Talk:Roast turkey

From Citizendium
Revision as of 11:29, 20 October 2010 by imported>Aleta Curry (→‎What do we do now with the turkey recipes? Asking for opinions and thoughts....: Yes, well, speaking of turkeys....)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Recipes [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  The preparation of a whole bird as a meal for a large group of people, frequently at festive occasions such as Christmas-time or various holidays. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Food Science [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2  English language variant:  American English
1, 2






Move to subpage

Requesting Page Deletion

Requesting page deletion as article does not fit Citizendium standards. Mary Ash 04:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Impetuous; don't delete - you worked hard on the content, which should be integrated elsewhere. Aleta Curry 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That didn't work with Marian apparitions, and I hope it won't work here. The information just needs to be put in the right place, not deleted. David Finn 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Mary, you should already know that requesting to delete this page is not what is to be done. Thus I have moved the page to the /Recipes subpage.
You have put much effort into this page and collected material, but it needs more work to shape it into a good recipes page. So, please, do not just leave it behind but continue to work on it (with the help of the community). You may take your time, of course -- there is no deadline to meet!
--Peter Schmitt 08:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Peter I did not know that an author could request a page deletion. How do you request a page be deleted? I plan no more work on this article as it does not meet Citizendium standards. The one thing I learned in life, so far, is to know when to cut your losses. I am moving onto to other articles to write. Again, how do you request a page deletion? I searched Citizendium and could find nothing to enlighten me on this subject. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read what Peter has written - he said requesting page deletion was not what is to be done.
Oh, and if you want to know how to request deletion of a page, ask the person who placed the speedy delete tag on the article. Speedy delete tags are how you do it. David Finn 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
David I AM the person who requested the speedy delete and it was refused.Mary Ash 15:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) In any event, the page deletion criteria for non-Editors are restricted to those that are listed for Constables on their own authority. Editors have more, but still restricted categories. Given the number of people who have worked on content here, it is not plausible to say the article is not appropriate for Citizendium. It is being reworked, however, into a style more consistent with that of other food articles on Citizendium. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Title Change to Roast turkey

Requesting title change to Roast turkey. The current title is inaccurate as roast turkey is eaten worldwide. As shown the British have been eating roast turkey back in the time of King Henry VIII and is still eaten today. The directions for preparing a roast turkey could be used by anyone, in any country, at any time, especially since the metric and Gas Mark measurements are now included.Mary Ash 14:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is copied from the talk page "Roast turkey (American)". It took place after the content of the main page was moved to a Recipes subpage.

The discussion below is the discussion after the page "Roast turkey (American) was moved/copied to "Roast turkey".

Section move needed

Turkey factoids should be at turkey (bird). The section also needs to be reviewed as people have time and better sources cited as the one used is very general. Aleta Curry 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll move them. My opinions about factoids are mixed, but I didn't want to lose them and they were rather lonely on the recipes page. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops! Cross post. Howard, I've moved them, see below. Aleta Curry 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

'Turkey Factoids' Moved to domestic turkey

I've moved this section to the stub domestic turkey. I had started that without metadata deliberately, pending the conclusion of the great turkey debates. So, that can very easily be cut/moved/deleted/pasted somewhere else, whatever is finally decided. I'm not making any determinations what that should be, only that the factoids shouldn't be at roast turkey. Aleta Curry 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

text box

Howard, I dunno what you're trying to do, or how to fix it. So let's leave the quotation as it is until we find a guru who can do it. Thanks.Hayford Peirce 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment it out for now and make it a quotation. It didn't belong as a major subhead. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it sure doesn't belong where you have stuck it now, either, right in the middle of something else entirely, with absolutely no explanation of what it's doing there. Hayford Peirce 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's very much in context. It makes a transition from the small turkeys of the past to the industrial of today.
As a matter of personal style, while I'm fine with lighthearted content, headers are for information indexing or retrieval. Put the lighthearted into the body of text, into a text box (probably preferred) or quotation when it is a quotation. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkey and all that

