Talk:French fries/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Chips v French Fries

Chips in Australia are never French Fries. However French Fries can be considered to be a type of Chips not the other way around. Why isn't the article called Chips and have French Fries as a sub category. It seems the disambiguation (and the redirect to French Fries) puts a USA-centric focus on this.

BTW - In Australia most people know packet Chips can also be called Crisps. Sometimes if there is confusion the other Chips are callled hot Chips and packet Chips are called crisps. A famous brand of Chips is Smith's Crisps. Ozdaren 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, we sometimes use the word chips in the same way that one does in Britain--to describe the fatter fried potatoes such as in fish and chips. Under the entry for chip in CanOx2, definition 2 is for potato chip or similar food, where definition 4 says Canadian & British = french fry. If you were to order chips in a pub or non-fastfood restaurant, no one would be confused. To muddle things even further we also say (in conversation, not on menus) frites -- pronounced frits or freet or frit. Here in Ottawa we have a multitude of trucks out of which they sell poutine and chips and though I've heard some people say "french fry truck", the more common term is "frites truck" (pronounced frit-truck). I don't know if someone wants to do some more research, but I guess my point is that, as usual Canadian English is a nice mash of American, British, and French influences.Ibis3 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 2006-09-20T21:30:58 by anonymous 198.178.234.30 removed 'except Newfoundland' from the French fries 'Usage' section. Perhaps that's correct: the Newfoundland exception is indeed unsourced and the anonymous user 207.81.178.160 who had introduced that in the first place, has no other Wikipedia contributions. In case the introduction were not simple vandalism and someone can come up with a good reason (that is: a proper source) to reinsert the exception, then please do so. — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 12:37 (UTC)

Several users have been complaining about or modifying the article with respect to a supposed difference between French fries and chips. Though local styles may have notable differences, the Collins Dictionary of the English Language (Collins, London & Glasgow) [First published 1979, Reprinted 1979, 1980 (twice) - Manufactured in the United States of America by Rand McNally & Company for William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. PO Box, Glasgow G4 0NB] has the entry: "French fried potatoes  pl. n. a more formal name for chips. Also called (U.S.): French fries." – I guess that settles it. The present opening sentence makes the difference between the particular less formal names in different parts of the world, immediately followed by different usage of both. It would be quite wrong to have a separate article on 'chips' as some suggested elsewhere. — SomeHuman 8 Dec2006 15:46-16:22 (UTC)
Accordingly, the title of the article, which still stood as 'French fries', was moved to the country-neutral, more formal and thus more encyclopaedic name 'French fried potatoes' (and redirects were set to this new name, as well as a few new redirects added: 'French-fried potato' [singular of existing], 'British chip' [small initial character for chips unlike existing 'British Chips'] and 'Frites' [by some seen as an 'international' name]) — SomeHuman 8 Dec2006 17:07 (UTC)
More on UK/US usage and separating or renaming the article is found on this talk page's sections UK wording, Name Change and 'The opening statement and other bits' — SomeHuman 8 Dec2006 19:34 (UTC)

It's chips you American wankers. Or perhaps you don't know what that means because it's not used in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.6.165 (talk)

If we MUST have one article to cover proper chips and french fries, wouldn't "french fried potatoes" be the most neutral POV here? That way the article title covers the whole genre (by stating the technique of cooking chips/french fries), rather than tending towards the pieces of deep-fried corn paste one can buy in McDonald's burger bars. It's the least clunky and easiest option, when looking against other possibilities such as "deep-fried potato strips". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who decided it didn't mean "French cut"?

As a chef, I have some very old books talking about French-cut green beans, French-cut potatoes, etc. When in school, I saw some VERY old books with the same terminology, way back to the middle ages... where did the line come from about it being to "fry in the French way"? That seems really...odd. — 68.71.196.88 25 Jun2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Dates do not match. — Hopiakuta 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, from what I have always read, and seen, french cut refers to an item (usually) vegetable which is cut in narrow and long pieces. I think french cut is the same as julienne cut, which would explain the french word. Of course, I am no expert. — ABart26 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Potatoes are vegetables, thus could well be French cut, frenched. But if one would fry frenched, or French-cut, potatoes – one would say "fried frenched potatoes" or perhaps shorten "fried French cut potatoes" to "fried French potatoes", and find such terms or sentences like "French potatoes fried in oil" before things became faultily "French fried potatoes". Since there seem not to have been such older statements, the term will most likely have another origin.
By the way, the article gives World War I as a time at which English speakers might have got to learn about the topic; in Belgium one does not generally refer to the War, it is assumed that the Belgian style of preparing potatoes became known in culturally and especially gastronomically related and geographically neighbouring France well before the overseas English or Americans learnt about it, but since far more speakers of English went to France than to little Belgium they simply had assumed it to be French. This can have been at any time, also before Belgium's independance from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, even whilst it was under Napoleontic Law and Government and thus actually French. — SomeHuman 8 Dec2006 12:01-12:22 (UTC)

