Talk:Barbecue/Archive 1

Regional styles/variations
The selection of what styles are listed under the subheading on the page and which ones are delegated to the regional variations seems rather U.S. biased more than anything. Shouldn't the article have a condensed section highlighting the various styles of barbeque, without subdividing amongst any poorly chosen regions, and then link to the regional variations page?
 * That's a bit like saying that an article on Soul Food seems rather Southern-US biased. "Barbecue" is derived from a Taino Indian word, and really should be restricted to the interrelated traditions for outdoor smoking of meat that predominate in parts of the Caribbean, Northern Mexico, and the Southern US. There really isn't a "barbecue" tradition in New England, say, or Spain. There are ways of cooking outdoors over hot coals, but that is not linked to the barbecue foodways tradition. I'm sure you know the difference between analogous and homologous, right? The real US bias is assigning the southern North American name "barbecue" to any type of cooking that is similar to barbecue. Just as it would be wrong to start calling St. Louis-style ribs "Robatayaki" just because they share some cooking techniques with the Japanese method of grilling, so to would it be culturally arrogant to call robatayaki "barbecue" for the same reason, and thus it is culturally arrogant to call any kind of outdoor grilling "barbecue". Of course, it makes perfect sense to acknowledge in the article that some cultures have used "barbecue" as a borrow-word for grilling outdoors, such as Australians, but no need to go into every single way people around the world grill that they might want to casually call "barbecue". There is a need, however, to make a distinction between things which have come to be casually called "barbecue" after the advent of Mass Culture, versus foods which were traditionally called "barbecue" before that. The latter foods constitute a distinct and legitimate foodways that is, for the most part, limited to the southeast quarter of the United States, with related "barbecoa" traditions in parts of Mexico and some Caribbean Islands. These foodways are not just a way of preparing meat, they have traditionally been an important cultural and social institution in the aforementioned areas, and have a legitimate right to be the centerpiece of discussion of barbecue as a foodways, not just a casual mention.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barbecutorium?
REALLY? I have a hard time believing this term exists outside a few select restaurants. Perhaps this is common in other areas though - can anyone comment? Evillawngnome (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit more detail here: On 23 April 2008, User:Doyley22 added this to the opening section:

"A Barbecutorium is a name given to an area of a garden/terrace dedicated to watching food being cooked, moved and flicked with associated drink supping and general merriment. The BBQ grill can be either Gas or coals, both qualify. A concept developed by J Doyle, UK. A derivative of Auditorium The term is taken from Latin; the concept is taken from the Greek auditorium which had a series of semi-circular seating shelves in the theatre, divided by broad 'belts', called diazomata, with eleven rows of seats between each." Personally, I have never heard of this word and thought that it was added as vandalism. Google gives hardly any references to it, but some people may use it as a light hearted term. Without a proper reference it fails to satisfy the grounds of verifiability and notability, so it has been removed. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

barbacoa merge

 * Merge Much of this information is already in the Barbecue article. Demilio 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Barbecue VS grilling
In order to be consistent with the definition AlbertCahalan is proposing, most of the article would have to be deleted, as it does not comply. Certainly the regional variations and all the photos would all have to be cut out.


 * Certainly not. It is you who insists on a POV definition that excludes what very many people consider to be barbeque. I'm only asking that the general and more inclusive definition be used. All the photos can remain; they are fine. In some particular place, the "deep south" I imagine, barbeque may exclude high-temperature cooking. This is not the definition normally used in California or New England. Sorry, we other people exist too. AlbertCahalan 15:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah you other people do exist, and you're all wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.222.67 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I think you should accept that there is a wide community of people who use definitions that differ from the ones you use. From your user talk page, I can see that you have already had disagreements with at least two other users because you chose to impose American English on the Bakeware article. Now you seek to impose your own particular usage of American English over the usage of the previous contributors to this article.


 * I think you mean on Wikibooks, where someone wanted to use an obscure term as the primary name of an article. Google tells me his name was unpopular by a factor of 38 to 1 against either of the top two alternatives. In spite of this, I was OK with mentioning his oddball term on the page. We don't put pages under screwy names and then mention the common names in passing; that would be severely messed up. AlbertCahalan 15:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider your approach, and to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to impose one's semantic POV. --Grouse 09:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Great. You should accept that there is a wide community of people who use definitions that differ from the ones you use. Please do so. Do not exclude high-temperature cooking, even in the flames. Do not exclude the use of barbeque sauce in a pot on the stove. These are perfectly valid forms of barbeque. Well, hey: I urge you to reconsider your approach, and to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to impose one's semantic POV. AlbertCahalan 15:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I should add that the dictionary agrees with me. See http://m-w.com/ for example. (to pick a dictionary you can't just edit) Taking advantage of the fair use concept, I'll even quote it for you. Barbecue is: "1 : to roast or broil on a rack over hot coals or on a revolving spit before or over a source of heat 2 : to cook in a highly seasoned vinegar sauce" It actually looks like your definition is excluded, but I won't be cruel enough to delete that. I just ask that you quit pushing your unusual definition as the only definition. AlbertCahalan 16:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say, I'm quite surprised by all of this. I always thought the traditional meanings of 'barbeque' versus 'grill' were quite clear &mdash; that while the former was starting to broaden its definition, its original sense was not in dispute. I don't think anyone's arguing to exclude the newer senses of 'barbeque', but at the same time it seems fair to note its original sense and to state that there are purists who insist on it. -- Perey 18:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm quite surprised in the other direction. I've never met a person who'd make the distinction you make. This is almost certainly a regional issue, with the restrictive barbecue definition being used mostly in the South or Southeast. Maybe you're surrounded even; I'll have to ask in Florida and the Pacific Northwest. AlbertCahalan 22:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I think you're making the mistake of thinking too regionally now. I'm Australian. ;-) Australian usage, for the record, uses 'barbeque' almost universally for the social occasion and the cooking appliance (which is actually of the grilling kind as a rule, rather than the slow cooker). As such, the slow-cook definition of the word is all but lost here, but I was still under the impression it was the original sense. ('Barbeque chicken' on the other hand is a popular takeaway food and is most definitely barbequed in the slow-cook sense.) -- Perey 02:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You think Wikipedia is supposed to only use a regional definition? Sorry, but no. This is not the South Wikipedia. You might not care for New England and California, but they exist, They use en.wikipedia.org because they are English-speaking areas. AlbertCahalan 01:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If they want to find out about regular grilling, then they can go to the article about grilling. This article is about slow-cooking barbecue.


 * If you want the article to be about slow-cooking barbecue only, then move it to slow-cooking barbecue and I'll write a replacement article for barbecue. Otherwise, this article is about barbecue. Your "real barbecue" doesn't exist in most places, and I missed my chance while passing through Tennesee. I have had plenty of mainstream barbecue though. AlbertCahalan 20:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute here. I think we've completely lost the point in some internecine American barbecue war. ;-) It seems to me that on the one hand we have the "real barbecue is slow-cooking" camp, and on the other we have the "if enough people call it barbecuing, it's barbecuing, even if it's also grilling" camp. Can anyone explain to me why either of these would reject something like the following? Barbecue traditionally refers to a slow-cooking method, and many enthusiasts still insist on this usage. However, the application of the term to other cooking methods, appliances and events is widespread. The most common sense in this less strict usage is the cooking style otherwise called grilling. -- Perey 17:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The compromise would be fine. Except that the last sentence needs serious reworking.  "Common sense" is extremely confusing as used. Something like "Most commonly, "barbecue" is used to describe what purists call "grilling."

Hayford Peirce

Hayford Peirce (I've forgotten how to add my signature here...)

The first problem with that is the question of "How slow is slow?". There isn't a sharp dividing line. If there were a sharp dividing line, separate articles might be appropriate. The second problem is that "grilling" is a severely overloaded term that does have sharp dividing lines &mdash; it needs to be a disambiguation page of some sort. To the British it is the same as broiling, to be done in your electric oven! To many people, it means the use of something like the George Foreman Grill. So that's no good. Let's ditch the elitism; as I grudgingly admit that a hot dog is meat (yuck!) we should all admit that people use "barbecue" even if the cooking isn't painfully slow. AlbertCahalan 06:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, sign with 4 tilde characters. (looks like ~ in the editor) AlbertCahalan 06:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As you say, "grilling" can mean many things. Not only to the British, but many American cookbooks and recipes also say "grill a steak" or whatever under the broiler unit in either a gas or electric oven -- I could find dozens of examples. It's probably an insoluble problem. Like "inflammatory" and "flammatory" essentially meaing the same thing. And thanks for the tilde tip -- I had completely forgotten how to do it.... Hayford Peirce 16:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I should mention that the emphasis in my suggestion ought to be on "something like the following". I wasn't really going for polished prose, more a statement of agreement to compromise. :-) I think adding such a comment is sufficient "admission" of the varied uses of "barbecue"; just because a "sharp dividing line" doesn't exist, doesn't mean they aren't distinct concepts! At the least, there's a wider gap between (slow) barbequing and grilling than grilling and broiling. -- Perey 15:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One Possible compromise solution: This article has sections devoted to various regions. Why not list in those regions what is meant by the term "barbecue". I'm from NC, and around here, anyone who mentioned Barbecue in relation to cookouts, grilling, beef, mutton or Propane Grills would probably be looked at strange. So a Note under NC Barbecue to specify what the general usage of the word locally could be added, and likewise in other location sections. Heck, for that matter, I should probably go in the the NC section and split up Eastern Vs. Lexington :) People from different parts of the state here get into arguments about what Barbecue means. Its no surprise people from different states and countries can't find one definition. --Wahooker 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''In Re: "...with the more direct high-heat methods to be called grilling...." ''' I'm teaching myself how to become a serious charcoal griller. The first lesson I learned is understanding the difference between "direct heat" and "indirect heat" cooking. Both terminologies are used in the context of grilling. From my lessons thus far, the use of "direct heat" is ideal for searing meat and indirect heat for slower cooking. To address the question of "how slow", the answer is provided by a meat thermometer. My instructions indicate the following:
 * Well done: >= 130 deg.F for red meats (beef), >= 170 deg.F for white meats (pork & poultry)
 * Medium done: =140 to 159.9 deg F (beef), 160 to 169.9 deg F (pork & poultry)
 * Medium rare: >= 130 deg. F (fish), 130 to 139.9 deg.F (beef)
 * Rare: 120 to 129.9 deg. F (fish), 120 to 129.9 deg F (beef)

