Language desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 28

Name for cooking technique

What do you call it when you submerge something in oil, let's say a turkey, and slow cook it for hours, below the boiling temperature of oil, but still hot enough to kill any nasties. Is that still called deep frying ? StuRat (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's called "oil poaching". Wikipedia has a very brief article on water-based poaching at Poaching (cooking), but that deals mostly with poaching in a Court-bouillon. Poaching in oil is commonly used for cooking fish, see this google search for more examples and recipes. Here specifically is a recipe for oil-poached chicken thighs that requires a three-hour cooking time, similar to what you are describing for turkey. --Jayron32 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I might try that technique on a turkey next Thanksgiving. StuRat (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a variation of oil poaching called confit which involves poaching meat in fat, and then allowing the fat to cool and congeal around the slow-cooked meat. It's divine, but doesn't really work on a whole bird like a turkey, maybe a fatty part like thighs or drumsticks. As far as oil poaching an entire turkey, I'm not finding any recipes online, which means it probably isn't done. All oil poaching recipes I am finding are with smaller parts, and for birds (chicken, turkey, duck, goose, etc.) are usually done in preparation for making a confit. --Jayron32 07:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one for poaching chicken leg quarters in olive oil. Turkey legs are pretty honking big, so you'd need a sizable vessel. Note, however, that oil poaching is quite tricky. You need to maintain it at the final meat temperature (like 180-185 for turkey) and keep it there, without getting hotter or colder than that, for hours. You also need a big enough pot to hold the meat and enough excess fat to completely submerge it. That's why it is usually done on fish; which can be poached in an hour or so, being much lighter meat. I really don't think you can do a whole turkey. Oil poaching 15 pounds of bird sounds like something that could take all day and all night. Why not just fire up the smoker and barbecue it? Barbecued turkey can be very tasty. --Jayron32 07:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 40-quart stainless steel stock pot with lid and aluminum steamer/fry basket. That should hold a turkey. Overnight would be the plan. I don't think maintaining the temperature is that difficult. You reach an equilibrium point where the heat in equals the heat out, and the temperature should be stable at that point. Unlike with water, the oil level shouldn't significantly drop off overnight, especially if covered. One negative for this cooking technique would be a lack of browning, so I would still want to either brown it in the oven after, or maybe just splash brown gravy on it so it doesn't look so pale. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do be careful, Stu. I've read many a news story (and seen the results) of people burning down their houses because the oil spilled out and caught fire. Dismas|^(talk) 12:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly, poaching shouldn't cause that problem as you'd be keeping the oil at 180 degrees F. The real trick is having an oven that can maintain a steady 180 F for however long it takes the turkey to get to that temperature, which could be like 10 hours or so. Most ovens do a terrible job of maintaining a temperature that low. My oven's lowest reading is a nominal 170 F, but things I have read is that the average household oven has very fuzzy cycles at that low of a temperature: the temperature can swing 10 or more degrees in each direction or more. Just make sure you do your homework and seek advice from someone who has actually oil poached a turkey. As I said, I can't find anyone using the technique on anything that large at ALL on the internet, which should be a red flag. Then again, 20 years ago no one thought of shoving a beer can up a chicken's keister, and now it's the only way I cook a whole chicken. So maybe Stu will be a culinary innovator with his slow-oil-poached turkey. We'll see. --Jayron32 17:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be heating it on my gas stove. There's no way my 40 quart stock pot would fit in my oven, and I could never lift it back up, when full. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I wouldn't leave oil on a gas stovetop unsupervised for any reason, unless I needed the insurance money. I also don't think you can maintain a uniform oil temperature at 180 for hours on a stovetop; you're only heating from the bottom so you're going do get significant temperature differentials and the cycling is going to be even worse than in an oven. I don't think this is going to work for you. --Jayron32 02:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "cycling" ? The gas would be on constantly at the same rate, unlike an oven which turns itself on and off. The oil at the top would be somewhat cooler than the bottom, lessened a bit if the top is in place, but I'm not sure what the temperature difference would be. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, You'd be in real trouble if you cooked anything at the boiling temperature of oil. What is really meant by deep frying is submersion in oil which is significantly higher than the boiling temperature of water. See smoke point. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the practical issues canvassed above, wouldn't the main issue be that boiling a whole turkey in oil is culinarily dubious and calorically repugnant, Stu? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the oil doesn't get far into the meat. As long as you're not eating the skin you're probably fine (no warranty, just tellin you what I've heard). Unless you're allergic to peanuts — peanut oil is I think the most common one used for this, for its high smoke point and relative low cost. --Trovatore (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but I've never heard of deep frying a whole bird. Not even a chicken or a quail. Pieces, that's a a different matter. I know of methods where a whole chicken is immersed in a water-based stock and simmered, and presumably that could be done with a turkey too. But oil? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See deep-fried turkey. I'm surprised that (unless I missed it) no one has yet linked that in this discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. No telling what strange practices obtain in foreign parts. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that, unlike animal fats, vegetable oils can be healthy, as long as they aren't heated to a temperature where they degrade. They do have lots of calories, but for a once a year meal that's OK. I've boiled a turkey in water before, and it's not terrible, but the white meat can be a bit dry. The oil is supposed to keep it moist. I also have other reasons for wanting to cook my turkey this way:

1) My stove is down on the floor, which hurts my back when I try to lift heavy loads out of it. My stove top is far more accessible. I tend to only use the oven for light things, like rolls.

