Talk:Barbecue sauce

POV?

I feel this article is slightly POV. While it is true that most commercial 'BBQ' sauces sold as condiment in the store are tomato-based, when it comes to the actual cooking meat part of BBQ tastes vary widely. I added a comment about vinegar and mustard based sauces which are often used in the American South. I think the part about sugar being important could be edited as this is not NPOV. Perhaps we could divide it up by different countries and regions as to what type of sauce is prefered? I could do some research on the South but I don't know what is used in other countries besides the USA. Kfort 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

I thought some more about this article. The thing is that the Barbecue main article has terrific information on regional variations of sauces. I think there are two things meant by 'barbecue sauce'. One is a sauce used while cooking meat to impart certain flavors and characteristics onto the meat. The other is a condiment that is used like ketchup with a slightly tangier taste. I think this article should cover the latter, and link to the main Barbecue article for information about the former. Let me know what you think. If noone has any objections I may rewrite this article to reflect these differences. Kfort 3 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

I disagree with the schema proposed above. Although the sauces are used while cooking and after, they are essentially the same recipes. So your proposed revision would get rid of valuable regional information. I updated the article to reflect regional differences, and took out all the sugar references which are too obscure an issue for an article of several paragraphs. jkandell, oct 2005.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.72.180 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Where is the citation that most U.S. sources evolved (or "trace their roots") from the NC styles? I have never heard that before. I have heard that an Eastern N.C. vinegar mop-sauce *might* be the oldest style in the U.S., but I have never heard that other sauces evolved from the two major NC styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Recipe

I added an example recipe that I made myself and loved. How can you have an article about BBQ sauce without an example recipe? The recipe is my own, and is not copyrighted. I made a web page designed only for use here (http://www.freewebs.com/barbequesauce)

This is WP:SPAM, violates WP:EL or WP:NOT. Probably all three; i removed it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, this is not WP:SPAM, as it is providing further encyclopedic information, it does not violate WP:EL as it contains information that is "accurate and on-topic" and does not violate WP:NOT as it is only one generic recipe, and does not turn the article into a "Mere collection of external links or Internet directory". Therefore, I insist that this link is re-added. 217.44.51.47 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask WT:EL or WT:NOT if you feel that way. People can google for recipes if they want em. The 'one-link-won't-hurt' approach doesn't work after 20 recipes get tacked to this article. Or, as an example, look at Chicken#External_links - it's not covered in various chicken recipes. If you want though there is a Wikimedia Cookbook section of wikibooks. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Memphis Sauces

Is there a way to describe barbecue sauces from the Memphis, Tennessee area?--BigMac1212 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC) If you can describe it, try tacking on a sentence or two in the appropriate place. Whitebox 21:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The note on Memphis barbecue sounds highly POV, and is fairly unhelpful, the general consensus being the Memphis has no particular style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.246.84 (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the US sauce descriptions. There really isn't a true Memphis style sauce. For a sauce to be a true regional style it must be used widely. Most Memphis restaurants use a sauce made of tomato, vinegar, sugar, and spices. This is, of course, the basic recipe for Kansas City sauce. If there is any regional variant in Memphis it is that it some seem to be thinner and more vinegarry. Therefore they are really just variants on the KC style.Quedude (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a large difference between Memphis and KC, mostly in that KC emphasizes teh sweet+thick, while Memphis tends to actually soak into the meat, and is more tangy and vinegar based, and if anything I'm fairly certain that Memphis came first, making KC the variant, if they must be groups together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.21.230 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Distinction

I think a distinction needs to be made between "sauce you mix up to put on food you intend to barbeque" and "sauce flavored like barbequed food, to be applied to non-barbequed food (e.g. burgers, macaroni and cheese, fried chicken), which would be terrible to put ON food-to-be-barbequed." People deride the latter as doing a bad job of being the former, when it isn't intended to be any more than ketchup is trying to be spaghetti sauce.

It might be that marinade and bbq sauce are the differences you are going for, but in different regions both are put directly on grilled foods. And then there are artificially bbq flavored chips too. Whitebox 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Us Centric

It seems this is still Us centric, especially towards the South. Who said it wasn't any more? --72.137.47.204 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Prairie dog?

The article as it stands states that BBQ sauce is traditionally served on Prairie Dogs. Is that actually true? It seems like vandalism to me, since the source cited doesn't mention the seasoning of rodents...... 99.246.79.105 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alpacas live in the Andes, certainly never on Hispaniola nor in the coastal regions of America visited by Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.235.244 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

US themed

"Hunt's barbecue sauce. A nationally distributed Kansas City-style sauce brand."

