Talk:Turducken

November 2006 discussions

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the popular introduction of the Turducken---long before John Madden--during the annual Thanksgiving broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition when it was hosted by Bob Edwards. Broadcast annually since 1993, was a fantasy "pot-luck" dinner hosted by Bob to which the invited Julia Childs, Wolfgang Puck, Meta Heater, Craig Claibourne and Paul Proudhomme. Each brought a course with the piece de resistance being Proudhomme's Turducken. Here is a link an NPR page for one of the broadcasts which, unfortunately, I was unable to play. Perhaps it is no longer live now that Edwards no longer hosts the show. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=857578----Gjpwhite 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Block quote

I'm not sure I believe the Osturducken--as far as I can tell, there's a lot of talk around the net about it, but no pictures or direct evidence that this has ever been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.123.87 (talk • contribs)

The osturducken, pigturducken, Churkendoose (chicken, turkey, duck, and goose), qua-duc-ant —quail (quail, duck, and pheasant), Roast a l’Imperatrice - all get mentioned in articles but I have yet to see evidence that they are actually produced enmasse. Articles also mention the ancient Roman tetrafarmacum.--Wowaconia (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

---

For that matter, has anyone ever heard of a successful Osturduckencorpheail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.192.87 (talk • contribs)

---

I think an ostrich would be a couple orders of magnitude too large to be stuffed with any other living bird, with the possible exception of other saurian monsters such as the cassowary or the emu... and then -those- would still be too big to fit a turkey into without it rattling around inside.

---

I think there is a lot of inaccuracy here and it should really be under Three Bird Roast, a turducken is just a portmandeau of its constituant birds, like gooducken. --BMT86 09:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true but the Turducken is the most commonly seen combination.--Swuster 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I unlinked chimerical, but if anyone believes it ought to be relinked, I recommend aiming it at the wiktionary, not the disambiguation page. If you just want to copy-paste it, here it is: chimerical. -- Tiresias BC 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

---

A special on the History Channel about meats just said that, in Roman times, a version of layered cooking existed which went even farther than the Turducken (chicken inside duck inside goose inside pig inside cow). I don't know any details, but this is perhaps something that should be researched/mentioned. If nothing else, it contradicts the stance presented in the article that layering can only be traced back to the Middle Ages. Here's a link I found fairly quickly, which mentions the same thing: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/romans/food/richfood.htm Hossenfeffer 06:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

My web logs tell me that this paged linked to my Easter Turducken post, thanks to someone named Fabartus (rev 31 Aug). Not being much of a Wikipedia editor, I'm not sure the link belonged there, but the explanation of its removal confuses me. It was removed on 20 Nov by "70.149.186.145" who claimed that (s)he "removed unrelated music link, inactive links, and ad driven links". Since my Easter Turducken post was none of those (though the page was down briefly on 20 Nov), I wonder if this removal was accidental. WWordman 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another multi bird roast

This article ought to be part of a bigger one on multi bird roasts. This type of thing has been done for centuries in England (and doubtless elsewhere) with game birds, you simply place the smallest into the next smallest bird like a Russian doll. I would say almost obvious, not novel. Certainly far from uniquely American as the article suggests. The ugly name is nasty, but like other mixed breed names, always attracts journo types who like playing with words in headlines.

The header could use some work,

--66.109.193.44 21:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe just remove the quote from the top, because everything after that looks more pro.

Medieval Time

This comment belongs to talk untill ref is found.--Hq3473 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (Just a brief note: This type of recipe was apparently known at banquets in medieval times. There are references to swans being stuffed with other birds, and quails have been used as the smaller bird. Sorry no references to hand, I'll come back later)

Popular Culture

Some anonymous editor keeps deleting mentions of turducken in popular culture. Why? Lots of other articles have pop culture sections, why shouldn't turducken? And it's not like the list was becoming unwieldly. --Htmlism 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing "On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, he remarked on thanksgiving eating habits by saying 'How fat are we getting when we look at a turkey and say that's not enough?!", I know for a fact that he said it on a day or two before thanksgiving. I don't know how to do refrence links so could someone else put it on. You could probibly find it on www.nbc.com/leno.

