Talk:French fries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French fries article.
Article policies
French fries is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
  • US french fries are British chips.
  • US potato chips are British crisps.

Contents

[edit] Malt Vinegar in the UK

Fish and Chip shops do not traditionally serve Malt Vinegar in the UK due to esoteric licencing conditions on brewed products. Instead they use a product called Non-Brewed Condiment which is a vinegar substitute created with water, flavourings and caramel colouring (from memory, not to be quoted).

Whilst the page does state that this is the case in Scotland, it sounds as though the page is saying this is a Scotland only thing whereas the prevalence of non-brewed condiment is much wider and will be found at most Fish and Chip shops throughout the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.32.105 (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the section where it describes the UK as having fish and chips served with Malt Vinegar should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.32.105 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom fries in 2003

like totally cut from the article:

On March 11, 2003 the cafeteria menus in the three United States House of Representatives office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries" in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's opposition to the the U.S. position on Iraq. French toast was also changed to freedom toast (During World War I, in a similar move, attempts were made to replace the word sauerkraut with the term liberty cabbage and frankfurter with hot dog in menus and in popular speech: only the latter was successful. During World War II, French toast replaced German toast as the popular term for that dish.)

Many Europeans dismissed the changes of March 2003 as 'immature gimmackry', in the words of an Irish newspaper. Several American congressmen have agitated for more serious and less symbolic actions to be taken against the French. Others have criticised the behaviour as attempted intimidation of a nation who is entitled to hold a different point of view on an international issue to the United States. Suggestions that some European states should boycott American products and companies such as MacDonalds and that European television stations boycott American programmes have been criticised as stooping to the level of

I'm Belgian, and I can tell you that the France governement did confirm on to the press, during the Iraqi invasion:"Actually, french fries are NOT a French product, it comes from Belgium." So it was ignorance that made people change the names of a product.

It's like so out of place to even talk about all that anti-French stuff, you know what I mean? Cuz we need a more awesome segue to like, introduce it, okay? I mean like maybe an anti-French sentiment article or American attitudes towards France or like whatever, you know? --Uncle Ed 21:22 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, let me state that I don't think french people would feel very happy with the title you gave to that page. I do not. It may be a good title in terms of communication ("percutant" would we say)...but it is slightly unfairly lacking some information. In short : from what I read in the news (your news, mostly cnn, fox is really too depressing), there is indeed a very strong anti-french sentiment. But this sentiment is expressed by *americans* only (are mostly by *far*). The title of this page anti-French sentiment gives the feeling it is something much more general. Anthere
btw, did you guys decided to rename french kiss to freedom kiss too ? That would be tasty !
french kiss didn't bother annyone as it didn't occur in the economy; it was not a 'French' product they could import, or better, stop importing :-/

well french fries have a different name in capitalist land, it should be mentioned. Just not ALL of it should be here. Susan Mason

On March 11, 2003 the cafeteria menus in the three United States House of Representatives office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries" in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's opposition to the the U.S. position on Iraq.

This section seems like it might be vaguely encyclopedic. I suggest waiting a month and seeing if it still seems important then. Martin

why wait a month? Anything the House does is encyclopedic. Susan Mason

Yeah, like I totally agree that the "menus were changed" part should stay in the article. When I said I "totally" cut it I wasn't all like "completely" cut it it, it just totally wasn't completly pedia-worthy so I like was all get this out in a hurry dude! The "rebuke" part is bitchin'! --Uncle Ed

So like right on, the menu part stays and the rest belongs in its own arty! Susan Mason

Party hearty, here's your arty: --Surfer Dude 21:56 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

You two aren't helping attempts to claim this is a serious encyclopedia... that's like, so totally not cool... ;-) Martin


Isn't renaming "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" saying that "French" is synonymous with "Freedom"? This action seems more like a compliment to the French than an insult.

doesnot everyone knows that french fries are from Belgium ? If so, the compliment is for Belgium people.
Not Belgium, but Belgian, and not 'French fries', but 'french fries'. No capitals :)

But since it is clearly indicated that the first change of that type was done in reference to german sausage changed to freedom sausage (or anything similar) just after WWI, I doubt you could say it is a compliment :-)

Anthere comments on the name of anti-French sentiment, suggesting something like American anti-French sentiment. Of course, then we have to have an edit war over whether that's best, or whether we should have American anti-French bigotry or American anti-French racism. Next someone has to create French anti-Americanism in the name of "balance", and we'll all have a competition to see which page we can make largest.

Or does that only apply for pages concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict? ;-) Martin

sigh, yes.
Fortunately, I know nothing about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, so I won't bother anyone there :-)
Yes, I suppose I would be alone editing the French anti-Americanism. So...in short, what you suggest - for the sake of peace - is that we just pretend that Anti-Americanism does not exist ? That makes sense...Okay, let's concentrate very hard...

A better solution might be to have an article on American-French relations, which can discuss how French-American relationships have waxed and (recently) waned over recent history. Just an idea.Martin
very good proposition. Maybe part of this article could be the content of anti-French sentiment ?
Is this even relevant to french fries ????

Given the galloping rate of obesity on the US, the snart thing to do would have been to simply remove them from the menu and eat something healthier. Still. That would be too simple. -- Tarquin 23:16 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure the good Congressmen from Idaho wouldn't have approved... --Brion
Not relevant. This is not a discussion board for such matters.

btw

the fried potatoes are called French fries because they were once fried in the French manner (that is to say frying them two times with a small pause in the middle)

That's one of the explanations, but since officialy it doesn NOT refer to a country, what does it still have to do with France ? Nothing besides the resemblance of the name. :)

We still do that, cooking in two times...much much better...it stays softer in the middle, and real crisp on the outside, while if you cook them in only one batch, they are spongy with oil. You don't do that ?

Only in north of France they (still ) do that a lot, here in Belgium, almost everybody does it like that.

I always thought they were called "french fries" after an eighteenth century verb "to french", which means something like "to cut in pieces", but I'm not sure.

[edit] Double fried oxen white horses

"According to culinary celebrity Alton Brown, Belgian pommes frites are usually fried in horse fat.". I find this difficult to believe. Horses are generally lean creatures. Mintguy 15:30 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

plus, it is much better in goose fat or duck fat...
I didn't know but it seems it's right the Belgian used animal fat. The most precise receipt 30% pork fat (saindoux), 60% beef fat a,d 10% neck horse fat.
Reference in French : http://www.frites.be/article.cfm?ContentID=636
Ericd 16:39 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
You realise that frites.be is a commercial, non-academic site, right? And that the site owner's opinions never reference any third-party work, right? RIGHT? BadDoggie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the actual quote from the sidebar on page 110 of Mr. Brown's fine book, I'm Just Here for the Food. (The parentheses and linkage are mine.)
The Belgians are even more into pommes frites than we (Americans) are and they swear by horse fat. I've been to Belgium, I've had the frites, and my money's on Mr. Ed. Horse fat is, however, oddly absent from the American supermarket shelf.
I'm from Belgium, and yes, it might be that your fries have been baked in 100% horse fat; that is, if you went to a classy restaurant that claims to make Belgian fries.

But i can honnestly tell you, step out of the touristic area, and you'll find us baking it, with oil for sure, but with more natural oil. (healthier, like arachide (=nuts) or sunflower oil)

If someone from Belgium could confirm this, I would be quite pleased. --Two halves 05:44 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
Just did so :)
I also doubt that the traditional way is in horse fat, horses were very expensive, so I doubt the poor people who baked fries had them. And even if they had horses, they would only use horse fat if the horse died, they wouldn't kill a horse for it.
Horses were used for transportation, work and war; there were magnitudes more then than now and the carcasses readily available. Horsemeat was for the poor and for the soldiers (who would collect it from the battlefields). BadDoggie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Belgium.

Fry twice is a `must'. Many different types of oil/fat are used. Temperatures to be used depend on which type. Classical is so-called ``ossewit" (dutch; lit. eng. transl.= oxen white), which consists (only?) of beef-fat. It is used because of it's good temperature resistance and good taste of the resulting fries. It's less easy to clean the frying device though. This is why many people use nut-oil (arachide), which also gives good results.

I'm not familiar with Wikipedea-editing, so more experienced users can put this info in the article, if they think it relevant.

Hi, as fellow Belgian, I can tottaly confirm that. :)

--EQ

Yes, I'm a belgian too, and the rumour about hores fat is false. Traditionally we use fat from oxen, but nowadays, a nut oil or sunflower oil is preferred for health reasons, and also because oxen fat is actually quite expensive. Belgan fries are made from peeled potatoes, cut into square strips of about 1 centimeter by one centimeter. It is indeed so that Belgian fries are fried twice, once at about 140 to 160 degrees Celsius, and once at 180 to 190 degrees Celsius. I've modified the article a little to represent this.

Maybe we should also add that we Belgians claim to have invented the fries, somewhere just after the independence of Belgium, in Antwerp.

We claimed it. And the name of 'french' fries came later on, given probebly by British or american soldiers during the war. Altough potatoes were used much much earlier, we even used it in the 1500 hundreds, we didn't made fries of them yet!
More than 15% animal fat gives fries an abbatoir taste. BadDoggie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I knew, "french fries" were originally "frenched fries", "french" being a verb meaning "cut into thin strips".

