Talk:French fries/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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 certainly 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)

They look like chips to me :) Speaking as a Brit, I would expect to get chips looking like these from a chippy, or a cafe, or anywhere that sold them as such. If it said French fries on the menu, I would expect them thinner. Recently, chips from many take-away's, and a lot of chippys that use frozen chips, have got thinner, but are still called chips. (Excepting McStuff, or BurgerThing-type chains. They call them fries.) I have just noticed I didn't sign this. Sorry. Archolman User talk:Archolman 00:30, 2 July 2011 (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)

Almost everyone I know in Canada (including myself) call them fries Michaelmior (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm British and I, and as far as I'm aware most people I know, don't make a distinction between Chips and French Fries,and simply call all form of fried potato-strips Chips, no matter the size or shape (although particularly thick ones are sometimes referred to as Wedges).Personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if the article is called French Fries, as that appears to be a more common term globally (although that could just be due to the huge influence America has on media). I also think that there is no "correct" way to speak a language, and going by your own conventions I could just as easily claim your spelling mistakes are also a perversion of the English language, but that would just be petty. NinjaPenguin89 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2011 (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)

French fries? Surely the Patriot Act (aka "End of freedom in the USA" Act)requires Americans to call these Freedom Fries?

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)

Many chippies in the UK are proud to announce that "We use beef dripping", to indicate that beef-fat is used in the fryers. There is no ban on the use of animal fats in place, it's a question of cost, AFIK.Dick Holman. User:Archolman 22:40, 13 November 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)

I have included a few things, & deleted the 'honey' & 'ketchup' entries. 'Honey' is something I have never seen offered with chips, (I have eaten them in most European countries) & 'ketchup' is just 'sauce', without stating what type, e.g. tomato, mushroom, etc. I will try & find some sources for the items, but wonder if chippy menu's are allowable? Archolman User talk:Archolman 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Change to Chips

Either this article should be renamed to chips, or the chip pan article should be renamed French fry pan. show some consistency —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.171.192 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll comply with WP:ENGVAR instead. (Hohum ^@) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is an utter mess with a huge american bias. chips are not french fries. the two dishes are completly diffrent and it's quite offensive to british people to call the chip a french fry.94.168.210.205 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In US usage, "French fry" covers everything from the thin style (pommes allumette) to the very thick style (steak fries / pommes Pont Neuf). In Britain, these have different names. I see nothing 'offensive' about covering both kinds in one article. Could you explain yourself? --Macrakis (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really true. I'm a british expat living in Canada and have travelled in the northern part of the US, there I see the words 'fries' and far less commonly 'french fries' being used interchangeably to describe thin strips (or slim processed extrusions) of deep-fried potato. Nathandbeal (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

French fries here are only sold in American outlets such as Mcdonalds, KFC, Burger King ect... this food is commonly regarded as extreamly unhealthy mass produced and in some cases carcinogenic. Chips on the other hand are part of our national dish and national identity and are nothing like the french fries which are sold ONLY in American food outlets, it is offensive to me at least and im sure many others to class an item that is mass produced by the American fast food industry only to food stuffs that are home made with love throughout almost every home in our country.

Also the two dishes are completly diffrent here and are never classed as the same, french fries are extreamly thin and heavily salted, chips on the other hand are unsalted very fat cuts of potato deep fried, they are not comparable to your steak fries either as they specifically leave the skin off, chips can be either, usually the skin is left on to increase flavour and nutrient content.

Finally you would never hear anyone in a fish and chip show ask for "fish and fries" as the dishes are diffrent and not available in a fish and chip shop if the word was interchangable as you are trying to make it seem it would be in common use in British English, it is not as there is a clear and distinct diffrence, the two products are diffrent, chips either need their own page or a greater emphasis and inclusion in this article.