Um, why does it mention michael moore as one of things sarge stuffs the birds in? hes a real person and not a turkey.162.83.164.35 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the picture makes this article

With that said, is there a chance that one of you turducken aficionados could take a cross-section photo the next time you prepare on of these delicious looking beasts? Alas I have not been able to have one yet (and can't cook worth a damn, this looks like an advanced dish). --A Good Anon 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found and bought a pre-assembled one of these monstrosities locally, and I'll do my best to get some decent pics of it when I get the nerve and time to actually cook it. I've already got a good photo of it wrapped in it's packaging but clearly visible, if anybody thinks that that would be a worthy addition. - Pacula 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a nice cross-section photo of a roasted and quartered turducken to the article. This wasn't the only photo I took, but seemed to be the clearest in terms of showing the layers. - Pacula 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the Black Table reference?

According to Black Table, this was once a reference: http://www.blacktable.com/turducken031217.htm. I don't see it in edit history/or any discussion about it. (Was it here and deleted?). I think it would make a better EL than a ref, but I do not know much about turducken.-Cindery 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't edit the page

Probably for good reason, too. What I wanted to fix is "commerical", toward the end of an early paragraph. (Please delete this once it's fixed.)

Regards, nb Nikevich 00:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Emuturducken

Completely fake. The only reference presented for this section bears no mention whatsoever of emus being used for food, left alone 'emuturducken'. A google search presents only a handful of hits, all of which refer back to this article. I'll delete it. If anyone objects, feel free to reinstate it and provide some better references and/or reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos95 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gluttony

Unfortunately, I don't have time to edit this right now, but I just want to point out that we need a reference to gluttony here. For lots of folks, just mentioning Turducken provokes a gag-reflex -- not so much because of the flavors -- but because of the orgiastic excess. I'll try to add something once things calm down in a couple of months, but it would be even better if some else could take care of it by writing a sentence or two sooner (especially before Thanksgiving!)!

Nutrition information

I removed from the Nutrition section the passage that read:

• Note: This nutrition information comes from a website that does not specify a recipe or the weight of any of the component birds. Both serving size and nutritional component per slice should be viewed as a very rough estimate. Also note that nutrition will vary depending on how the bird is sliced; e.g., the first slice is almost certainly 100% turkey.

The link provided in the footnote does indeed refer to a recipe and component birds. The URL http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Turducken/Nutrition.aspx leads from http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Turducken/ to the detailed nutrition information for that recipe. --Horse Badorties (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues with providing nutrition information is that this dish is made different by many people. Paul Prudhomme's recipe for example adds shrimp, andouille sausage and other potentially fatty, high calorie, cholesterol items, while others may not use them at all. I thus, find this information to be highly problematic.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The nutrition information corresponds with a recipe that itself corresponds with the description of a turducken given in the first sentence of this article: "A Turducken is a partially de-boned turkey stuffed with a de-boned duck, which itself is stuffed with a small de-boned chicken."

You are certainly correct to say that adding or removing ingredients would affect the nutritional information. Someone could add Twinkies, for example. Can the turducken even be defined? Can any dish? --Horse Badorties (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the lack of a concrete ability to define a dish is ample reasoning not to give misleading information on any dish, other than one created in a factory such as a Twinkie. I would easily support the inclusion of nutritional information for a Twinkie in that article, however I am sort of against the inclusion of this information in any other culinary dish. I would no sooner ask for the nutritional information for Cassoulet for the same reason.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, herein lies the rub: the lack of a concrete ability to define this dish would lead us to remove almost everything that's said about the turducken, not just the nutritional information, right? It could not be accurately described as a "partially de-boned turkey stuffed with a de-boned duck, which itself is stuffed with a small de-boned chicken," because of all of the other ingredients that could be added/removed. I don't know.

