Talk:Rice cooker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Food Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Food and drink task list: Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine, Chocolate Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Burger King Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate Review articles currently up for FA status: Butter

[edit] Plagiarism

Someone needs to talk to these guys ([1]) about the fact that they appear to be plagiarizing the article (check out the bit about beef stew). They do not reference Wikipedia, and they claim copyright on the text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

why does this sound like an advertisement from the ricecooker association of america? N1ugl 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The webpage has disapeared as of December 11th 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.40.54 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inner bowl

I removed the suggestion that the inner bowl is usually non-stick or teflon-coated as I'm doubtful it's true. It's true here in New Zealand and I guess in the US, but definitely not true in Malaysia and I suspect some other parts of Asia. As an aside I personally, having used a teflon rice cooker think it's incredibly stupid anyway as the coating of course comes off if you scrape the rice off too hard so you either have to waste a lot of rice or eat teflon. Of course, this may not be such a problem for the awful method some people use to cook rice where it doesn't stick but anyway that's another issue. Nil Einne 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "often" is better than the "sometimes" of your edit, but it's a minor point.

When I use a non-stick rice cooker I don't get stuck rice which needs scaping off, and I always use the proper absorption method, whether using a rice cooker or not. What awful method do you mean? The "boil and drain" method? LDHan 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think often is accurate either. How common are non-stick bowls in China and India which I suspect combined have a very large majority of the world's rice cookers. Answer, I suspect very few. When we throw in most of South East Asia and Pakistan, well we probably end up with like 90% or more of the world's rice cookers. BTW, if your rice doesn't stick to the bowl at least a bit, then it's unlikely to stick to itself. Any rice that doesn't stick at least a bit to itself, frankly isn't properly cooked rice (yes I know it's sometimes fashionable to have rice that doesn't stick to itself in the west but believe it or not, rice is actually SUPPOSED to stick to itself). It obviously depends on the type of rice and how soft you like it and the problem gets worse of course when you forget to turn off the stupid rice cooker which has a useless 'keep warm' function and and the lid isn't on properly or you don't put quite enough water which can happen particularly when you're cooking an unusual amount and you don't waste time with some 'proper absorption method' and instead just add the water and cook the stuff, as you should, and as I suspect 90% of the world does. I have no idea what the 'proper absorption method' is, but whatever method you use is likely a rarity. The proper way to cook rice with a rice cooker BTW, is just to put water in the bowl (about a hand above the rice is about correct but if you do it enough you can tell from an eyeball and it does depend on the type of rice and personal preference), and cook it. Anything else like some sort of complicated 'absorption method' is just plain wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

I recently saw In the Mood for Love which takes place in the early 1960s, and one scene shows the reaction to the introduction of a rice cooker. Does anyone know the history of rice cookers? Might be useful to add details about how widespread it was when it first came out, etc. --Vince | Talk 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)