Wouldn't you know, I just added that to the article without even seeing your comment. I must be psychic. GusGus 04:46, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument about potato based products with different names either side of the atlantic again but... if you don't fry chips twice they don't work. Fries supplied to fast food restaurants have already been friend once. Mintguy (T) 01:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, "French" in this case means "deep fried", c.f. http://officialfrenchfries.com/docs/history.html and http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/ppc68.htm#French%20fries -- the information isn't that hard to find. BadDoggie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I've read, the so-called 'french' fries were invented in Brussels (not Antwerp), assumedly near the present South Station. And the articles' Jefferson is elsewhere quoted as "potatoes, fried in the French manner" which may well be sliced potatoes that might as well come from Spain or France though these are common in Belgium as well - pan fried that is; when deep fried, Americans have a thicker version of what they call chips (UK: crisps). Belgian 'french' fries are cut further in a plane at a right angle with the first series of slicings, and deep fried.

In Dutch (and thus Flemish), friet is singular or the term for a whole portion (as if a substance), and frieten is plural; the word that makes it sound smaller (as every substantive in Dutch can be made) is singular frietje (a singel piece only) or plural frietjes. I assume British could talk about a chip and chips the way 'frietje' and 'frietjes' are used, but how would Americans call a single piece of a french fried potato?

Anyway, the oil and fat arguments mentioned by EQ are quite authentical. Oxen white's rising price caused switching to vegetable oils as GusGus pointed out. Another reason was the cholesterol benefit.

Since I couldn't find EQ's temperatures etc presented in the article either, I revised and expanded the whole paragraph on Belgian cooking style, as far as my knowledge about the article's topic allows – though advantages of each variety of oil (also corn oil can be used at 175 to 180 °C) are not comprehensively shown. I still did not name a single variety of potato – including the historically preferred varieties would take a separate article, and the presently most common bintje is not everyone's favorite. I haven't the foggiest on non-Belgians' potatoes. But my very shortly pointing out the existence of different potatoes seems a bit underestimating the importance of french fries' main ingredient. ;-)
— SomeHuman 2006-08-14 22:08 (UTC)

If you wanted one french cut piece of potato that was fried you would ask for "a french fry," you could also say "one french fry" if you wanted to be really precise. We don't consider it a vast commodity as is implied by the 'friet,' you couldn't ask for one flour, but you could ask for one french fry. ABart26 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"Invented" in Belgium? That'd be a neat trick since there was no such thing as "Belgium" until October 4, 1830, but references to French fries appear in the late 18th century. BadDoggie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name, a new theory

The following was added in the Belgium article, but it should definitely come here. It seems possible [1] (well I dunno really, yet another theory?):

"The origin, and explanation for the name 'French Fries', both are to be found in Belgium, oppose to what most people beleive, and that it comes from France. It was named after language and name of the man, namely Frits, who made them during the WO and served it to English speaking soldiers who were fighting in the southern part of Belgium. Hence why they are called 'French fries', as people speak French in that part of Belgium. And 'Frits', a Belgian that lived there, changed into 'fries'."

Can anybody confirm this? -- Edcolins 20:12, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


The French verb "frire" means "to fry", and "pommes frites" (pronounced [pomfrit]) means "fried potatoes". Deriving "French fries" from "French Frits" is just some sort of silly joke. --Macrakis 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll will confirm this for you. By the simple reason, that I added those extra lines to 'Belgium'.
I added those lines back then, and now (4/8/04) I re-read that part, noticing my lines have been removed again, and have some things to say about what I find posted here:
1) Opposite to what a Belgian did say above, it was not invented in Antwerp, altough, the person might have lived his whole life in Antwerp !
(In fact, I beleive the person, or his origin, which ofcourse are irrelevant to the 'friet' itself, lie in the South of Holland, most likely Amsterdam. Late 18th century.)
2) There are sources that tell of a 'friet'-shape potato BEFORE we called them french fries, and they also point at a large area of Belgium, but not specific enough. And also, we must not forget, that the potato wasn't discovered that 'long time' ago, as to be food for us in the late years of 1500 (1570-1590's).
3) In the explanation of Belgium stands that french fries should not be written with a capital, as it is not a country we are referring to, than at least I wanted to explain why.
(Hence my original addition I typed about french fries under 'Belgium'.)
And this all also declines the argument of why it is not called 'German fries', because of German being an enemy in the war. There is no fundamental reason why there even would be speaking of calling it 'German' fries. (As one of the ways of baking them, or the verb, does refer more likely to France in the first place, and secondly, I doubt that Germans were serving the British and Americans troops 'German fries' here during the war ;-)
At least, none that I found directly in the explanations found at wikipedia.
-- Phil_Belgium 02:25, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
This sound like a load of old pony to me. Mintguy (T) 00:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The current picture on this page is one of the most unappetising sights I've ever seen. Can we have something else please?

  • You're right, it's a terrible picture. The next time that I make my own (two batch cooking) I'll take some pix and post one of them here. Hayford Peirce 22:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section is a little short, and only talks about the history of french fries in the US. Matijs van Zuijlen

FRIED POTATOES, AN SPANISH INVENTION

In 1781 Joseph Gérard wrote about fried potatoes, but in early XVII century Spaniards conquerors wrote about potatoes been eaten by local aborigins, normally boiled. As the first Spanish port dealing with the Americas was Seville, when the Spaniards took with them new food as potatoes to the old World, they didn´t wait too much to fried it as it was the usual way to cook in South Spain. (South Spain is one of the most important olive oil producers in the world). By the time Belgium was part of the Spanish Empire and very good commercials, so they dealed with Spain and discovered the fried potatos that where not too much appreciated in Spain. The difference was that potato plant was easy to grow in northern Europe and became a very important source to avoid famine. This is history and you can find detailed documents in "Seville´s Archivo de Indias" (Seville´s Inidan Archive) where there are preserved the boat´s log of trading cargos from and to Seville and the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.93.169.148 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British chips not greasy?

I am British and I can tell you, the claim that British chips are not greasy is inaccurate.

Per fried piece of potato, there may be less fat proportionally than is absorbed by a thinly cut fry, but in my experience British chips feel and taste greasier than fries.

Another point to note is that in the UK you will find the chips are more likely to be cooked in animal fat the farther north you go, although this is a dying practice with the modern emphasis on healthy eating and the large number of British vegetarians affecting the economics of chip shops.

Hungry Jack's takes an apostrophe.

[edit] UK wording

This article is somewhat wrong on the UK wording of things. We do not call fries chips, we call fries...Fries. Fries are in turn however a certain kind of long, thin, salty chip. This should be taken into account somehow. -Josquius

Not in fact the case. In the US 'fries' includes what the British call 'chips', as well as the long thin salty things you refer to (which seem to have limited existence in Britain outside Macdonalds). DJ Clayworth 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Excuse Me? Josquius was clearly stating that in Britain a chip is different to a fry. Who gives a damn whether or not US fries include what we call chips?! In Britain, Fries (nasty thin crispy things sold in McDonalds) are VERY different to Chips. Jcuk
In Britain Chips and French Fries are not the same thing; just because the US has an obviously limited vocabulary in this area, there is no reason to make wikipedia so americocentric. Chips is chips and fries is fries. Y control 13:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Josquius is 100% correct. In the UK, a chip is significantly different to a fry. As has been said, fries are seldom found outside of McDonalds or Burger King outlets, whereas chips are served in Fish and Chip shops up and down the country, in every public house and restaurant and almost every home. There ought to be a seperate Chips article to complement the French Fries article. 82.70.160.238
I agree with the idea that Chips are different to French Fries. In Australia French Fries are exclusively sold at American style fast food outlets. Chips are definitely not French Fries. Why therefore isn't there a Chips article. Perhaps French Fries should be under a subsection of Chips? In Australia there are still the traditional Fish and Chip shops called Chippies. Chips are also served in pubs. Woe betide the Pub that serves French Fries instead of Chips. Ozdaren 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree British Chips are not the same as French Fries - in Britain we call the thin things Americans eat French Fries - and the chunky things Britons eat Chips - a totally different article is needed for Chips - I hope someone will write one soon - Rej4sl 4 Sep 2006 (was unsigned, undated)
NO, no, no, and NO. The only difference between British and Belgian/Canadian/Australian/American/etc chips is the thickness of the cut, the British chip size tending to be approximately the size of what is referred to as "steak-cut fries" in the US (1.5-2cm thick, 3-4cm wide, length under 20cm). They, like processed French fries/chips around the world, are initially par-fried before being flash frozen or cooled and fresh-bagged for distribution. BadDoggie (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takes the biscuit...sorry, cookie

French fires and chips are two different things, so need to different articles! 82.3.121.1 9 Nov 2005was unsigned, undated, separate section: moved as subsection in pre-existing section on 8 Dec 2006

[edit] One article, two informal names

See my comments of 8 Dec 2006 in this talk page section 'Chips v French Fries'. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 16:11 (UTC)

