut the image. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, a lot of these images are of cooked dishes when we could have a photo of the dish being cooked, and images are stacking up in the middle of the article without corresponding to anything being said at that point in the text. I've cut the images back and replaced some with more active pictures of food being prepared. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)