I try to recapitulate:

  1. Mary creates Roast turkey -- a how-to page
Yes
  1. Hayford considers the page as ethnocentric and moves it to Roast turkey (American) -- obviously he considers such a page title as justified
Yes. If you had read the article in question, you would have agreed 100%. It was purely about American turkeys, holidays, and preparation, with a lot of material about American foods. It made perfect sense to move it to its new name.
  1. Mary adds more recipes
Yes.
  1. The talk page shows: most agree that this belongs on a subpage
Yes.
  1. Mary requests to delete both the page and the talk page
Yes.
  1. I (and others) point out that deleting is not justified
Yes.
  1. I move the page to Roast turkey (American)/Recipes and -- to avoid an empty main page -- I write a one-sentence lead.
Yes.
  1. I move the no longer current talk page to an archive.
Apparently Yes -- I'm not certain of all the moves.
  1. Hayford now considers the page as no longer ethnocentric
Yes -- because the page, as redone by Peter and others no longer WAS ethnocentric. All of the American recipes and references had been move to the "Recipes" tab and the remaining text was a couple of bland statements about roast turkey in general. There was, therefore, absolutely no reason to retain "(American)" in the title of the article.
  1. Instead of developing an American-centered page (the recipes are still ethnocentric!), Hayford changes his mind and wants to move the cluster back.
Why should I possibly WANT TO develop an American-centered page?! That's what I was PROTESTING about! The ethnocentric recipes (and TEXT) were now hidden by the Recipes tab. So, logically, since the article was no longer ethnocentric, there was no longer any reason to retain its title.
  1. Since this does not work immediately, and instead of making room for the move, he is impatient and copies main page and talk page to the intended name and requests to delete these pages
Yes. I admit to this grave fault. So take me out and shoot me. Or ban me from Citizendium.
  1. Howard objects, and I object because this would destroy the history of the pages and would leave the subpage and the talk page archive orphaned
Yes. But I thought you were objecting about the SUBJECT changes, not picayune History changes. Once again, take me out and shoot me.
  1. Hayford copies the Recipes subpage, as well.
Well, of course! My whole point of doing this was to change the WHOLE article and all of its subpages from one Title to another. There are now NO ORPHANED SUBPAGES.
  1. After that, the copies are changed as well, so that they have a history of their own
I have no idea of what happened to copies, etc. I can't believe that this is an issue worth spending ten seconds of our time on. Hayford Peirce 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition, we have turkey (bird), turkey dinner, and domestic turkey. Don't forget Wild Turkey which should be bourbon. Aleta Curry 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for doing that -- it tried to create order out of chaos. Hayford Peirce 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before continuing to develop turkey-related content it is necessary to find an agreement: What pages should exist, and what should be their content?

  • From what I have learned from American movies and literature, a page on American roast turkey seems to be justified
Possibly, but not necessarily so. Why would we have a page on ROAST American turkey and not ROAST English turkey or ROAST French turkey? Why not simply retain the now-existing page Roast turkey? We might have a page on American Thanksgiving and a section on turkeys.
These pages now already exist. And could be expanded.
See above comments -- these pages already exist.

I believe firmly in preserving the history of articles.

I do too -- BUT there has been a slight mix-up here concerning a newly created article (three days old, four days old?) and CZ's foundations will not crumble if a little of the History has disappeared or is deeply inaccessible. At least not in my opinion.

When there is agreement on titles and corresponding content we shall have to decide where to archive what currently exists. Comments? --Peter Schmitt 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My own opinion is that we retain the Roast turkey article as it is. The Recipes part of it needs further work, EXTENSIVE work, to reformat the recipes. If you want to make this International, I can stick in a couple of French, English, and Mexican recipes. I further believe that all traces of the Roast turkey (American) article should be vanished as if they had never existed. Except, if you can find it, the History. But where you stick that in, I have no idea. Hayford Peirce 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Howard is too chicken to continue this discussion and ducks out. Just crow when the rest of you have decided. I have been accused of being birdbrained when roasting turkey and probably have little to contribute. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Aleta doesn't remember actually having been called a turkey - certainly not recently, but I have no stake in roast turkey. I am completely open-minded about turkey clusters. Aleta Curry 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Turkey clusters? Pieces of turkey stuck together and covered with chocolate? Howard knows about turkey mole, but that's the extent of his turkey-chocolate experience.