[edit] Acrylamide discussion

In Germany has recently been a hot tempered discussion about acrylamide and how to reduce its formation in french fries. As a result it is now officially recommended to avoid temperatures above 175°C (347°F). For restaurants this limit is mandatory. Also german Wikipedia mentions "standard values" of 140°C for the first and 175°C for the second batch (284 and 347°F, respectively). Does anyone know whether it is possible to compensate the lower temperatures by longer duration for comparable quality? I strongly suppose that the temperature limit is the most important reason why fries in german canteens recently tend to be a bit poor in taste. Are the higher Temperatures (350 and 375°F) actually optimum temperatures for best taste?--SiriusB 17:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, German Wikipedia did mention these low "standard" temperatures until my last edit which was motivated by this english article.--SiriusB 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German name

When I was in Germany, admittedly many years ago, I ordered chips as "Pommes Frites". Is that now not the name, or was I in a strange part of Germany? DJ Clayworth 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you weren't in a strange part of Germany: That's what Germans call French fries. Transliterated from French it means "potato fries", or "fried potatoes". In French, a potato is la pomme de terre, or apple of the earth., and frites is fries. It's pronounced "pom frit". Quicksilver 20:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom fries

It's my impression, from reading the papers, that the Congressional restaurant has renamed "freedom fries" to "french fries" but I can't track down anything specific about this. The Wiki article on freedom fries says that the guy who forced the original name change now regrets having done it but doesn't specifically say that the name has changed back. Anyone here have any hard info on this? If the name *has* been restored, then this should be reflected in the French fry article. Hayford Peirce 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't anyone in the states propose the word "chips" when Americans wanted to call their french fries something else ?

[edit] Boardwalk fries

Merged. SilkTork 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native American

Why hasn't anyone thought of the possibility of 'french fries' being originated in the so called 'New World'. The European people throughout history wouldn't even have the possibility of discussing if it were not for the contribution of the Americas. Think for an instant in indians using their pots (in wich they used to melt metals) with some grease to "fry" the porduce of their lands. — 201.244.201.122 25 Mar 2006 (was unsigned, undated, created at bottom of page though under comment with unrelated section title; section title given 8 Dec 2006)

I'll discard even a Belgian origin if you find a source. Wikipedia does no original research. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 19:34 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

(When next comment was made, the article name used to be 'French fries' — SomeHuman 23 Sep 2006)
Should this article be changes to French Fry? Seeing how all (or most) article titles are singular. I'm thinking of nominating this page for a name change. Ted87 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See on this talk page perhaps also section 'Double fried oxen white horses' (subsection of 14 Aug & 28 Oct 2006) and certainly section Chips v French Fries, especially the Collins dictionary entry stating 'plural, noun' and only plural informal terms as well. It neither has an entry in singular as 'French fried potato' or 'French fry' (nor separately as 'French fries') though 'chip' has as one of many (normally singular) meanings a description of our topic as well as of a US term for crisp, while it lacks an entry 'chips'. The singular usage of the terms 'French fries' as well as 'French fried potatoes' is however very theoretical, their origin will definitely have been plural. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 19:34 (UTC)

[edit] Chips v French Fries

Chips in Australia are never French Fries. However French Fries can be considered to be a type of Chips not the other way around. Why isn't the article called Chips and have French Fries as a sub category. It seems the disambiguation (and the redirect to French Fries) puts a USA-centric focus on this.

BTW - In Australia most people know packet Chips can also be called Crisps. Sometimes if there is confusion the other Chips are callled hot Chips and packet Chips are called crisps. A famous brand of Chips is Smith's Crisps. Ozdaren 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, we sometimes use the word chips in the same way that one does in Britain--to describe the fatter fried potatoes such as in fish and chips. Under the entry for chip in CanOx2, definition 2 is for potato chip or similar food, where definition 4 says Canadian & British = french fry. If you were to order chips in a pub or non-fastfood restaurant, no one would be confused. To muddle things even further we also say (in conversation, not on menus) frites -- pronounced frits or freet or frit. Here in Ottawa we have a multitude of trucks out of which they sell poutine and chips and though I've heard some people say "french fry truck", the more common term is "frites truck" (pronounced frit-truck). I don't know if someone wants to do some more research, but I guess my point is that, as usual Canadian English is a nice mash of American, British, and French influences.Ibis3 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 2006-09-20T21:30:58 by anonymous 198.178.234.30 removed 'except Newfoundland' from the French fries 'Usage' section. Perhaps that's correct: the Newfoundland exception is indeed unsourced and the anonymous user 207.81.178.160 who had introduced that in the first place, has no other Wikipedia contributions. In case the introduction were not simple vandalism and someone can come up with a good reason (that is: a proper source) to reinsert the exception, then please do so. — SomeHuman 23 Sep 2006 12:37 (UTC)

Several users have been complaining about or modifying the article with respect to a supposed difference between French fries and chips. Though local styles may have notable differences, the Collins Dictionary of the English Language (Collins, London & Glasgow) [First published 1979, Reprinted 1979, 1980 (twice) - Manufactured in the United States of America by Rand McNally & Company for William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. PO Box, Glasgow G4 0NB] has the entry: "French fried potatoes  pl. n. a more formal name for chips. Also called (U.S.): French fries." – I guess that settles it. The present opening sentence makes the difference between the particular less formal names in different parts of the world, immediately followed by different usage of both. It would be quite wrong to have a separate article on 'chips' as some suggested elsewhere. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 15:46-16:22 (UTC)
Accordingly, the title of the article, which still stood as 'French fries', was moved to the country-neutral, more formal and thus more encyclopaedic name 'French fried potatoes' (and redirects were set to this new name, as well as a few new redirects added: 'French-fried potato' [singular of existing], 'British chip' [small initial character for chips unlike existing 'British Chips'] and 'Frites' [by some seen as an 'international' name]) — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 17:07 (UTC)
More on UK/US usage and separating or renaming the article is found on this talk page's sections UK wording, Name Change and 'The opening statement and other bits' — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 19:34 (UTC)

It's chips you American wankers. Or perhaps you don't know what that means because it's not used in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.6.165 (talk)

[edit] Who decided it didn't mean "French cut"?

As a chef, I have some very old books talking about French-cut green beans, French-cut potatoes, etc. When in school, I saw some VERY old books with the same terminology, way back to the middle ages... where did the line come from about it being to "fry in the French way"? That seems really...odd. — 68.71.196.88 25 Jun 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Dates do not match. — Hopiakuta 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, from what I have always read, and seen, french cut refers to an item (usually) vegetable which is cut in narrow and long pieces. I think french cut is the same as julienne cut, which would explain the french word. Of course, I am no expert. — ABart26 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Potatoes are vegetables, thus could well be French cut, frenched. But if one would fry frenched, or French-cut, potatoes – one would say "fried frenched potatoes" or perhaps shorten "fried French cut potatoes" to "fried French potatoes", and find such terms or sentences like "French potatoes fried in oil" before things became faultily "French fried potatoes". Since there seem not to have been such older statements, the term will most likely have another origin.
By the way, the article gives World War I as a time at which English speakers might have got to learn about the topic; in Belgium one does not generally refer to the War, it is assumed that the Belgian style of preparing potatoes became known in culturally and especially gastronomically related and geographically neighbouring France well before the overseas English or Americans learnt about it, but since far more speakers of English went to France than to little Belgium they simply had assumed it to be French. This can have been at any time, also before Belgium's independance from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, even whilst it was under Napoleontic Law and Government and thus actually French. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 12:01-12:22 (UTC)

[edit] "History" and "Origins" sections highly redundant

Should be combined into one section and much duplicated content pruned. Hi There 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgian consumers of frites

One cannot produce 'proof' of who are the biggest consumers of french fries as one might for potatoes. Statistics show agriculture growth, import and export figures – possibly of potatoes. One cannot check every household on how they cut their potatoes. But besides it being a most popular part of common dishes in Belgian restaurants, and for most households at least a weekly dish prepared at home, the article itself gives another good clue: the friteries found in every village, usually people are queuing for their portion. And they do not just open at dinner time but are often the place one can still find real food at nightly hours when bars closed their snack kitchens. Also, Belgians often have to order a double portion in many countries where the fries are found, or feel dismayed. The Dutch know what a proper ration is and they're likely to come second. Anyway, does any people from another country claim on average to eat more french fries? SomeHuman 2006-08-13 01:38 (UTC)

Considering there are more restaurants in America that sell fries than there are people in belgium, this is most certainly an opinion. — User:71.103.128.76 7 Sep 2006 06:22 (UTC) (was unsigned, undated)

I was not aware that anyone was of the opinion that the whole of Belgium's population consumes a larger bulk of fries than the continent you mentioned. The statement is simply that in a typical lifetime the average Belgian eats a larger quantity of fries than the average consumer of any other country does. — SomeHuman 7 Sep 2006 16:36 (UTC)

I think you can safely assume Belgians eat the most french fries. Going abroad I regularly have to order one or two extra portions. And my American relatives even thought it was impossible to eat a large portion (from a frietkot) without getting sick. Ofcourse we proved them wrong. The only problem I see is this is almost impossible to verify. Maraud 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisonous compounds

