Talk:Molecular gastronomy

Food and drink Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Article Overhaul 3/09

This article has been overhauled, and addresses the issues raised below.

Sizzleteeth (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should another page titled Molecular Cuisine be created and the information divided respectively between the two pages, in order to differentiate between the science and the cuisine? (I know that Herve This makes these distinctions and some chefs do not like the "molecular gastronomy" term) --Housetruck247 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the worst article on Wikipedia in terms of misguided pedantry

Over half the article is about how the way the term "molecular gastronomy" is actually used by chefs somehow does not match up with a mystical "correct" definition of the term. That's prescriptivism at its most idiotic, and furthermore, it's easily stated in one sentence; the article just takes the same point and rephrases it over and over again. Terrible! DarthSquidward (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to completely agree - this article is absurdly scattered, confusing, and to top it off, pretentious. I came here after hearing the term used rather loosely on Tony Bourdain's show No Reservations, and am left far less certain about the term and a little bit irritated. Can someone please contribute to this article in the form of ordered substance rather than random style?Drewson99 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Someone (IP 66.65.98.156) seems to have edited the history section to conceal the fact that the Erice meetings were organized by Elizabeth Cawdry Thomas, and glorify Herve This instead. There is a lot of confusion here, someone should do a thorough revamping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.213 (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

Several of the people mentioned in this article, including Blumenthal and McGee, have stated that they do not consider their work to be "molecular gastronomy." The tone of this article implies that they are followers of This, which they would certainly contest. I wonder if the structure of this article should be changed to more accurately reflect this.

Indeed. Adria, Blumenthal, McGee and Keller have written a kind of manifesto repudiating the term. I think this article requires a full rewrite now. I'll start on it. Shermozle 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a first stab at a partial rewrite. Feel free to continue improving it! Shermozle 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions unsourced

The definitions are unsourced, and given that McGee has repudiated the term, I have removed them. Shermozle 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No actual content

This entry doesn't actually say anything. There is no mention of what the techniques of "molecular gastronomy" are other than to indicate that they are "new." The claims that it seeks to "explore existing dishes" and "invent new dishes" can be said of almost any modern cuisine. It would seem that "molecular gastronomy" is nothing more than marketspeak for "make it up as I go along cooking."

If "molecular gastronomy" is really "the applicaiton of science to culinary practice," then Alton Brown is the current king. For example, he has explained the difference between amylose and amylopectin in starch, which sources of starch provide what balances, and why you would use one particular starch as a thickening agent in one application (high heat) whereas you'd use another in a different one (low heat) due to the way those two starches behave.

But is that "molecular gastronomy"? I don't know. Nothing in this article actually says what it is. Rrhain 13:55, 01 February 2007

I think we already have a term for what you're describing, where the properties and structure of biological chemicals are examined. It's called Biochemistry. Edmoil (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clearly it's more than that, as many chefs practice MG without conducting expariments in their kitchens. MG's culinary pre-cursor was nouvelle cuisine which introduced the focus on using high quality fresh ingrediants, neglecting heavy sauces and marinades (as well as excessive cooking times) which wash out and over-power other flavors, and lastly focused on using new and innovative preparations, presentations, and most importantly combinations of ingredients. The chef must be a bit of scientist, or at least look at his food with the eyes of one, but he remains cheifly an artist.

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

I'm trying to make sense of this sentence but I really can't understand what the editor was trying to express:

Since molecular gastronomy investigates cooking, it involves cooking during its investigations.

Can anyone decipher this? The rest of the paragraph is problematic, as well, but this sentence has me stumped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.82 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]