(undent) Again, let me know which pages to delete and which to merge. This is not going to be easy, I'm sure. D. Matt Innis 16:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as *I* can tell, all the turkey pages and subpages with the word "American" in them can be deleted. But, the Talk page for "American" has some dialog on it that should be saved somewhere. But how and where, I don't know. Aside from that single thing, the rest is simple. Or so it seems to me. Hayford Peirce 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hayford

Hayford, I didn't make the list to accuse you. I made it to explain and justify why I am against deleting the pages, and why I think that there is a need for a plan ...

We only disagree on one, a rather, minor issue: I think that even such cases the history should be preserved (and that it would have been easier done by moves).

--Peter Schmitt 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! I really don't know what to suggest to clear this whole thing up 100% though.... Hayford Peirce 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Recipes

The Recipes subpage needs heavy revision -- whether as subpage of this article or another. --Peter Schmitt 23:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Hayford Peirce 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Factoids

The "factoids" were copied from one or two websites. They cannot be considered as reliable "facts" without further research. --Peter Schmitt 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved them temporarily, you may already have noticed, if not, please see above. Aleta Curry 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The facts were researched and written by me. There is no plagiarism involved and I am sorry you feel that I would commit such a serious sin of poor writing.Mary Ash 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
On re-reading I see you do not accept NPR or the turkey growers in Minnesota as reliable sources. I suspect both sources would know a thing about history and turkeys.Mary Ash 16:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mary, you will have to develop the habit of reading what people write carefully before taking umbrage. Otherwise you'll never be happy here and you'll continue to make other people unhappy.
Please refer to my post of 16 October 2010, above. Please.
Stop being defensive! Nobody accused you of plagiarism or the 'serious sin of poor writing'.
I do not wish to speak for Peter, but when the very first line of 'facts' states that Henry VIII popularised the eating of Turkeys at Christmas in England, he's well within his rights to question how reliable the additions are.
Aleta Curry 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

References

All the references came from university level sources, turkey experts or cooking experts. To claim the sources lack merit is untrue. Please return the Factoids to their rightful place in the article as they are well researched and written by me.Mary Ash 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, at a quick glance, that Mary is absolutely correct about this. Hayford Peirce 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not say that I think that all these items are incorrect. I only said that they need more research.
When I checked the references, one of the two source was "Minnesota turkey" which looks like a p.r.-site to me. And I do not trust p.r.
The other one is University of Illinous Extension. This sounds better, but is "Extension" the same as University of Illinois? They give sources there, and it would be better to cite primary sources, if possible. They may have more detailed information. E.g.:
"English turkeys were herded to market and wore booties to protect their feet. In the United States turkeys were walked to market too. It is unclear if the American turkeys wore booties." When was this the case?
As for this list: The items seem to be rather arbitrary. Perhaps they would better fit on a "trivia" (Catalogs) subpage. Maybe, they should also be sorted or classified in some way?
--Peter Schmitt 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the question is, who cares? This is an encyclopedia article about Roast turkey after all. Who cares if Alton Brown says stuffing is what goes inside the turkey while dressing is what's baked in a casserole dish. He also recommends preparing the dressing? (preparing it how, one might ask, if one cared) Who cares if Tom turkeys gobble while hen turkeys cluck? What use is it to say that Ben Franklin wrote the turkey should be the national USA bird, bearing in mind he meant live turkeys and not dead ones? This isn't the article for everything to be found concerning turkeys, and encyclopedias aren't the place for "factoids". David Finn 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're half-wrong and half-right, Dave. I think that *most* of these factoids should be in the turkey article, not the Roast turkey article. And, of course, we are not USA Today -- I hate the word factoid and I hate bulleted lists like this that are mostly meaningless laundry list. The Alton Brown quote could go into an article on stuffing. Hayford Peirce 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"I hate the word factoid and I hate bulleted lists" That's why I suggested a Catalog. Some items can be copied from there to a suitable place. --Peter Schmitt 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page Hayford - all of these points are potentially useful, somewhere, if presented properly, yet all-too-easily can be cheapened by inclusion in the wrong place and without explanation or context. David Finn 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

