Talk:Gratin

scalloped potatoes

i'm not convinced this is the same as scalloped potatoes.. i think scalloped potatoes are closer to Anna potatoes, so i've redirected it there. 81.168.22.81 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, however Anna potatoes doesn't sound right either. It's my understanding (I am not an expert) that scalloped potatoes while prepared similarly are ones cooked in a manner that the top layer of potatoes is exposed to direct heat which allows the edges of the potatoes to curl. Au Gratin potatoes on the other hand have a layer of cheese or bread crumbs protecting the potatoes underneath from the direct heat.-- nicklinn (talk / contribs)  10:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Further research suggests my above comment is not the case and as such I retract it. This[1] dictionary definition reflects that.-- nicklinn (talk / contribs)  10:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"(Note that the term scalloped originally referred to a seafood dish rather than to a scallop) [8]." This doesn't make any sense. A scallop is seafood. --98.210.141.85 (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• it's clear as written, but I expanded it into the really really obvious. hope that helps. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Content Removal

As I've reached the Three Revert Maximum, I am posting on the discussion page, as I've asked the other users in the situation to do so as well. Believe It Or Not as well as two anonymous IPs, insist on making changes to the article that removes a great amount of previous information. I've read both versions, and in my view, I do not see the merit in the removal of the content. The original clearly states that the term does not refer to specific recipes, but rather a culinary technique. The original also provides more detailed information than the edit. Would others please weigh in, as my requests for Believe It Or Not and friends to start such a discussion BEFORE making such edits have gone unheeded. --Dbo789 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the article concerned before Believe It Or Not restructured it into two articles and in my view, it was sadly misinformed and misleading. By contrast, Believe It Or Not's work is well informed and the reference sources are excellent. 81.157.213.116 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but after repeated reverts by both myself and Jerem43, it is generally understood that the edit is controversial, and as such, should be discussed with other authors before attempting to implement. Until that is done, the article should remain in its original state. Repeatedly undoing the reversions is irresponsible, and does not align with the Wikipedia guideline of consensus. --Dbo789 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stands just now, the consensus is with Auguste Escoffier, the Oxford University Press, HarperCollins, Paul Robert and, I'll add, Louis Saulnier. What exactly is controversial? The Other Hand (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Branding differences in opinion of terminology as "popular misconceptions" seems prescriptive, and that's not neutral. I don't know the details in this particular case, but I think this should be handled by describing professional terminology and popular names on an equal basis. For example, how is citing the long-dead Escoffier relevant to current usage?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The long-dead Escoffier remains respected to this day because he defined thousands of dishes and culinary techniques in a way that was respected by his peers and by those who followed. Those who followed include lexicographers whose work is current. If you have better reference sources then you can cite them. The Other Hand (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article with the content removed is more like a dictionary definition. The version that is more inclusive, with dishes referred to as gratins ("improperly" or not) and discussing the evolution and use of gratin in various regions and cooking styles is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. It did need to be cleaned up and clarified. All that being said, if editors feel that this article should be narrowly focused only on an exacting definition and application of "gratin", then I would request we create articles for the other sections of content and that they be linked to this article, so people looking up gratin can get access to all the gratin they can stomach. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are already articles for: Gratin dauphinois and Lyonnaise potatoes. I don't see one for the other dishes known as Potato gratin /Potatoes gratiné/ pommes de terre au gratin/ potato bake / Janssons frestelse which could certainly be made into an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This article seems almost pointless in its current context as it is now a definition of a technique. I think it is better that the dishes associated with the term be part of this article, otherwise this article should just be part of the Wiktionary. On the note of Escoffier, I use the text often as it was/is considered one of the most concise codifications of French cuisine. There are more up-to-date references such as Larousse Gastronomique or Le Grande Livre de Cuisine by Alain Ducasse on the subject as they are more recent compilations of French cuisine.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Found this through recent changes. It looks like the intro could be rewritten to focus on the definition, per BIoN, then the body expanded with the history, and potato preparations, folding the two 'subarticles', Gratin dauphinois and Lyonnaise potatoes, into this one, creating a single strong article on the subject, well researched and solidly cited, rather than a definitons which would be transwikied, and then two nearly orphaned stubbish articles. I do think the article's lead, focusing so explicitly on potatoes, while next to a picture of avocado au gratin seems non-sequitir, and would like to see that conflict resolved. I'll put together a rough patch of what I'm referring to, then edit back to as is, to allow time for discussion. Here is my suggestion. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked what I saw of your changes which you then reverted back. It looked like you took the definition section and put it up top for a clear explanation of what gratin means and what it is. Then the reader gets to the broader applications. I'm willing to consider the very narrowly focused article, but I think it needs to be discussed first, and if it's done there need to be other articles for the removed content and clear pointers so readers can find what they are looking for. Generally I prefer a broader article that covers the notable cultural, regional and historic applications of gratin. I think that's what an encyclopedia is all about. I do think the article needs to be gone through and made well organized with clear writing. I didn't find a strong enough source to base the work needed on, and I'm not on solid footing when it comes to gratin. I'm happy with a combined article, or I could live with brief summaries of the gratin types included here and pointers to those articles (which maybe could be expanded). If it was merged the redirects should go to the appropriate sections. I'm interested what others think particularly the editors who wanted a radical trim. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

