Jump to content

Talk:Molecular gastronomy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article Overhaul 3/09

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)


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

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)

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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.9.163 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Addition to lead?

I'm unhappy with this revert. I have added back the removal of the 'perhaps' part after finding a reference so I hope it will not be questioned anymore? Can anyone that might be reading this talk page comment on if they think that it would be appropriate to add the extra sentence that I added to the WP:lead?? I think that the lead should explain the term and in this case the common usage of the term, I cannot understand why already explained in article is a reason to remove it, it is not like this lead is to long, if it was not explained I could understand if it was removed, but it is. --Stefan talk 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

'Already explained' referred to "The term molecular gastronomy originally refered only to the scientific investigation of cooking, though today is it often applied to the cooking itself or to describe a style of cuisine." Removng 'perhaps' is pure editorializing; while 'perhaps' is itself an uncited commentary, it is less definitive than 'frustrated'. Ideally, the statement should be presented on its own without any motives being ascribed to it. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I understand, but WHY revert, what you reverted was more correct, there was no need to say perhaps, since the ref that I provided states that the chefs where frustrated. I actually removed some editorializing. Either you think that we should not have the whole section, then do something about it, put in only the statement they made or something else, I might be fine with that. BUT you only reverted!!!!! The page now is more wrong that the way I left it. Please explain what why you revert? --Stefan talk 04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In short what you reverted is citable, what you reverted to was not. Please explain your revert. --Stefan talk 05:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Two reasons. One, see here. Two, the word frustrated doesn't appear anywhere in the article. It could, perhaps, be implied from the tone of the introduction. But it is not stated. Please note that when you are citing, you must cite precisely what is said in your source, and not apply your own analysis. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Do not understand what you are saying, the word frustrating appears once, and 'perhaps' just before it, I want to remove the perhaps part since it is a fact that it was due to frustration, there where no perhaps involved. First you revert with the reason "use of 'perhaps' indicates we have no cite for the mental status of anyone feeling such things", I then find a cite for that mental status, I remove the perhaps again, you revert again, and now you state that I have to cite precisely what is said (show me the policy that states that??). We cite to support what we write, see WP:INCITE which states that I can support a word, as I did, if it is contentious. What is wrong? As for WP:BRD did you see the BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work part? Please read WP:REVERT, you should not revert good faith edits without discussing. I still do not understand what you issue is. --Stefan talk 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Again: the word 'frustrated' does not appear anywhere in the source you are citing. What part of this is unclear? → ROUX ₪ 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Again it does!!!! It specifically states that they where frustrated, sorry I do not have the book avaliable now so I cannot give you a precise quote, but since you have, just read from the start of that page and you will find it in about 20-30 lines! --Stefan talk 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The source states on row 6 page 124 in a section talking about the term molecular gastronomy, "I realised I wasn't alone finding the term frustrating." Please explain how that does not mention the word 'frustrating'??? and to clarify I am NOT talking about the article, I did not use the article as my source, I'm talking about the Fat duck cookbook that describes the history about the article, i.e. I use that book as a source. --Stefan talk 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the external links and copy them here:

These links should be used for inline citations.

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename/redirect to Modernist Cuisine?

It seems to me, based on the opinions of the people quoted extensively in the article, that Modernist Cuisine is a far better name for this field. As far as I can see, only Old Media uses Molecular Gastronomy anymore, while the actual researchers in the field would prefer Modernist Cuisine, since it raises the same kind of "is it really food?" questions that modernist painting raised in its day ("is it really art?"). Communisthamster (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer 'deconstructivist' as it avoids the baggage that comes with using 'modernist.' But that's neither here nor there. The majority of the public knows it as MG (unfortunately). There's also the overlap with the book Modernist Cuisine which is an exemplar of the style, yes, but would cause confusion. → ROUX ₪ 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, i.e. unfortunately the term Molecular Gastronomy is the most common name and it will be for a very long time. MC might be better but not more common, the people quoted in the article are specialists. If you go out on the street and ask 100 people what Molecular Gastronomy is and what Modernist Cusine, I doubt a single person will know the term Modernist Cusine, but most will at least have heard of Molecular Gastronomy. We could add more about the debate about the term in this article though. --Stefan talk 00:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
A section should certainly be added regarding the name. Also, I think we should follow the "specialists" over "a single person"; similar to how HD described her movement as "Imagist"; Breton & Surrealism; Hans Richter & Dada. my 2c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.99.134 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Science or cooking style

