Talk:Barbecue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Haitian etymology

...has created a fallacy that barbecue is of that origin. Etymology traces language and the first encounters of New World-to-Europe language may have been from Haiti but that doesn't mean that barbecue originated on the island...just that Europeans encountered the word and partial concept there first. Previous editions of Oxford were wrong and now we are stuck with a leftover mess. Editors shouldn't confuse origin of words with origin of concept. Just as the indigenous peoples migrated from the mainland so it follows that the method migrated from the mainland. I'm pointing out the distinction because it is fallacy to think that the place of first encounter must be the origin. Highly doubtful that the established practice as found by Lederer in SW Virginia and North Carolina migrated from Haiti. From mainland to island is the usual anthropological flow. I'm not suggesting removal of etymology but rather caution when applying the "Haitian" brush on this topic.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"After Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, the Spaniards had seemed to have found native Haitians roasting animal meat over a grill consisting of a wooden framework resting on sticks and a fire made underneath, that flames and smoke would rise and envelop the animal meat, giving it a certain flavor."

Do we not agree from the lead that a BBQ is in fact "a cooking method and apparatus...done slowly over low indirect heat and the food is flavored by the smoking process.?" The origins of what was seen and heard (barbacoa) by Columbus is clearly evident on where we stand today in its definition. How far can you document an American barbecue? Further than 500 years? (Most people still believe that Columbus founded the United States of America when he in fact landed in the West Indies, which is still being taught). The fact that you would remove this category while, "American cuisine, Australian cuisine, Australian culture, Canadian cuisine" would remain (while I am not saying these do not belong) truly baffles and should not be subjective to your WP:OR. Sorry, I do not know what "Haitian" brush on this topic means, but I know enough to ask you please exercise a certain degree of neutrality when expressing your point. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, please explain how "cooking technique" is not synonymous with the citing of Columbus in 1492? (Mind you this was not one of my edits as this has been in the article since April, 2007 as "cooking technique" [1], and as "technique" since January, 2006 [2]). After you have been editing this page since August, 2009 (almost 6 years) [3], all of a sudden you feel it is warranted to have this removed? But wait, you can't; the technique is clearly found in the Columbus citing along with the origins of its name (bastardized or not). Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove the category again but left it. However, NONE of the sources cited suggest that the method migrated from Haiti to other places which is my point. It isn't sourced correctly. Try re-reading what I've stated above. Do not restore while discussing please as it isn't cited correctly and it is you that is restoring someone's synthesis. You are mixing up "the discovery" as being the origin. They are not the same. The sources do not suggest migration of technique.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This source is the author's synthesis and not really reliable...he's making up conclusions. Hokey. I'm not saying that they weren't cooking like this in Haiti but his unscientific explanation of people movements and conclusions are faulty. He socked here before remember?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay sockpuppet noted. I have reread your main argument: "editors shouldn't confuse origin of words with origin of concept."

Let's agree that Columbus "saw a technique" being used. (fair enough right?) My question to you is, before 1492 where do we have documented evidence that this type of cooking existed? (Whether or not oxford was wrong I cannot debate without definitive proof, or I will be subject to WP:OR) We do know however, that the word "barbacoa" has moved into multiple languages from Caribbean dialects into Spanish, then Portuguese, French, and English, which further suggests that the "terminology" migrated to other parts. Carefully read the following sentences:

After Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, the Spaniards had seemed to have found native Haitians roasting animal meat over a grill consisting of a wooden framework resting on sticks and a fire made underneath, that flames and smoke would rise and envelop the animal meat, giving it a certain flavor. Strangely enough, the same framework was used as a means of protection against the wild that may attack during middle of the night while at sleep.