glad you liked it, but as I said, I reverted back so that we could build a consensus here. It being the holidays, I'll wait a couple of days for more input, as one sock below feels we have to go with a 'total rewrite', no doubt to what started this conflict. If no further opinions are given, I'll revert to my proposal, and we'll go from there. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One further opinion: before you revert to you proposal, please check your facts. Your proposal is, according to the references you cite, riddled with inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.25.119 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will heed the person above. Otherwise, if you do as you propose then you will make public easily identifiable misinformation in the name of Wikipedia. Believe It Or Not (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to examine my version and propose improvements, but the version you're proposing doesn't have consensus for being a reasonable solution, in case you'd missed that fact.ThuranX (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What are the inaccuracies. Be specific so we can correct them. Clearly it isn't inaccurate to say there are dishes that use the word gratin in their name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1: "over thinly sliced ingredients in a cream sauce" - Not so. Any dish may be cooked au gratin and thus may be called a gratin.

2: "anything that can be sliced thin, layered with a cream sauce and baked is material for a gratin" - Again, not so; the description is too limiting.

3: "typically in a casserole" - Not so. Typically, dishes are prepared au gratin in a shallow dish (the purpose being to optimise the area for the forming of the crust). A casserole, by contrast, tends to be deep for the purpose of slow cooking and, significantly, usually has a lid.

4: "Gratin is also used to refer to a fireproof dish or casserole used to prepare gratins" - Not so. The container is called a gratin dish. For confirmation, see the reference source cited.

5: "The foods prepared in this way are refered [sic] to as gratiné, from the transitive verb form of the word for crust." - This is (a) incomplete and (b) repeated in the subsequent sentence.

6: "The term is adapted from French cuisine" - More precisely and verifiably, the term is French, adopted into the English language.

7: For the rest, the "History" section seems to be largely mistaken or at best needs verification. According to the OED second edition, "Gratin (gratæ̩ˈn). Cookery. [Fr., f, gratter, earlier grater, grate v1]. A manner of preparing viands by treating them with raspings of bread and cooking them between two fires so as to produce a light crust; hence the dish so cooked. See also quots. 1846 and 1877, where the meanings given may be the result of some error."

The current edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary simply states "gratin /'gratã, gratan/ • n. a dish cooked au gratin. - origin Fr., from gratter, earlier grater 'to grate'."

8: "Potatoes in gratin preparations" - The two dishes referred to here are both gratin dauphinois by various names. The repetition seems very strange. Furthermore, gratin dauphinois is described in a separate article, to which a link would be adequate and more appropriate, especially considering that gratin is a technique and neither a specific dish nor primarily concerned with potato.

Believe It Or Not (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, let you have your way. Got it. Why you can't institute changes 1 through 6 on this article by integrating them into what's here is beyond me, but you won't unless you can gut the article. As for 7, you split it off like that. I think it should all be here. Your'e not commenting on that other than to say 'i split it so leave it', which isn't productive. ThuranX (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the corrections you've indicated look great. I think they should be made. I also think there is no consensus for separating out the dishes, so an inclusive article can also be maintained (at least for now). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

now that the sockpuppetry has been resolved, I've come back and reviewed the suggestions made. I've institued most to some extent or another. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done on resolving a few of the issues of accuracy, but your interpretation leaves a great deal to be desired. Do you have access to major reference works such as those of Escoffier and the OED? Gone To The Library (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of The Other Hand. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Total Rewrite

This article is little or nothing more than muddled nonsense. It does not even so much as respect the source material that it cites. It is a discredit to Wikipedia.

Yes, ThuranX, my first edit was here, during what you call a big argument.