"History" and "Origins" sections highly redundant

Should be combined into one section and much duplicated content pruned. Hi There 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Belgian consumers of frites

One cannot produce 'proof' of who are the biggest consumers of french fries as one might for potatoes. Statistics show agriculture growth, import and export figures – possibly of potatoes. One cannot check every household on how they cut their potatoes. But besides it being a most popular part of common dishes in Belgian restaurants, and for most households at least a weekly dish prepared at home, the article itself gives another good clue: the friteries found in every village, usually people are queuing for their portion. And they do not just open at dinner time but are often the place one can still find real food at nightly hours when bars closed their snack kitchens. Also, Belgians often have to order a double portion in many countries where the fries are found, or feel dismayed. The Dutch know what a proper ration is and they're likely to come second. Anyway, does any people from another country claim on average to eat more french fries? SomeHuman 2006-08-13 01:38 (UTC)

Considering there are more restaurants in America that sell fries than there are people in belgium, this is most certainly an opinion. — User:71.103.128.76 7 Sep2006 06:22 (UTC) (was unsigned, undated)

I was not aware that anyone was of the opinion that the whole of Belgium's population consumes a larger bulk of fries than the continent you mentioned. The statement is simply that in a typical lifetime the average Belgian eats a larger quantity of fries than the average consumer of any other country does. — SomeHuman 7 Sep2006 16:36 (UTC)

I think you can safely assume Belgians eat the most french fries. Going abroad I regularly have to order one or two extra portions. And my American relatives even thought it was impossible to eat a large portion (from a frietkot) without getting sick. Ofcourse we proved them wrong. The only problem I see is this is almost impossible to verify. Maraud 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Poisonous compounds

I took down the 'citation needed' flag about oil or fat at a too high temperature breaking down into rather poisonous compounds: I'm not a chemist, but it is common knowledge in Belgium (where everyone fries french fries at home) that the oil must not exceed its limit temperature, which is always indicated on the bottle or cannister. There are rules regarding this aspect for professional french fries stands. This deterioration of oil occurs also at temperatures below its limit, but far slower. Nevertheless, for the quantities of potato and oil used at home, after 8 to 12 batches the oil must be replaced precisely for its cancerinogene effect that then rapidly builds up. (The oil is disposed of seperately, certainly not to be washed down the drain - but that's not because it's so terribly poisonous of course. But one does not pour 5 Euro of oil back in the bottle, clean the kettle, and keep the greasy bottle till next month's special collection just for fun!) One source I off-handedly remember, is the consumers' magazine 'Test Aankoop' (Dutch) www.testaankoop.be or its French language counterpart 'Test Achat' but it may be too old to still find the article in non-member space on their web site. — SomeHuman 29 Aug2006 23:07 (UTC)

deleted

I deleted the health aspectts because one there is no evidence to suport claim. And second the person does not present both sides. Baking French Fries can or may lower down the fat. Frying food at high temratures seals the food and prevents oil from seaping through into the food.

anonymous and unsigned comment above: Potatoes are no meats, thus no sealing and oil soaks in. Ample evidence with extra sources, section reinserted. — SomeHuman 14 Sep2006 19:18 (UTC)

Oil

In what kind of oil are french fries commonly fried? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, read the article... — SomeHuman 7 Oct2006 02:58 (UTC)

I did. Much information regards Belgian french fries. I'm still a little bit confused about what's used in America. From the article, I suppose it's nut oil, such as peanut oil, but I have heard rumours that "beef lard" is used. If you can speak to this, I would appreciate it, because the article is confusing me. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 09:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply have no idea what Americans in general use, or Chinese for that matter... But the 'Health aspects' section mentions McDonalds and an alternative use of palm oil. Fat or an oil that withstands high temperatures rather well, can be used: peanut or groundnut oil (in Flanders wellknown as 'arachide' oil after the plant's Latin name Arachis [hypogaea] though the nut itself is called 'pinda', 'aardnoot', 'olienoot' [oil nut] or 'apennoot' [monkey nut]), or at a slightly less high temperature also (at least some) corn oil or sunflower oil. I am unaware of palm oil's characteristics but I've heard about it in Belgium as well, though I do not think it to be commonly used pure. Mixtures of oils can aim to combine a healthier composition by more unsaturated fats with a relatively good resistance to high temperatures and/or a reasonable price. I do not know whether such 'frituurolie' (frying oil) is readily available at American groceries, supermarkets, etc, as is by several brands on a shelf common in Belgium. — SomeHuman 7 Oct2006 13:41 (UTC)

Thanks! - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Chips (it's CHIPS not french sodding fries) used to be cooked in Beef fat in British chip shops until (roughly) the early 80s, until greater health-consciousness forced a switch to vegetable oils - althopugh they probably still use beef fat oop North. Totnesmartin 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganised

Today I took a shot at the article... as stated above, the history and origin section were quite overlapping, so I attempted to merge them. I looked up some references and mainly tried to sort out the "origin"-enigma. Please comment and improve further, thanks, a Belgian.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

American Imperialism ?