Nationally? That sounds very American centric to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.251.131 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proper Credit Needed

It is not my policy to insert credits or links to my website, but I see clearly that authors have read it and come very close to plagiarism. It would be nice if someone here would give credit where credit is due to this article, which was first published in 2006 http://amazingribs.com/recipes/BBQ_sauces/index.html

Examples: My article (first published in 2006) "they often resemble a thin tomato soup" Wikipedia "They are medium thick and often resemble a thin tomato soup." This analogy was original with me and I am not aware of any previous use of it. My article "Lexington Dip (a.k.a. Western Carolina or Piedmont Dip). In Lexington, NC, and in the "Piedmont" hilly areas of the western Carolinas, they prefer to make their barbecue from the pig's shoulder, a rich flavorful clod of meat." Wikipedia "Lexington Dip (a.k.a. Western Carolina Dip or Piedmont Dip) – In Lexington and in the "Piedmont" hilly areas of western North Carolina, the sauce is often called a dip."

I think a link to my article in the References section would be appropriate, especially since I offer authentic recipes for all the styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quedude (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

remove commercial image

This image looks like we are running a commercial. It is unnecessary and there is no reason to promote a brand here. We should remove per guidelines and WP:NPOV.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been removed at least twice, most recently by me, but restored both times. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an example of that type of barbeque sauce. Just because it is a commercial brand does not mean its actually advertising the brand. Also the people who removed it before were IP addresses. Gune (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Per BRD, the image should remain off the page while it is being discussed. Two users here plus the IPs have removed it which is telling. It isn't adding anything to the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IP addresses always remove stuff for no reason. It shows that type of barbecue sauce as an example. Removing it means the article has less credibility. Gune (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the edits of IPs don't count? I don't agree that the article has less credibility without the image. That said, can you make a compelling argument for its inclusion?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that most IPs are vandals. The image is used to show that type of barbecue sauce. That is what it gives to the article. It adds an image so somebody can know what it looks like. Gune (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not allowed to just ignore IPs. Even without them, it is 2–1 against the image. Start an RfC if you feel that strongly about it. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet you ignored the reason why I said it should be in. Nice to know you can't debate your own position. Gune (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete image. You ignored this discussion and re-added it to the article. That is you ignoring consensus. The image comes across as a commercial and isn't necessary for the article. Barbecue sauce need not be commercial and there are plenty of homemade sauces which we can get an image for.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gune is violating the spirit of BRD and ignoring consensus here and re-adding the image. I see that the branding has been obscured now by pixellation but the question remains as to whether having one (still recognizable) brand serves as advertisement. It is not necessary for the image to be added to the article as it doesn't add anything for the reader. So far, I only see one editor that wants it added in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ignore this discussion. I didn't even know you had added a new comment here anyway. I assumed you didn't since you blatantly ignored the talk page already. You ignored the reasoning. It was used as an example of that particular example of barbecue sauce. It isn't used as advertising since it is showing an example of what barbecue sauce looks like. That is what it adds to the article and what it adds to the reader. Gune (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore the talk page...you just failed to make a compelling argument for its inclusion. The only editor who has supported your position so far is you. More editors have indicated that it should be omitted rather than retained and we should follow that consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you actually did ignore it. You again reverted after I left the talk page comment. I gave you the reasons why it should remain and instead you chose to ignore it. Gune (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have never attempted to replace it as you do not have consensus here and it violates BRD. Your view that I ignored it is incorrect...rather, you didn't make a convincing argument. You will have to convince editors that the image is necessary and improves the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No it is correct. If you hadn't ignored it then you would have actually responded to my comment initially. Gune (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hunt's BBQ Sauce Image

I see no problem with the image, other than the bizarre pixelating. I would really love to know what the above detractors would like to think the alternative "non-commercial" image would like like - a big brown stain on a tablecloth, perhaps? Genius. Thanks to whomever contributed the image, it actually adds a lot to the article.68.144.172.8 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth is it partially pixelated? To not offend vegans? To protect the copyright of the photo used on the packaging? This is by far the strangest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Unigolyn (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, when I saw this image I immeiately searched google images for a bottle of this stuff to see what's so offensive it has to be pixelated, and it looks like it's just a bit of meat being cooked on a barbeque! What on earth posessed someone to do that? JieBie (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no need to have a photo of a bottle...it doesn't add in any way to the article. Once you open that can of worms then other editors may try to shoehorn their favorite brand into the article. There are also commercial implications. As for the pixellation, Martin H., who is an admin at Commons, did that but I can't remember if I ever knew why.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it was used as an example of that type of barbeque sauce. Which you would have noticed if you bothered to read the caption. It was pixelated because you kept complaining that it was a copyright violation the last time you tried to remove it from the article. Gune (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pixellation is in response to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg and commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-11. --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pixellation made me think that there was a photo of a penis in the label. I know that that kind of stuff is not censored in WP, but it seems one of those "unncessary censorship" jokes. It is quite weird.79.148.41.24 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Being the image is ridiculously unusable with the foolish pixelation, and that the bottle design is at least three designs ago, I removed it. It really doesn't add anything to the article anymore. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Australia section

Is it just me or does the last couple of lines in the Australia section sound like an advertisement? --49.196.6.157 (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just you.144.140.233.204 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)