For our national dish to get three crummy sentances in an article about french fries is just absurd and somthing needs the change. 94.168.210.205 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your national dish has it's own article here.TMCk (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've heard several times here that french fries are sold "ONLY" in American fast food chains in the UK and that just isn't true. As a quick example, there are two purveyors of french fries on the Times list of "10 best places to eat chips in Britain".[2] One of those two also topped Time Out's list of London's best chips[3], which contains several more examples. So not only are there french fries for sale in Britain but somehow they make lists of chips as well. Maybe you aren't aware of this because you don't eat out much and prefer to handmake chips at home with love. Not all of your countrymen do the same. Many, perhaps more, buy frozen products. McCain, the foremost producer of those (it consumes more than 10% of your entire potato crop) sells several varieties of fries. Just look in the "Chips" section of their website.[4] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I only see one resteraunt on the times list that sells fries along with chips, and onto mccain yes they sell oven chips along with oven fries and as you can see there is a CLEAR distinction here between the two products, fries are not referred to as chips and chips are not referred to as fries, that is the point we are trying to make, the two products are diffrent and not the same, we would like our own page for chips and you can have this page to discuss the french fry. just because the word is interchangable in America the case is not the same in Britian, Ireland, Austrailia and New Zeeland. There is no reason for the merge what so ever, as you can see from this entire discussion page.94.168.210.205 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On the Times list, you probably missed Allports because its product is described as both "chips" and "fries". The Times apparently uses the terms interchangably. As does Time Out. It seems fairly clear to me that many Britons feel that "chips" and fries are basically the same thing or that fries are a type of chip. These two media companies felt free to put fries on lists of chips and McCain includes fries in its chip page as well. It has a different page for other potato products[5] which includes wedges, "home roasts", croquettes, gaufrettes and other potato applications that are similar. While I appreciate your passion for the distinction between chips and fries, it is rather a rather arbitrary division and not one that is universally shared, even in Britain. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Read allports menu, no where do they refer to chips as fries. No where on the timesonline and time out website do they refer to chips as fries. There is a very clear distinction in the UK and all other countries who nativly speak English, it is only in American English that the two dishes are refered to by one name but that makes sense as you are a very simple people who simplified the language signicantly but seen as American English is in the minority in this case the pages should be split, one for french fries and one for Chips.94.168.210.205 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My earlier point wasn't really about the terms being interchangable in the UK. I just wanted to say that french fries are indeed for sale in the UK outside of American chains and also that they are categorized alongside chips. But since you bring it up, I've looked at Allports menu and they do indeed sell "chips". The Times, however, gives them the following review: "Twice-fried chips, double dipped in rapeseed oil to guarantee that every customer tastes crunchy fries with light fluffy centres." That seems like an example of chips referred to as fries to me. Time Out also switches terms. On the first page, #41 Belgo Noord: "Never thicker than 10mm -- and that's a promise, otherwise Belgo's chips would not be Belgian... you can expect a mountain of skinny golden fries cooked in vegetable oil..." Now that might be chips referred to as fries or fries referred to as chips but the same item gets both names there. At #10, Out of the Blue, it goes back and forth: "The secret to the addictive shoestring fries at this lively Battersea joint...being careful not to use too much garlic, and sprinkle it over the freshley fried chips...He reckons these fries are best served with red meat..." And of course the winner, Comptoir Cascon's "home-made French fries" are also described as "London's poshest chips". I should also note that I've had the product at Little Bay, #14. They are actually french fries on the menu even though Time Out refers to them only as chips. Surprisingly good and a bargain just like they say.

I should say that I'm not American but I find their English to be similar enough to yours. Our List of British words not widely used in the United States is relatively short. And not particularily indicative of complexity. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, No one in England calls Chips fries. Thats just dumb.94.168.193.229 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Double Frying: Not a distinction between U.S. and Europe

I deleted the sentence that claimed a difference between fries in the U.S. and Europe as being that Europe fries them twice. Maybe some home-cooked fries are only fried once in the U.S., but commercial and restaurant french fries are double fried, all the way down to McDonald's. Every recipe from Julia Child through Harold McGee's food science book specify double frying. Frozen fries are always fried, frozen and refried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.191.81.188 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

US vs GB et al English Usage

The use of the word "chip" vs "french fry/fries" is cultural; the dish "Fish & Chips" has often been quoted as the UK national dish. The use of the word "fries" is contentious as least and offensive at worst.