Ariele 00:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I live in New England and everyone I know makes a distinction between barbeque and grilled food, though we do refer to a party where there will be grilling as a "barbecue", "cook out" is more often used. maxcap 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. "Cookout" is definitely more common in New York State, too, although city folks do tend to be less specific with the terminology.  I've also heard "barbeque" used for cooking with sauces, with light basting sometimes being just "grilling" but heavy basting becoming "barbeque."  And I have noted that the Southern USA usage is becoming more prevalent in the northeastern USA.71.203.125.108 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alber Cahalan is over generalizing the regions where bbq as slow cooking as can be seen in Maxcap's comment above. His references are also inapplicable. I've never seen any recipes in the dictionary. The Joy of Cooking, an credible and definitive source, clearly defines bbq as slow cooking over indirect heat(The All New, All Purpose Joy of Cooking, page 1056). Not too many of his other arguments hold up either... 'how slow is slow?'  In the talk section of the Wikicookbook entry on bbq his attitude is pretty clear: 'I wrote this page and this is what I want it to say.'  He also seems to the the only one who wants it to say that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.171.167.101 (talk • contribs).


 * Sorry, I don't understand what you object to in the article (except for another Wikiuser individually). Can you please be more specific? By the way, I agree that the Joy of Cooking is credible, but it is in no way "definitive." --Grouse 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was going to suggest that there be some mention of the SE asian forms of barbecue, but I see that perhaps there are begger fish to fry here. Like agreeing on a definition.


 * I come from one of those parts of the world where "barbecue" means "grilling directly over charcoal". I am now aware of the distinction between between grilling and "Deep South" barbecue (the latter which I take to mean "cooking slowly by an indirect heat source and/or relatively cool smoke, sometimes using spicy, vinegary sauces"). Despite that, I am still in the dark as to what sort of contraption is needed for the Deep South-type barbecue. I don't think I've ever seen a good picture of such a thing. Is it essentially two metal boxes (the smoke/heat source and the cooking box) linked by a pipe? I think this article would benefit greatly from a diagram illustrating the difference between the two different methods. Leon Robbins 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "definition creep" is an acceptable reason to merge grilling and BBQ. The fact that individuals use the term incorrectly (and grilling is not BBQ, so using them interchangeably is incorrect) is not a reason to use it incorrectly in this article.  I believe the confusion comes from BBQ grills, which have the capability to both grill and BBQ.  That does not make the processes the same, it just means that individuals have integrated the two terms for ease of use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.148.26 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

BBQ Diagrams: Unfortunately, there are not many diagrams of the various types of barbecue pits out there. I have three basic ones I created for horizontal smokers (the traditional "fire box to the side" type), vertical smokers (same concept, flipped 90 degrees), and using your kettle grill as a barbecue pit. These were created for the BBQ Pitmaster class taught by the Pacific NW BBQ Association; I am happy to add them to the article, along with one or two detailing grills and text detail, if folks feel it is appropriate.

(And yes, while the discussion above has been about "Southern" BBQ vs. the use of the word "barbecue" outside of the South, that method of cooking is becoming more and more popular, with barbecue associations existing in the Pacific NW, California, Utah, Arizona, New England, and Canada, as well as several National (US) associations. All put on competitions of *barbecue* - meats slow-cooked with indirect heat and smoke.  The California BBQ Assoc. even had a heated debate on their forum a year or so ago on whether or not "grilled" chicken (cooked hot and fast over direct heat) should be disqualified from competition.) Ajraven 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbecue is not grilling. Dudley Dooright goes to 7-eleven, grabs a 24 oz bottle of kwik-flame, douses some coals and thinks franks & potato chips a barbecue does make. Q is an art. It's a lifestyle. You can set a watch to Q, and living the Q lifestyle is the antethesis of what grilling is. Grilling is your wife. Grilling is trying to go camping, but not wanting to sleep in a tent. BBQ takes a greater commitment, and sometimes those slow cooking vested hours in a fatty, tough piece of flesh, make it taste even better. Charcoal folks can keep their coal. BBQ is rooted in natural woodsmoke flavors, cooking low & slow, and born out of cuts of meat that your average Audi driving griller wouldn't dare let near his or her porcelain veneers. Keep 'em separate. Like Hickory & Mesquite in the same chimeny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silvercuellar3 (talk • contribs).

Don't confuse "grilling" and "barbecuing" (if such a word) with "smoking".

Us country boys think "grilling" is a city-slicker word for barbecuing (again, if such a word exists), but can be used interchangeably. Both cook meat over direct heat.

If you cook over indirect heat, then what you are really doing is smoking your meat.

Smonking takes a long time, barbecuing takes a short time.

Ask someone that has lived in the Carolina area, West Texas, and now the "Deep South" (ie: me). We don't really distinguish between "grillin", "cookin' out" and "barbecuing". We DO distuinguish betwteen BBQ'ed and smoked.

Oh, just to give you a curveball, what's the difference between a "clam bake" and a big slab of Brisket in a 'pit".? The style is the same (hole, fire, wet stuff, meat or clams, cover and let it go for 10 to 12 hours), but one is a "bake" while the other is "smoked".

--- The above is unsigned

I am aware that many people want to differentiate between barbecue and grilling, but that is a recent attempt to redefine a word whose common use for centuries has included both methods of cooking. The problem is that their narrow definition flies in the face of history and all the criteria by which dictionaries are written. They overlook the fact that since the 1600s, people have been calling cookouts featuring everything from fish to possum, high heat, low and slow, charcoal and wood, closed pit and open pit "a barbecue". You just can't appropriate a perfectly good word that's been in common use and in the dictionaries for centuries, and just up and change its definition. In 1769 George Washington wrote in his diary that he "went up to Alexandria to a barbicue." Colonists cooked everything from squirrels to venison at their barbecue parties. As to whether real barbecue must be low and slow, the revisionists forget that many of the finest barbecue shrines in Texas and Memphis cook hot and fast, over direct heat, and some cook with only charcoal, no wood. Then there's the fabled Dreamland in Tuscaloosa, AL (and Atlanta), where they cook over an open hickory pit at 600F and a rack of spareribs is done in less than an hour. I submit that the revisionists might be better served by referring to it as "smoke roasting". Or perhaps they need to create a new word. Meanwhile, the definition of barbecue on this page should be broad enough to include ALL its common uses from weenies on the hibachi to Chinese barbecue. Quedude (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with maxcap on this. I hail from the Chicago metro-area and to those of us who are foodies around here the term barbecue is just as you said. Thus I think the distinction needs to made between "a barbecue' and "barbecuing". Also, although listed separately, the idea of merging this and barbacoa (the spanish word for barbecue, from the same latin word origin) there would have to be a consistent viewpoint portrayed.  Therefore, i pose that this issue must be resolved first.  I say that knowing that some of you will suggest that we make the content of this article the focus.  This is fine as long as it complies to the accuracy quota of wikipedia in terms of a definition.  More than likely both points of view must be voiced in order to keep this article from being opinionated.  Eagle-eyedsteve24 (talk)

This article gets it all wrong. Barbecue is being defined very liberally. It seems to think that any time you cook meat outside the kitchen it's barbecue. Just because you throw meat on a grill over a flame doesn't make it barbecue. A lot of what's described in this article is in reality grilling. And don't tell me that a lot of people define that as barbecue so therefore it's correct -- unless you subscribe to the theory that a million monkeys can't be wrong. A lot of people also use the phrase "I could care less." Doesn't make it correct though just because a lot people say it. Not just anybody can do barbecue. That's the thing about barbecue, it's very difficult to get right but everybody thinks they can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My original username (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Should the regional sections of the article reflect (and perhaps explicitly mention) the conventional spelling of each region? I ask because the Australasia section used "barbeque" up until the last edit by Pianoman87. -- Perey 21:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the mere existance of "BBQ", I think "barbeque" appears to be more correct. "barbecue" looks like a misspelling that became common. While "barbecue" is a more popular than "barbeque" alone, it is less popular if you consider "bbq" as well. AlbertCahalan 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinions are good. References are better. Only yesterday I corrected the misconception that the Australian spelling is "barbeque"; the Macquarie Dictionary is the authority for Australian spelling, and they prefer "barbecue". Groogle 08:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)`