((unindent))I can not find the exact wording but the Citizendium FAQ or explanation of why CZ is different from WP is the use of lively researched writing. My presentation of the Factoids were meant to be educational and entertaining which fits within the CZ writing style. I used the "string of pearls" style as it presented the facts in nuggets that were easy to read. Not all writing has to be dry, boring and long-winded. Good, factual writing can educate while entertain. I am used to the "string of pearls" approach as it is used to present compact (dense) information in short form by newspapers. You save column inches while hopefully keeping the reader reading. Ben Franklin may have been discussing live turkeys but I am sure he would have been happy to see dead ones at every table when the holidays or any other time rolled around. He loved our native bird (and the turkey is native to North America not just the US) and seeing us eat it I am sure would have made him happy. Old Ben loved good food, good drink and a good time. To quote Ben: "God made beer because he loves us and wants us to be happy."Source: WikiQuoteMary Ash 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is yet another example of what you think should be done as being incorrect for CZ. We simply don't use "factoids". Sometimes we do use the bulleted system, but certainly not a "string of pearls" with just a brief line for each item. But no matter, the info can be used somewhere, and presented somewhere. Just in a different format. Hayford Peirce 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrected Stuffings to Stuffing

Corrected the word stuffings to stuffing. Sources:

Added reference concerning deep fat fried turkey

Add a source supporting the claim that deep fat frying a turkey is dangerous. Used the National Fire Protection Association as a source. And as a personal note, a regional off-duty firefighter was severely burned and lost most of his house Thanksgiving Day as he was trying to deep fat fry a turkey. Instead he burned his house down and ended up at the regional burn center. This method of cooking is very dangerous and not recommended.Mary Ash 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

French methods of roasting turkey

I think you're wrong about this. I lived in Tahiti for 25 years and everyone I knew who roasted a turkey did it exactly as an American would, with a little liquid in the bottom of the pan at some point, but they weren't doing anything more than that to make them "moist". By that, do you mean "braise"? It's possible, of course, but I never heard of it, anymore than I see "braised turkey" on the menus of restaurants. Probably a better way of cooking them, of course, but braising isn't roasting.... Hayford Peirce 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The French recipe found online has the addition of a small amount of liquid with a covered roaster when roasting the turkey. James Peterson's recipe uses a dry roast recipe with turkey covered with butter aluminum foil. He also suggests adding a small amount of liquid, if the meat juices begin to burn.Mary Ash 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's what I thought it would be. I really don't think that this method should be called "moist", since there are probably a million US recipes that call for a small amount of water, or stock, or white wine, or something. But we can leave it as it is for the moment while we think about it. Hayford Peirce 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good and thank you!Mary Ash 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your additions made it perfect, along with my further info about chestnuts. I think we can sign off on this portion of the article now. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional turkey factoid sources

American or international

If you think that there should be only one article I do not object.

But my personal impression is that -- while roast turkey is eaten all over the world -- it has a special significance for North America. Thus, I think, one international article (not several!) and one on American issues would be justified. (At least the recipe subpages should be split!)

For instance, here in middle Europe, turkey is eaten, but seldom prepared as a whole. This is rather replaced by the (rather smaller) goose, often at Christmas, and traditionally mid-November (St. Martin's Day). For greater parties, usually a suckling pig is taken.