I would suggest that there are two translations of this page: one as Chips (EN-GB et al) and one based on French Fries (EN-US)

81.134.86.112 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will we ever solve this one? I joined Wikipedia four years ago and it was hotly debated back then. Is there a solution? Will have to get Jimmy Carter in? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP is well-meaning but Wikipedia doesn't allow multiple identical articles. As I noted above last December, a "chips" subarticle could exist if it had meaningful content beyond what is included here. The real problem is that no editors have had much to say about chips that isn't already in this article. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't allow multiple identical articles." - this isn't true, please read the French, German and Belgian entries, esp. the argument over who first invent the "frite". This is a cultural issue and so should be handled as such. Describing a British chip as a "fry/fries" is misrepresenting a significant part of British & Commonwealth social history - it is, therefore offensive and border-line racist.

79.64.227.124 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are so over-the-top that I have to assume they are flame-bait and are best ignored. --Macrakis (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring it will not make the problem go away. The argument over "chip" vs "French fry" has run for such a long period that most observers would surely consider it to be highly contentious and deeply rooted. Why is the English entry for this article headed "French Fries"? Why not "French Fries / Chips"? Alternatively, why not have two entries for each language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.227.124 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it is against convention and policy to have two articles with the same content. Even if I gave you my blessing, they would be merged back together very quickly. We could name this article "chips" but consensus has been for "french fries". I was never very passionate either way but I think your arguments that chips and french fries are seen as completely different in the UK makes french fries seem like the more reasonable choice anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This still doesn't answer the question of whether there shouldn't be alternatives for en-gb and en-us language entries; as in Frites for the French Language entry and Friete for Limburgs entry which contain ostensibly the same content. There is such an obvious, and over discussed, difference between "chip" and "french fry" that perhaps we should accept it as a divergence in the language 81.130.80.94 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. The foreign language articles are on foreign language Wikipedias which are run separately from the English one and each other. We only link to their content. That's why your French link redirects here rather than to the French article and you your Limburgisch one goes nowhere. Nobody thought to create a redirect for a relatively obscure foreign term even though the article exists on that Wikipedia. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that, perhaps, you are missing the point(s): this is a cultural issue (if you disagree, then perhaps article should be merged with Tempura. I think that a should be in place until the issue is resolved.

Unless you can indicate where you believe the article is not neutral, with an explanation, the POV tag does not belong on this article. If you have an issue about Wikipedia policy on forking articles, or believe that there should be separate en-gb & en-us sites, you should take up the matter in the correct forum. Not here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

From the lead onwards the page refers to chips as fries this is fuck dumb94.168.193.75 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A) No it doesn't. Refuted already in the first section after the lead.

B) Please watch your language. Although WP is not censored, proper language gives you a better chance to be heard.

TMCk (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Honest question, why is the term 'fries' an issue here (I don't understand why that would be offensive)? The main point of contention seems to be that 'chips' are considered a type of 'french fries/fry' by this article, and there seems to be some agreement on the in-correctness of this. My honest impression is that in the US these are less frequently referred to as 'french fries' but simply 'fries' (as in "do you want fries with that?"), 'french fries' has a very specific meaning in both the US and UK as the type of thing sold by major 'burger' chains whereby other forms in the US seem to be simply fries 'steak cut fries' etc (not saying french is never in there but it's absence is also common.

Whereby were we to consider an article that talked about 'fries (deep fried potatoes)' with a series of subsections describing sub-types of fries, such as 'french fries' thin/crispy also known as 'shoestring fires' etc etc etc 'steak cut fries or chips (chiefly british)' thicker cut a crispy exterior etc etc etc. This would probably be less contentious and help settle some of the wider issues here.