 * Merriam-Webster (American) lists "barbecue" as the primary spelling. The OED (British) lists "barbecue" as the only spelling. Grouse 10:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For etymology - the spelling barbecue looks linked to the 1699 reference by William Dampier to Borbecu’s and the 1690 reference by Aphra Behn to barbicu. I don't think "barbecue" can be dismissed as a miss-spelling. Further the presence of the Q in BBQ need not refer to the spelling but the sound as in present texting abbreviations such as W8 for wait. This article suggests that the barbeque spelling is later. --AYArktos 01:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) (an Australian)


 * barbeque is an inferior spelling as it suggests pronunciation "bar-beck" (cf cheque, discotheque, grotesque; compare rescue, curlicue). Not that English has ever been afraid of irregular spellings. Joestynes 05:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Joestynes is right. (cf Alberquerque)
 * I think that the sections for each region should explicitly mention the common spellings/abbreviations in that region, but otherwise use the same spelling throughout the article. I have rarely seen the "barbeque" spelling used, and I'm from Australia. I wonder how we should treat the abbreviation BBQ, as it comes up in certain parts of the article. For example, the television article mostly uses the full word television, but it refers to TV sets, which is the more common usage. Graham 05:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Google shows 9,100,000 hits for Barbecue and 3,020,000 for Barbeque. Frankly I'm surprise that the Barbeque figure is that high.... Hayford Peirce 01:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help joining this Spelling Q to share this delightful enigma that perfectly illustrates the randomness of the spelling: This famous Memphis rib joint's Web site displays no less than four variants, including two that haven't been mentioned here yet: I know, I know, you're thinking "there's no way one entity could manage to employ all known English spellings of the term in a single Web site," and you're right. However, a Google search for the terms "Interstate Barbeque" and "Memphis" yields 420 hits, mostly from fans of the restaurant who seem to have picked up the slack for them. Damn, I'm hungry now. Good thing I live in Memphis! Bridgman 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Barbecue" in the URL and throughout the text,
 * "BBQ" in a quote from USA Today and scattered throughout the text, '
 * "Bar-B-Que" in the business' banner logo, and, finally,
 * "Bar-B-Q" in the subhead of the "Worldwide Delivery" page and in the navigation tab for the company's history.

Major update to article
I have begun a major overhaul to the article (per the cleanup template that was attached). I hope others will join in to add more to the history section (with a different subhead to each area of the world that does BBQ). I also added references, removed links which appeared to be link spam, and so on. I'd prefer not to list individual restaurants and such in this article, instead, place them at Regional variations of barbecue. Once one restaurant is linked to from here, how can we say no to linking to 1000 restaurants. The same with different BBQ tools, cooking stuff, and so on.--Alabamaboy 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
I've removed the reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. The citation was completely incorrect. It had stated that the OED attributed the word to the French 'barbe a queue'. In fact, the OED notes this etymology but says of it, 'The alleged Fr. barbe à queue "beard to tail," is an absurd conjecture suggested merely by the sound of the word.' --patton1138 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this. I've repeated the change. 66.75.250.175 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I initially reverted that, because I didn't see the message on the talk page. However, I've removed the paragraph again. A quick google produced this site as a reliable source. Graham talk 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a much better source and a great correction over an incorrect fact. Any reason why you didn't add that source's info to the article?--Alabamaboy 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That link now redirects to this one, which has nothing to show about etymology. The organization seems now to be using a wiki, and there you can find their discussion of The Etymology of Barbecue, which is a good match for what Alabamaboy seems to have been referring to. --Thnidu (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed 'African-American slaves were given' to 'the niggers received.' Just a reminder to please avoid use of passive voice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.127.80 (talk • contribs).
 * Reverted. --Grouse 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many in this region believe the term BBQ resulted from when roadhouses and beer joints with pool tables advertised "Bar, Beer, and Cues." This phrase was shortened over time to BBCue, then BBQ.[3]" This is absolutely not the etymology of "many in this region." I have never heard it, nor do I consider inmamaskitchen.com an acceptable citation of this claim. Nor is a pool-hall an acceptable place to obtain barbecue in the South. Mbrewer 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Historian Andrew Warnes in his scholarly new book "Savage Barbecue: Race, Culture, and the Invention of America's First Food" (2008 the University of Georgia Press), practically every commonly accepted account of the origin of the word barbecue is wrong, including the oft quoted definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). According to Warnes, the root word, barbecoa, comes from Amerindians in the Caribbean, but it was not, he claims, exclusively a Taino word, nor an Arawak word, nor a Carib word as is often said, but a common noun used by many tribes. Nor was it used to describe a cooking system. It was, he claims, a "framework of wood on which one might sleep, store maize, or suspend foods high enough above fire that they could be left smoking with little risk of spoiling." Spanish explorers noted the term in use by the Taino tribe in 1526. I have NOT made any changes to the article because I am new to the back end of Wikipedia, so I leave it to more experienced editors to incorporate these latest facts. Quedude (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regional BBQ?
Shouldn't we have sections devoted to different regional styles of BBQ? Barbecue to one person may not be barbecue to the next. Texas, St Louis, Memphis, Eastern NC, Western NC, North Alabama, etc all have very different styles of BBQ. Just a thought... Dubc0724 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we had this and then it was taking up the whole article. So I dumped it in Regional variations of barbecue. --Grouse 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, great work ..forgive my ignorance!Dubc0724 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to bring it back! That is one of the most fascinating parts. Being from the near Memphis, growing up in St. Louis, and having family from Kansas City, Texas and North Carolina, I know that people love to discuss barbeque. All of the styles are VERY different. Just a thought —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.95.232.78 (talk • contribs).
 * The article was too long according to Wikipedia article length guidelines. That is why the subpage was created. Grouse 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by comments here, and admittedly my own opinion, perhaps we should make the connection with the Regional Variations article a bit stronger. Put a section entitled "Regional Variations" with a sentence or two describing how varied they can become based upon geographical location, with a link to the "Main Article" on the subject.  For an example, see the Kansas City section of the Regional Variations article. --Reverend Loki 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a GREAT idea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.95.232.78 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2006

And yet, Kansas City is barely mentioned in this article anywhere (even though it is in the photo). I'm not prepared to write a Kansas City section and haven't looked to see if one has been removed. It's just very odd to me.Subversionarts (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

4 Regions
The four main regions of BBQ are Carolinas (pork butt), Memphis (ribs), Texas (beef, esp. brisket), and Kansas City (everything). These should at least be specified, along with the specific sauces and woods they use.

Certainly slow cooking smoked BBQ is not the same thing as backyard high temperature grilling, no matter how confused the terms are in the vernacular.