I took down the 'citation needed' flag about oil or fat at a too high temperature breaking down into rather poisonous compounds: I'm not a chemist, but it is common knowledge in Belgium (where everyone fries french fries at home) that the oil must not exceed its limit temperature, which is always indicated on the bottle or cannister. There are rules regarding this aspect for professional french fries stands. This deterioration of oil occurs also at temperatures below its limit, but far slower. Nevertheless, for the quantities of potato and oil used at home, after 8 to 12 batches the oil must be replaced precisely for its cancerinogene effect that then rapidly builds up. (The oil is disposed of seperately, certainly not to be washed down the drain - but that's not because it's so terribly poisonous of course. But one does not pour 5 Euro of oil back in the bottle, clean the kettle, and keep the greasy bottle till next month's special collection just for fun!) One source I off-handedly remember, is the consumers' magazine 'Test Aankoop' (Dutch) www.testaankoop.be or its French language counterpart 'Test Achat' but it may be too old to still find the article in non-member space on their web site. — SomeHuman 29 Aug 2006 23:07 (UTC)

[edit] deleted

I deleted the health aspectts because one there is no evidence to suport claim. And second the person does not present both sides. Baking French Fries can or may lower down the fat. Frying food at high temratures seals the food and prevents oil from seaping through into the food.

anonymous and unsigned comment above: Potatoes are no meats, thus no sealing and oil soaks in. Ample evidence with extra sources, section reinserted. — SomeHuman 14 Sep 2006 19:18 (UTC)

[edit] Oil

In what kind of oil are french fries commonly fried? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, read the article... — SomeHuman 7 Oct 2006 02:58 (UTC)

I did. Much information regards Belgian french fries. I'm still a little bit confused about what's used in America. From the article, I suppose it's nut oil, such as peanut oil, but I have heard rumours that "beef lard" is used. If you can speak to this, I would appreciate it, because the article is confusing me. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 09:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply have no idea what Americans in general use, or Chinese for that matter... But the 'Health aspects' section mentions McDonalds and an alternative use of palm oil. Fat or an oil that withstands high temperatures rather well, can be used: peanut or groundnut oil (in Flanders wellknown as 'arachide' oil after the plant's Latin name Arachis [hypogaea] though the nut itself is called 'pinda', 'aardnoot', 'olienoot' [oil nut] or 'apennoot' [monkey nut]), or at a slightly less high temperature also (at least some) corn oil or sunflower oil. I am unaware of palm oil's characteristics but I've heard about it in Belgium as well, though I do not think it to be commonly used pure. Mixtures of oils can aim to combine a healthier composition by more unsaturated fats with a relatively good resistance to high temperatures and/or a reasonable price. I do not know whether such 'frituurolie' (frying oil) is readily available at American groceries, supermarkets, etc, as is by several brands on a shelf common in Belgium. — SomeHuman 7 Oct 2006 13:41 (UTC)

Thanks! - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Chips (it's CHIPS not french sodding fries) used to be cooked in Beef fat in British chip shops until (roughly) the early 80s, until greater health-consciousness forced a switch to vegetable oils - althopugh they probably still use beef fat oop North. Totnesmartin 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganised

Today I took a shot at the article... as stated above, the history and origin section were quite overlapping, so I attempted to merge them. I looked up some references and mainly tried to sort out the "origin"-enigma. Please comment and improve further, thanks, a Belgian.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Imperialism ?

Why is the chip a sub-section of an article called French fries! for shame! I spit on zee dirty french fry! --Charlesknight 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

more seriously the cultural aspects of the British chip and it's place in our culture should have an article of it's own - not the shameful treatment we see here. --Charlesknight 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Chips in British Culture - reminds me of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda. Totnesmartin 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the damage was done really when American chain restaurants branded and exported the American term instead of using local terms. I'm surprised it isn't copyrighted :/ Reminds me of Turkish delight, which the Greeks get cross about. However, the article could easily be 'chipped potatoes' as a generic. Hakluyt bean 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The opening statement and other bits

French fried potatoes, commonly known as French fries or fries (North America) or chips (United Kingdom and Commonwealth) are long, narrow pieces of potato that have been deep fried.

This makes no sense for a number of reasons -

1) A chip is never a french fry so it's incorrect to state that french fries are known as chips in the UK. French Fries are known as french fries, chips are known as chips. I know that someone tries to explain the difference later in the article but that statement as present makes no sense to British readers.

2) Chips are not long, narrow piece of potato.

Later

French fries are often the standard accompaniment to other foods:

   * In the United Kingdom, fried fish: fish and chips.

This again conflated two separate things - French fries would never be served with fried fish as outlined in the first statement (which again someone tries to explain later with a qualification).

I notice a number of British editors have made similar points all down this talk page.

--Charlesknight 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what the difference is between a French fry and a chip, instead of just saying that they are not the same? You say what a chip isn't, but don't explain what it is, and how it differs from a French fry. Please bear in mind that French fries come in many sizes, from shoestring fries to steak fries. I would take "narrow" in the definition to mean that it is substantially narrower than the whole potato it came from. -- Coneslayer 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Less that about 1cm in width would be a fry and then chips would be about 1.5cm and above (and are generally a lot shorter than fries). So when a brit reads this and it says that long and narrow, he thinks french fries, because chips are short and fat, so to readers on this side of the poad, our worldview means that sentence reads as nonsense to us. I'd explain further but it will have to wait as I'm off to the pub --Charlesknight 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Anything that is roughly rectangular in cross section and narrower than the whole potato is a french fry (in American English) as well as a chip (in British English). The kind of fries/chips one gets at a fast-food restaurant together with hamburgers or other hand-held foods are typically thinner than fries/chips that one typically gets served on a plate with a "real" dish, but that is orthogonal to the word used and the kind of English spoken in the eatery that serves them. The two variants are not equally popular in the UK versus US, but again this has nothing to do with the names. Go to any McDonalds or Burger King in the UK and order a hamburger with "chips" and you will get the thing you insist can only be named "french fries". Conversely, go to a U.S. diner and order a steak with "fries" and a side salad, and you will receive the thing you insist can only be named "chips". Indeed, if at the American diner you order "chips" with your steak you're going to end up with potato crisps instead. Henning Makholm 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "long and narrow" in the header to "batons" to accomodate short and stumpy chips. In Britain, short fat soggy vinegary chips would not be referred as "fries", and thin sticks they served with ketchup at a British McDonald's would not be referred to as "chips". I can see why many British editors would object to their "chips" culture being described as french fries, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an umbrella term covering both types of food which would be acceptable to all. If anyone wants to write an article specifically for the British chips I would more than welcome it, or perhaps an alternative would be to re-name the article "French Fries / Chips" or something.Phonemonkey 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Phonemonkey, I am British and all my life I have referred to the things in McDonald's as "chips". They're ALL chips, plain and simple.. whether they're the thick kind you get in a fish 'n' chip shop, or the thin kind you get in fast food restaurants. To call them "French Fries" is to use American English. It's really rather simple :) EuroSong talk 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken Eurosong. I was judging from comments from some British editors above, and my personal observation that thin fries in fast food restaurants are described as "fries" on the actual menu, this being an example (along with some tasty looking food photos!). I guess it's just a matter of personal habit. My suggestions for either a seperate article, or for a renaming of this article still stand. Phonemonkey 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the article be moved to "Deep-fried potato rods". This is a region-neutral term that I think will be acceptable to all. - LeonWhite 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia entries are supposed to be words, terms ; not descriptions. The opening sentence clearly states which term is most common in which area and the next sentences elaborate on the particular differences. British chips have no other origin than French fries, and are basically cooked in a same way; their for British fastfood lovers popular more than average thickness is often spoken about (or as I saw in Kanchanaburi, Thailand at a Brit's shop, put on a signboard) as 'real chips' but this does not make thinner variants 'no chips'. — SomeHuman 28 Nov 2006 02:15 (UTC)

[edit] Joël Robuchon

Is there any evidence that this chef did in fact 'invent' a cooking method that differs from the first cooking method only in that his involves cooking at "high heat" and the first involves a specific temperature? I think it's safe to say that plenty of people discovered that they could cook potatoes in oil heated over "high heat" in their own homes long before Robuchon 'invented' the method. I don't think that section is significant enough to be included at all, at minimum a source should be referenced explaining how Robuchon popularized a specific method. — 70.244.219.134 2 Dec 2006 20:36 (UTC)
was neither  signed nor dated, and section was created at top of the page; moved to bottom 2 Dec 2006)