Thoughts on this? Would a rename to 'fries' or 'fries (deep fried potato)' help find some common ground? Nathandbeal (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this the right time to mention "Freedom Fries"? Or is the term now deprecated? :) not neutral But seriously, I have just read the article, & it is heavily biased as regards US English usage and sense eg. the only images appear to be US in origin, the article seems to assume a US readership, too much is made of US nomenclature for different types of chip, assumptions are made about the chips/fries usage in other countries. As regards the use of the term "Fries" in the UK, it is now strongly associated with franchise food-chains, eg. McStuff, UnluckyFriedKitten, BurgerThing, etc, & they are substantially different to chip-shop chips, (& we don't have fry-shops) so this should be reflected in the article. I have little time to spare at the moment, or I would have a go. After Christmas, I will look at it again. Dick Holman. User:Archolman 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

French Fries in Literature

Should there be such a section in the article? In Lolita, Humbert Humbert remarks, upon suffering a bout of heartburn, they call those fries "French," grand Dieu! BruceSwanson (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Socking

Recent edits by 94.168.209.29 appear to be socking from the same user as banned IP 94.168.210.205. (Hohum ^@) 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was obvious even before I replied in the last section. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt on identity and hope, in the spirit of WP:BITE, that he'd turned over a new leaf if he was the same editor. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My ban was temporary and ended on 11th of August my ip is dynamic an changes from time to time, I never stated I wasnt the above94.168.209.29 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the expiry date of the ban, and have struck out my comment. However, the recent edits require discussion here. (Hohum ^@) 10:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Change To "Fried Potatos"

We are never going to agree over the article content as have been well documented in 4 years worth of discussion over this article however we could choose a much more neutral name such as "Fried Potatoes" which can be adapted to cover French Fries, Chips and the dish known as Fried Potatoes if we keep the article in it's current state it is just going to split a devide us forever. French Fries are not Chips, Chips are not French Fries, French Fries and Chips ARE Fried Potatoes 94.168.193.75 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fried potatoes already covers all kinds of dishes which have nothing in common but being fried potatoes like "french fries" or "chips". BTW, the disambargation page it leads to only covers a small portion of those (dishes) and should be expanded.TMCk (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The text following, which has been removed the article, was not accurate, I am afraid. In French, "frire" does not unambiguously denote deep-frying, but, just as in English, may refer to pan frying. In French one talks of "frire des oeufs" (to fry eggs), and a frying pan is called a "poêle à frire" as well as just "poêle" (pan). Fer(di)nand(o) Sant (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

{ The French term 'frite' (passive past participle of frire) in 'pommes de terre frites' unambiguously denotes deep frying, unlike the English 'fried', which may also refer to sautéing or pan-frying, so 'French fried' may simply mean 'deep-fried'. }

Suggestion

why don't we have an FAQ box at the top of the talk page explaining why the article is at French Fries instead of Chips. Any future posts on the matter can be referred to the FAQ. It'll save us the endless repetitive bickering. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Going in Circles

It seems to me that this will never become a featured article until a universal word or phrase can be thought of that appeals to all variations of these thinly sliced and fried potatoes. --Chiefsfan (Reply) 03:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to nitpick

Gaufrettes, unique as they are, can't count as chips rather than fries (crisps rather than chips, if you will) because their texture is still soft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Citation needed

Re Citation needed for the name: "pommes de terre frites".

Here is a citation from a French-language website of a grocery chain that serves the Province of Quebec. http://www.metro.ca/conseil-expert/jardinier/panier-legumes/legumes-tubercules/pomme-terre.fr.html

There are also restaurant menus online that use the name. Googling "pommes de terre frites" quebec finds some of these.

I think "aiguillettes" (as a name for very small fries) is more in need of a citation. Perhaps allumettes (matchsticks) is what was meant. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The name "pommes de terre frites" [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pommes+de+terre+frites%22&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1830&tbm=bks has been around for a long time, not just in Quebec; "pommes frites" is a shortened version. --Macrakis (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Spiral fries

