|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mousse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject France||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
If the eggs in the UK and typically in the US are pasteurized, why is this information preceded by too strong statement that a consumation of mousse can lead to poisoning? (I know there are other parts of the world, but still, consumation of anything can kill you.) in this form it should be used for venom or crushed razors...
also the swedish chef thing ... I know it's usual in wikipedia to have a cultural reference section but in this specific article it is 1 line out of 11. is really 9% of interesting stuff about mousse its appearance in this show? aren't there some local variations, typical recipes, different flavors? I'll be glad if someone expands the article or I will when I find more.
Monty Python Reference
Salmon Mousse could, indeed, be referring to salmonella and chocolate mousse. However, it could just as easily refer to actual salmon mousse... Dubious reference.22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation for "Mousse-like desserts in middle America commonly go under designations like "whip""? I just want to know that this is some generally accepted notion. For all we know, these "whips" could be more like custard.
A 'whip' must be light and fluffy. You can buy instant powdered versions of these that take 5 minutes to prepare and taste as good as they sound.
I appreciate that sources are required, but removing content doesn't seem constructive. Why not look for sources or add citation required tags, or add it to the list of articles that require sources so that someone else can do it? In particular, the content provided in the article is borderline common knowledge. If the article was controversial or even arguable, I could understand removing the information, but it isn't. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Removing large sections from the article is not constructive. Furthermore, the content that was restored and then subsequently removed again on November 3 was not controversial and is basically common knowledge. Additionally, the reason for removing this content was cited as a lack of references, although at this time the article had no references at all. With this in mind, I ask Bbb23 what qualified that specific portion of text for deletion when none of the article had appropriate references. If you feel that certain content is not appropriate then add a citation required tag and discuss it on the talk page, rather than simply deleting entire paragraphs.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Before I removed the material, the article had been tagged since May 2011 as lacking any sources. Please stop reinserting the material without a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, so might I ask why you only chose to remove certain information on the basis of "inadequate sources" when in fact none of the article was backed up by a reliable source? So far, it seems fairly biased to remove this information over the rest. Further more, you completely avoided responding to many of the points suggested above, such as adding a citation required tag, doing some research yourself, and the fact that this information is essentially common knowlegde. Deleting large chunks of information from articles is not constructive. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the only piece of questionable information from this article (the history of mousse in French, American and British cuisine). The rest of the information is confirmed by the source provided. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)