2) I don't want to have to baste it constantly to keep it from drying out.

3) I want a cooking method which isn't so time-critical. That is, if the guests arrive an hour late, I don't want the turkey to be either cold or overcooked. Presumably I can keep it warm and moist at 185°F submerged in oil, indefinitely.

4) I'm an advocate of slow-cooking, which allows the inside to cook without the outside being overcooked. So, you can get fall-off-the-bone meat inside, without dry skin. It also allows more time for the flavors to blend, say if I jam onions up it's butt. :-)

BTW, deep frying a turkey isn't that unusual here: [1] (have you seen the Ren and Stimpy episode where they deep fry everything, right up to the car ?). I'm looking for a healthier variation, by keeping the oil hot enough to kill the nasties, but not hot enough to form other nasties. I also consider actual deep frying to be highly dangerous, as spilling oil that hot on yourself could kill you. And, due to the fumes produced and risk of fire, deep frying a turkey is normally done outside, and I want to cook inside. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, if Ren and Stimpy is your cultural yardstick, anything goes. Have at it. :) I await with interest the (unedited) feedback you get from your guests, including the things they will have been too well-mannered to verbalise. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you haven't been following the latest in culinary science, where lab tests have shown how much better slow cooking is, for the reasons I listed. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checks drawn to cash

I have trouble figuring out what the phrase "checks drawn to cash" means. I saw it in the following sentence: "Large bonuses, lack of standard invoices, unusual credits granted to new customers, and checks drawn to "cash" are other red flags."

Cliffbament (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd way to say it, at least in US English. I'd call it "checks made out to cash", which means anyone can cash them, and leaves no record of who was actually paid. StuRat (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A check (US) or cheque (UK) that is "drawn to cash" or "made out to cash" is a check with "Cash" written on the Payee line, which means that anyone who presents the check at a bank can exchange it for an equivalent amount of cash. Before ATMs were common, making out a check to cash was the standard way to withdraw cash from your bank account (in the UK at least). In context, the sentence that you quote probably means that extensive use of such cheques on a business account would be one of the things that would cause a company's auditor to raise an audit issue. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the standard method where you are, Gandalf, but not where I am. The standard way in Australia was to fill out a withdrawal slip and present it to the teller with your card or bank book. Some banks still require patrons to do this for over-the-counter withdrawals. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rant about UK banks

In my bank in the UK, I can walk in and withdraw cash from my account without a card or any form of ID, so long as I know my own name, date of birth, and address, which is a feat not beyond me. If I use my card as a form of ID, I occasionally get told my card is not valid, or is valid, depending on the girl whose window I am at. If my card is 'not valid', I also then get told to go to the post office instead, where my card would be valid, despite the fact that the ATM outside the bank accepts my card. The people at the post office tell me to go back to the bank, because they know nothing about this 'arrangement'. I then go back into the bank and show them the receipt from the ATM, and inform the girl that my card, having been issued by that particular bank, is in fact, valid. And they still tell me to go to the post office. However, I am happy to say, they have not yet asked me if I want fries with that. It surprises me that people are shocked that the world's banks have caused an economic crisis. One girl at my bank even refused to issue me a bank statement, because, in her words, "We don't do that and cannot do it." It took half an hour of explaining to her that banks do, in fact, issue bank statements, because they are banks, until she called her supervisor, and it was printed out in less than 5 minutes. My other bank is even worse. My business account needs a login number from a little card reader, which had to be sent to me in Hungary. I had by then forgotten my PIN No., so this was sent to me in Hungary, but I had to go BACK to the UK to validate the number on my chip card, because it had to be done at my local bank in the UK. Absolutely useless. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a national thing, Jack. My experience is the same as Gandalf's: in those days we didn't have cards, and I'm not familiar with the concept of a "bank book", though it might be like the "passbook" I had for building society accounts. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Colin, but I was taught to write "Please pay cash" on the line. Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also thinking that it's a national thing. When I was away at college and had a checking account with my hometown bank, I would go to the bank on campus (which I didn't have an account with) and write out a check for cash. That is, I'd write "Cash" on the payee line. And with a student ID, they'd cash it for me for free. (Often banks would charge a small fee for cashing checks when you didn't have an account with that bank.) And they'd give me cash to spend. This was in the days before debit cards. The only reason I needed ID was to not be charged the fee and often was not even asked for the ID. Many stores will also cash these checks as well as pay checks but again, they take a fee out.