Michael Grossman (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Above user shown ot be a sock of The Other hand. ThuranX (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this "with Béchamel sauce or Mornay sauce" from the intro as it's been suggested this is a particular type of gratin dish and not part of the general terminology. Could someone add it to the appropriate dish in the article section where it belongs? Merci. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You could have simply moved it down to the section on particular gratin dishes. We merged them all here, as you should recall. I'll do it.ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misworded my comment. I meant to say section not article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Haute cuisine, gratin dishes and methods of serving

In haute cuisine, the method gratin requires a sauce duxelles. This is well documented by Escoffier and others. Forming a crust by adding a layer of breadcrumbs/butter/grated cheese is a quick method.

Gratins are not usually prepared in casseroles, they are usually prepared in shallow dishes with no lids, and such dishes are manufactured specially for the purpose (one is illustrated with avocado gratin). The food may be served in the same dish, but not necessarily.

The ingredients do not have to be sliced, and slicing would be specifically inappropriate in most cases.

I am not sure why factual details such as this need prior discussion, but here they are.

Often Stranger Than Fiction (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back to the original article by Wtwilson3 in February 2006, I see how problems arose. The original article was brief and general, but accurate. The trouble is, people have attempted to add more precise details, some of them out of context, and without letting go of the original generalised statements. The resulting medley of specific facts concerning various methods and dishes, mixed with generalisations, makes a very strange article. Often Stranger Than Fiction (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to expand the scope of an article like this beyond classic dishes. The term Gratin is in common use in a number of ways and the article - as someone who's only very recently come to this article - needs to reflect that I think. At the same time it needs to reflect the classic nature of the term and dishes such as pommes dauphinois, which it only does in part at present. I was going to have a go at editing it but then saw the recent history and discussion and decided I'd rather not get into something that is clearly contentious (although quite why a cooking term is so contentious I don't really see...) -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, in its current form, the article belies its own reference sources. References [1] and [2] are identical and do not support the statements. On that basis (among others) the current revision requires a "clean up" tag. Often Stranger Than Fiction (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Often Stranger Than Fiction has been found to be yet another sock of The Other Hand, AKA Believe it or Not. case. As an editor circumventing a block, none of his contentious edits should been allowed to stand, as all edits are about pushing the same POV he initially used socks for and was blocked for. As well, he engages in rampant personal attacks on other editors, and has has accounts indef blocked for that. That, knowing this likely outcome, I allowed many of his edits to stand should have been enough. Instead, this apparently insane editor screamed and yelled that 'cream sauce' was wrong. Until two nights ago when this POV 'haute cuisine' set of edits readded the same information. This editor is not interested in improving the article, but instead, prefers to see how long he can have us chase our tails. Do not encourage or engage him any more. ThuranX (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I have attempted to be polite but I think it needs to be said, you are talking complete rubbish. Why am I a sock-puppet? Where in any article have I imposed POV? What is this about cream sauce and (referring to my talk page) "bigoted anti-American rhetoric"? Often Stranger Than Fiction (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, both of your edits seem to be somewhat counter-productive and the whole article seems to suggest elements of POV at times. I'll see if I can take a look at a bunch of references over the weekend and put forward some suggestions for reworking some of the elements. In particular I have some concerns, given the French origin of the term and the specific re-direct of pommes dauphinois, of the relative amero-centricity of the article in a number of places. I trust that the views of a neutral party in what is clearly becoming an edit war will be respected? -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Often Stranger Than Fiction has been found to be a sock puppet of The Other hand, and blocked. That ends the current attempt to push POV into the article. Hopefully we'll get a few weeks reprieve before his next sock appears. ThuranX (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting contest. Speaking as someone who has some culinary experience and access to some specialist reference works, I don't see POV in Often Stranger Than Fiction's efforts. What I do see is an attempt to bring knowledge to the article, met by a lot of unaccountable resistance, and I can't see why that should be. Genizah (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is another message by the sockpuppet who continues to abuse editing privileges. Here, we see the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Special Knowledge. He claims to understand more than we do, so we should simply step aside and let him do what he wants. However, as i said, this is a Logical Fallacy, a distraction from the issues being debated. However, there really is no issue being debated here. What we have here is an editor who, on multiple pages, seeks to change the pages to reflect a European superiority to the USA, and who cannot help but contradict himself. He called for removal of 'sauces' from the article, insisting there's no sauces in Gratin. Later, he adds sauces. It's not about getting this article stable and right for this editor, it's about having control of the page, which is why he continues to sock, instead of sitting out his block and then bringing things to the talk page, as he's been asked multiple times on multiple account talk pages. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