Also, how can tomato based sauces be invented by the ancient Greeks, when tomatoes, being South American in origin, were not known to Europe in pre-Columbian times?
 * What's your source for the "four main regions?" Remember that WP:NOR is not allowed. These regions are amply covered in the regional variations article. Who says that smoked barbecue is the same thing as grilling? Or that sauce was invented by the Greeks? Grouse 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, it sounds like someone recently saw that awful Travel Channel show on regional US barbecue (choosing KC Masterpiece as one of two restaurants to represent KC? That's like saying Rice-A-Roni is representative of the height of San Francisco cuisine).  Anyways, this comment too points to a need to strengthen the links to the Regional article (see my above comments).  I'd advise the OP to read that article, then if they still feel the need to stress the "4 Regions" view, then use that articles talk page to discuss it further. --Reverend Loki 17:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for the styles of barbecue in the different regions? I live in Texas, and any barbecue place you go to (which there are thousands) has a sauce. They do not always put it on the meat, but that is because the primary meat is brisket. Brisket is thick and is usually chopped or sliced into individual servings. Therefore, the inner meat would not have any sauce and the outer would. All meats are served with sauce. Individually prepared dishes, such as ribs, are always basted with a sauce. The primary style of sauce is a variation of light to heavy tomato base. --DWH042 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Competitive barbecue?
Maybe something needs to be said about events like this? Borisblue 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
The Barbacoa page states explicitly that Barbacoa was the one and only predecessor to barbecue, and doesn't even mention other possible etymologies. 70.19.89.39 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Information
The information about "Barbecue" contained in this Wikipedia article is not correct. The History Channel special about "Barbeque" is a great source of accurate information which differs greatly from the "misinformation" in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddkj1999 (talk • contribs)
 * Care to tell us what's wrong with it? enochlau (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second enochlau - Please, if you see something amiss, point it out. If you have another reliable source that cont4radicts this article, let us know, and cite the source.  And don't forget to sign your talk page posts!  --Reverend Loki 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The history channel special on "Barbecue" explains that the term "grilling" in reference to barbecue is in correct. The history of barbecue stresses that "grilling" was created as a technique to quicken and to simplify the process of cooking meats.  The first appearence of the "grill" was by Weber who invented the new metal device as a quick and (relatively) painless way to cook meat.  Even Weber didn't intend to draw a link between grilling and the slower process of creating barbecue.  With the creation of mass produced charcoal families began to discover that they could recreate an outdoor meat taste without all of the work needed for barbecue.  The introduction of national BBQ sauces in markets across America further made the gap between grilling and barbecue smaller.  Companies such as Weber and Kraft marketed their product to convince the average American that they could easily make their own barbeque from their favorite meats in less than an hour.  Product marketing (Kingsford, Weber, Kraft, KC Masterpiece) helped make the barbecue/grilling difference blurred for the average American.  It is key to look at the history of the companies which had a profound impact on getting barbecue and grilling products in American homes.  Kingsford charcoal bought KC Masterpiece in 1986 and took the product nationwide.  The Clorox company (which owned Kingsford & KC Masterpiece) took both products and presented them to the American public as a new way of having a "barbecue" and this tranformed into the misconception that families armed with a Weber, charcoal, and a bottle of sauce could "barbecue" their favorite meat and still be done in time to watch their favorite tv show that evening.  The mass production of sauces which gave meat a barbecue taste led to Americans eventually calling almost anything barbecue.  It wouldn't make sense for someone to call something barbecue only when they would use their KC Masterpiece . . . so the term stuck to include anything a person grilled in certain parts of the US.  Language continually tries to simplify itself unconsciously so that the speaker labors as little as possible to convey their meaning.  This same process which led to the creation of Romance languages, pidgin and creole languages . . . led to the ultimate perversion of the word barbecue and its over simplification.  One day when I have enough time I can hopefully cite all of this information.  If anyone else wants to cite some more about the history of what made barbecue what it is today that would be great.  A very interesting fact about barbecue is the relation it had to the south and to the end of slavery.  The spread of barbecue is actually linked to the ending of slavery.  Also the reason why Texas uses beef for their "barbecue" being because beef during that same time period was the most affordable meat for Texans.  Cowboys would take the unwanted cuts of meat and barbecue them so that they became tender.  Keep getting that good ole barbecue! DJWikiDek 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not bad. Some of that info is already at least touched on in the article (such as the distinction between grilling and barbecue, though there is no info on how they become befuddled in the first place; the relationship between barbecuing and slaves), but there is room for more info.    I personally would look for citations beyond a TV show, though... I'm still peeved at the Food network show that compared the more popular regional variations against one another, and went and used "KC Masterpiece" as one of two representatives of Kansas City barbecue, so maybe I'm a wee bit biased, but still.  If I recall, the reason for the popularity of beef in KC barbecue is very similar to that of the texas variation - KC was home to the biggest stockyards outside of Chicago, and a major stopping point of the cattle drives from Texas.  In fact, one of the more famous local chains only recently started serving pork bbq.  Anyways, back on topic - what you have does look decent as a rough draft - with citation, vast elements of your writing there can be integrated with only minor change (er, assuming it wasn't cut-n-paste from another source, which I assume it isn't!), at least in my opinion.  --Reverend Loki 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbo
Is it possible to boost a grill by a turbine ? At least at the start. Arnero 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Barbeque" is not quite a misspelling
I think "barbeque" is a (sadly widespread) misspelling from the abbreviation "BBQ". The Oxford English Dictionary does not have it listed as a correct spelling. – Kaihsu 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference to the OED may well be true, but Merriam-Webster Online gives barbeque as a variant spelling, as does Dictionary.com  .  These resources are based on American English, although it has to be said that barbecue is by far the most common spelling.  For this reason the spelling barbeque cannot be regarded as absolutely wrong, and hopefully there will be no unnecessary revert wars over this issue.--Ianmacm 15:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it up. Cheers. – Kaihsu 08:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The online Oxford English Dictionary at gives only the spelling barbecue, which confirms that in British English the spelling with a q would probably be regarded as incorrect.  Even in American English the q spelling is much less common, and a look around the internet shows that barbecue is almost always used.  (see also: American and British English spelling differences) --Ianmacm 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just now did a google serach google search "BBQ" outnumbered both "barbeque" & "barbecue". 46.2 M for BBQ, 38.3M for barbecue, 13.2 M for barbeque. Jon (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas Information is Generalized or Perhaps Wrong
Barbecue and grilling are used interchangeably. Cooking over smoke and indirect heat is "smoking," which is a style of barbecue but not the only one.

Texas BBQ is usually served with a sauce, either a Memphis style sweet sauce or a more southwestern sauce, which is tangy, tomato-based, and heavy with onions. In the Dallas area, the most promiment chain bbq would be Dickey's and Sonny Bryant's, both of which serve their BBQ with mild southwestern style sauce. Baker's ribs is closer to the Memphis style. I can think of no BBQ establishments that forego sauces entirely. Pawsplay 14:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wet heat
The article mentions that gas creates a "wet" heat, because the combustion byproducts include water vapor. But it seems the same would be true of charcoal, or anything that involves combustion. Since the section is comparing different methods, I think it ought to be removed. 74.135.194.181 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Charcoal is nearly pure carbon. The only major product of its combustion is carbon dioxide (of course there are traces of carbon monoxide and other gases derived from impurities). In contrast, combustion of hydrocarbons such as methane and propane produces water in addition to CO2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.50 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pulled pork?
I have a question for you all in regards to this section: "In the rural south, slaves were given the less desirable parts of the pig, (such as the ribs and shoulders) which they would cook by either smoking or pit barbecueing them. This is where the south gets pulled pork. The slaves would receive the shoulder of the pig and cook it for long hours. The slaves were so hungry, when the pork was finally done they would pull the meat off the pit."

Is there a citation or reference for the last statement? I have never before seen this concept that the term "pulled pork" refers to meat pulled off the pit. I have always seen it in use as to whether you would like your pork or pork sandwich "pulled" or "sliced," meaning you could have it in shreds, the way the meat comes off when pulled from the bone, or sliced.

Otherwise enjoyed the article, and learned a bit about regional variations. For the record, my gradeschool spelling book used "barbeque" and it was in use in a major Northeastern American city in the 1980's. To me, the word "barbecue" just looks odd. BTW, I am in the American South now. I do have some experience with "real" barbeque :) There is a big to do about pulled verses sliced pork in these parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.54.151 (talk) 14:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Thats because "The slaves were so hungry, when the pork was finally done they would pull the meat off the pit" is a completely erroneous statement with no source basis. Pulled pork barbecue is barbecue in which the meat has been torn off the bone in strips, rendering a shredded texture to the meat. Chopped pork barbecue would be the other side of this, with the meat being chopped off in more uniform portions. This is common knowledge in many southern states. Here are some typical Barbecue Options at a Barbecue Restaurantor feel free to read the WikiArticle on Pulled pork for clarification. I am removing that part of the article due to it being based on conjecture. Please let me know if you disagree and be sure to have sources with which you can base your arguement. --Coldbourne 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
The article currently has too many images which are crowding the text. Some of the images could be removed without any loss to the article. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

barbie?
You know, I've never head anybody call it a "barbie" in the UK, unless they are making fun of Australians. Just saying. ;) -Beeurd 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard many people in the UK refer to it as a barbie. The term has probably made it's way over here from Australia, but it's still commonly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.132.159 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no one I know in the UK calls it Barbie.

BBQ B-B-Q and lots of variations on that are used on pub signs, club signs, etc advertising events, but I've never heard the word "barbie" used in the UK regarding a barbecue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.246.12 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm British, I live in the UK, I've heard lots of people call it a "barbie". I do sometimes. I've never had any misunderstandings with it either. I think the popularity of various Aussie TV programmes and Fosters adverts have made it common. Could be a regional thing, perhaps it's a phenomenon only experienced where I'm based (London and the South-East)... would make sense as that's where all the Australians go when they come to the UK, so they may have improved the popularity of the term round here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I used to live in London, and the only people I heard call it a barbie were people making fun of aussies. Ron James 007 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas Section
I added a section on Texas Barbecue. I know that there is a separate article on regional styles of barbecue, but I thought that Texas barbecue should be included in the main article. My rationale for this is that the article does break out and explain barbecue in the American South, and Texas barbecue is distinct from Southern bbq not only in style, ingredients, etc, but also in origin. Also, the cursory information on Texas barbecue, that it is all beef and that it does not come with sauce, is so oversimplified as to be outright wrong. Also, to many people not from the South, Texas is the region most closely associated with barbecue, so a breakout of Texas styles within this article is appropriate and helpful.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this getting it's own section. Doesn't flow with the article.  If Texas BBQ warrants it's own section in this article, why not KC and Memphis?  There is a section of this article for Regional differences for a reason.  I do agree that Texas style tends to differ from the rest of the south, and that would even merit a sentence or two in that section of this article, but the paragraphs in it's own section in this article, I don't think it's appropriate.  It looks like you've put some thought and effort into what you've written, so you might want to consider adding it to the Regional Differences article, if it's not already there.  --Reverend Loki (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as a section on barbecue of the American South is present in this article, a section on Texas barbecue is completely appropriate. Including Texas barbecue in the American South section would not be appropriate as 3 of the 4 styles of Texas barbecue are not derived from southern barbecue at all, but arose independently. KC and Memphis styles are merely subsets of southern barbecue. Secondly, there is the culturally significant association of barbecue with Texas around the world. Ask someone in London or Nairobi or Taipai about barbecue, and they are not going to talk about Kansas City or Memphis, they will talk about Texas. Right or wrong, the connection of barbecue to Texas is culturally significant and therefore salient to the article. The presence of the section does not detract from the "flow" of the article at all, though I see the short intro to the section was altered by an unregistered user to remove the mention of the cultural association, which I can see might make you feel that way. - .Mmyers1976 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a trivia section
Different methods of barbecuing was labled a trivia section.