The technique was used for "protection." It was a technique for "cooking." It was "strange" (to them). This appears to be original as there is no record of a technique being used at an earlier date. Now, I am not debating all the different styles and derivatives we have today to make a barbecue, but the idea of this original barbecue (which we distinguished from grilling which were already known prior to said date etc.) cooking "technique" seems evident through this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The word barbecue as written by Lederer was not acquired via Spanish but came from the natives directly. The fallacy is to assume that the word spread from the Caribbean to other parts. In reality, we have parallel introductions of the word and the method to different European groups. The hokey source concedes that the method was already in the mainland before the arrival of Spanish explorers-- "According to Charles Hudson's 1998 book Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando De Soto and the South's Ancient Chiefdoms, on March 25, 1540 a party of about 40 Spaniards led by de Soto invaded a village in what is now Georgia and found venison and turkey smoke roasting on a barbacoa-like device. Although the word had not been brought north by Indians yet, DeSoto called it a barbacoa because he had probably heard the word in Spain." - thus settling and refuting the idea that the method originated in Haiti. "On May 17, 1540, according to Hudson, they enjoyed another meal cooked on a barbacoa near present day Salisbury, NC: Corn and small dogs."

The less-than-scholarly deductions concerning the word and DeSoto's usage doesn't work. The natives didn't carry the word north later- the source tries to stitch a theory about native movements to reach a conclusion to make that fit rather than realizing that the word (some native variation) was already in place on the mainland. The word likely migrated from mainland native groups to the Caribbean groups and not the other way around but I'm not trying to edit that into the article. We can deduce from what has been reported that there was no Caribbean influence on the barbecuing as done by the natives in southeastern America. This is important because the hokey source is laboring to right great wrongs when they caveat this section of work with "Let's make up for an injustice. Nobody gives the Spanish Empire proper credit for its role in laying the foundation for modern American barbecue." The truth is they didn't. Neither the Caribbean groups nor the Spanish introduced the method to the groups of SE America. Lederer did not dine on a Caribbean-influenced nor a Spanish-influenced dish.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This all seems very relevant to your case, however Lederer/Hudson do cite 1540 as the year, which leave 48 years from the time of the discovery of Hispaniola, the first true and documented settled of the Americas by Europeans. You mentioned that you have doubts that the word came from the Caribbean up to the United States. Well the Indian language these authors are citing are the Arawaks and Taino peoples who originated from South America and the Caribbean respectively. If DeSoto thought he heard it from Spain, it is surely not farfetched to assume it was from the Caribbean, since it was first Spanish settlement. Furthermore, if it really originated from mainland American native groups, this would have been well documented. The difference between the natives in the United States and those of the Caribbean are that the Tainos/Arawaks are just about extinct and still it is claimed to have derived from these because of the origins of the word in their dialect. The south-east US is also not too far of a migration to make if it was done centuries before European settlements. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"If DeSoto thought he heard it from Spain..." he didn't, the author, Quedude forms that jump (synthesis) by making that conclusion without basis following what he read from Hudson (the author, not the explorer). The first recording in Spanish is in 1526 leaving only 14 years to race 500+ miles north. "if it really originated from mainland American native groups, this would have been well documented." It is...the Carib Pidgin–Arawak Mixed Language is a pidgin language known to have been from the mainland first, Arawaken is most certainly from the mainland, and Taino was an Arawakan language which "In the late 15th century Taíno had displaced earlier languages except for pockets in western Cuba and western Hispaniola." There is nothing pure about any of these languages and they exchanged and borrowed loan words and calques from other languages. It isn't really believable that the Caribs decided to make a beeline for Florida and then jog north to beat the Spanish all the the way to NC/Virginia area about 500+ miles away so that they teach those native peoples the word and method before other Europeans showed up. Not plausible. The hokey source states "During the European explorations of the 1500s Arawak tribes were not native to areas now in the United States, but some Arawak tribes moved into southern Florida during the mid-to-late 1600s." That blows the idea out of the water that they were an influence on the 1540 encounter and doesn't place them anywhere close to Lederer's Virginia/NC encounter in 1669-70...they were still about 400 miles away after the migration. Moreover, the plant materials such as Maguay leaves traditional to barbacoa weren't available to them up there. This map shows that etymologists have many holes to fill as all that white area translates as "we don't know".