With regard only to the "European superiority to the USA" point: this article is part of WP:FR and the term clearly derives from French so there is some justification for eliminating some of the more overtly amero-centric terms/pov being used currently. For example, the term broiled is used, yet if that term were wikilinked it would redirect to the page on grilling. We need balance not one or the other -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to review a wider ranger of this editor's many contributions on many socks to see it as I do. Any food he has edited has been changed to be of European origin and simply stolen by Americans. For example, according to him, Salisbury Steaks are just hamburgers perverted by americans, and hamburgers were invented in Hamburg, which is an OOOLLLD myth. Other pages show similar biases. It's a major POV push he's enacting across Wikipedia, apparently based on a single old cookbook he's got. And please note that in order to get his way, he is now invoking Arguments from SPecial Knowledge, the 'Trust me I'm smarter than you so I know what's good for you' argument. ThuranX (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked at any other articles he's edited. I'm looking at this article and see aspects that I think can be improved. My response was to a specific point you seemed to be making about this article, nothing else :-) -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

well, let's hear those specific items, and see if they can be resolved. ThuranX (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Broiling, grilling, aubergines and eggplants

Sorry to have to do this first off. The page on broiling redirects to grilling, hence the inclusion of grilling/broiling. The citation is Larousse, the UK version fwiw, which uses both terms, with grilling as the primary term because it's a UK version. Now, aubergine redirects to eggplant, yet this is referencing a French dish where the vegetable is called aubergine, as it is in most of the world - yet in a previous edit aubergine is removed. If you apply the same logic - and I'm quite happy to go to a third party *now* on this btw - then broiling isn't required either - it rediricted just like aubergine is. Do you see my problem here? Trying to decide whether the article should be able to be understood by more people in English speaking countries tends to lead me to want to use both terms in both circumstances. Let's discuss it here and call in third party opinion early if we need to -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently cited source at the end of the sentence about grilling/broiling says "...when it is browned in the oven or put under the grill (broiler)" p.615 - first sentence in the Larousse article. You might find it instructive to read the article on grilling (where broiling redirects to) - in mots parts of the world the term grilling can refer to being placed *under* a direct heat source as well as over the top of one -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Larousse says broiling, not grilling. YOU changed it to a link to grilling, with a "grilling/broiling" tag on that link. I reverted it to what was supported by citation, instead of letting you change it to grilling in a multi-step shift. The citation i used for Eggplant called it Eggplant, so it stays Eggplant. YOUR logic isn't logic at all. Let's not discuss this any more. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with you and your sock army. It looks like that BST may be your actual main account, so I'm content to let you walk away from this page right now, and not waste time reporting you, then having to deal with another six months of your account hopping bizarre edits. ThuranX (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there - be careful. There is an accurate quotation above from the source which that sentence references. The *actual* source. Now, if you want to get all hissy about it then let's call in an objective third party *at this point*. Someone who can examine the sources and make a call. This article needs to be accessible to English speaking users - those users in much of the world won't understand the terms boriling or eggplant; they will understand grilling and aubergine; American users will understand the reverse - so why not use both of the terms? -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

look, sock. I warned you. If I have to start a fifth Scokpuppet report against you, I will. This is the exact same shit you keep coming back to this article to perpetrate. We don't play these 'Americans are so fucking ignorant of English' games. You can go play them elsewhere, or you can get another Sock Report, and lose yet another account. I know you've got more, you stupid losers always do. Walk away or get reported. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrt the accusation of sock puppetry - please, at leats respect the fact that there might be disagreement from soneone without having to trawl that old one out again. You have my utter assurance that I'm a unique user; I start from the assumption that you are as well and do *not* question that simply because we disagree -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why? You're acting in the exact same manner you did before. if you're a unique user, then you're already aware that we don't use slashes to separate two terms. You've been reverted by two users, neither of whom is interested in your edits, my copy of Larousse says broiling, your own quote admits the technique is broiling, not grilling, and so as before, you've successfully argued yourself into a corner and a loss. I'm tired of this, though, so if I have to deal with anymore, I'm skippign the niceties and going right to SPI. ThuranX (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the non use of / to divide words - can you, for my benefit alone and not as a "point" being scored, point me in the vague direction of the WP on that please? Thanks -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be in wp:MOS or you can type {{helpme}} on your usertalk page followed by your question. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - it was. I stand corrected as my use was wrong :-) -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)