I'm not wedded to this particular nutritional information remaining. It's an improvement over what was there before though. --Horse Badorties (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The notion that "1/12 of a recipe" is a serving is laughable. 1/12 of a turkey alone would be a pretty good meal, neverminding the trimmins and dessert. But add a 12th of a duck AND a 12th of a chicken to that and still coming up with 1 serving of turucken defies credulity. The 30-pounder in the picture would yield 12 2.5-pound servings. Who came up with the "1/12 of a recipe" serving size? What a joke. You have all been had by a troll. 76.200.144.168 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion to find the recipe that the nutritional information refers to. --Horse Badorties (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous. So I'm ridiculing it, along with people who think it's reasonable to call 2 1/2 pounds of meat "1 serving". 76.200.144.168 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the USDA, a serving of meat is 2-3 ounces. So the stated serving of turducken is 13 to 20 times bigger than what someone will read on the nutrition information label of whatever food they care to compare with this article's absurdity. I know you found it on the Web and didn't write it yourself before adding it to this article, but, when you're shown that a source is suspect, do you continue to defend it, or do you grow up? As far as I'm concerned, it's original research on the part of whoever wrote the other webpage. Just because it is sourced from some random website somewhere else does not mean that Wikipedia must, should, or will perpetuate that nonsense. 76.200.144.168 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't know how I missed that but you are correct this information is dubious. As stated before, I see no point to adding this nutritional information to begin with, even worse the way it is presented is misleading. The recipe is very POV because it is one website's take on the dish, and the portion size is not appropriate. On top of this, the nutrition information is completely against the Wikipedia policy WP:Original Research--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Variations

A lot of "junk" seemed to be added in this section today. I'd like to see references for these, otherwise I think they should be removed because some of them sound like nonsense, which were added by unregistered editors.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's been some unsupported nonsense in this article for about two years, judging by the history. I think somebody was taking the piss and now the names they made up are on blogs and other websites. Not all of them, though. They need to be eliminated if they cannot be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Roti Sans Pareil does have references for its existance - I listed some. The Bloomsbury article was the first to conclusively state that the last bird was Garden Warbler (others listed it as a "bec-figue"), so I reasoned they had found it independantly and been able to do further research on it. Prior to the Bloomsberry article, the WP article referred to the last bird as a "passerine" (the best translation of "bec-figue" I could find) - so any article which uses the word bec-figue has been sourced from elsewhere than the WP article. Some other sources: http://www.christmas-time.com/ct-poet.htm archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/12/19/story1026.asp It has also been mentioned in UK national newspapers prior to the WP article. The "Bustergophe.." name is not sourced, but is only "made up" in the sense that I applied the same rule used to generate the name "Turducken" to the new data. Although it is an amusing fact, I was not "taking the piss". Hyphz (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly the whole section should be deleted as the varied stuffed animal within an animal did not originate from the 20th century dish known as a Turducken. Turducken could be argued as a variation of these other dishes prepared in the the Roman empire banquets as well as the Middle Ages.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

TURDucken

Doesn't it bother anyone that the name begins with "Turd". And it's not even in the order of the layers. Proper order: TURkey, stuffed with CHicken, stuffed with dUCK = TURCHUCK. It should be called a Turchuck. 205.174.22.26 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But Turchuck sounds... odd too. Marlith ^T/C 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is in the right order, Turkey stuffed with duck, stuffed with chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.178.240 (talk • contribs)

If it were a brand name it would never get through the focus groups. And yes, I think my nephew noticed that right away. If some reliable source has criticized the name, we could cite it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately it's probably the most heavily meat-based meals out there, so there's no temptation to make it with a Tofurkey. The end result would of course be the Tofucken. :D75.111.57.176 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So what is turducken?

Admittedly, i only skimmed this article as it's unbelievably technical. But alas, there seems to be no clear explanation as to what turducken is. I can only imagine it is some combination of turkey and duck.76.106.33.90 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You should probably read the article defining and outlining this culinary phenomenon, rather than just skimming it, then asking stupid questions. ---Dorfner (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of pop culture section

Though detailed, nothing in the pop culture sections amounts to much more than "the turducken appears occasionally in popular culture." It seems far too trivial for inclusion here. I propose removing it, though I see above there may be some strong opinion against that. Please comment. Cmprince (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)