As an analogy, if the first people that the Spanish encountered (be it Taino or Caribs) had face paint on, it would be a fallacy to assume that their discovery meant that all subsequent groups of natives that they encountered in the Americas that wore face paint must have gotten it from the group they contacted first. Along the same lines, they might well have concluded that those natives were using that most-European of inventions, fire. Logic dictates that this was an independent development. Unless you want to attribute that the pyramids of Egypt must have been an influencing factor in the Mayan and Aztec pyramids then you must acknowledge that some developments are indeed parallel instead of having resulted from the single point of first discovery or documentation. The same source, Quedude, wrote "Of course we will never know precisely what the Taino word was since they had no writing system. I'm guessing it only sounded like barbacoa to the Conquistadors since people usually mispronounce foreign language words." Try searching the source for the word "guess" to see that this is not a scholarly work despite his claim. Too much guesswork.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency within article

At the top page summary, there is a clear distinction made between "low and slow" barbecue versus "hot and fast" grilling. At the bottom section, grilling is listed as a type of barbecue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.55.48 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC) But barbecue can also be hot and fast, as is explained in the section on styles. The top needs to be rewritten to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.162.111.96 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What wording are you recommending? It wasn't clear but rather wrong to have left the lede state that it was done over direct heat.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed up the consistency of the terms grill vs barbecue Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbecue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150929194750/http://okramagazine.org/2013/05/24/the-bbq-chronicles-lexington-style-bbq-or-extra-bark-please/ to http://okramagazine.org/2013/05/24/the-bbq-chronicles-lexington-style-bbq-or-extra-bark-please/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbecue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://okramagazine.org/2013/05/24/the-bbq-chronicles-lexington-style-bbq-or-extra-bark-please/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Page numbers

Fortunately for us, the Googlebooks preview of Samuel Johnson's 1756 dictionary gave us the preview of the entire book. I was able to count to page 70, starting after the preface. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Variant Etymology

Mention is made on the following site of the folk etymology ...que le mot barbecue venait du français « de la barbe au cul ».

https://www.culture-generale.fr/histoire/2729-origine-du-mot-barbecue

Which is to say, "from the beard to the arse". Being a folk (or false) etymology, it has dubious provenance; but is of considerable cultural consequence, originating in the very human tendency to explain the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a variant of a common myth about the word barbecue.[4] Food seems to attract this kind of false etymology, with sirloin and marmalade being other common examples. I'm not sure whether this is notable enough for the article, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. An entire collection of those might be notable for a stand alone article on etymology of food. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

An offer to help

On Wikipedia I am Quedude (talk). Elsewhere I am known as Meathead. I am the author of "Meathead, The Science of Great Barbecue and Grilling" a New York Times best seller, and called one of the 100 best cookbooks of all time by Southern Living, which I must say is more authoritative on food and cooking than CNN as discussed elsewhere on this page. I also own https://amazingribs.com, by far the most largest and popular barbecue and grilling website. I made a few minor edits last night to fine tune some definitions and they were reversed. So I would like to know why they were reversed before I spend any more time helping correct articles (I understand the rules on conflicts of interest). I think I have a lot to offer, including many good photos, but I cannot waste time. So if you are the person who reversed me, can we engage in a discussion?

Sure. On Wikipedia I am Roxy, but in real life I am a New York Time Top Ten Chef. I am the auther of a Times Top Ten Dogfood BBQ guide, and appear regularly on Dog Radio as an EXPERT. My website is much bigger and better than yours, and has playrooms for owners with access to the internetz so they don't get bored. I'm a much better chef than you, and my Chef Apron has five Michelin stars that I sewed on myself. I have also been contributing to Wikipedia for more than ten years. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well then you must know that the definition of braising is incorrect and confusing. Can we agree on wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quedude (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you got any WP:RS reliable sources? Also, learn to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia as a pretty good definition of braising. Of course every culinary school textbook has a definition, and certainly a chef of your stature knows that the info on this page is wrong.Quedude (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