--Peter Schmitt 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about the goose or any other bird. The article address the turkey and so the article will be about the turkey. BTW I just lost about three hours research trying to justify why the factoid segment is accurate and well researched. Sigh...Mary Ash 22:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In Tahiti we could buy about 15-lb suckling pigs at holiday time and roast them in the oven using Julia Child's recipe. Fantastic. They were so small that we would put cherries in the eyes and a fresh lime in the mouth when serving. I have a couple of great pictures of one on the table, before and after eating, with one of our pussy cats examining the carcass. Have gotta do an article Suckling pig! Hayford Peirce 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When my brother was married to a Samoan princess, he used to visit Samoa, and the pigs used to sleep in the same residence as the humans, if I remember right. I never made it to Samoa but perhaps some day I'll get there.Mary Ash 01:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What do we do now with the turkey recipes? Asking for opinions and thoughts....

Now that the name of this article has been clearly established, other articles such as Turkey (bird) created, and a start made at cleaning up the Recipes article, what, precisely are we going to do with all the material that Mary Ash essentially just dumped into either the main article and/or the Recipes section, I can't remember the precise sequence? See here for what I'm talking about:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Roast_turkey/Recipes

You will note that I have just created a recipe for a very elaborate old French version, following the {{Recipes}x template and procedures that we all worked out some time ago. Other recipes for roast turkey can easily be added below this one, just as at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Croque-monsieur/Recipes we have two separate recipes. So we could easily have half a dozen recipes here -- just as long as someone else than I took the time and effort to completely rewrite them and completely reformat them. I think that all of you can judge, just by looking at my top recipe and then looking down at the others, just how much work would be involved here for an essentially trivial result.

So,then, what do we do with the existing recipes and all the other miscellaneous material that Mary dumped in? I have already removed the "factoid" list to the Talk page of Turkey (bird). Do we:

  • Simply delete all this stuff? I would hate to, because there is a *lot* of material there, and some of it is almost certainly worthwhile.
  • Move it to Cold Storage?
  • Do something else entirely with it?

I myself, of course, have absolutely no official position in which I can do anything at all about this. I'm simply soliciting views from various Citizens to see what they think about it. If we could come to some sort of consensus about it, then hopefully we could clean things up! I'd appreciate it if you would leave your thoughts below.... Thanks!

If they are all recipes for roast turkey,then it seems clear to me that they should inhabit a well formatted subpage of Recipes at the article Roast Turkey. There are some there now, but they are not sorted out. There should be an index at the top of the page with links. If there are very many recipes, then possibly there should be several subcategories of the recipes subpage (e.g. by region of the world). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we make a subpage of the subpage Recipes? Called, oh, Recipe rough drafts? If so, we could simply dump them all into there. If you haven't looked at the actual recipes themselves, as they presently stand, you won't see how much work they need. Your suggestion, however, sounds as if it would get them out of sight but still leave them accessible. Hayford Peirce 22:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent):I think that a constable should completely delete the article for the reasons given in the first two sections of CZ:Article Deletion Policy about worthless, inaccurate articles, namely these quotes from that CZ article:

  • the article is of such low quality (in terms of inaccuracy, bias, poor writing, or whatever) that it would be more efficient to start over than to try to clean up the current one (this also can be achieved by blanking, if one does in fact wish to start over)
Perhaps one of the Constable would delete the article "acting on their own recognizance". As a former constable, you know them ... why not ask them to do so? Milton Beychok 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Milton, do you mean that the main article Roast turkey is not an encyclopedia article, or that the subpage "Roast turkey/Recipes" is not an encyclopedia article? If the latter, I am very confused; subpages aren't supposed to be articles, are they? We have other subpages, such as the "catalog" of Presidents of the U.S., that are mere lists, not encyclopedia articles, but that are attached to actual articles that are unquestionably encyclopedic; and there are a number of other "Recipes" subpages. Should the constables go and delete all of those subpages, which could not stand alone as encyclopedia articles, as well? Bruce M. Tindall 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not a good judge of turkey recipes, but some well-chosen historical ones are certainly possible. If convenient, instead of a single Recipes subpage several subpages could be created (as for Catalogs). The recipes itself seem to be easy to locate, but the collection has some value as a "list of suggested recipes". They could be helpful. I do not like the idea of a "Rough draft" subpage of a mainspace article -- I would rather use a talkpage subpage. Another way would be to simply delete the recipes (not the page) but have a link to the version with the recipes on the page. (However, this has a disadvantage over a copy on a talk page subpage: The old version cannot used to work on the recipes.)
--Peter Schmitt 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestions, Peter. I'll let other people comment on them. Hayford Peirce 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Milt, we certainly don't want to delete the main article Roast turkey! If you haven't looked at it lately, it is now a pretty good article, I would say. Also, we don't want to delete the Roast turkey/Recipes subpage article either -- it now has that first French turkey recipe (with about $5000 worth of ingredients in it, I would say) that I wrote in correct CZ recipe format. What I'm talking about is all the material BELOW the recipe that I wrote. Ie, all the material that Mary Ash gathered, did some reworking to, and then dumped in one place or another. So, ideally, what *I* would like to see is: the Turkey article; the Recipes subpage with at least *one* recipe on it; and then some *other* repository for the other material. Or, as you, Milt, suggest, have the *other* material deleted. Either by a Constable on his own (dubious, to me) or, eventually, after a decision by the EC. Hayford Peirce 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My tuppence's worth:
1. Create roast turkey recipes sandbox/drafts/scrap paper or summat.Move the as yet unorganised stuff there so people can work on it at their leisure.
2. Archive this talk page so we can start fresh.
3. Shoot the next person to start a turkey art--okay, maybe that's extreme. Perhaps discuss combining turkey articles, but with respect to food, do not panic, leave well enough alone and come back to it after the workgroups are organised.
Aleta Curry 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sound thinking! Hayford Peirce 23:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a Canadian, I have recent experience. Some thoughts:

1. I was a little taken aback that we started with roast turkey before we did the more general article on turkey as a food. I wouldn't suggest that we do roast beef or stewing beef before writing beef. However, roast turkey is enough of a cultural phenomenon that I'm prepared to make an exception.

2. Bits that aren't quite ready for public consumption should be placed in a sandbox. ...or fed to the dog.

3. One thing that really is problematic is the inclusion of a number of recipes (Julia Child, Canadian Living) that are still under copyright. As I understand matters, USDA or so old it's out of copyright is perfectly fine, but we really need to take down anything we don't have rights to pronto.