The method is attributed to Robuchon in Jeffrey Steingarten's The Man Who Ate Everything. I don't think it says he invented the process, but it is an unusual process, and the book claims that it is his home recipe. The unusual part isn't "high heat." The unusual part is putting the fries in cold oil, which is then subjected to high heat. I am not an expert, but do a fair bit of cooking and cookbook reading, and I don't think I've ever seen another recipe that calls for adding the substance to be fried to cold oil. Every other frying recipe I've seen calls for the oil to be at some high temperature before the food is added. -- Coneslayer 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice reference! In case you have access to the book, and it might clarify how Robuchon actually intended this: "a saucepan with just enough cold oil in it to cover the potatoes", does that mean pouring a mass of oil over potatoes till these are just under the oil level (deep fried potatoes though starting with cold oil), or perhaps simply putting just enough oil in the pan so as to allow the potatoes when stirred to obtain a thin film of oil (ordinarily fried potatoes though starting with cold oil)? Would the French chef have meant a saucepan (which is the English word for a type of pan hardly suited for making sauces) or perhaps a true saucier (in which deep frying even a small batch would be impossible)? I assume especially the first way might allow the potatoes to suck in oil longer than strictly necessary, causing an extra health hazzard; it does not appear to offer any advantage compared to classical deep frying; does the book mention a reason? Only the stirr fried chips would save time, guarantee fresh oil, and only require a small quantity of oil; and might have seemed worth a try. — SomeHuman 2 Dec 2006 22:06-22:33 (UTC)
I believe it means to add the fries to the pot, and fully (just) cover them in oil, not just coat them. I have made the fries by this method with good results. I can see two advantages over regular deep frying:
1) This method gives results comparable to two-stage frying, in which the fries are first "blanched" at a lower (~250 F) temperature to cook the insides, then fried at a high temperature (~375 F) to brown the outside. The two-stage fry is, however, pretty time consuming. Robuchon's home method is faster and less labor intensive. It also does not require monitoring and maintaining the oil temperature.
2) Proper deep frying requires a large volume of oil relative to the food being cooked, so that the preheated oil doesn't cool off too much when the food is added. For the home cook with home-sized pots, this can mean cooking in several batches, and/or using more oil than Robuchon's method. Since home cooks may not re-use the oil until it's "used up", deep frying can be wasteful in the home.
I will admit that I was skeptical, because I had always heard that adding food to cold oil would result in it absorbing the oil and becoming greasy. But I have been happy with the results. -- Coneslayer 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For our environment's sake, I hope households would properly deal with one-batch oil. A chemical analysis may be required to ascertain the amount of absorbed fat, the eye and taste have been shown to be rather deceiving. Nevertheless, quite interesting, thanks. — SomeHuman 3 Dec 2006 04:20 (UTC)

[edit] Article repeats itself excessively

There's at least three times it states something like the French claim it to be of Belgium orgin; two of them are in the same section only 2 paragraphs apart. Jon 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So be bold and improve it! -- Coneslayer 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Be careful though: I didn't yet verify where the three statements occur, not only some of 'the French' in general and in tempore non suspecto admit this Belgian origin, but also [as this talk page already mentions] the French government stated such as a reaction on the 'freedom fries' matter; these for instance, should not be thrown into a single statement. — SomeHuman 8 Dec 2006 19:34 (UTC)

[edit] 6.1 Euros?

I think the author meant Belgians spend 6.1 million Euros annually on french fries. I'd fix it, but I don't have figures to cite. 172.191.68.178 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cilantro vs. coriander

A recent edit revived "cilantro" in a description of a Pakistani sauce. I don't quite get the logic of that. Cilantro is the Spanish name, and has become popular in some parts of the US, and in the context of Latin American cuisine, because of the large Spanish-speaking population which uses that herb. However, the Spanish name seems bizarre in a Pakistani context. Besides common sense (why would a Spanish name be used in Pakistan?), a crude test is the search [site:pk coriander] vs. [site:pk cilantro], which finds a 20:1 ratio. I suppose you could argue that that refers to the cilantro seed spice, but even [site:pk coriander-leaves] vs. [site:pk cilantro-leaves] is 25:1. --Macrakis 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was uncertain about the term as well. But I was afraid that your modification from cilantro towards coriander might not necessarily have been correct. It is sometimes incomprehensible how a foreign term gets into a language, but it often has either a broader or a narrower meaning than at its origin. And as it was used in the term 'mint cilantro sauce', it might have been a coined term. As far as Google goes, on the .pk domain there is only one page for "mint cilantro": it puts "mint or cilantro (coriander) leaves" and further on "mint/cilantro" (in other words, whichever one ingredient) but also "coriander seeds" in a dish "Aam Ki Chatni"; this may indicate that the term 'coriander' is mainly used for the seeds and 'cilantro' for the leaves, especially for making a chutney sauce since in the fries article the author names the dish "pudina ki chutney". And there is also only one page for "mint coriander" but mentions: "mint, coriander leaves" and that about Iranian cuisine. Hardly convincing either way and statistically worthless with such extremely low counts. Perhaps it is best to simply accept the original author's input, as it had been there for several months. After all, the 'French fried potatoes' page is written in American English (it used to be named 'French fries' once), so it does not appear to matter much which term is in the article. Though it appears clear by the recipe including the leaves + the seeds mentioning "cilantro (coriander) leaves" that the link under cilantro towards coriander can best stay. In theory we should not have this discussion and simply remove the entire phrase as 'unsourced', but as it appears honest and hardly unlikely [I know mint and coriander leaves being used together in a Thai cuisine salad and those ingredients to occur in India as well] and as many other minor contributions to this article have not been thoroughly scrutinized... — SomeHuman 28 Jan 2007 17:45 (UTC)
I agree that Google search is a blunt instrument in cases like this. But you seem to be assuming that "cilantro" is US usage and "coriander leaf" non-US usage. But cilantro is US usage specifically in the context of Mexican cooking (cf. OED 2nd ed), and was in fact rare outside the southwest until the 80's or so. I checked several Indian cookbooks published in the U.S., and although some of the recent ones give "cilantro" as a gloss for "coriander leaf", most agree on "coriander" as the primary name. Similarly for Bruce Cost's book on Asian ingredients. As for the south Asian context, try Google [dhaniya coriander] vs. [dhaniya cilantro].... --Macrakis 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain by books how the term 'kakkewallek'/'kékkewallek' (pronounced cack-a-wal-ek) came into Mechlinian dialect? It's a playground contraption that children on a row on it, bring in swinging motion by simultaneously dance-like stepping forth-and-back for a while. (For fellow-Mechlinians who never heard the word, ask older people about the thing that used to be in the Vrijbroek Park near the old 'Chalet'.) Decades after I had last heard the word, I discovered the English language term 'cake walk' to refer to an African American slaves' dance in the US South, "dancing forward alternating a series of short hopping steps with a series of very high kicking steps"... What I meant is, "mint-cilantro" or "mint-cilantro sauce" may be a coined term for something very specific, taking its name originally from and probably still referring to mint and (some kind of) coriander but not necessarily just that — as for cake-walk or cakewalk, the full term might say more than just its subterms and changing it to mint-coriander might create a biscuit-march. Fact remains that someone did use the term with cilantro for Pakistan, it might not have been a Mexican contributor... By the way, on the domain .pk, there is no 'dhaniya cilantro' but also only one 'dhaniya coriander' and as dhaniya is just the translation of a mere word... Mechlinians do not talk about a 'walk' (however written), our word for that is 'wandeling' and even older Mechlinians could't imagine an amusement park object if they heard 'kakkewandeling'. I do not know how much less aware people in the US are about the meaning of 'cilantro' than of 'coriander', even if it is not at all widespread, the link to coriander that you provided will be of assistance. — SomeHuman 31 Jan 2007 22:26 (UTC)
What are you going on about? Totnesmartin 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the whole section. Slowly. ;-) — SomeHuman 1 Feb 2007 20:43 (UTC)
A simpler and more plausible theory is that the original author just happened to be more familiar with the word "cilantro" than "coriander". Mint-coriander fresh chutney is classic in South Asian cooking, not a recent introduction with Mexican influence! --Macrakis 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish chips

"In Ireland, chips are served with hot mustard, but Thai chilli sauce is gaining in popularity. Fish and chips or kebab are common." I've lived in Ireland for 20 years and eat chips from a variety of outlets in Galway and Cork, and I have never seen chips with hot mustard of thai chilli sauce served. Any reference to this from other users or a food site? Otherwise should be chaged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.84.86 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] remove personal opinion

The article obtained a sentence about Belgian restauranteurs "(according to this a French-Canadian and a 'half-Belgian' [burnt half his passport, I assume] which made me kick out their nationality earlier): "According to restauranteurs Denis Blais and Andre Plisnier, it is equally likely that the Belgians or the Spanish invented them.<ref>Denis Blais and Andre Plisnier The Belgo Cookbook</ref>" While looking for the details of this reference, I could not find any source that refers to this statement in their book, though the cookbook was clearly noticed. I fail to see why two guys who opened a fancy chips-and-mussels restaurant in London and wrote a line of prose in a cookbook, would have any expertise on the origin of their speciality's ingredients above the average reader of this French fried potatoes article. These men simply gave their mere opinion, and just mentioned it in their cookbook. It is to Wikipedia worth as much as mine: this opinon was not noticed except by the Wikipedian who inserted the sentence in the article. The WP:SOURCE here only corroborates these guys to have that possibly very biased opinion, not such being based on study, testimonies, research, facts, nor of these men being seen as authorities in the field of food history. I therefore removed their opinion as this is a personal bias as much as any Wikipedian's opinion would be. — SomeHuman 16 Apr 2007 17:47 (UTC)

