Talk:Potato chip

Hedgehog Crisps

The article attempts to imply that "Hedgehog Flavoured Crisps" were either flavoured with some kind of "extract of hedgehog", or some other combination of ingredients designed to give a "hedgehog-like flavour". This is of course (fairly obviously....) false. Hedgehog Flavoured Crisps were NEVER flavoured with or like hedgehogs. I remember them from my youth, with the sea salt and cider flavour being a particular favourite.

82.5.68.95 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I (just) remember them too, from the early '80s, and they were described as "hedgehog flavour". They then disappeared for some years (or at least, I never saw them for years), and when I did see them again, it was merely a brand of crisps that came in a variety of normal flavours. According to [this website] they didn't contain any real hedgehog (leading to a showdown with the Office of Fair Trading and a subtle name change), but they were eventualyl designed to taste like hedgehog. I don't know how reliable that site is though. Wardog (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Chips, for all those caught up in a semantic war of daftness

...and looking for an article on Chips, as in "Fish'n'Chips" try French fries it only took me two, or maybe three years to find it. 79.76.233.222 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The really funny thing is, the same photograph is used to illustrate both chips and french fries. Seems like there ought to be some merging and/or disambiguation to be done. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

just found an extensive Fish and chips article. 79.76.155.85 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The everlasting chip vs crisp debate - attempt at resolution

I have read all of this talk page, all of the debates on west- vs east-Atlantic terminology (I'd recommend anyone considering replying here do so too), and yet there seems no resolution. Why don't I think it's resolved? Because many here are ignoring the issue - what matters here is not which term is more "accurate", or most used, or best represents the original terminology. What matters is that people using this encyclopedia can easily navigate to the page they're looking for. Currently, if a British or Irish person attempts to find info about "potato chips", they will arrive at this page - which is, for them, the wrong page.

Here is a breakdown of what's required:

• Potato crisps - is unambiguous (has one meaning) and should either (a) redirect to this article (as it currently does) or (b) be the title of this article
• Potato chips - is ambiguous (has more than one meaning) and should lead to a Disambig. (it currently does NOT - this NEEDS fixing)
• French fries - is unambiguous and should either (a) be the title of an article (as it currently is), or (b) redirect to that article

The first and third article titles are currently fine, but any change to the second (which IS absolutely necessary) infringes on one or both of the others. How do we reconcile? Any solution that settles the above three conditions is workable, all suggestions are welcome. Here is the only one I can think of:

• Potato chips becomes a Disambig. satisfying condition 2.
• This leaves THIS article lacking a title, so Potato crisps becomes the title of this article filling that deficiency and also satisfying condition 1.
• Condition 3 is currently satisfied so no change there.

Thoughts? As I said, suggestions of alternative solutions are welcome - the above is just one, it need not be the only one. 109.78.178.4 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out and blatantly ignored, in the UK the term "crisps" does not just refer to "potato chips" but also corn based snacks as well.

Monster Munch, Discos, Wotsits, Hula Hoops, etc, are all referred to as "crisps" by everyone in the UK.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that "potato chips" are a sub category of crisps. It's my opinion that there should be a crisps article with a bit of info explaining the various types of crisps, such as potato, corn, etc, which link to article about each type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.152.4 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that, as has been demonstrated above, the term chips is common and widely understood around the world (and has been adopted by various languages), whereas crisps is largely limited to the UK. In other words, this isn't a "west vs. east Atlantic" difference, but rather a case of "the UK vs. just about everyone else." There is absolutely no reason why this article should be renamed. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you think you're so smart and figured it all out? Think again..."Potato Crisps" has its own distinctive meaning in North America, where it refers to the healthier BAKED variety, rather than the fried ones that are called "Potato Chips." So factor that into your brilliant solution. In fact, I came to this discussion page because I took issue with the statement in the article introduction that they are "either fried or baked." Sorry, but a potato chip is NEVER baked. That's a potato crisp, which is a totally different kind of food...don't ever serve me that baked garbage and try to pass it off as a potato chip.Gotham77 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave the articles named as they are, but add a hatnote here linking to french fries for the UK people. LRT24 (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Countries

The article states at the top that it does not represent a world wide view on the subject. By listing the countries that refer to crisps as crisps it removes a lot of the americanised bias which is rapent throughout the artical please do not remove them unless you have a valid reason... they only serve to improove the article to a worldwide perspective instead of that of the americans221.208.50.110 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement describes the names used in different varieties of English, not in different countries - a whole great list of minor places that speak British English is not needed, especially not in the lead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

how are we ever going to make the article more neutral to a worldwide perspective if you shoot down all ideas from everyone i followed the etos of be bold and change and for this i get a warning. i was only trying to make this article better but you seem to want to keep it in a state of biased views, i guess i'll leave it up to the word police and go back to encyclopedia britanica, peace jess221.208.50.110 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't get a warning for being bold, you got a warning for repeating your addition after having had it reverted. If you are reverted after being bold, your next step should be to discuss, not to repeat the addition. And the list of places you added to the lead was just silly (Sealand? British Antarctic Territory? Have they ever even had a crisp/chip in either of those places?). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course sealand and the bat have british foodstuffs......221.208.50.110 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was employing a device known as hyperbole to emphasize the utter insignificance of those two places in the great linguistic debate, given that the populations of the two put together are probably not much more than the number of people in the average British street (and Sealand's population is probably less than that of my house). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert you disappear ALL pertinent information posted such as a perfectly good reference which this article needs. I don't know where you are from but "Gag" means choke, not good in a chip article! Limón is the correct term for lemon in Columbia as they speak *Spanish* and is marketed as such. Hasta! DocOfSoc (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Smile! I am sorry if I sounded snarky. Question: Don't you think that the article is Waaay too long and maybe should be split? It's only potato chips for heavens sake! Maybe the "others" could be another article? Namaste...