And in the US, a bank book is a small book that you kept track of your deposits and withdrawals in. A small ledger basically. It was also called a passbook by some people. I haven't seen them in at least a decade though. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US one would have used a withdrawal slip, primarily for a withdrawal from a savings account, as opposed to a checking account, where you would use a check made out to cash (or a withdrawal slip). Bank books or passbooks (a record of deposits and withdrawals) were also primarily for savings accounts. At any rate, checks drawn to cash don't leave a record of who got the cash, as the payee line simply reads, "Cash".Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here in the US one did either, fill out a withdrawal slip or write a check to cash. If you didn't have a withdrawal slip at home a check was the handy way to go to the bank ready when you got there. (Americans often use the drive thru window with a pneumatic canister, so having a check ready saved time.) But since you have to pay for new checkbooks, using a withdrawal slip was cheaper. ATM's were introduced a year or two after I got my first check account, Philadelphia was a test market for this. I was shocked when I first moved the NYC after high school that they didn't have ATM's on every corner--the only one I knew about in the whole city was at Penn Station for the use of travellers. I had to go back to writing checks to cash for a while until NYC caught up to Philly. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you were dealing with your bank and had a withdrawal slip, you would probably use the slip (they were free and lying right there, they also came in the back of checkbooks -- deposit slips, also). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever heard of a withdrawal slip in the UK, you just had to use a cheque, though that did have the advantage that you could get a useful mix of denominations of notes and coins just by asking. I seem to remember that there were a few pages at the end of the chequebook which contained spaces which were stamped if you drew cash at a branch other than your own (I think at one time there may have been limits on how often you could do this). ATMs were just starting to be introduced when I opened my first account - my university branch had two ATMs inside the branch (none outside), one of which issued £1 notes which you selected by selecting a button between £2, £4... up to £20, while the other much less used ATM dispensed up to £100 in £5 notes (though as an impoverished student I never had enough to withdraw more than £10 in fivers!). Back in those days (1976-7), after paying the rent I had to budget to survive on £14 a week... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "steampunk" a proper noun?

My spellcheck tells me it is, but I tend to suspect otherwise. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. It's not the name of a unique object, which is what a proper noun is. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Dada is usually treated as a proper noun, and has very similar occurrence. I would say it is entirely up to you, and whoever tells you that your choice is wrong is making it up. --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no too, as I've not seen it capitalized. See the quotation in "wikt:steampunk". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ColinFine, names of genres and styles are often treated as proper nouns or not fairly arbitrarily. --14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. On the balance of the evidence I decided to go with lowercase because it seemed to look better (I needed to know in order to write this, in case anyone was curious). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about your own writing, I would go by context. If the subject is mentioned just once, off-handedly, like "she had a steampunk-look about her style", I probably would just leave it lower case. If I were writing an essay where I was comparing Steampunk and Art Deco (and other styles), I would capitalize both, especially because it helps a reader who is skimming your text looking for a specific reference. μηδείς (talk) 1:11 pm, Today (UTC−5)

You used it three times as an adjective, so yes, lower case was the way to go. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the editing of a quotation in a newspaper (or elsewhere)

After reading this from Alansplodge, I got to thinking about the way the MP is quoted in that example (in this situation, what the quotation is regarding isn't relevant, merely the structure of it).
The article says " ... another Conservative MP claimed the report proved that the Anglican Church was governed by a 'load of Communist clerics'". Why is the word 'a' before the quotation not sampled from the MP's words? Surely he said 'a load'; I have a hard time thinking of a sentence structured around that phrase which doesn't use 'a' before 'load'. Is there a rule of thumb in the publishing world regarding this? And where might I find said rule?
-Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to look at the original quote, but the MP may have said "this load..." or some other construct. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit dull having not thought of that possibility! Although I wish that I could find the original quotation to put this to rest to my own satisfaction. It's proving elusive. Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with you in that I'd normally include the a in the quotation if it was actually there in what the MP said. But the MP might have said, "I will not put up with the load of Communist clerics that govern the Anglican Church." Or maybe he referred to them as "this load of Communist clerics" or "the odious load of Communist clerics". Working quoted phrases into prose is a bit of an art, and I'll assume that Alansplodge knew what he was doing. Deor (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall someone wishing to be rid of a "turbulent priest" ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As to the actual quote, the wording appears to be: "The Church of England seems now to be run by a load of communist clerics," (John Carlisle MP) - from Nicholas Faith, 1986, A Very Different Country: A Typically English Revolution (p.242). So you are right, it was a bit of an odd way of quoting it. (BTW Deor, it was composed by whoever wrote the WP article and not me.) Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't paying sufficient attention to the OP's posting. Deor (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alansplodge, for finding that. Doesn't really answer my question, but I think there's no real way to know unless we ask Mr. Faith personally. I shall have to put it down to simply being an odd choice. Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be tempted to put the 'a' before the quote marks. I think the rhythm of the sentence requires it; the words "by a" are kind of run on to form one sound. If you were to put the 'a' in the quote marks it would upset the flow of the sentence. --Viennese Waltz 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]