I have placed the 2 sections referring to spirally-cut chips here, & removed the 'unique' references in each sub-section. After all, a spiral is a spiral, whether it's a spring or a tornado :) Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are we calling them spiral fries? The shape is not a spiral. It is a helix. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While a "spiral" and a "helix" are distinct as technical terms, a helix is sometimes described as a spiral in non-technical usage. Wikipedia is a good place to find answers to every pedant's questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.91 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They are already called 'spirally-cut'. Read the sub-sections concerned, I followed current usage. Anyway, they may not be helical in shape after frying. Don't have a go mate, I'm just trying to copy-edit this mess of an article, not start an(other) edit war :) Archolman User talk:Archolman 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking a question is not edit warring. It's a serious question. Exactly who calls them spiral cut? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, If I seem sensitive about edit-warring, it's because the history of this page is full of them! Now, they're NOT already called 'spirally-cut', my bad, but I was using this, 'cut using a specialized spiral slicer' as my precedent. It makes sense to me to group them by shape. Have I committed the error of 'original research' by doing this? Should they be grouped together? Would 'spirally-cut' or'-shaped' be a better heading? As mentioned by 72.94.61.91, 'spiral' is the common, or non-technical, usage, which seemed appropriate for grouping them. Archolman User talk:Archolman 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

frenched fries

French fries have nothing to do with France, it's pronounced frenched fries, frenched being a way of slicing something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.200.159 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While that etymology is correct, they are decidedly NOT called "frenched fries", as accurate as that may be. We (Americans) call them french fries. —tooki (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"The potato did not arrive in the (Meuse valley, Belgium) region until around 1735"?

We know for a fact (see the potato article) that the potato arrived in Antwerp in 1567, why would the short distance to the Meuse valley take 168 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Björn Felten (talk • contribs) 12:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification Requests

The sentence "McDonald's donates $x to Hindu and other groups" is a little confusing. It took me a minute to figure out that "Hindu" was meant to modify "groups." Can anyone think of a less awkward way to word that? Secondly, the last picture is captioned "Fries frying oil" which makes little grammatical sense without the word "in" or even making the word "fries" possessive. SchwarzeWitwe2 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tornado fries were NOT created in 2001 by south Korea.

<Tornado fries were created in South Korea around 2001 and introduced to North America in 2005.>

In actuality, I've seen those in fairs for the past 20 years in Ohio.

Wheller007 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So fix it. — tooki (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looking for sources, this one is the best I could find. We should leave out the origin entirely for now until some reliable sources are found. All we know for sure (and can source) is that they exist.TMCk (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking further I found this article which has very useful links to reliable sources. According to those sources, the basic idea of "tornado fries" came in fact from South Korea but was not widely adopted (in the US) until more recently.TMCk (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thicknesses and other characteristics

It would be very useful to provide thickness ranges for all the types of fries. As is, I am have a hard time correlating the French versions for which thicknesses are provided (though not in a consistent format) to the American versions. For example, are shoestring potatoes equivalent to "pommes allumettes (matchstick potatoes), ±7 mm" or "pommes paille (potato straws), 3–4 mm"? Perhaps the thicknesses, cut shape, and once / twice fried for each type of fries could be presented in a table. (Some of the existing data points may need to be corrected. For example, the article states that the "two-bath technique" is standard for fries in France, but a "Shoe String Potatoes (Pommes Pailles)" recipe published in the March 2008 edition of Gourmet magazine states "Unlike thick-cut fries, which are traditionally fried twice (first to cook them through and then to crisp them), shoestrings are fried only once.". Note that this recipe sets the shoestring potato thickness to 1/8" - which corresponds to the 3-4 mm thickness for pommes paille stated in this Wikipedia article.) It would also be useful to move the references to the types of fries in each country into one section. As is, that information is spread across the 'Culinary Origin', 'Spreading Popularity', and 'Variants' sections.Penelope Gordon (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

the Netherlands

The name Fritkot or Frietkot is not used in the Netherlands. The most common words are cafetaria, frietzaak or friettent (South) or patatzaak (North and middle of the Netherlands). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.157.241 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Though commonly you say you go out for fries, and don't name the place explicitely. Cafetaria is a more recent, deliberately introduced term, introduced in the late eighties by places that wanted to stress their differentiated nature more, to reflect that they also sell other food types (usually of the fastfood type, think Kebab or nasi/bami here), and that there is room to sit (like in a Cafe). However it has become common nowadays. 88.159.71.34 (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fries are only refered to as "French" in the McDonalds style or similarly thinly cut fries. Very coarsely cut fries are referred to as Flemish, and the rest is just fries(friet). (South of NL). People rarely say patat here. 88.159.71.34 (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we split the article into two articles called French Fries and Chips

