Talk:French fries

Problem with the main photo

The main photo on the page is clearly of steak fries. Calling them french fries is bit inaccurate. A clarification or other remedy is needed. I hope we can resolve this important matter as soon as possible. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Steak fries are the same exact thing. They are just thicker cut french fries. The picture is absolutely fine. Gune (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the confusion is caused by the move towards thinner chips started by large international concerns such as Macdonalds. Such thin chips were practically unknown in the UK fifty years ago. Acorn897 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest obtaining pictures of the 2 main sorts of chips and creating a composite picture to represent both? Sb2k4 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To head off an edit war...

I think we need to decide once and for all whether or not steak fries and french fries are the same thing. A quick search of foodnetwork.com verifies my gut instinct (no pun intended): steak fries are larger with the skin on, seasoned, and oven-baked; french fries are smaller, usually skinless, sometimes battered but rarely seasoned, and almost always blanched then fried. (To add to the confusion, french fries can be cut into steak fry-shaped wedges, especially since the home cook rarely has the equipment, skills, or time needed to make smaller french fries). The Food Network even has a recipe for "mini steak fries" which seems to negate the argument that steak fries are simply larger french fries. [1] I couldn't find a more definitive source (my two "go-to" books only talk about fried potatoes as an excuse to talk about frying, not potatoes), but hopefully it's enough to diffuse a war and start a discussion. JazzMan 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the big deal is since I've only tried to include steak fries as an alternate (albeit more accurate) name for what's pictured. The other way to go would be to use a different picture in the info box. But I certinaly think we should be as accurate as we can in identifying what we've pictured just as we would if it was a plant or animal. In a more general sense I think Steak Fries can be considered a type of Fry, so I haven't tried to eliminate that name even as others have sought to eliminate the Steak Fry name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the infobox. It makes most sense to me to have the most accurate description as possible at the top, even if it doesn't exactly describe the picture. I just noticed that you and user:Gune (who has not yet responded here) kept reverting each other, and wanted to head it off at the pass :) JazzMan 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (And really, despite what I said above, many restaurants freely interchange the terms anyway. I don't think the items pictured are steak fries, but I've had them before at restaurants and they were called steak fries at some, and fries or french fries at others.)

Whether they are steak fries (or not) is less important than the fact that they don't look too appetizing. Isn't there a photo somewhere of some nice Belgian fries and mussles (or a nice steak). Or how about a big dollup of mayo. We need a better picture. --Buster7 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to chips

most people call them chips, most know they are known as chips. 123abcdoreme3 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be renamed, but would probably opt instead for French-fried potatoes for two reasons. First, it's matter-of-fact and doesn't suggest any regional bias. No one from any particular area calls them "French-fried potatoes," but that is what they are. Well, maybe Belgian-fried, but in either case they were originally known as pommes frites. And that brings me to reason #2, which is that "French-fried potatoes" is semantically close to "pommes frites," which means "fried potatoes" in, well, French. (Actually, the literal translation would be "fried apples," but "pommes" is short for "pommes de terre"--"earth apples" or potatoes.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say "fried potatoes". But a need to change the title would need to be demonstrated first. NJGW (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, "fried potatoes" is a different dish, often served for breakfast. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are "Most people"? Perhaps "most" of the 80 Million people living in UK and Australia. However, here in North America ( 306 Million people in USA alone ) "chips" means something else, and never ever refers to French-fried potatoes. You'd know this if you read the article.

• • [As an Englishman I have travelled in America and eaten excellent chips (and asociated fish) in several self addressed "fish and chip shops". America is a huge place and is renouned for regional cultural variations. New England and Washington state at least seemed to have some familiarity with 'chips' in the British sense, although in no way displacing the term 'fries' from the native product.]

Perhaps you meant "Most people I know." APL (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with APL. "French fries" is the most common name worldwide. Additionally, if you use "chips" in the US, you will be completely misunderstood ("chips" are what we call "crisps" in the UK), conversely, if you used "french fries" in the UK, you will be widely understood, even if in the local vernacular, "chips" is more common. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, to us Americans, "chips" refers to these things. The one, odd exception is that Americans will know exactly what you mean by fish and chips. Anyway, I still think that "French-fried potatoes" would be the best article name, because it's reasonably matter-of-fact and universal, and also because it's relatively formal. I'm guessing that fries, as a noun, is a corruption of the adjective frites. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah fried potato is a much better name. it has no regional bias, and french fries only applies to thin chips. 123abcdoreme3 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that jives with the naming conventions. Eliminating regional bias is not more important than clear organization. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, fries would usually refer to the thin-cut chips you get from McDonald's et al. 82.132.136.204 (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

fries and chips are compleatly diffrent, fries are extreamly thing cut strips of potatos and chips are much much fatter also you talk about regional bias, the language you speak is called english just because you dont speak it correctly is no reason to go with your pervesion of the word. also fried potatos are compleatly diffrent. as i think every british person will agree a chip and a fry are two compleatly diffrent dishes and chip's should have it's own page.94.168.209.167 (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Accompaniments

I think this section appears twice. In succession. TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, wow. It's been over a month and no one else has noticed this, even after I mentioned it? I'd change it myself, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the topic (I know well enough that having the same section twice is never necessary, however). TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a testament to how far we've come that this train wreck was once the kind of thing which was proposed for FA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Variants of the name

This section has been swelling into an indiscriminate list. Since this is not Wiktionary, I think it should be trimmed to cover only names used in English, not all of the world's languages. Comments? –Henning Makholm (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No comments? Done, then. –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cinnamon

"In Norway they often add Cinnamon on their French Fries."