On my revert of the revert of my inclusion regarding misuse/broader use of thew term barbecue as published on Southernlivng.com

It was stated that the source Southernlivng.com was not a reliable source. Since Southernlivng.com is the website for the long lived magazine Southern Living owned and published by Time Inc., publishers of Time Magazine, I fail to see how they are not a reliable source. If Ianmacm wants to argue otherwise please do so here first though I can find no previous discussion in which Southern Living Magazine (or their website) was declared a unreliable source for Wikipedia purposes. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

After looking around, I found this source on CNN which is probably more suitable. There is a tendency to use the words barbecue and grilling interchangeably, and this annoys the purists who argue that they are not the same thing. The CNN article agrees with the Southern Living article and various other sources that the main difference is the speed of cooking. Grilling is much faster and requires a higher level of heat in order to sear the outside of the meat almost immediately. Many gas barbecues are basically gas grills designed to be used outdoors, and the CNN article says "While the terms barbecuing and grilling are often considered to be synonymous, it is more precise to say that barbecuing is a type of grilling."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have written a unified theory and definition of barbecue. As a result I was asked to give the keynote address at the National Barbecue Association two years ago on the definition of barbecue. It is the only trade association in the US. After my presentation the Board of Directors changed the association's name to the National Barbecue And Grilling Association. I could try to adapt it to this page but my first attempt at editing was met with hostility below. Does not encourage me to think that Wikipedia is very interested in accuracy or facts and makes me fear that if I work hard to help, my changes will be reverted. Here is the comprehensive definition https://amazingribs.com/barbecue-history-and-culture/what-barbecue. Quedude (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Americentric bias?

This article is very American. It says at the outset that barbecue "is a cooking method, a grilling device, a style of food, and a name for a meal or gathering at which this style of food is cooked and served," and acknowledges that "Barbecue is practiced in many countries and there are numerous regional variations," but then it describes American barbecue. For example, it says "Barbecuing is usually done outdoors by smoking meat over wood or charcoal" and "[grilling] is one of the least common techniques when cooking classic barbecue foods." However in Aus/NZ and the UK, grilling is the primary technique. A barbecue is essentially an outdoor grill. I think this is the case in many countries.

There is a page for "Regional Variations of Barbecue," I just wondered if it could be made clearer that the "Barbecue" page is primarily about American barbecue. 14.2.137.89 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Barbecue#On_my_revert_of_the_revert_of_my_inclusion_regarding_misuse/broader_use_of_thew_term_barbecue_as_published_on_Southernlivng.com above. The food purists argue that barbecue and grilling are not exactly the same technique. It's true that many outdoor grills get described as barbecues, and this doesn't please the purists either. As the article says "The words "barbecue" and "grilling" are often used interchangeably, although food experts argue that barbecue is a type of grilling, and that grilling involves the use of a higher level of heat to sear the food, while barbecuing is a slower process over a low heat."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead to try and fix some of these issues. I've also moved the material from the traditions section to the Barbecue in the United States article. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of "Barbie"

I'm not so sure the Australians actually use the word "Barbie" as slang for Barbecue. I'm pretty sure it comes from a series of Australian tourism ads, and got popular from there.

PowerfulAtom111 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article here. The phrase "I'll slip an extra shrimp on the barbie for you" comes from Paul Hogan who used it in a tourism commercial for US television in 1984. Shrimp is wrong because an Australian would say prawn, but barbie does seem to be used in Australia.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

I don’t have time to track this down now and will probably forget:

> According to estimates, prior to the American Civil War, Southerners ate around five pounds of pork for every pound of beef they consumed.[20] Because of the effort to capture and cook these wild hogs, pig slaughtering became a time for celebration

theres no way that the vast majority of meat eaten was hunted. Either the source is misinterpreted or it’s a bad source. Thesowismine (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)