DocOfSoc (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

This article is way too bottom heavy and weighty. Suggestions? Split? Cut? DocOfSoc (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Time to split this article! Those made of something other that potatoes can be separate article. It has out grown itself.DocOfSoc (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Crisp that are not potatoes IMO do not belong here. Article has already surpassed wiki suggested limits The heading still says potatoes. add to bottom section if you must. but NOT in the lead. Revert again and you are in danger of violating 3rr rule. Potatoes are potatoes no matter how you pronounce them Chip made of maize are CORN chips. DocOfSoc (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are trying to say crisps is an umberella term that refers to potato chips, corn chips and maize chips?? potato chips is a term that is known here in the uk but i have never heard the terms corn chips or maize chips, did you just pull these terms out of the ether?... if what you say is acurate then the page should be renamed to crisps as that is the umbrella term and potato chips should fall into a sub catagory under it. If not and crisps are forced to stay merged with this article then this article needs to have in it's lead a definition of what crisps are, and potato chips are not crisps. also throwing out idle threats to people who are trying to improove the articles acuracy is outright stupid. Grow up.94.168.210.205 (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is called "Potato Chips", so it obviously isn't about corn or maize chips - I agree that other non-potato snacks should be split out from this article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to correct, undo the redirect and allow the article Crisp to stand alone. If the redirect can't be done by an ordinary editor go to any administrator or to WP:Page move and make the request. I'm about done for today because of RL issues so I just thought I'd throw this in for all of you to consider. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

i totally agree As we now have a consensus, would you care to proceed through proper channels and split the article? Meanwhile,

I suggest you: study up on wikipedia standards. You have violated several., Name calling is a violation of Civility. "Grow up" is a personal attack. I make no idle threats, dearie. Also, unreferenced terms are subject to immediate deletion. DocOfSoc (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Corn chips are Fritos BTW. [1] DocOfSoc (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your corn chip from the Frito example is not what we mean when we refer to corn based crisps, they are not chipped at all take a look http://i32.tinypic.com/35laiqp.jpg also where did i call anyone a name anywhere? are lies and slander against wiki rules also....94.168.210.205 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seasoned vs. flavored/flavoured

I think flavored is a more accurate term than seasoned as sour cream, cheese, dill pickle, ketchup, fries and gravy, and prawn cocktail are generally not considered seasonings. Seasonings are flavorants. As this article is titled in USian English I suggest the 'or' rather than 'our' spelling. The spelling isn't important to me, but there has been quite a bit of flip flopping lately. Anyone else care to weigh in? Weetoddid (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As the seasoning produces the flavor, I think seasoned is more appropriate. It's not like the chicken and the egg ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I like the word flavored/flavoured better. Seasoned kind makes my stomach lurch for some reason... =) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Is George Crum really african american???

It says on George Crum's page that he is the son of a mulato (African-European ancestry) and an Indian maid.

So I don't think he is African American... should it maybe be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.236.85 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He is a quadroon and and therefore negro per the laws at the time, now called African -American. It IS his heritage and should be left in as too many things regarding blacks have been left out of history books and enycylopedias. Let us not go back half a century. TY. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide view

I think the

can be removed now we have an accurate description of crisps in the lead. what does everyone else think? Jse11 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I whole heartledly agree! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They are NOT baked!

The article states, "Potato chips...are thin slices of potato that are deep fried or baked until crispy." I'm sorry, but a potato chip is NEVER baked. In North America where the food this article refers to are called "chips," we DO sometimes use the word "crisp." "Crisps" are what we call snacks that resemble "real" potato chips, but are slightly different. The baked variety are labeled "crisps," because we acknowledge that when you bake it instead of frying it, you end up with a completely different food. So the description is wrong...potato chips are fried, period.Gotham77 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have had "baked" potato chips and they are quite good not to mention more nutritious than the fried version. Lay's in fact offers baked potato chips and any supermaket will virtually carry them on their shelves in the U.S.

Equally, Pringles, possibly could be considered baked potato chips since they too are not fried.Yoganate79 (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of "they call the baked ones CRISPS and not CHIPS" did you not understand? Yes, supermarkets sell Baked Lays. And what does it say on the bag? "Potato Crisps." What does it say on the tube of Pringles? "Potato Crisps." They're not chips, they're crisps. Get it?Gotham77 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

there is no need to argue just make an edit and fix it. like i just did :) Jse11 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Barely filling bags?

Why is there no mention of this? it is a contervorsial issue, as trivial as it seems. 69.132.79.61 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, it does? Or, more specifically, it already covers the actual reason for why they seem to be only partially filled:

Today, chips are packaged in plastic bags, with nitrogen gas blown in prior to sealing to lengthen shelf life, and provide protection against crushing.

They're filled correctly, as it's by weight, not volume. They then blast in some nitrogen (as explained in the quote above), which gives the bag an appearance of being half-empty. But I don't think there's any need to explicitly include a disclaimer in the article, solely for those readers incapable of understanding what a 'gram' is. :) 139.57.100.63 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)