Molecular gastronomy is a subdiscipline of food science that seeks to investigate, explain and make practical use of the physical and chemical transformations of ingredients that occur while cooking, as well as the social, artistic and technical components of culinary and gastronomic phenomena in general.[4] Molecular gastronomy is a modern style of cooking

What? Is it a style of cooking or a branch of science?Ordinary Person (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is both. Originally the term was coined to describe the scientific investigation of cooking processes and product behaviour, and later was also applied to the style of cooking (originally exemplified by elBulli, now all over the place) which arose from using such investigation as a creative tool in the kitchen. → ROUX ₪ 06:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential Name Change

On the basis of the reasoning given in Modernist Cuisine, has there been any discussion on changing the title of this page? "Molecular gastronomy" seems to have a bum rap among many practitioners such as Nathan Myrhvold, Wylie Dufresne, Grant Achatz, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.244.70 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Example Myths Debunked or Explained Section

This section is confusing. For example, is searing meat to lock in the juices a myth that was debunked, or just something that no one understood how it worked and molecular gastronomy has now been able to explain why searing locks in the juices?

99.63.189.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This section needs to be reworked. Is this a list of myths, or of things that have been proven to be true (with scientific explanation)?!? There are two links, one is now a dead-link (Discovery Channel) which reverts to the Discovery Channel home page. The other one is an article that (on a quick read) only addresses the fourth "myth" ... apparently Hervé found it made no difference whether the water starts hot or cold when making stock. I did some Google searches and did not find any obvious citations to replace the Discovery link. Enquire (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Molecular Gastronomy as a "style of cooking" simply incorrect

From the horses' mouth itself, Mr. Herve This... [1] (google books)... chefs are not scientists, and scientists are not chefs. I think this part of the article should be removed, it has not been written by someone who is trememdously well versed in the subject... 24.77.26.190 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

He's not God. Words and phrases change meaning all the time, so even someone who coined such a phrase can't have control over how people use or interpret them. I read the 'As a style of cooking' section, and I believe it's fairly accurate and decently written.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Molecular gastronomy. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Molecular gastronomy. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

List of chefs

I've trimmed out the chefs who had no wikiarticles, but there are still many on the list who are supposedly "often associated with molecular gastronomy" but whose articles don't appear to support this claim. Meters (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This list was tagged as needing citations more than 5 years ago by User:Dolovis. I think we've more than long enough! Meters (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. After content is added, the presence or absence of a link to a prominent subject cannot determine its notability. It's just about the worst way of determining sources. You may not understand why people create red links in articles either; to encourage those articles' creation. There are many better ways to improve this article; removing content without actually doing the research into those chefs' cooking philosophies and styles isn't helpful. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
My removal of completely unsourced red linked articles id completely justified. This was challenged more than 5 years ago. We have no evidence that they are notable, or even that they are chefs, let alone that they are chefs who are "often associated with molecular gastronomy". Meters (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Again I feel you don't understand Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability asserts that the content merely has to be able to be verified. Just because you have no refs i.e. "evidence" doesn't give you any right. Do the research, don't make it harder on others if they'd want to add this again. I rewrite articles and often have the awful task of searching though the entire edit history to find which important aspects (some of which I'd never find just through basic research) were removed just because some later editor didn't want to take the time to add a ref. Also, please read WP:REDLINK. Your assertion that redlinking is deprecated is false; I'm not sure where you ever got such an impression. Red links help encourage users to create articles; without them there would be many more gaps in the article space. Please take your time to read more policies and guidelines.
I will find citations for as many chefs as I can, tonight or tomorrow. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You're also not helping the encyclopedia (see WP:IAR); do you really, really think an editor would add those names with any ill intent? Do you really think they'd add someone who's not a chef, or who isn't involved with molecular gastronomy in their profession? Assume good faith, the chefs are for sure involved in the discipline. Just because some don't yet have articles doesn't mean they don't deserve any; chefs, restaurants, and dishes are among the least represented topics on Wikipedia; far too few famous chefs have articles. I even created one on a famous Provencal chef this week. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:REDLINK and WP:V yourself, particulary "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" and "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Again, this section was tagged as needing citation years ago. We don;t know that these people are particularly associated with molecular gastronomy, that they are notable, or even that they are chefs at all. And yes, editors add incorrect information to Wikipedia all the time, whether it is intentional vandalism or by mistake. It has been 10 days since you said you would address the problem but you have made no changes at all. I'm removing the disputed content again. Meters (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Subdiscipline of food science?!