In my humble opinion, this is not a triva section, it has it's own title, and everthing in it is on topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, that's what I came to the Talk page to discuss. I'm glad you pointed that out. I've taken the logical next step of removing the "Trivia Sections are discouraged" template icon. --Thnidu (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbr.
Barbecue abbreviated Bar-B-Que? It's one glyph longer; about the same time length or more to hand write. That makes me laugh. What an abbreviation! I think it's more a typographic stylish play than an abbreviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.19.145 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the google search results a few sections up, I'd guess BBQ is probably the most common abbr. Jon (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
What does "Lays BBQ Chips. Lays BBQ chips primarily urge young women named Rhiannon, whom are 15 years old, who live in Virginia, to visit Nicholas in Lebanon, Oregon. These urges can be extremely hard to ignore and usually lead to actual travel. The device used for cooking at a "barbecue" is commonly referred to as a Oh baby Lays BBQ, BBQ My Lays, or I'd lays BBQ That bitch" have to do with barbecue?


 * Sorry, more WP:VANDALISM. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia?
I wonder; why does Texas of all places have a huge chunk of this article devoted to it when Australia has nothing?

BBQs are most often assosiated with Australia and its from Australia that the current trend comes.--Him and a dog 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BBQs might be popularly regarded as an Australian passtime but they are not an Australian invention! This article's new Australia section is terrible- stuffed with unreferenced speculation and short on fact. It is also redundant given Regional_variations_of_barbecue though that article is not much chop either. Format (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that BBQs are not an Australian invention. Perhaps the original commenter would have been better off describing it as "most often associated with" Australia, rather than "invented by". That would have cleared up all the confusion. (Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I just felt sarcasm was the best way to highlight the inconsistency in your initial indignation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.122.109 (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not literally and directly responding to the first comment above, I was responding to that comment, along with the insistence on having a redundant section on Australia in the article, which was unneccessary. Format (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because "barbecue" is derived from a Taino Indian word, not an Aboriginal word. The Australian use of the word "barbecue" is a fairly recent adoption of a borrow-word from the interrelated traditions for outdoor smoking of meat that predominate in parts of the Caribbean, Northern Mexico, and the Southern US, including Texas, which, due to its geographical remoteness from the rest of the South in the 19th century, came up with some divergent styles. Also, in popular culture, barbecue has come to be associated with Texas. From New York to Japan, I have seen many restaurants which call themselves "barbecue" restaurants which use copious Texas cultural references in their restaurants and on their menus. There are other ways of cooking outdoors over hot coals, but that is not linked to the barbecue foodways tradition. Of course, it makes perfect sense to acknowledge in the article that some cultures have used "barbecue" as a borrow-word for grilling outdoors, such as Australians, but no need to go into every single way people around the world grill that they might want to casually call "barbecue". There is a need, however, to make a distinction between things which have come to be casually called "barbecue" after the advent of Mass Culture, versus foods which were traditionally called "barbecue" before that. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I sort of found it puzzling that there was such a US slant to the article as I've always thought of BBQs as being the national Australian cuisine and not something I would assosiate with Texas. But, nevertheless, I have been educated. Property (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks
Want to thank you for a cool article that gave me lots of information I didn't know before – especially helpful is the chimney method of heating charcoal and the finer points of managing a fire.

As to the spelling discussion above – I had the impression that the Q in barbecue was a kind of advertising 133T speak. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bronx Brooklyn Queens
This was added on 14 October 2008: "Another improbable claim is that the abbreviation BBQ may take its origin from the three New York districts Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens (whose initials are B-B-Q), where gathering around a grill was a major social event." Google is very thin on this claim, so it probably fails WP:V and WP:N. Can anyone help here, or it will be removed soon. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A week or so ago I found that claim listed as the first etymology mentioned in this article and worded in a way that made it sound like the most likely etymology. I moved it to the paragraph on unlikely etymologies and added the verbage about it being "Another impobable claim". I'm perfectly fine with it being deleted entirely.Mmyers1976 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested External Link
I am a new user and reluctant to make substantial changes so I shall leave it to others. I also have a conflict of interest. May I suggest an external link to http://amazingribs.com ? There is a LOT of good info on barbecue there, especially on ribs, brisket, smokers, regional sauces, and more. Quedude (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has had to be strict with external links due to problems with WP:SPAM in the past. This link seems more or less OK, but some people might object. Thoughts from other users?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article that attempts to list many of the different types of barbecue with discussion of the etymology including recent info from a new scholarly text: http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/barbecue_defined.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quedude (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI issues aside, the site has ads everywhere, so should not be included per WP:ELNO #5. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

it had many names derived from it like bbq and barbq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.60.3 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pit barbecue
A full article about the process should be created Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You just did, didn't you? Powers T 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Etimology from...romanian language!
In my romanian language, the expression "berbec copt" means "roasted ram". berbec(check the latin "vervex")=ram, copt=roasted, now you know why for the mexicans the "barbacoa" is in connection with sheep meat in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but probably incorrect. The word "barbecue" is generally agreed to be of Caribbean origin. This sort of explanation can look convincing while being false, see sirloin and marmalade.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Health Hazard section?
I'm surprised and disapointed that the article never mentions the health dangers of meat cooked at high temperatures, such as those described in the Heterocyclic amine article. I think there are other dangerous chemicals too, do not recall their names. Edit: see Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 92.15.13.42 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This would need a reliable source. If barbecues are a health hazard, it is because numerous people are killed or injured every year while trying to light them with petrol, paraffin or other unsuitable liquids.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ...that and real barbecue is cooked slow with low heat. Barbecue is not a grill. Twelve to fourteen hours of slow cooking. High temp ruins barbecue because it won't become tender. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most people do not cook a "real barbecue", do they? 92.15.15.224 (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources are within the heterocyclic amine and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons articles. The health harzards section was just a stub to get started. I see its been deleted - but its foolish to think that by ignoring a danger, you make it go away. You are doing a grave diservice to the public by hiding important health information. Found these in a quick Google search: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8499202/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuing-cause-cancer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/cancer-risk-from-bbq-meat http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/partyfood/Barbecues/articles/0,,164362_178330,00.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578481 Please tell me which of them is not a reliable source? 92.15.15.224 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This source is reliable, and talks about the risks from meat cooked at high temperatures. It says "For example, well done, grilled, or barbecued chicken and steak all have high concentrations of HCAs". Howver, Wikipedia is not generally a cookery manual, and there are many risk factors involved in cancer. People often undercook meat on barbecues as well. This article says that the fumes from barbecues may cause cancer, while this one asks "To grill or not to grill?" There is some reliable sourcing on this, but it seems to be related to overcooking meat rather than barbecues specifically as a risk. Other comments welcome here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for admitting that at least most of them are reliable souces. Your reasoning appears to be: "Wikipedia is not a cookery manual, therefore, although Wikipedia has a detailed article about barbeques, that article must not include any details of the health hazards". Does not compute. You also say "...it seems to be related to overcooking meat rather than barbecues specifically as a risk." By that resoning, the cigarettes article should not mention cancer, because that's related to burning tobacco rather than cigarettes specifically as a risk. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment in the BBC story says: "Desmond Hammerton, a retired professor of Marine Biology, is campaigning to raise awareness of the problem. He called for warnings to be included on barbecue equipment. He said: "I'm sure that just the odd barbecue during the summer is not going to have any effect. "But if you have a barbecue once or twice a week through the summer, and all crowd round it and inhale the fumes then over 10 or 20 years maybe that would do something." Perhaps barbecues should have a warning label saying "Do not light this with petrol or light it indoors", which might have prevented this incident, but that is another matter. I'm not going to edit war over the cancer risk angle as long as it is reliably sourced, but the main risk seems to be from overcooking meat.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Grilling and hot plate cooking
The article seems to focus on the grilling method of BBQing. It highlights other methods, but I can't see a single mention of cooking on a hot plate. In australia, it is far more common for the food to be cooked on a solid hot plate, rather than on a grill. Most BBQ's devote at least half the space to a hot plate, and some (especially those used primarily for sausage sizzles etc) are entirely devoted to a hot plate with no grill section what so ever.

what the different betweeen asado and barbecue??
I cook them in the same way in Argentina and in the United States people only call them different.