I am norwegian and have lived in Norway my entire life, but I can honestly say I have never seen anyone put cinnamon on their french fries.

Can anyone verify that this is common in Norway? -CheeseSucker (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Traced to rev 274477413 -CheeseSucker (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Saying putting mayonnaise on fries is notorious is biased. (talk) 6:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Homemade mayo is best!--Buster7 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Common Usage

More of query than a comment really. Quite a few people have been arguing about whether French Fries or Chips is the more common global usage, but without conducting a thorough survey, isn't any statement just presumption?--OffiMcSpin (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense.

From the article:

"Replacing tallow with partially hydrogenated oil reduces cholesterol but adds trans fat, which has been shown to both raise LDL cholesterol and lower HDL cholesterol."

Change the phrase "reduces cholesterol" to "may reduce the saturated fat content" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.33.85 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology. with regards to the usage of the word chips.

The etymology section does not reflect the usage of the word "Chips" in describing French fries, and merely refers to French fries, I suggest that the etymology as reference to the words chips is also put in the article. KungFuKats (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

2003 French Fry renaming

Made my first edit in the 2003 french fry renaming section. Added a sentence about the house restaurants actually calling them fReedom fries. Got the information from the freedom fries page and thought it would be helpful for context here. Especially since the version before I edited said that congress proposed it, and then reverted back to calling them french fries. (It's missing a step, propose it, then change it, then revert it) Did I source it right? I'm not sure if a reference is the same as a source... --Drummondear (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Genuine history

With potatoes in the Chiloé Archipelago having been cultivated in 8,000 BC, and Old World frying dating back to 2,500 BC, would there happen to be any literature examining the possibility of fried potatoes predating European colonialism?   — C M B J   04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once A Secret

Potatoes were a secret to the Incan's, as well as themselves, until the sixteenth century when the Spanish conquered their empire. After conquering their empire the Spaniards brought the potatoes to Spain. To them the potato was called the "edible stone."Dubcas (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Course served

The page currently states "Main meal" (infobox on the right). I am assuming this means that french fries are commonly served as the main course. As far as I know, and everybody else that I know, it is a side dish. I don't have any citations to prove this. 24.98.145.176 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)maw

Merge of Chips

Chips is basically a copy of what is contained here already, and most of its contents are unreferenced. The little bit that isn't original research should be merged to the United Kingdom section (which is tagged for expansion as it is). 76.244.158.243 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly a split-out of the UK section to Chips; either way these are duplicative. 76.244.158.243 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that french fries are not chips in the UK - in the UK you choose between thin french fries and fat chips - what americans call fries are also called fries in UK. The articles should not be merged. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tentative oppose I would tend to say these article should not be merged. As a British citizen, I know that British chips are not the same as French fries (which we do have here, courtesy of McDonald's and Burger King). Chips are much thicker and fluffy on the inside, whereas French fries are so thin they are just crunchy. I can't imagine having cod and French fries, which leads me to think that chips and fries are different things. leevclarke (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong support There is a continuous range of fried potatoes from the finest "straw potatoes" (pommes paille) through "matchstick potatoes" (pommes allumettes) to thicker fried potatoes ("pommes Pont-Neuf") to the thickest "steak fries". The "chips" article is a UK-name fork for one particular place along this continuum. Surely we should not have separate articles for other sizes of fried potatoes as well? --macrakis (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support As noted by Macrakis, there are many different sizes of fried potatoes, and most places group them all together as "French fries", with a qualifying adjactive used if more specificity is needed. It seems only the UK makes a full distinction by using a totally separate term.

Also, if the merge carries, I propose that Chips be made to point to Chip (disambiguation), and not simply a redirect here, as there are many types of chips, and the use of an unqualified plural does not really have a primary meaning. oknazevad (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose not this argument again. French fries are skinny and dry, chips are thick and slightly greasy. What's the problem? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but only in some parts of the world (namely the UK and so on). Outside of those places (i.e. The US, Canada, and lots of other countries) "chips" can refer to french fries, crisps, etc. That is to say, chips are not only as it is known in the UK. Chip and Chips now refer to a disambiguation page, and I think this is the best solution because there are so many other meanings.
In the article, it points out that "...or without the skin to create "steak fries", essentially the American equivalent of the British "chip"." Do you suggest that Chips and Steak fries may link to a separate article? For the moment, typing steak fries leads to here.--79.177.55.72 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this thought experiment. Suppose this article were titled "Deep-fried potato batons", a term which, as far as I know, has no particular implications as to skinniness/thickness, dryness/greasiness, etc. I think we can agree that UK French fries (roughly = US shoestring fries = French pommes allumettes) and UK chips (roughly = US steak fries = French pommes Pont-Neuf, the usual sort of Belgian frites) would both fall under this title, right? Remembering that WP is an encyclopedia organized around things and not a dictionary organized around words, it seems to me pretty clear that this should be one article. Finding an acceptable name may be problematic, but that is a separate issue.... --macrakis (talk)