The passage deleted mentioned the "low countries" which means the area, not Belgium specifically. Professional chefs are relevant authorities on culinary matters. If you have alternative sources, you are free to cite them - I am reverting. 1Z 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your authorities are not historians, nor do they claim to be so, nor are they considered such. Another source shows your authorities to have told the story by historian Jo Gerard in their book as well; since the writer of that source cannot make out whether it is a joke or not, apparently your great authorities even failed to mention their source. Reverted to encyclopaedical version instead of cheap promo.
The "low countries" are the Low Countries and that was mentioned with the 'Belgo' cooks, the Wikipedian writer had added this. In the 'Spain' section such was not mentioned, its Spanish Belgium version had no end to its time frame. By mentioning the Spanish Netherlands and these ending more than a century before Belgium came to exist, we have a (still too wide) time frame (Columbus 1492 or the larger Spanish Netherlands 1579, until the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 or more than a century before -apart from the short-lived spark U.S. of Belgium in 1790- Belgium proper in 1830) for the Galician story, which still requires a source.
— SomeHuman 16 Apr 2007 19:46-20:13 (UTC)
Gerard mentions Namur and Dinnat, which are in what we now call Belgium. If fail to see the relevance of the "gap". 1Z 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What 'gap'? Gerard's Namur and Dinant story is not related to the Galician one (at least not by any sources so far and not by the article). In fact, sources are rather contradictory: Gerard mentions poor people to fry potatoes in 1680, which is during the Spanish Netherlands but usually one would see nobility taking over the culinary novelties from (in this case foreign) rulers first. According to the source Geschiedenis van de frieten, potatoes themselves became only widespread ["alom" means "everywhere'] in the later Belgian area around 1750 (still before their introduction in France), nearly 4 decades after the Spanish influence had ceased (seems a plausible period for becoming widespread) and most surprisingly even 70 years after it would already have been a cheap replacement food. Especially since the rocky and mountainous area of Namur and Dinant is not well suited for growing potatoes, contrarily to the West Flemish Polders at 150 km, at the time an impossible distance for transporting bulky products. Your guess is as good as mine. I have to admit that one can grow potatoes on a smaller scale in just about any Belgian area, and river valleys (Jo Gerard's fishing story) would be the more likely places between Namur and Dinant; but not the most likely places to have potatoes as a cheap product so long before they became common everywhere.
The time frame being too wide, simply means that the alledged Galician origin dates from between 1492 and 1713, over two centuries is an ethernity in the history of French fried potatoes.
— SomeHuman 16 Apr 2007 21:19-21:45 (UTC)
I never said anything about Galicia. 1Z 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the article? The 'Spain' section does. — SomeHuman 18 Apr 2007 03:10 (UTC)

[edit] A note on translation

In English, a shop selling shoes is a shoe shop, singular even if it has 1000 shoes in stock, and despite selling them 2 at a time. A chip shop is likewise not a chips shop. 1Z 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "Stall" is a more natural translation than "shack". It does not just mean a market stall. I can illustrate both points with this link 1Z 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation of 'kot'? No way, never. 'Kraam' = 'stall', on a market or elsewhere. Descriptions and translations are different topics, and explicitly literal translations a third kind. By the way, there is no difference between usage of plural in a shoe shop or a schoenwinkel, this has nothing to do with the explicitly literal translation 'chips shack' for 'frietkot'. A literal translation is not a translation into a properly used term, but expresses what the original language says - more often than not this creates an error against the language translated to; that's why it is called a literal translation and why it is explicitly mentioned to be one. — SomeHuman 18 Apr 2007 03:10 (UTC)

Re: "Professional chefs are relevant authorities on culinary matters." Yes, they are relevant authorities on current cooking practice. They are not (a priori) authorities at all on culinary history. The vast majority of cookbook authors and professional chefs have no particular historical knowledge, and often simply repeat "common wisdom". There are a few who make an effort. For example, Claudia Roden and Giuliano Bugialli have actually read some of the historical sources. That still doesn't make them full-fledged historians, but it's better than nothing.... --Macrakis 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boardwalk fries

Does the "boardwalk fries" paragraph add value to the article? It sounds more like an advertisment than encyclopedic text. –Henning Makholm 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just noticed that it is actually a registered trademark, not a generic term. Let's remove the advertising. --Macrakis 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chipped potatoes

Chips; think they're called chips, afaik, because they're chipped potatoes, as opposed to mashed, sliced, halved etc. Quite easy really. I'll leave it out of the article for now as: there's a slim chance I'm wrong and there's some doubt about the origin which is why the article doesn't mention it, and also, we probably need to have a row about how many paces behind 'French fries' the explanation gets to appear:/ Hakluyt bean 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chip on shoulder

Re some earlier discussions about the difference between fries and chips in the UK -

Brits come into contact with 'fries' at McDonald's (and similar), principally because they get asked in those American restaurants 'do you want fries?' to which Brits say 'uh, ok'. Sometimes supermarket chips are branded 'fries' if they resemble the skinny chips in McDonald's. The same thing may happen in restaurants other than American fast food outlets - so if you see 'fries' on a pub menu, you'll probably get skinny chips. Both supermarket and restaurant 'fries' are usually baked, incidentally, not fried.

But colloquially, if you had friends round for a meal, you would (I'm fairly sure) never offer them 'fries' no matter what appeared on the packaging. You'd offer them chips. If you'd made them yourself (props by the way), they'd certainly be chips (no matter what shape they were, and even if you fried them, as you probably would). And if you bought a McDonald's takeaway, they'd be 'fries' when you bought them, but by the time you got them home, they'd probably be 'chips'.

Just wondering what other Brit or non-U.S. residents think. Hakluyt bean 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, on all points. Incidentally one day at lunch (in Cork, Ireland) last month I was actually offered the choice of fries, chips, potatoes or salad with my meal, and I saw other patrons eating two very different looking fried potatoes, one skinny and long (fries), the other shorter and fatter (chips). Slashygood 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be pretty much just America that calls chips "french fries". My mother was traveling on business with a chap from South Africa and ate at a NYC restaurant. The South Africa companion ordered fish and chips and got a puzzled look from the waiter in return. He was served a plate with cooked fish and the cooks had just opened a packet of crisps and emptied it next to the fish. The American usage of the word "french fries" hasn't penetrated the rest of the world. Even though like every McDonald's serves long narrow fries, the use of the word french fries for chips just isn't the norm, outside of America. I guess, however, that the majority of Wikipedia editors are American and that the servers are based in America, so there is nothing the world viewers can do is stare at bewilderment at this page and try to process the explanation that chips are being called "french fries", rather than explaining briefly on the article that in America they call chips "french fries". JayKeaton 16:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't doubt your story, in my own experience in different parts of the United States "Fish and Chips" is undertood (an marketed as such) to mean fish and french fries - perhaps the only context where chips frehcn fries as it is seen as distinctly British. In the reverse direction I have seen jam made from grapes in the UK called "grape jelly" I doubt jam with any other fruit would be called jelly, but the product has such American connotations. Dainamo (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, You could get away with calling french fries, or any other sort of fries, chips. I think the main difference between fries and chips is that fries are crunchy on the outside and fluffy/non-existant on the inside. Chips are harder with more texture. Fries are only french when they are McDonalds thin - becuase some places do do steak fries etc which are a lot thicker, but not real chips still. So I'm thinking the title should either be 'cut fried potatoes' or 'chipped potatoes'. Personally I'd say it should be just 'Chips' but I know there'll be a few americans who don't like that 87.194.39.69 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I say the main difference between them is that Chips can be home-made while Fries can't due to as far as I've known, Fries always aren't able to be made with-out a machine (or with great diffeculty) while chips can be made with a potato and a knife into any shape you want (Round Chips, little chips and whatever I cut them into lol). Also you can make Chips outta Parsnips as well. 86.143.208.8 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frites

"Pommes de terre frites" definitely means deeps deep-fried potatoes. Ericd 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

actually it means "apples of earth fried". What's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.174.93 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French vs. Afrikaans

How can Afrikaans slap chips be relevant while French chips are not ? Ericd 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the claim in the article correctly, "slap chips" is an instance of an Afrikaans word that has found use in (a regional variant of) English. That is relevant because it describes how the subject of the article is referred to in the language of this Wikipedia. It is directly opposite from wanting to list cases where an English word has found use in other language (or even how non-English words are used to refer to variants of deep-fried potato in non-English languages, which people have also wanted to insert into this article from time to time). –Henning Makholm 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pommes Pont-Neuf

Never heard of theses... Source please ? Ericd 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How about:

  • Evelyn Saint-Ange, Paul Aratow (translator), La Bonne Cuisine de Madame E. Saint-Ange: The Essential Companion for Authentic French Cooking, p. 553.

By the way, that is a fabulous cookbook. Translation is very good, but the original language is of course even better. --Macrakis 01:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gringos

"French fries have been popularized worldwide in part by United States-based fast-food chains like McDonald's and Burger King. "

Yeah, sure. Always the same... You did nothing!