Why is the chip a sub-section of an article called French fries! for shame! I spit on zee dirty french fry! --Charlesknight 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

more seriously the cultural aspects of the British chip and it's place in our culture should have an article of it's own - not the shameful treatment we see here. --Charlesknight 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Chips in British Culture - reminds me of Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda. Totnesmartin 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the damage was done really when American chain restaurants branded and exported the American term instead of using local terms. I'm surprised it isn't copyrighted :/ Reminds me of Turkish delight, which the Greeks get cross about. However, the article could easily be 'chipped potatoes' as a generic. Hakluyt bean 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening statement and other bits

French fried potatoes, commonly known as French fries or fries (North America) or chips (United Kingdom and Commonwealth) are long, narrow pieces of potato that have been deep fried.

This makes no sense for a number of reasons -

1) A chip is never a french fry so it's incorrect to state that french fries are known as chips in the UK. French Fries are known as french fries, chips are known as chips. I know that someone tries to explain the difference later in the article but that statement as present makes no sense to British readers.

2) Chips are not long, narrow piece of potato.

Later

French fries are often the standard accompaniment to other foods: 

   * In the United Kingdom, fried fish: fish and chips.

This again conflated two separate things - French fries would never be served with fried fish as outlined in the first statement (which again someone tries to explain later with a qualification).

I notice a number of British editors have made similar points all down this talk page.

--Charlesknight 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what the difference is between a French fry and a chip, instead of just saying that they are not the same? You say what a chip isn't, but don't explain what it is, and how it differs from a French fry. Please bear in mind that French fries come in many sizes, from shoestring fries to steak fries. I would take "narrow" in the definition to mean that it is substantially narrower than the whole potato it came from. -- Coneslayer 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Less that about 1cm in width would be a fry and then chips would be about 1.5cm and above (and are generally a lot shorter than fries). So when a brit reads this and it says that long and narrow, he thinks french fries, because chips are short and fat, so to readers on this side of the poad, our worldview means that sentence reads as nonsense to us. I'd explain further but it will have to wait as I'm off to the pub --Charlesknight 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Anything that is roughly rectangular in cross section and narrower than the whole potato is a french fry (in American English) as well as a chip (in British English). The kind of fries/chips one gets at a fast-food restaurant together with hamburgers or other hand-held foods are typically thinner than fries/chips that one typically gets served on a plate with a "real" dish, but that is orthogonal to the word used and the kind of English spoken in the eatery that serves them. The two variants are not equally popular in the UK versus US, but again this has nothing to do with the names. Go to any McDonalds or Burger King in the UK and order a hamburger with "chips" and you will get the thing you insist can only be named "french fries". Conversely, go to a U.S. diner and order a steak with "fries" and a side salad, and you will receive the thing you insist can only be named "chips". Indeed, if at the American diner you order "chips" with your steak you're going to end up with potato crisps instead. Henning Makholm 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "long and narrow" in the header to "batons" to accomodate short and stumpy chips. In Britain, short fat soggy vinegary chips would not be referred as "fries", and thin sticks they served with ketchup at a British McDonald's would not be referred to as "chips". I can see why many British editors would object to their "chips" culture being described as french fries, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an umbrella term covering both types of food which would be acceptable to all. If anyone wants to write an article specifically for the British chips I would more than welcome it, or perhaps an alternative would be to re-name the article "French Fries / Chips" or something.Phonemonkey 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Phonemonkey, I am British and all my life I have referred to the things in McDonald's as "chips". They're ALL chips, plain and simple.. whether they're the thick kind you get in a fish 'n' chip shop, or the thin kind you get in fast food restaurants. To call them "French Fries" is to use American English. It's really rather simple :) EuroSong talk 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken Eurosong. I was judging from comments from some British editors above, and my personal observation that thin fries in fast food restaurants are described as "fries" on the actual menu, this being an example (along with some tasty looking food photos!). I guess it's just a matter of personal habit. My suggestions for either a seperate article, or for a renaming of this article still stand. Phonemonkey 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the article be moved to "Deep-fried potato rods". This is a region-neutral term that I think will be acceptable to all. - LeonWhite 03:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia entries are supposed to be words, terms ; not descriptions. The opening sentence clearly states which term is most common in which area and the next sentences elaborate on the particular differences. British chips have no other origin than French fries, and are basically cooked in a same way; their for British fastfood lovers popular more than average thickness is often spoken about (or as I saw in Kanchanaburi, Thailand at a Brit's shop, put on a signboard) as 'real chips' but this does not make thinner variants 'no chips'. — SomeHuman 28 Nov2006 02:15 (UTC)