Barbecue from the Spanish
The Word and technique of Barbecue can be traced back to the Spanish word "Barbacoa" which is a cooking style that Andalusian Vaqueros have been using since times before the Crusades; but, in fact is still in practice in many Latino communities in the United States to this very day. The process involved covering a cow's head in wet sack-cloth, or burlap and placing it in a pit about four to five feet deep. The head was then covered, or more correctly buried, under kindling and fire wood, with enough wood to last overnight. Traditionally, the Barbacoa is begun on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday at about noon time, and served for breakfast the following morning. The fire is lit and allowed to blaze overnight. The next morning the head is dug out of the ashes, what remaining cloth when pulled away also serves to skin and shave the cow's head leaving behind the face and cheek meat which is the Barbacoa proper, it also leaves the tongue (or lengua) which many consider to be part of the barbacoa, but many also do not. The barbacoa is served simply on a warmed tortilla with whatever sauza, hot sauce, or condiment desired. The Tradition in San Antonio,Texas, as well as many other communities with a high latino population, is to have barbacoa and coffee with the Sunday morning newspaper.

69.148.199.180 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparatus moved to Barbecue grill
A section on the various grills was removed because it is a content fork which kept growing when we already have an article on Barbecue grills. Links were left to take the reader to that page within the article. The extracted portion has been placed at Talk:Barbecue grill. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Vegetables & fish
...are not the topic of this article. That isn't barbecue although an editor keeps trying to inject that in. To do so would muddy the article's topic. Veggies & fish may be cooked on a bbq grill but that doesn't make them barbecue. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cooking them in a bbq makes them barbecued, can find several instructions for bbqing fish, would you like some links to sites giving instruction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiron200 (talk • contribs)


 * Not within the context of this article. If I roasted marshmallows over a bbq grill, would that make them barbecue (noun)? Barbecue is an understood topic and it doesn't really include fish & vegetables. Fish actually cooks quickly and not slowly as barbecuing implies. Potatoes may be grilled but they are not barbecue. Soup/stew in a pot may be cooked over a barbecue grill but that doesn't make them barbecue. You may want to address the cooking of fish & veggies in the article Barbecue grill where it may be more correct.


 * Btw, you may want to sign your posts by using four tildes ~ and you can indent by using a colon with your responses.  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * cooking slowly is not implied by bbq, in fact the article even mentions that bbq is a method of cooking something quickly over a high heat. And so fish cooked on a bbq is bbq Keiron200 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While we are discussing, do not revert as that is a display of bad faith. Care to explain this edit? Barbecuing is slow cooking and barbecue has a particular meaning. Have you got a citation to back up your assertions? I correctly removed uncited material and awaiting you to cite it. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the article does not say that what you implied that it did. "barbecuing" (verb) is described as fast heating in British usage...no where does that apply to the noun that this article is about. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article states "barbecuing refers to a fast cooking process directly over high heat, while grilling refers to cooking under a source of direct, high heat" the noun that this article is about can refer to any food cooked on a bbq, just because this confilcts with the american version of barbecueing does not mean that it should be excluded. What kind of citation is needed? Would a website detailing how to bbq fish be enough? If so then; http://www.planetbarbecue.co.uk/fish.htm. That was jokingly put in about the exclusion of fish, it was then added in a sensible manner.

Keiron200 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A citation is needed from a reliable source which refers to fish or veggies as barbecue (noun). The source you gave isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia.


 * British usage doesn't call the cooked food barbecue. They use the word as a verb or an adjective. This article is not about any food cooked on a grill. You haven't answered my questions concerning marshmallows above...would that make them barbecue in your view? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * the article is about barbecue in general and not the noun. Marshmallows would not be cnsidered barbecue, but there are several cultures that barbecue fish and veg and so these would becalled bbq. I shall attempt some more citations ... http://www.channel4.com/4food/recipes/seasonal/bbq/bbq-fish-recipes, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographic-AMERICANS-BARBECUE-Mary-Evans/dp/B001NRLL66. I hope one of those is good enough so this can be settled, I don't see what your problem with have fish and veg called bbq is. Keiron200 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You stated above "the noun that this article is about can refer to any food cooked on a bbq" which is why I asked for the marshmallow clarification as it would have been barbecue by your definition. So not every food cooked on a grill is barbecue then?


 * Neither of these are reliable sources...I'd suggest that you try Google books. The German print has nothing about barbecue except some woman attempting to give it title and doing it incorrectly. A recipe isn't what you're looking for...we need an article or book that identifies vegetables or fish as barbecue. You are actually talking about grilling...there is a difference. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * the article states "Barbecue...is a method and apparatus for cooking meat or poultry with the heat and hot smoke of a fire, smoking wood, or hot coals of charcoal." the Barbecue can be used to cook any number of different foods including marshmallows, but listing every food that can be cooked on a bbq would be silly and counter productive. However fish and veg are often cooked on bbqs and are a sensible addition.


 * ok more citation attempts;
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=QhUU8udKLUcC&q=%22barbecue+fish%22&dq=%22barbecue+fish%22&hl=en&ei=jPn1TZWoF4mu8gP9oeDLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAg
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Tc-Xs1LTbm4C&pg=PA55&dq=%22barbecue+fish%22&hl=en&ei=jPn1TZWoF4mu8gP9oeDLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22barbecue%20fish%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=kPS-I3VO_yYC&q=%22barbecue+fish%22&dq=%22barbecue+fish%22&hl=en&ei=jPn1TZWoF4mu8gP9oeDLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=S274ZzzqdIsC&q=%22barbecue+fish%22&dq=%22barbecue+fish%22&hl=en&ei=jPn1TZWoF4mu8gP9oeDLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ. Keiron200 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a little better. I don't know if you noticed but the first and fourth sources are the same text by the same publisher...but that is the one that comes closest to being a legit source for fish. I'd like to keep looking for a better source but I'll modify the article to include fish... <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External link request
The barbecue EL in question has been spammed recently into multiple articles. It was rejected as spam before. Moreover, the site seems to have flagrant copyright violations (see Letterman's top tens in center column). This is reason enough to pull it out.

The site owner opened a dialog on my talk page which I'm copying and continuing here as the thread on my page will be archived and it really should involve the other editors here (feel free to join in the discussion). I will notify editors who took part in the archived discussion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My name is Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn and I am pretty widely thought of as one of the world's leading authorities on barbecue. My website, AmazingRibs.com is by far the most popular BBQ website in the world according to rating services comScore and Alexa. I am a certified BBQ judge, and a consultant to an author of the Oxford English Dictionary on the definition of barbecue. I have long been frustrated that the Wikipedia definition is inaccurate but I have decided that I did not want to get into a fistfight over it. But yesterday I wrote to a Wikipedia staffer "Adrignola" and asked if he could add a link to my article with the world's most complete and accurate definition of barbecue because I felt it would be inappropriate for me to do this. He reviewed the page, agreed, and added a link. You promptly removed it. So let's discuss this. I do not know your credentials or barbecue expertise, but if you can defeat me in a debate over the points I made on this page, if you can match my expertise, then leave the link off. Otherwise, I think you should give Wikipedia readers the opportunity to benefit from my expertise. The page in questions: http://amazingribs.com/BBQ_articles/barbecue_defined.html
 * 67.186.80.37 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will leave a notice on your talk page here ==> User talk:Quedude


 * 1 Who is MichaelDamianJeter?


 * 2 Why are you using David Letterman's top ten lists on your website? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * MichaelDamianJeter is a FB friend. I asked my FB friends if any of them were Wikipedia editors and would they consider adding a link to this page because I felt it would be a conflict for me to do so. He said he would do it. I have never met him. He is just a fan of my work.


 * Letterman is sometimes funny. I try to educate with a sense of humor and occasionally scatter humor on my pages. CBS allows people to post Letterman's Top 10 lists because they view it as good for business. Videos of almost all his top 10 lists are posted by CBS to YouTube. The Top 10 Lists I posted to this page are humorously in support of my argument that common usage of the word barbecue is MUCH broader than the revisionist argument that barbecue is limited to low, slow, large cuts of meat with smoke. Have you read the page? Can you dispute my arguments? Do you wish to get to the, ahem, meat of the discussion? Look, I am just saying that a link to a contrary point of view belongs on the Wikipedia. I really should be arguing that most of what Wikipedia says is just flat wrong. We really ought to be talking about rewriting the page to make it accurate from a historical standpoint, from a culinary standpoint, and from a lexicography standpoint.


 * I am qualified to make these arguments. I have authored books on food and drink, written weekly columns in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post food sections, I have taught at Le Cordon Bleu in Chicago and Cornell University's School of Hotel Admin, Certified BBQ Judge, etc. etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.80.37 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why aren't you logging in as Quedude?


 * Re-authoring the page from your perspective may constitute original research (possibly). Jeter was spamming the links into several articles and was subsequently reverted by different editors. Can you provide a link that substantiates your claim that CBS allows people to re-publish Letterman's lists? Wikipedia does not allow linking to sites that infringe upon copyrights. This also leads to similar questions concerning other material on your site...from Weber grills, etc.