[edit] Waffle-cut fries

Waffle-cut fries (also called waffle fries) are a form of French fries, not potato chips/crisps as are pommes gaufrettes. Some restaurants in the United States, such as Chick-fil-A, serve them as their standard form of fries. Most Americans would interpret waffle potatoes as waffle-cut fries rather than gaufrettes, which are rare in the United States. The photos here are less than ideal, but have the virtue of licenses that make them available for use. Photos that better illustrate the point are photo of waffle-cut fries and photo of gaufrettes. — VulcanOfWalden 08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a clear-cut difference, certainly not enough to put them in different articles. There are thick and thin waffle-cut fries, just as there are thick (steak fries +/- = pommes pont-neuf) and thin (straw potatoes = pommes pailles). --Macrakis 11:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The clear-cut difference between French fried potatoes and waffle-cut fries or pommes gaufrettes or crisps, is in the first sentence of the article: the first-mentioned are cut into batons. Between the next two, there does not appear to be any intrinsic difference, as also Macrakis points out. Whether the holes in these makes them very different from crisps, I doubt: I assume they will be very much alike to eat; nevertheless, crisps are as far as I know usually eaten cold, whereas the others may be eaten hot... In any case, neither type can possibly fit the definition of French fried potatoes and mustnot appear in this article with more than a short mentioning (unless it might be in the section 'See also'), certainly not with a picture. The Chick-fil-A or whatever, simply does not sell French fries, no more than lots of restaurants that sell dishes typically served with French fries, with croquettes instead of French fries. It's as simple as having different names for instance for differently shaped pieces of wood, even if the techniques and materials can be identical. — SomeHuman 15 Jul 2007 23:19 (UTC)
I googled for English-language pages (while demanding "the" to occur, to prevent non-English pages without language indicator to be included), for "potato waffles" (773), misspelled "potatoe waffles" (240), "waffle potatoes" (203), "waffle-cut potatoes" (77), "waffled potatoes" (41). The figures do not refer to the often unverifiable raw counts initially reported by Google (that also include 'similar' pages such as archived versions of otherwise identical pages), but to the more reliable number of pages that are actually presented (which number corresponds with the one shown when going to the last result page of the list). But there appear to be two very distinct products:
The potato waffles product is available frozen, prepared from reconstituted potato and is noted to contain monosodium glutamate[What's really in your food? (Z41_F4T_ingredients_Leaflet.pdf.pdf). British Heart Foundation, republished by Tamarside Community College, Plymouth, UK. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.], they may be rather large (4 in a package of 227 g), and they may be prepared in many ways straight from the frozen product (in an oven, pan-fried, deep-fried). The French fried potatoes article mentions waffle-cut potatoes or pommes gaufrettes that are shaped by cutting a fresh potato with an instrument with a jagged cutting edge, and then making a similar parallel cut at a 90 degrees angle, and then deep-fried. That produces a differently shaped and much smaller product that can be assumed to resemble French fried potatoes: having the identical ingredient and thickness similar especially to the thinner variants of French fries, and being cooked in a similar way (although one contributor had mentioned them to be fried only once, the recommendable two-batch deep-frying of French fries is not mandatory to allow the name 'French fried potatoes'). The English language (or any other language as far as I know) however, did not as yet recognize the waffle-cut potatoes as 'French fried potatoes'; and as the shape of otherwise identical materials often suffices to maintain a different term per different shape, waffle-cut potatoes do not belong in the French fried potatoes article (other than a short mentioning of their existance), as I explained earlier here above. But I think the waffle-cut potatoes do deserve an article (origin, availability, details on how they get cut and by what instrument or device, the pictures as VulcanOfWalden linked in the top comment of this section, ...). — SomeHuman 27 Jul 2007 00:05 (UTC)

[edit] French Fries are not more Belgian than French

It makes no sense that the French think Belgians invented French Fries. Belgians are known as big French Fries' eaters and not as FF' creators. French Fries are also associated to Americans. There is no proof that Belgians invented French Fries. This is only one assumption. French cookers claim that is a parisian creation during the french revolution. French fries were called "pommes Pont-Neuf", which means popatoes Pont-Neuf. Pont-Neuf is a Paris' bridge.

<<During the controversy over "Freedom fries," French people often commented that the food was actually Belgian, or at least a Belgian specialty.>> a joke ??? French People said rather than French was synonym of freedom 81.56.0.224 23:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I understand the rationale of capitalizing the national adjective of France: "French fries"; but I've also seen it written "french fries" quite frequently. Are both correct? Applejuicefool 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I like french fries. they have lots of kinds like potato, zesties, and chicken (as in burger king)

[edit] Way Too Many Images

You should get rid of some, you dont need all of them--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 08:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move back to French fried potato?

This article was moved to "Fried Potato Pieces" by an indef-blocked vandal ([2]). I suggest moving it back to its previous title, "French fried potatoes", and removing the phrase "fried potato pieces" from the lede, because the current title is neither a common term for the article's subject, nor does it describe the article's subject – "Fried potato pieces" could refer to any kind of cut and fried potatoes, whereas this article specifically addresses French fries (i.e., potatoes cut into strips and deep fried). --Muchness 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current title is inaccurate, and the move happened without any discussion. –Henning Makholm 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The article name must be a commonly-used name for the subject. -- Coneslayer 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've listed this page at WP:RM. --Muchness 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, why not just list it at "Uncontroversial moves"? The whole RM process should not be required to restore an article from an ill-advised move, else we'll be doing this again in a week when someone else decides to move it to "fragments of edible tubers of the nightshade family immersed in boiling lipids". --SigPig |SEND - OVER 13:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deep fried potato sticks? instead of a chips v french fries v fries debate. 132.205.99.122 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaand, it's back at its proper place. Thanks to Muchness for noticing that it had been moved (somehow article moves do not seem to show up on watchlists?). –Henning Makholm 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Chips" are the common term in Tokyo?

  • "In areas like Tokyo where "chips" is the common term" - can anyone verify this? I lived in Japan and nobody calls them chips - the standard Japanese term for French fries is literally "fried potato" - フライドポテト. The Japanese Wikipedia article refers to it in the same way. Alexthe5th (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"like Tokyo" was a recent vandal addition. Now removed. –Henning Makholm 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I can also confirm that "フライドポテト" is the standard JPN terminology. Never heard anything even resembling "chips" (especially since "ps" doesn't work orthographically in JPN). BadDoggie (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French fries- rename to most commonly used name

Why isn't this just called 'french fries'- it should be, as it's the most commonly used name. I don't think in everyday life, most people call it "french fried potatoes". Even in the UK or other countries, they'd be known as 'french fries' or just fries (if people weren't using the word chips of course.) Even in the UK a lot of restaurants call them 'fries', due to the influence of McDonalds, and french fries is the name for more thinly cut chips. Merkinsmum 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Merkinsmum 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"French fries" is only common in the US. In all other countries where English is the dominant language, "chips" is the most common terminology, an abbreviation of "chipped potatoes". See http://officialfrenchfries.com/docs/international.html. BadDoggie (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In most countries I've travelled in, "fries" or "French fries" is the most common, and certainly the most easily understood (in non-English speaking countries too). And in the UK, people understand "French fries", but if you ask for "chips" elsewhere, you get something else entirely. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
People /understand/ "fries" thanks to McD's and KFC, but the local parlance in English-speaking countries tends toward "chips". 82.135.9.64 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't this article be simply called "Fries". As has been remarked upon by so many others French Fries is a very Amerocentric term with specific connotations (i.e. not a chip). Or even better make Chips and French Fries seperate articles. The layout of this article is a bit like lumping Hamburger in as a footnote in the Sandwich article. 130.88.167.5 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you like French fried potatoes with that?

  • I think this article should be called simply "French fries" for the same reason the "ketchup" article is not called "tomato ketchup" but even more so. I have never heard of the term "french fried" being applied to carrots, yuca, etc. Anyone else? (Yes, I haved lived outside the USA). --House of Scandal (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Have a look through this talk page, and count the number of times they have been referred to anything other than French Fries. Quite a few directs involved in name change, but I'll get around to it unless some really good arguments against are posted. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to "French Fries"

