Talk:French fries

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"The 510 calories come from 66 g of carbohydrates, 24 g of fat, 7 g of protein and 350 mg of sodium." This should be re-written; sodium has no calories.

France/Quebec

I lived in france for 9 years and never once did i see them on the menu as "pommes de terre frites"

"pommes frites" and "frites" are the most common ways of them being listed, and thus should be placed before "pommes de terre frites", or better yet - just remove "pommes de terre frites"

Freedom Fries

So when did America stop calling them 'Freedom Fries'?

British chips (again)

Chips in Britain are a staple of family meals. They are not a dinner party item. Fancy recipes calling for them to be cooked twice or even three times are irrelevant to the general statement of their use. No one has time for that at children's tea time. One of the sources I put in says this quite plainly – "So what's the difference between British chips and French fries? (Okay, frites.) Chips are cooked only once and therefore are a bit less crisp than their French cousins, the better for them to absorb condiments". Anyone familiar with British culture knows this is right. SpinningSpark 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The section is about chips in general in the UK and Ireland, not only "the way a lot of people make them at home". Yes, there are some sources that describe them as being cooked only once, but there are many other equally reliable sources that say otherwise. I added content about chips that are pre-cooked before a final fry, with highly reliable sources, for example a British professional chef's training manual, and the BBC's recipe for chips, which is also to be prepared in homes, and no doubt is, by some undefined proportion of people. The same for the third reference, from the "British Cookbook - Great British Recipes: English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish Recipes", with a recipe for "Perfect homemade fish and chips". There are many other sources giving such a preparation method for homemade chips, such as Jamie Oliver's "Homemade fish & chips" [1]. Additionally, this is a very common method in chip shops, pubs, etc., according to, for example, The Guardian [2] and many others. Per WP:NPOV:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.

The statement that this is "irrelevant" doesn't appear to be based on core content policies, and "I am British" is not a valid argument for removal of well-sourced content.

Furthermore, the entire series of edits I made, including other content and references,[3] has been reverted without justification. This includes among other things a more balanced and complete explanation of the British and Irish context and usage of the terms "french fries" and "chips". There is no debate that in British English (though certainly not in American English), thick-cut chips are never called "french fries". However, a statement that thin-cut ones are never called "chips" is demonstrably untrue. I replaced the recently-added statement that "In the UK, chips are considered a separate item to french fries" because it's too black-and-white, and is called into question by the very source used to support it (Oxford Companion to Food) saying: "Latter-day changes are in the main American with the development of frozen chips by McDonald's in the 1960s." I have also provided further sources showing that it is in fact quite common for Brits to refer to the McDonald's style as "chips". The argument that no true Scotsman would call a thinner cut "chips" is also not valid. Most consider what McDonalds markets as "french fries" to be a type of chip, even if many would agree that they are not "proper" chips. I am asking that my edits be restored, in accordance with WP:NPOV and other policies. --IamNotU (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Using a reliable source that directly says British chips are cooked once to support a statement that chips are normally cooked once is a proper use of a source. Using a recipe, or even multiple recipes, that require chips to be cooked twice to support a statement that claims chips are cooked once or twice is WP:SYNTH. There are recipes for all sorts of off-the-wall variations of all kinds of dishes. It does not prove anything unless the author explicitly states that this is the canonical method. I'm fine with a claim that professional establishments usually cook chips twice – if there is a source directly stating that – but I have doubts that is even true. The fact that fries are sometimes called chips is beside the point, it does not detract from the two being considered different. That's just a question of language, not of substance. I reverted your edit in its entirety because you entirely changed the structure of the paragraph making a partial revert problematic. SpinningSpark 17:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it is unconditionally true or unimpeachable. The Tom Jaine article (in the OCF) in fact it does not say that British chips are only cooked once -- it does say that the British chips are fatter and cooked at a higher temperature, and it also says that french fries are cooked twice, but it does not say that British ones are never cooked twice.

The Yarvin book is a cookbook, just like the other cookbooks, and I see no reason to weight it more heavily than the others.

It is futile to hope for a definitive statement on how to cook the canonical British chip. Recipes no doubt vary, as do circumstances. See my essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional. Some may be cooked in a rush "at children's tea time", others may be cooked in chip shops, still others in restaurants. My guess, by the way, would be that many commercial cookeries cook them twice out of expedience, because half-cooked potatoes can be "finished" faster than raw potatoes. --Macrakis (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU and Spinningspark: I plan to restore IamNotU's version because it is well documented, and the revert removed material which is not relevant to the single/double frying issue. Just because it's inconvenient ("problematic") to perform a partial edit doesn't mean that a blanket revert is appropriate. In any case, I don't see that there's good evidence to assert that the single-bath method (or any particular method) is canonical. WP:NPOV says that we reflect the variety of reputable opinions in our sources. --Macrakis (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

reconstituted potatoes

I didn't see anything about processed potatoes, where the potatoes are pulverized, dried and then reconstituted. While I can't find any references to this, I think some companies do this. Am I wrong, or is there a citable source for this? Kdammers (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert of edit

@Zefr: please explain this edit. You claimed lack of RS and HOWTO in the edit summary. I'm not seeing what the user is supposed to have added. It all looks like minor style and citation fixes to me. I can't identify any substantive text that added that might have raised those objections. SpinningSpark 17:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

One more comment; it is correct to have a nb space in front of °C so the removal of that at least was properly reverted. SpinningSpark 17:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Self-reverted. Correct that it was not a source issue with the prior editor and the changes were mainly for syntax. Indicated by the section notices, the article has generally weak or an absence of WP:RS sources, with abundant "howto" content - WP:NOTHOWTO. I checked, and found no good new sources to add. Zefr (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)