-Derek Hodges 01:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would just expect an article telling me about how roasting turkeys got started and where the meal is enjoyed worldwide, then a bunch of recipes listed on that subpage, i.e. Roast turkey/Recipes/Stuffed turkey-hen grand-duc. John Stephenson 03:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of it depends upon your World View of CZ. Someone like Howard thinks that everything should begin with A Top Down Approach -- you write an article about Wars of Vietnam, and then 10,000 smaller articles amplifying that initial article. I, and other Citizens, say The Hell with That Approach -- I'm gonna write an article about anything that I damn well want to. A couple of years ago I wrote an article called Stravenue -- that then got cited in the Arizona Daily Star newspaper, circulation a couple of hundred thousand, as a source in its article on the same subject. Did I wait for an article called Urban street planning to be written? No. Ditto for Hamburger, Bolognese sauce, Mickey Mantle, Alkaline pasta, The Interlopers, and anything else I feel like writing about on any given day. Mary Ash wanted to write an article about Roast turkey -- why not? I wrote an article about Croque-monsieurs the other day. If you're asking about how well any individual article is actually written, that's another thing and another topic to discuss. This section here is simply to discuss what to do with all of these recipes that have been dumped into the Recipe tab.... Hayford Peirce 05:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I also think that recipes are fine, if in a recipes tab. Hayford, the recipes tab has it's own talkpage (it's redlinked at the moment, but it is available) so any material that needs reformatting could be moved there perhaps, saving the need to create a separate draft article for that material. Your formatting work shows the potential of the recipes tab, so it would be nice to get the rest up that standard. My only quibble is the giant [1] in the title - maybe if the reference went at the end it would be in a smaller typeface? Regardless, it's all good stuff, and with so few shopping days left til Christmas turkey recipes are just what I need. David Finn 06:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a priorities issue here. The interested reader, I suggest, will find this article readable, interesting and (presumably - I wouldn’t know), useful. Its availability would, I expect, be welcome , but I doubt if he or she would much care whether it is badly formatted, or whether it breaks some rules. I should expect the availability of other such articles - on, say, roast beef or Irish stew (guess where I live) - to be considered to be more important.
That leads me to suggest that, for the time being, we should devote CZ’s sadly limited resources to the creation of new articles, and that we should return to the tidying up of articles such as this only when our creative capacity is exhausted. Nick Gardner 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave and Nick, for your thoughts! This is indeed a priorities issue. I was deeply involved in this genuine turkey of an article almost from the start and I'd truly like to see it put behind us. Which was why I asked for the comments from outside people -- I certainly didn't, and don't, expect to have them get involved with it any more than passing along some suggestions. We're all volunteers here, and we all want to work on stuff that interests *us*, not someone else. (Paul Wormer, by the way, has excoriated me in a non-CZ Forum for, among, other things, not expanding an article about Raymond Chandler that he originated and that he asked me to contribute to—I had, years before, contributed to the WP Chandler article but didn't now feel like writing a complete new one from scratch....) I had indeed seen the red Discussion tab at the top of the Recipes page and was wondering if that could be put to use somehow. I think that the suggestion of moving all of the non-standard Recipe stuff into that newly created page would be an *excellent* idea. And, unless I read comments to the contrary about doing so, I will move all of that stuff over there in the next day or so. Thanks again, ALL OF YOU, for your comments and suggestions above! Hayford Peirce 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
'We're all volunteers here, and we all want to work on stuff that interests *us*, not someone else.'
Exactly so, and the problem is the conflict between wanting to write for fun, and the knowledge that there's so much else to be fun. We're all entitled to brain candy. Pity the poor editors!
I'll say this much for Paul Wormer: at least he has the chutzpah to back up his words with his own name. Most of the double-dealers over there are 'anonymous' (wink wink nudge nudge).
Has everybody remember to vote???
Aleta Curry 17:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I've been invited to comment, but have to avoid becoming a participant in the dispute. Is there a general feeling that participants here would welcome a clear ruling from me, informed by CZ policies and the discussion here, that they would accept as binding pending any subsequent decisions of the new editorial and Management Councils, in the interests of allowing everyone to move on? I haven't read the arguments above yet so have no pre-formed opinion, have no conflict of interest that I know, and if I see any issues that need to be addressed by either council I would present those to them in a form that allows all interested parties to comment (as in the case of the article on Myanmar, these are here in the sections on Naming of Countries and Editorial Workgroups).Gareth Leng 09:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In a word, Gareth, 'no'.
One would hope that you had better things to do than read about how and why so many are engaged in discussing roast turkey. Unless, of course, you just happened to be after a recipe or something.
Aleta Curry 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No, no, Gareth, you have far more important things to worry about than this turkey of an article! (I think there are some excellent suggestions in the Section just above, particularly about simply moving the below-par material into the Discussion page of the Recipes subpage....)Hayford Peirce 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is not a dispute-resolution case, at least yet, and it (hopefully) will never become one. Nothing will be deleted permanently, only material that needs heavy editing will be hidden from the main article space. If Mary returns to this page to finish the job she has started she can easily re-insert one recipe after another in a polished form. --Peter Schmitt 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Roast_turkey&oldid=807629"