 * There are two main issues which are entirely separate: 1) adding a link to your site & 2) disputable content. Let's just address #1 for now, okay? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have previously removed this link on WP:EL grounds. There are umpteen websites with barbecue info and there is no reason to have this one more than any other.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...that was fast...guess I don't have to notify you :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing up the site for consideration. I agree with Ian. See WP:ELNO #11 - links to personal websites. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Why aren't I logging in as Quedude someone asked. I forgot to sign my comments. My apologies. I am not totally at ease with the editing tools here. You guys know Wikipedia. I know barbecue. I am not trying to spam. That is why I did not place the links myself. Jeter is just a FB friend who was trying to help both me and WP readers.

2) I have removed the Letterman Top 10 lists, but ask yourself this: If CBS posts the videos to YouTube and enables the embed option, they are encouraging people to use the content, right? Instead of using the vids, I just ran the text. To CBS, this is publicity. But it no longer matters, I have removed it.

3) Will somebody PLEASE read the article in question and debate me on the substance? The article makes the point that grilling is a form of barbecue, it documents how the word has been used historically and how it is currently used. Please read it. It has merit and should be either incorporated into the content of this page or at least linked. http://amazingribs.com/BBQ_articles/barbecue_defined.html

4) Has anybody read my credentials above? I am a well-known author, authority, and I have spent scores of hours in the stacks of numerous libraries researching the topic. I sign my work with my real name, not a nom de plume. I stand by my work. 67.186.80.37 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer #2, no. For #3, we are currently discussing whether to add your link or not...we are not discussing content in this thread. If you would like to discuss some of the article content, please start another thread but be aware that you may not use the material you have written although you may use other proper sources. Please read WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:OR. To answer #4, Please read WP:EXPERT. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

American POV.
The whole article is written from an American POV written by a set of editors who only take into account the American side of things. While this is obviously systematic Bias and therefore, good faith, the article needs improvement. I suggest removing most of the info about BBQ's in the deep south to a separate Article. The section on gatherings and such ignores the fact barbecues are highly popular as social gatherings in other countries. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree it does have an American bias right now, but not because there is too much info about BBQ in America, but rather not enough about BBQ outside of America. Might I suggest adding pertinent info to this article?  I'd love to see such info expand this entry.  Maybe down the road we need to prune down sections, move some of that section to their separate articles, but I think additions should be made first. --Reverend Loki (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The bias is not only American but also to the eastern United States. In California the word "barbecue" mainly refers to cooking hamburgers and hotdogs outside and these other usages are practically unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.225.215 (talk • contribs)
 * That meaning is covered in the Barbecue section. Powers T 23:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Auroch
Way too much detail and WP:TOPIC issues here (eg the image is largely irrelevant). Stone Age men may well have hunted and cooked meat, but apart from the use of the word barbecue (which is of much later origin), this is not helpful and needs a rewrite.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the image is probably excessive, but otherwise I think the History section is fine. Like I said in my edit summary, it is sourced and clearly relevant. I think it is important to point out that barbecue originated with prehistoric man. Perhaps the research cited isn't ideal but the intent of the section is appropriate. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is something that has been in the news in the past few days, and may be worth a brief mention. The real problem - one that the article has faced before - is that cooking/grilling/eating meat is not necessarily a barbecue. This refers to a specific type of cooking on a frame with a slow heat.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both sources call it barbecuing, and they seem reliable. Unless there are others that point out it was not barbecue, that is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed the sources do say this, but as the article has pointed out before, barbecue is a specific form of cooking technique, not any situation where meat is cooked and eaten. The sources do not say how the auroch was cooked, which leads to a problem. No mention is made of a cooking frame, and the meat may simply have been placed into a fire until it was cooked. The word is of Caribbean origin and is intended to refer to cooking over a frame with a slow heat.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the same addition. Looks like the author misapplied the word barbecue which would mean it isn't a fully reliable source. Also, applying it in that manner isn't widespread and looks fringe. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The reasons for reverting this are that it is too detailed, and that cooking meat over an open fire (which Stone Age man undoubtedly did) is not a barbecue in the generally accepted sense of the word.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How to barbecue like prehistoric man goes into more detail about the cooking techniques, saying: "“Mesolithic hunter-gathers used different types of hearths for cooking meat. Most probably they used a simple fire on the ground-surface but it is also possible they cooked the meat in pits — (probably wrapped in leaves), the so-called hearth-pits.” This confirms the theory that Stone Age man used cooking techniques similar to the rotisserie and earth oven, which are still used in some cultures today. Neither of these techniques is a barbecue in the strict sense of the word, which is why the story headline "How to barbecue like prehistoric man" is apt.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The "sacred fire pit" etymology?
I was surprised of the "sacred fire pit" etymology, which is different from the one in OED, for example. Then I tracked down the cited text and saw that the definition comes from "Peter Guanikeyu Torres, President and Council Chief of the Taino Indigenous Nation of the Caribbean and Florida". See for example this: ''He not only assured me that the Taino were alive and well, but also translated "barbecue" from Taino language as follows: Ba from Baba (father) Ra from Yara (place) Bi from Bibi (beginning) Cu from Guacu (the sacred fire) Or "the beginning of the sacred fire father." He further explained that "Taino barabicoa" means "the stick stand with four legs and many sticks of wood on top to place the cooking meat." He advised that "Taino Barabicu" means "the sacred fire pit."'' (http://www.barbecuen.com/glossary-pg3.htm#ixzz1iJ56VzRF ) This is a somewhat controversial, as some people would claim that Taino are extinct and "However only 6 sentences of Taíno have been recorded" (http://www.cariblanguage.org/taino.html ). But maybe someone knows more? 82.181.42.45 (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Move
This subjection gives undue weight to a couple of regions within a single country on what is a global past-time. The Regional variations of barbecue or Barbecue in the United_States is the appropriate location. -182.239.176.22 (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this section is getting a bit too long and specialized. It should at least be trimmed back.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree as well - it'll cut back on some duplication and improve the intended target article at the same time. Obviously needs a decent summary section left here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a fundamental problem here in that we have this article, written from an overwhelmingly US POV (starting with a statement as to what grilling and barbecuing are "typically" (i.e. the US senses in both cases), and the prominent infobox ("This article is part of the series on American cuisine"), and the in-the-US article, written from an even-more-overwhelming US POV, making assertions about what's the case "in most developed countries". I think this whole article should be cut back considerably, and concentrate on disentangling the variations in terminology, and providing a clear roadmap for the many related and overlapping articles on, in, and around the topic.  84.203.40.54 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The moves that were discussed here have already happened. I've already took out the "in most developed countries" from the the in-the-US article. Ah, sorry. I thought the moves had already happened. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should be making the move to Barbecue (cuisine) to separate it from the other usages. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pit beef predominates in Maryland???
I don't know about that. I spent many years living in Maryland, mostly in Baltimore but I worked in other areas of the state as well, and I can't remember pit beef even being a blip on the radar, aside from church fundraisers and company picnics, prepared by companies that did nothing else. The barbecue places we went to in central Maryland and on the Eastern Shore were old line Maryland, been around for 70 or 80 years, or more, at that time, and they mostly served pork ribs, although some had chicken and occasionally beef, too. I think you're confusing grilling with 'cue. Zlama (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling: Barbeque is often regarded as incorrect
I edited to note that "barbeque" is not by any means just accepted everywhere as a "common spelling variant," and I also note that the entry said the Oxford Dictionary accepts the spelling when in fact it does precisely the opposite, specifically calling it a mistake.

As a professional editor, I am accustomed to accepting the first listed spelling in a dictionary as the correct one to use. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a neon sign, so let's lead our readers in the right direction, OK? The word is "barbecue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.86.220 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)


 * "Barbeque" has always been a common spelling variant, and Perennial_proposals also comes into play.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All I want to do is help the reader by pointing out that "barbeque" is not an uncontroversial spelling. You can't go wrong with "barbecue."


 * Other than possible American chauvinism, Ianmacm, why are you insisting that we *withhold* the information that the Oxford Dictionary — the standard outside the United States — specifically calls "barbeque" a mistake? What purpose does that serve?


 * I have an actual life, so I'm not going to edit war. I signed up with an account just to fix this mistake because I'm a professional editor and I'm tired of seeing barbeque. I'll tell you how the real world regards "spelling variants": as mistakes.