Unless objections are made I (or Kaiwhakahaere) will soon move this article to french fries. House of Scandal (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I object. I agree that "French fries" is a common informal expression, but "French fried potatoes" is the full normal name which you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure that in everyday speech, "TV" is much more common than "television", "whore" /"ho" is more common than "prostitute", "bike" is more common than "bicycle" or "motorcycle", and "phone" is more common than "telephone". But the encyclopedic names remain television, prostitute, bicycle/motorcycle, and telephone. Perhaps someday "French fried potatoes" will be obsoleted the way "autobus" has been obsoleted by "bus" or "iced cream" by "ice cream", but for now it's the appropriate term. --Macrakis (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for chiming in. In fairness, I should have said "if convincing objections are made". While I understand your point entirely, I disagree and this article title isn't what I'd expect "expect to see in an encyclopedia." It's almost a wierd, Mr. Burns-esque anachronism already, like asking a waitperson to bring you "tomato ketchup". In brief, I don't feel that "french fries" is an informal term. House of Scandal (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the move to French fries. Macrakis, your point about bike/bicycle is right, but the examples you gave above are of terms that are still used. On the other hand, no one would ever ask for French fried potatoes. I think it's much closer to the "autobus" example — perhaps not quite obsolete yet, but heading there. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that people ordered "French fried potatoes", any more than they usually say "I will bicycle to my house" or "It was presented on a television program". But it seems to me like the standard written term, and I find "French fries" jarring as an article title. Perhaps someone could look in a few cookbooks, food encyclopedias, FDA publications, etc., to see what's used in reference sources.
And I do not appreciate your peremptorily labelling my objection as "unconvincing" and implying that you'll ignore it and go ahead with the move anyway. Your comparison to the Simpson's character makes it clear you're coming at this from a spoken-language, pop-culture perspective, but WP is a written reference source. (Thanks for the link, though, otherwise I'd have had no idea who Mr. Burns was; by the way, has the spelling "weird" also become Mr. Burns-esque, or is "wierd" a distinct technical term in the Simpsons universe, like "doh" vs. "duh"?) --Macrakis (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was not disrespectful; in fact, I thanked you for your opinion. I have not moved the article as I am waiting for more opinions. I was not convinced by your statement, nor so far has any other editor been. For me to call it unconvincing was a subjective statement but it was not an impolite one. To focus on a minor spelling error in my message is, however, not in the spirit of friendly camaraderie which is an important hallmark of a good Wikipedian. Please focus on the subject, not on the editor. I don't think less of someone for being unaware of a character on a show that has been on the air for twenty years. I do not appreciate the implication that knowing and referencing such a relatively well-known fictional character is puerile or undermines my argument. It does not, and I am not coming from this from a pop culture perspective. I am thinking more about how a publication like the New York Times or a PBS documentary might reference this food item. Someone would say "I bought a bicycle". Someone would say "I watched television". Under no ordinary circumstances would a native speaker of English say "I ate french fried potatoes" or "we cooked french fried potatoes" (I prefer not to capitalize "french" as it's a cooking term that is not usually capitalized in recipe books). This issue is for neither you nor me to decide. It is open to debate. In the future, please try to be civil, especially when the issue at hand is as minor as where we list and article about french fries. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
First you implicitly categorize my objection as "unconvincing" (not "I'm not convinced" but apparently your definitive judgement), then you compare my ear for language to a caricatural pop-culture figure, and then you say I've been uncivil and consider it a personal attack that I point out that your reference point comes from pop culture? Then you call me a "dick" for querying the spelling "wierd" in a Simpson's context when in fact Google finds more hits for "simpsons wierd" than for "simpsons weird" (unlike the Web in general)? I repeat my question: 'is "wierd" a distinct technical term in the Simpsons universe, like "doh" vs. "duh"?'... or are people who talk about the Simpsons on the Web less good spellers for some reason? Since I don't follow the Simpsons, I have no idea.
All that being said, some evidence would be useful instead of your insulting comparison of fellow Wikipedians to your Mr. Burns. So I looked.
  • The respected Oxford Companion to Food uses the term "chips/frites/French fries".
  • Google Books (more reliable than the Web at large) finds twice as many FF as FFP, though interestingly FF seems more predominant in fiction, and FFP in reference books.
  • Google search in .gov finds more FF than FFP
  • Even Google Scholar finds many more FF than FFP
So I think I have to concede the point based on the evidence.
I still would appreciate an apology for your incivility. --Macrakis (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. I think french fried potatoes is something between archaic and old-fashioned rather than simply formal. I don't like to use "Ghits" a lot but I think in this case it is demonstrative. "Bike" shows only four times as many hits as "bicycle". Even though bike is more of a verb and will also include motorcycles. "TV" gets only six times as many hits as "television". "French fries" however gets 65 times as many hits as "french fried potatoes". It is closer to 64 if the "potatos" spelling is also included. "Frites" gets 41 times as many hits and even "steak frites" gets two and a half times as many results as FFP. Although those fall to twenty and two if only English pages are included. I don't mean to say that FFP is not a part of the language but it is not a common alternative like the other terms are. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Compulsions70 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, perfectly acceptable. On an aside, may I express amazement at the enormous breadth of subjects on SlimVirgin's watchlist :) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Dutch fries

And again--

I would have thought that fries would have come from Friesland, The Netherlands. These kind of food are allways recognized as an American food, when in actual fact, they all originate from Europe. E.G.

  • Hamburgers - allways recognized as an American food, they actually come from Hamburg in Germany.
  • Hotdogs (Frankfurters) - Another food recognized as american, they come from Frankfurt, Germany.
  • Pizza - most people know this is an Italien food, but it is mosty mistaken as an American food.←≈≠≈→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove 'freedom fries' from the list of variants of terminology

No appreciable number of people use this term; far fewer use it seriously. It was a short-lived fad. It remains a part of the colelctive American conscious but this should be described elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.70.48 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The introductory paragraph should be changed to make the distinction between fries and chips.

I believe the introduction should:

1 State that North Americans use 'fries' as an umbrella term for cut strips of potatoes of any size cooked in this fashion.

2 Clarify that we Brits and most everyone else define 'fries' as long, thin strips of potatoes, cooked in this fashion, whilst 'chips' are specifically the thickly cut strips of potatoes, cooked in this fashion, more traditional to our countries.

3 Use only words that exist in the English language, unlike 'uncapitalized'.

I think it is unlikely that the powers that be would allow a separate article for chips, as many non-Americans who have commented seem to want, but I think the above would be a good start in making clear this important and so far neglected distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.70.48 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! I was shocked (as much as one could be on the issue of fries/chips) to see chips and fries with basically the same definition. The basic premise of this article is flawed.
In a nutshell:
chips = directly cut from potatoes (think traditional fish & chip shops)
fries = re-constituted from potato (as in typical fast-food)
Somewhere along the way this distinction has been blurred. Unfortunately I don't have citations/sources at hand but I'd strongly encourage members to follow-up on this... --Nycmstar (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. There was the distinction between fries and chips, but some zealous editor took it out a few days ago. I'll put it back.
  2. The distinction is not "Fries are reconstituted." Fries can be reconstituted, but are much preferred to be cut from whole potatoes.
  3. Which English language doesn't have the word "uncapitalized"? NJGW (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We need a ref that the word fries is used in the UK to describe any kind of chips. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you find this controversial? cn tags are for items that are doubted. There are plenty of unsourced sentences in the article, so what makes this one so controversial to you? [3][4][5][6] NJGW (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, we only ask for sources for items we believe are controversial and I find this adoption of the word fries for chips controversial, absolutely to the point of wanting a ref but nott o the point of removing the info right now. But also I'd like a source that the thin sliced chips found in restauarants and burger take-aways are called something different from fat sliced chips more found in traditional fish and chip shops, but also essentailly a source that in Britain the word fries is used at all in a mainstream way. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I just listed 4 sources. Check out the last one, a story about London's best chip shops in Time Out London, which constantly refers to the long thin variety as fries, and all others as chips. Are you still not convinced? NJGW (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I haver reworded slightly as this fries chips distinction isn't universal, and nor does the ref claim that it is universal in the UK. The Americanisation of British English is pretty inevitable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That does sound more accurate. NJGW (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising article ?

To me, this article looks more like an advertising page for supermarkets and restaurants. Very questionable I'dd say. Lars 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? for what reason? provide examples please --82.152.177.245 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section

I deleted the following text as it didn't seem to have anything important to add: ===Philippines=== On [[September 22]], [[2007]], [[Benguet]] [[State University]] (BSU) announced that 4 [[potato]] varieties -- Igorota, Solibao, Ganza and a 4th one yet to be given an official tag -- possess more than 18% [[dry matter]] [[content]] required by [[fast-food]] chains to make [[crispy]] and sturdy French fries.<ref>[http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=90044 Inquirer.net, RP's new potato varieties good for French fries]</ref> NJGW (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden - two things

"In Sweden, the fries are called Pommes Frites (Pronounced Påmmfritt) is often served with any kind of sauce, mostly with ketchup. Dipping the fries in ice cream sometimes occurs as well." 1) Can somebody confirm that chips are dipped in Ice Cream in Sweden? That is, often enough to actually be included on Wikipedia, as opposed to a stunt or just goofing off. Is this combination is sold anywhere? 2) Does the Swedish pronunciation, using Swedish spelling, help anyone on the English Wikipedia that doesn't already know how to pronounce it? Just looking at it, my almost non-existant grasp of Swedish suggests that it isn't too far off from the original French pronunciation (as opposed to the way Germans say it). Wouldn't IPA make more sense? I gotta know! --Stomme (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any eating pommes fites with ice cream and I live in Sweden. I believe it is pronounced quite the same as "Pommes frites" would be pronounced in french (a language I don't speak). At least "Påmmfritt" is sounds verry french when its pronouced in Swedish. Steinberger (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The comment on Sweden was added in March by an anonymous user with an IP in New Jersey who has done some editing on Stockholm). I don't doubt that chips have been dipped in ice cream (it sounds better than some of the other condiments I'm reading about here); but it needs to be something common to be included on Wikipedia. I'll add a fact template for now. Without that information, unfortunately Sweden doesn't have a local take on the fries situation. I've had them there, but I cant remember anything different from anywhere else. --Stomme (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You should not doubt. I did a small household equiry, asking my sister. She knew of it, and she and some of her friends have eaten McFlurry with Frensh fries at McDonnads. However, the same source said that its was not common practice. Not that she knew of. She was not convinced that it is a Swedish specialty either. Steinberger (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)