Joël Robuchon

Is there any evidence that this chef did in fact 'invent' a cooking method that differs from the first cooking method only in that his involves cooking at "high heat" and the first involves a specific temperature? I think it's safe to say that plenty of people discovered that they could cook potatoes in oil heated over "high heat" in their own homes long before Robuchon 'invented' the method. I don't think that section is significant enough to be included at all, at minimum a source should be referenced explaining how Robuchon popularized a specific method. — 70.244.219.134 2 Dec2006 20:36 (UTC)
was neither  signed nor dated, and section was created at top of the page; moved to bottom 2 Dec2006)

The method is attributed to Robuchon in Jeffrey Steingarten's The Man Who Ate Everything. I don't think it says he invented the process, but it is an unusual process, and the book claims that it is his home recipe. The unusual part isn't "high heat." The unusual part is putting the fries in cold oil, which is then subjected to high heat. I am not an expert, but do a fair bit of cooking and cookbook reading, and I don't think I've ever seen another recipe that calls for adding the substance to be fried to cold oil. Every other frying recipe I've seen calls for the oil to be at some high temperature before the food is added. -- Coneslayer 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice reference! In case you have access to the book, and it might clarify how Robuchon actually intended this: "a saucepan with just enough cold oil in it to cover the potatoes", does that mean pouring a mass of oil over potatoes till these are just under the oil level (deep fried potatoes though starting with cold oil), or perhaps simply putting just enough oil in the pan so as to allow the potatoes when stirred to obtain a thin film of oil (ordinarily fried potatoes though starting with cold oil)? Would the French chef have meant a saucepan (which is the English word for a type of pan hardly suited for making sauces) or perhaps a true saucier (in which deep frying even a small batch would be impossible)? I assume especially the first way might allow the potatoes to suck in oil longer than strictly necessary, causing an extra health hazzard; it does not appear to offer any advantage compared to classical deep frying; does the book mention a reason? Only the stirr fried chips would save time, guarantee fresh oil, and only require a small quantity of oil; and might have seemed worth a try. — SomeHuman 2 Dec2006 22:06-22:33 (UTC)
I believe it means to add the fries to the pot, and fully (just) cover them in oil, not just coat them. I have made the fries by this method with good results. I can see two advantages over regular deep frying:
1) This method gives results comparable to two-stage frying, in which the fries are first "blanched" at a lower (~250 F) temperature to cook the insides, then fried at a high temperature (~375 F) to brown the outside. The two-stage fry is, however, pretty time consuming. Robuchon's home method is faster and less labor intensive. It also does not require monitoring and maintaining the oil temperature.
2) Proper deep frying requires a large volume of oil relative to the food being cooked, so that the preheated oil doesn't cool off too much when the food is added. For the home cook with home-sized pots, this can mean cooking in several batches, and/or using more oil than Robuchon's method. Since home cooks may not re-use the oil until it's "used up", deep frying can be wasteful in the home.
I will admit that I was skeptical, because I had always heard that adding food to cold oil would result in it absorbing the oil and becoming greasy. But I have been happy with the results. -- Coneslayer 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For our environment's sake, I hope households would properly deal with one-batch oil. A chemical analysis may be required to ascertain the amount of absorbed fat, the eye and taste have been shown to be rather deceiving. Nevertheless, quite interesting, thanks. — SomeHuman 3 Dec2006 04:20 (UTC)

Article repeats itself excessively

There's at least three times it states something like the French claim it to be of Belgium orgin; two of them are in the same section only 2 paragraphs apart. Jon 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So be bold and improve it! -- Coneslayer 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Be careful though: I didn't yet verify where the three statements occur, not only some of 'the French' in general and in tempore non suspecto admit this Belgian origin, but also [as this talk page already mentions] the French government stated such as a reaction on the 'freedom fries' matter; these for instance, should not be thrown into a single statement. — SomeHuman 8 Dec2006 19:34 (UTC)

6.1 Euros?

I think the author meant Belgians spend 6.1 million Euros annually on french fries. I'd fix it, but I don't have figures to cite. 172.191.68.178 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_fries/Archive_2&oldid=908482403"