What is the evidence that this is generally accepted as a scientific discipline, or even generally claimed as such by practitioners? The article seems skewed towards the perspective of a very small and venturesome group of advocates who do see it that way. TiC (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Molecular gastronomy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Molecular gastronomy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, this needs a lot of pruning.

Last month, on NPR José Andrés chuckled at the notion of molecular gastronomy, saying something like "ALL cooking is molecular gastronomy!" and began by citing fermentation of wine and cheese. (He'd probably be closer to Heston Blumenthal, who seems underutilized here.) Andrés' point was essentially that anyone who does not explore the physiochemical nuances of food is probably a rather poor chef and maybe ought to stick to being a cook.

On the other hand, MG seemed to attract many inept hash-slingers who could puff themselves up by simply snagging a few gimmicks and buzzwords. (This was parodied years back on The Simpsons, which certainly ought to be mentioned here.) There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a culinary prop comic, but not everyone aspires to be the next Carrot Top of the kitchen.

Reading this, one might justifiably assume that rose radishes (all edible art, really) constitutes MG.

This article spends MUCH too much time citing antecedents, making it appear that somehow all food science and experimental cookery (without, magically enough, all the dead ends inherent) leads inexorably to MG. Much of this will go, beginning with the big grey blockquotes.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon making a first editing pass, there's a difficult passage under Elizabeth Cawdry Thomas that leaps — literally mid-sentence — from mentioning her place in the history of MG to raving (again) about the prescience of Kurti/This, whereupon ECT never reappears. As there are no references offered to support any of this, I'll leave it for a few days in hopes someone can fix it.

I've momentarily blanked some long passages, not least a massive This quote that appears to be a total non sequitur. Unless they can be made relevant, I consider them fair game for deletion.

The ravings about the genius of Kurti and This don't really belong anywhere in Wikipedia, but are certainly of little utility here whileNicholas Kurti and Hervé This exist.

Likewise, the Further reading list is overwhelmed by those names, so I will remove most. Save it for the biographies.

Techniques, tools and ingredients lists a bunch of stuff given no context in the article, and therefore irrelevant. Consider it marked for extinction. As well, the endless Alternative names list really serves no purpose unless it is put clearly into context; I will begin by turning it into text rather than a list, but I don't see where it survives at all except as a badly dating trivia pile.

The History stuff ought to be greatly reduced. While some WP users will be grateful for dry historical tidbits, most will want to learn about the practice of MG, the cool stuff it can do, and examples of edibles, NOT of research topics and categories for philosophical rumination. With that in mind, I have moved the (very) few specific examples nearer the top.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

This article reads like it was written by an 1800s cockney trying to fit in at a symposium 104.192.204.44 (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

List of chefs again

I've trimmed the list of "Chefs who are often associated with molecular gastronomy because of their embrace of science" to remove entries whose articles make no mention of molecular gastronomy or science (and one apparently non-notable entry). This was tagged as being a problem 10 years ago, and was discussed on the talk page five years ago at Talk:Molecular_gastronomy/Archive_1#List_of_chefs. Please don't restore them without providing reliable source to show that they are known for their connection to molecular gastronomy. Meters (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=QGmmIVVIOEoC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=herve+this+molecular+gastronomy+is+not+a+style+of+cooking&source=bl&ots=g__ntMc21a&sig=Wwn4nvhL2WiXqVHLoQD0YtFfW2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwB2oVChMI7OXThrCJyAIVTpeICh1Fmwjl#v=onepage&q=herve%20this%20molecular%20gastronomy%20is%20not%20a%20style%20of%20cooking&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molecular_gastronomy/Archive_1&oldid=1137017780"