It is a bit daft to lump chips in with fries as they are completely different things. It is somewhat offensive to lump them in with the American dish it would be far more appropriate for them to have their own article82.41.107.134 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds crazy to me. This article covers styles of the dish from across the world, and the British (if you can even call it that) variant is not very different from many of the worldwide styles. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's neither offensive or daft because they are essentially the same, that is, a stick of potato that is deep-fried twice. This has been discussed before, with the same outcome, in that we can't agree on a neutral title for the article. I know how I like my chips, & North Americans know how they like their fries. :) Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Variants

In the French paragraph, this sentence occurs:

"Pommes gaufrettes" or "waffle fries" are not typical French fried potatoes, but actually crisps obtained by quarter turning the potato before each next slide over a grater and deep-frying just once.

Can someone make any more sense of it? As it stands, it makes little sense. (Tilde key broke)

Waffle fries look like this. They seem to be made using a crinkle cutter, turning the potato 90° about the axis perpendicular to the cutting plane between each cut. Ian01 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Flemish Fries

French fries aren't called Flemish fries at all in belgium. It is somewhat special that English needs an adjective, "French", before the "fries". It would be weird for a country (Belgium/Flanders) to constantly add "Flemish", an adjective referring to themselves, before the "fries". Could someone please remove the section that states this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.32.50 (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you reread the article, you will see that it is about people in the (south of the) Netherlands calling them "Vlaamse frieten", and not about people in Flanders calling them that way. - Takeaway (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I recommend that “french fries” be spelled with “french” lowercased. They have lost their connection with France sufficiently.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured

Why is this former Featured Article candidate only a Start-class article for WikiProject Belgium? If it's a former Featured Article candidate, shouldn't it nonetheless be a Good Article?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Good Article process is a formal one that requires a nomination. Just looking at this article I can tell it would fail that. It isn't start class though, so I've upgraded it to B because it doesn't seem to be lacking much. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

chips/fries, ending the debate

I think there is only one way to solve it, who invented the chip/fries and what did they call their new food? French fries is wrong for every time of chip apart from French fires (as in thin chips), perhaps fried potato might be neutral ground? (Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Nobody knows for sure who invented it, and chances are they didn't speak English (not that this is how page names are determined either). Fried potato is also too vague; Hash browns and Rösti shouldn't be on this page. 'French fries' is not wrong for anything in this page in American or Canadian English. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The potato originated from South America and was introduced into Europe by the Spanish in the 16th century. However the Spanish never fried their potatoes. The potato then became a staple diet amongst the people living in modern day Netherlands, Belgium and Northern France. So the origin of the Fried potato is from one of these countries or maybe from all three of these countries. --BrianJ34 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fries

French fries? Is this serious? Most people understand 'french fries', but 'fries' is actually used globally. At-least here in Britain, nobody says 'french fries' whereas 'fries' is used often to refer to thin chips. I know that when you go to some restaurants, it will say 'fries or chips', basically saying 'thick fries or thin fries', but 'french fries or chips' is never used from my experience. From what I can tell, 'fries' is internationally used, whereas 'french fries' is not, and as per Wikipedia policy, this should be moved to Fries or Fries (food). Rob (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be renamed to Fries (food) (for the American variety) and Chips (food) (for the British variety), and a separate article for the McDonalds variety can be created under the name 'French' fries. I personally would not mind if it was redirected to Belgian Fries because that is where the original variety existed. Note that the article on Freedom fries already exists. --BrianJ34 (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to splitting this article into multiple based on the exact width of potato. I'd like to further add that 'Belgian Fries' is a neologism and Freedom fries is an article about the name and associated controversy. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Oreo Priest. The article should not be split by the size or nationality or type of restaurant. The whole range of fried potatoes from straw potatoes to steak fries should be covered in this one article. As for the name "Belgian fries", not only is it a neologism, but Wikipedia policy says that we should use the name in common use, not some other name based on historical origins, etc. Anyway, Jo Gérard's story is cute, but unsubstantiated and inherently implausible (as the article points out). --Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the article should not be split. Most restaurants list French Fries on their menus, even most fast food establishments. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thread:Name Controversy