 * Anyway, whatever. If you're willing to erase my work just to troll, or ensure it's suitable for Americans only (whichever is your agenda), you win. You get the encyclopedia you deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleslinger6 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * If behavior is explanatory, it isn't Ian who seems to be trolling. Try discussing and leave off the bad faith assumptions. Ian showed you an entry in a dictionary with that spelling. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  16:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ianmacm is British and has been involved in lame spelling wars before, notably at Color which is of course Colour in British English. There is a template at Talk:Color about this issue. It has never been in much doubt that barbecue is the most common spelling, but the barbeque variant is sufficiently common to prevent it from being called incorrect. This phenomenon also happens with other food related words, such as pilau/pilaf/pilaff rice.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But my question remains: Why would you edit the entry specifically to withhold the information that the Oxford Dictionary regards "barbeque" as a mistake? How does that serve the reader? By saying it's a "variant spelling" glosses over the fact that it's apt to be regarded as just plain wrong in some quarters — most of the major English-speaking countries, I would venture. Anyway, once again, I'm just trying to point out that "barbeque" is not universally accepted. That's useful information for the reader who wants to use a version that will be regarded as correct in any context/region, and that would be "barbecue." User: Aleslinger6


 * It is interesting that the quote from the OED says that barbeque is often regarded as incorrect, while at the same time admitting that almost a quarter of the instances it came across used this spelling. The two assertions do not really go together, and it would be more accurate to say that in British English barbecue is generally preferred, which it is. Barbeque is probably more common in the USA, which is why American and British English spelling differences need to be taken into account.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But you're STILL not answering my question: Why withhold the fact that "barbeque" is regarded as incorrect by the Oxford, and much of the English-speaking world as a consequence? Why are you working to keep this information out of the entry? What purpose are you serving? User: Aleslinger6


 * The text from the OED is online here, while Merriam Webster gives barbeque as a variant spelling here Both are considered to be reliable sources, and the question is one of emphasis. Americans are probably more used to seeing barbeque than British people, although some British websites still use it. The quote from the OED could be given in a footnote, but given the long history of spelling wars on Wikipedia, it is probably best not to imply that the spelling barbeque is incorrect.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It isn't our place to elevate the OED as an authority over the remainder of the world. They write about the english language but they do not mandate it. Theirs is the perspective of British english. Personally, this American uses the spelling barbecue but recognizes that one single source declaring that the alternate is incorrect is undue weight. Alternate spellings may be allowed. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about elevating the OED? I just want to cite the damn thing. Anyway, sounds like there's a compromise in Ianmacm's idea that "The quote from the OED could be given in a footnote." Fine, we can do it that way. Funny, I did that and it was changed. But I guess I'll have to make time to do it again and hope that no one deletes it again for the sake of — what? (Once again, what, I ask you?!?) By the way, the Oxford isn't just read by British people. I'm Canadian. English-speaking people come in more than two flavours … User: Aleslinger6
 * I have no objection to the compromise but I think it would be a good idea to give it a day or two in case other editors have input. Also, you shouldn't touch it for at least 24 hours because that would be blockable at this point because of your other reverts and you have been warned already. Just wait a day or two. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleslinger6 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)

cooking chemistry
There's no discussion of the physical and chemical changes that occur when meat is cooked slowly at a low temperature. These are perhaps the principal reasons for barbecuing -- they make tough meat more edible. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional mythical folk etymology
Some claim the word "barbecue" originated in Texas. A rancher (either Bernard Quayle or Barnaby Quinn) often served whole animals cooked in this style. His livestock was branded with the letters "BQ", underscored, so his ranch was called "the Bar B Q". Some modern restaurants have adopted variants on "Bar B Q ranch". According to AmazingRibs.com(http://www.amazingribs.com/BBQ_articles/barbecue_history.html) this tale is mentioned in Legends of Texas Barbecue (Robb Walsh, Chronicle Books, 2002) --Wbthacker (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethical and Health Issues of this Practice
Nobody has so far addressed the ethical issues of consuming deceased animal in this article. Most of these animals have probably been killed (made deceased) for the purpose of barbeque.

Furthermore, do you not think it is a coincidence that the majority of partakers in this practice (according to the pictures in this article) are *both* balding *and* obese? I think all the photography featuring male humans in this article portray both balding, and obese pathology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.111.119 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This has WP:NOTAFORUM issues and is beyond the scope of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbecue in other words roasting outdoors, is cooking (usually meat) over red-hot, glowing charcoal or slow-burning, low-flamed fire. To cook in flames or on smoke is a common mistake made by unexperienced cooks resulting to blackening, with soot or by burning, the meat on the outside, which is cancer-genetic. Roasting and grilling require mastership and skills such as swiftness and alertness. It is important to know these details as poor quality meat can be very harmful to human health if undercooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vale Lexi (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

mention of entry at Oxford English Dictionary
In the etymology section, the article states that: the Oxford English Dictionary states that barbecue is "often misspelled as barbeque" ... I just followed the ref, and it no longer appears to make that statement. I did search through archive.org, and back in Sept 2012 the online Oxford English Dictionary still had this mention; but it appears to have been removed from the current version of their dictionary entry.

Given this, should we remove both dictionary definitions, or should we change the statement to simply state that barbeque is recognized by both dictionaries listed as a spelling variant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that the Oxford Dictionary has had a change of heart over this issue. In September 2012 it said "Barbecue is often misspelled as barbeque. This form arises understandably from the word’s pronunciation and from the informal abbreviations BBQ and Bar-B-Q. Although almost a quarter of citations in the Oxford English Corpus are for the -que spelling, it is not accepted in standard English." Merriam Webster does give barbeque as a variant. As long as the sources are reliable, we can fight off the "barbeque is wrong" brigade.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But "barbeque" *is* wrong. It's very clearly and obviously wrong, and was clearly born of the stupidity of ignorant illiterate Boeotians. It begs to be pronounced "barbeck" for a start. --69.70.241.6 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Proposals
I began some general edits yesterday but found that much is needed for this page to be improved. Below are two suggestions.

1) International Coverage. If you look at the barbecue page on the New World Encyclopedia, it includes much more information about international / regional takes on barbecue.  Should this Wiki page include all that information, or is the point of this page to cover the U.S. take on barbecue only?  If so, there should be one page per country / region.  Otherwise, this page should have sub sections and requires much expansion.

2) Citations. I see many places where references should go but I couldn't find the sources used by prior editors.  Are any of you currently searching for additional source material?  If not, I can propose a couple sources that would be appropriate for the expansion of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josophie (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

China/Korea/Japan
The problem with this edit is that it repeats the common myth that grilling is the same as barbecue. Humans have been cooking and grilling meat since ancient times, but this is not necessarily the same technique as barbecue, which uses a low heat and not a flame, leading to much longer cooking times. It does not help that some sources are careless about using the word barbecue, which does not automatically apply to all forms of outdoor cookery.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Furthermore, it's silly to call it barbecue at all. Is that the word used in Chinese? Seems doubtful. -Athaler (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In China, there exist many cooking techniques of treating meat over charcoal or wood. One of them applies the method of using "a low heat and not a flame". In Chinese, two characters are used to refer to the general category of such cooking methods, including both barbecue and grilling: "燒烤". And "烤" is always used alone by people in daily life for abbreviation -- in the same way that BBQ is used for Barbecue. You can recombine the character "烤" with other characters when you want to refer to different cooking methods. For example, "烤鴨" for roasted duck, "烤串" for kebabs, "炭烤" for charcoal grilling. Each cooking method will always find its own corresponding word in Chinese. Jzmou (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring without Edit summaries by IP editors
Two IP editors have today three times removed the word "barbie" from the lead. There are two problems here. Firstly, the unexplained deletions. I have twice reverted, and won't revert again at this stage because I don't want to go near 3RR. At my second revert, I asked that the issue be taken to the Talk page. It wasn't, so I'm doing it now. Secondly, "barbie" is a very common word for a barbecue in Australia at least. This is acknowledged at our page Barbie (disambiguation). HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, when an editor wants to revert something more than once that is not obvious vandalism, there should be an explanation on the talk page. "Barbie" is a common Australian English term, and is famously used in this 1984 television commercial with Paul Hogan. Shrimp on the barbie also has its own article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

US barbecue and indirect heat
I have lived my entire life in the US (California and Washington), as have my ancestors as far as I can trace, and a barbecue here, in the USA, is the same as what this article says is the "British" description. Regional variances exist in a country as large as this, and it's very misleading to say all of america is onboard with the "indirect heat" version of barbecue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B000:8FA:6D5D:2981:F242:CB29 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Barbecue and grilling are two very different things. Everyone in the history of mankind has cooked meat quickly over a hot grill. If your 'barbecue' includes hamburgers and hotdogs, or takes 15-30 minutes to cook the food, then it's grilling. The tradition of barbecue - long slow cooking over indirect heat with smoke - is much more limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.55.48 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

After a quick look through several dictionaries, it doesn't appear that there is any agreement on what Barbecue is, other than it invloves heat and smoke. Miriam-Webster say it's the act of cooking meat over an open fire, Dictionary.com metions only "an open hearth", and even websites devoted to slow-cooking bbq admit that the name is ambiguous. I'm confused on how this article can take such a firm stance that this is what BBQ means to everyone in the US. To even add more confusion, Barbecue as an event isn't even mentioned in the article, though it is one of the most common uses of the term, and can certainly involve hamburgers or hotdogs. In my opinion, the article either needs to make this distinction or include some sources for "in a U.S. barbecue, the coals are dispersed to the sides or at significant distance from the grate." that trump every other source out there....Sheriffjt (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)