I agree. Any way you slice it, there is going to be a parent article -- which we've already resolved is this one. "Chips" could potentially be a subarticle; in same the way that kosher salt exists apart from salt. But I think that we'd need a compelling reason. The kosher salt article explains how its composition differs from ordinary table salt and how it is used differently. The last version of the Chips article merely took two lines from this article's history section; the rest just said that they were called french fries elsewhere. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SupportI'm British and now living in New Zealand and although I have always called them "chips" and not "french fries", they are basically variants on the same thing (chopped fried potato) and having separate articles makes no sense and is probably counter productive as the same history etc. has to be maintained in two places. Also even in English speaking countries where the term "chips" is more commonly used the American name of "french fries" is almost universally known as well, although it is generally recognised that fries are thinner than chips. In Australia and New Zealand chips/fries are also referred to as "hot chips", to distinguish them from chips (of the round thinly sliced variety bought in packets), since the British term "crisps" is not in common usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.182.39 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the opposite, french fries are a sub-type of chips so french fries should be merged into chips rather than vice-versa.--79.68.202.87 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

oppose the merge, and I would like to know why one editor is claiming consensus supporting the merge, performed the merge and continues to revert the undoing of the merge, when there is no clear consensus and the discussion is still going on. The merge should be reverted until there is clear consensus. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This "one editor" thinks that Chips should lead to a disambiguation page, currently lying in the Chip article, with its many meanings. Chips obviously are not only what you think ,i.e. there are many other things with this name. You can open a discussion on that matter if you wish (if Chips should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to French fries) but I currently see no clear reason for making it a separate article. Period. --79.181.105.74 (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that is great to hear, however there was an article - it isn't a case of making a new article, it is a case of you ignoring the original article which had been contributed to by a number of editors over a period of a few months and you redirecting it to a disambiguation page, with a false claim to consensus. There is no clear consensus, there is an original article (on which you are free to place a disambiguation link) and there is a total lack of consensus to redirect the article. If you ask for French Fries in my hometown you will be told "we don't serve fries, we only have chips" unless you go to McDonalds - they are two different items.119.173.81.176 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the Chips page, where a rather tedious edit war has broken out. I'm not seeing a clear consensus here. Please have another go at coming to an agreement. Thanks. GedUK  22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose support The current situation, with Chips redirecting to the disambiguation page Chip, is entirely satisfactory. The word chips is ambiguous not only as to its potato-related meanings (french fries vs. crisps, to use the main alternative terms for the two meanings), but also as to other meanings that are covered at Chip. Leave it the way it is. Update: User:Macrakis kindly clarified for me that the merge has already happened; since I'm happy with the status quo, I've changed the description of my position to "support." --Tkynerd (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

frying in europe

using animal fat for frying is prohibited within the EU due to it's extremely unhealthy nature. Markthemac (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

the most commonly used fat for frying potatoes is Sunflower oil due to it's low saturated fat content and it's also used in dutch fry-sauce (around 80% reduced fat content mayonnaise) here dutch wiki page: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritessaus Markthemac (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add more pictures

This article is in dire need of more pictures of fries, meals with fries on the side, and cheese fries. Add these pictures immediately, find ones on Google.156.34.245.217 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Accompaniments

I removed a long piece of uncited listcruft, which was promptly restored because someone thinks "material is good." Am I missing an exception to the requirement that all material be cited? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are not objections, and since the material has been tagged for about six months, I'm going to go ahead and pull it down again. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Retarded admins

You block editing of the page to increase accuracy. either create a page for chips and split the articles or stop refering to chips as fries the two dishes are completly diffrent

it is highly offensive to british people to call chips french fries, to put our national food on the same level as mcdonals cancer sticks is highly derogatory bordering on racisim. it is deplorable

how can anybody in their right mind concieve the two things are the same.............

FUCKING RETARDSJse1986 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious edits need to be made to the page as it stands it is highly highly offensive to British peopleJse1986 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

continued removal of my views on this subject from the talk page are in direct violation of the Charte on Fundamental Rights of the European Union Chapter 2 Article 11 Freedom of expression and information, any rules you create on this website cannot overright law http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf also you are not engaging in discussion you are just being bias and abusive to an extreamly racist situation. continue your racism and block my account, i have an infinite number of hfc mac's so i will back each time you ban me :)Jse1986 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)