This section is completely unnecessary and should be reverted. Reason? It..."is just silly". ```Buster Seven Talk 18:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed it. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

---

French fries → ? – So, I think this page should be located at either French fry (see WP:PLURAL for explanation of our preference for singular titles) or fries (see WP:CONCISE), both of which are unambiguous enough to redirect here. (Obviously fry is too ambiguous of a title.) I leave it up to you to decide whether to keep the article here, move it to fries in service of conciseness, or French fry in service of avoiding plural titles. Thanks for your time. Red Slash 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Use Fries ; WP:IAR, because we're going to ignore plural. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose by WP:COMMONNAME. The plural form is the most common and most easily recognized. jmcw (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to Fries; unfortunately that title is ambiguous with the contents of Fries (surname) and various topics relating to Friesland. I am neutral on the issue of singular versus plural forms, apart from noting that one does not normally encounter entirely singular examples of this food. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the singular per WP:IAR/WP:COMMONNAME/POLA. Oppose fries per WP:NCDAB #1 (use natural disambiguators). —  AjaxSmack  04:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much better as is. Unambiguous and common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per jmcw, Necrothesp. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IAR/WP:COMMONNAME/POLA. Kaldari (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

french fries/ chips

OK Reading this page as part of my project (producing a new set of culinary dictionaries in 9 languages) I do not understand why you all find it so hard to make the distinction between chips, french fries etc.Firstly a chip as known from the UK is a hand cut variable sized long piece of potato that is fried (Known in France as pont neuf). French fries on the other hand are all types of thin potato strips whether they are hand cut or machine made. These french fries have different names according to their length and thickness,Shoestring, Matchstick, Straw potatoes etc. It is wrong to say that the ones you get in McDonalds are chips they are not, they are not hand cut and they all of the same size. The other styles of potato cuts all have names, wedges, quarters, Parmentier etc (to date some 51 styles). Also if you really want to get involved, what about banana chips,, camote chips, these are round cooked chips but nowhere will you find them called banana frites, or camote frites not even in France. Hope this helps.In the UK, all chips are called chips, although french fries is often understood to mean the thin ones you get at McDonald's, they are still correctly called chips. The fat ones are sometimes called 'game chips' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.10.21 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Beeton refers to game-chips, but they are what we now know, in the UK, as "crisps", i.e. deep-fried very thin slices of whole or peeled potato. Archolman 22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes heard the term "French fried potatoes" used in Britain to refer to sauté potatoes, i.e. potatoes that have been peeled, parboiled, allowed to cool, sliced thinly, and (possibly after being set aside for later) shallow fried; that allows potatoes to be fried in a simpler way, e.g. along with other ingredients as part of a fried English breakfast instead of fried bread (with all the earlier stages being done the day before). If there is any separate evidence for this use of the term, perhaps it could be mentioned in this article and a sauté potato article could be set up as a redirect to this one. PMLawrence (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

France/Belgium origins

Starting discussion per recent edits and to stop edit warring. There is currently a source saying both countries claim to be the creators of French fries. More on the debate can be added, but we must report on the debate itself, not choose sides. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again: French claim: 1789. Belgian claim: 17th century. That's clear. Moreover: Fries are not the national dish of France and even French consider fries a Belgian thing. --Wester (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The source for the earlier Belgian claim (for fries in particular) does not seem to be available. So it's shaky. A reference exists in France from 1775 : Causes célebres curieuses et interessantes, de toutes les cours ..., Volume 5, p41 ("a few pieces of fried potato") and P. 159 ("fried potatoes").

edited by Nicolas-Toussaint Le Moyne Des Essarts http://books.google.com/books?id=DhMEi6nMuRAC&dq=pomme%20frites&pg=RA1-PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false

Coffee is one of the national drinks of France; that in no way proves it originated there, any more than tea originated in England. Foods cross borders and take on different importance in different places. This said, I don't know that anyone can really make a final statement on this particular question, not least because the northern part of France and neighboring parts of Belgium share a great deal of culture. But I don't see any Google Books reference to early French fries in Belgium. 69.228.32.21 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)