Former good articleFrench fries was one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 10, 2018Good article nomineeListed
November 23, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chips and fries[edit]

It is simply wrong to include the British "chip" in an article about "french fries". French fries are by definition thin, and as such french fries are a subset of the chip, and not the other way around - ie a thick cut chip can not be called a "french fry", but a french fry can be called a "think chip". As such to include chips in a discussion of french fries is to show a clear misunderstanding of the chip, and a bias for US english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamspandex (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Chips are not a type of french fry, they are chips. Foreigners don't get to decide the etymology of British food stuffs Marlarkey (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction, certainly in the minds of Brits as I've said on this page before, but sources either don't make that distinction clear enough, or don't make it at all, to justify a separate page. Find some good quality sources on this and then we can talk. Without sources, there is nothing that can be done. SpinningSpark 13:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "French fries are by definition thin", that may be UK usage, but in US usage, French fries includes all sizes, from shoestrings (the fast food format) to steak fries (which can be very thick). --Macrakis (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there are three items "crisps" (US "chips") which are fried *slices* of potatoes and *not* "chips" potatoes; chips (UK name for fried chipped potatoes) and then fries, for the thin cut potato. Really, "Chip" should have it's own item, "French fry" should have it's own item, and "crisps or potato chip" it's own item. In the UK call chips "chips" and not "potato chips", since the "potato" is implicit. For clarification, in France the "french fry" is "pommesfritte", also in Germany, where it is frequently referred to as "pommes". This is the most usual. These translate as "fried potato". It is unfortunate that that in the US they use the name "chip" for something that is not actually made from chips, but from sliced. A little like calling petrol, "gas" when it is not actually a "gas" but a liquid (yes I know it is short for gasoline, and I realise it is somewhat off topic, but is nevertheless an example of US english using words for things which are not actually correct descriptions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamspandex (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that UK crisps/US potato chips are different from UK chips/US french fries. But French-fried potatoes (pommes frites) are a single grouping, with a variety of thicknesses: very thin (pommes paille), thin (pommes allumettes, similar to fast-food fries), or thick (pomme Pont Neuf or bûches, similar to UK chips and US steak fries). --Macrakis (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction when I got linked to 'french' fries, from 'chips', as an ozzie it pains when Wikipedia 'English' seems to be hijacked as American (no offense). I imagine this has cropped up in many similar situations, surely there is a way to reflect non-americanist articles? Perhaps the topic should be 'Fried Potatoes' with 'French Fries' as a section. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British "chips" = American "French fries". It's not that complicated. In British English "French fries" might be a subset of "chips", but everything Brits call "chips" are "French fries" to Americans. This is simply an example of WP:ENGVAR. And since this subject does not have a strong national affiliation, we use the title it was first given (French fries). Which, by the way, is also why the article should be written using American English, contrary to the argument made above. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"British "chips" = American "French fries". It's not that complicated." No, it's not. You're simply wrong. Obvious 'French fries' are sometimes sold as 'chips' in UK fast food outlets - kebab, burger, chicken sort of places but 'chips' are most commonly associated with fish and chip SHOPS - the vendors not the dish. Just about everywhere else (including British McDonalds) restaurants, pubs etc sell 'fries' NOT 'French fries, the latter is an expression rarely heard in the UK.
There is simply no comparison between a 'chip'(as from a British chip shop or British fish and chip shop) and a 'French fry'. The former is soggy and pulpy, the latter, crisp. The former is a pale yellow-white colour, the fry is dark yellow-brown. The chip is oily, the fry rarely so. Traditionally, the chips are splashed with a synthetic malt vinegar and heavily seasoned with fine salt and then sold over the counter wrapped in heavy paper. This food is not, I can attest from personal experience, much liked by Americans, who know only the French fry.
Us Brits clearly understand the difference between chips and (French) fries - as well as the fact that both may be encountered in popular British cuisine. The chip is an important part of British culture and it certainly isn't the place of Americans to lecture us about that. In fact, it's offensive and insulting.86.132.255.75 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about Canadian? Best of both Englishes, or whatever the plural for English is. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is for every article using North American English (both American and Canadian), there are about five articles using British English. Maybe that should be added to Wikipedia is fascist, but that essay doesn't exist. So one of the North American Englishes should be used, just to even things out. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 04:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has no relevance whatsoever to this particular article. Ponsonby100 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said at the end that the North American Englishes should be used in this article. The use of British English has clearly confused people, and American or Canadian English should be employed. Hell, I'm just going to switch to Canadian. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

french fries[edit]

who was the first person to made french fries 2601:601:8302:7AA0:4898:6D12:9337:2425 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Origin. Zefr (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name "French Fries" is Biased. Change Page name to "Fries (Food)"[edit]

The term "French Fries" is mainly an American name for finger-shaped, fried potatoes. American hamburger chains erroneously popularized the name "french fries" in the US. There is no definitive confirmation that these were invented in France at all. There is an earlier claim which is Professor Paul Ilegems stated that Saint Teresa of Ávila of Spain cooked the first fries, and refers also to the tradition of frying in Mediterranean cuisine as evidence. The name "French Fries" is biased and misleading. This page should be renamed to "Fries (food)" to make it neutral. -Artanisen (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on article titles is to use recognizable, natural, precise, concise, consistent names. Many titles including countries' names do not describe things originating in that country: Chinese checkers (invented in Germany), French toast (pan-European), Russian dressing (US). --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa of Ávila[edit]

@Artanisen: -- you are right, the web site Focus on Belgium is not just a travel promotion site. It is published by the Public Diplomacy Service and also promotes Belgian culture in general. Public diplomacy is basically public relations for countries. Just because it is a branch of the Belgian government does not make it a WP:Reliable source for much of anything, and certainly not culinary history. The article itself is unsigned, has no source references, and confuses "baking" with "frying" (no doubt a bad translation).

We already include Ilegems' claim about Teresa, which should be enough. And although there is evidence that potatoes were grown in her convent, they were surely not white potatoes but sweet potatoes ("Las patatas del siglo de oro"), and there is no evidence that they were fried. All that Teresa said was "La suya recibí, y con ella las patatas y el pipote y siete limones." Nothing about frying. --Macrakis (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis:, Focus on Belgium is an official website of the Belgian government, specifically the Public Diplomacy Service of the Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. Thus it is a reliable source including for culinary information. You're dismissing an official website of the Belgian government, because you don't like the information. However, the Belgian government surely doesn't spread false information about their own culinary history. The About Us page says "Focus on Belgium is a website designed to present Belgium. On it, visitors will find precise and factual information about various fields (geography, history, institutions, etc.). The website also presents a series of news articles, providing reliable and verifiable information from independent and recognised sources." -Artanisen (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a public diplomacy (i.e. promotional) site tells us nothing, especially when the article is unsigned, unsourced, and contradicts better sources (Caius Apicius = Cristino Álvarez). Oh, and it is not an "official" site in the sense of reflecting the official position of the ministry: "The FPS Foreign Affairs cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information distributed via its site" [1]. --Macrakis (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024[edit]

The "Global Use" section mentions how fries are being called and sold in the different countries and languages. It says about Belgium:

In Belgium, fries are sold in shops called friteries (French), frietkot/frituur (Belgian French), snackbar (Dutch in The Netherlands)

"frietkot/frituur" is Belgian Dutch, or Flemish, not Belgian French. So it should say:

In Belgium, fries are sold in shops called friteries (French), frietkot/frituur (Belgian Dutch), snackbar (Dutch in The Netherlands)

PhoeniX1860 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I have researched this and can confirm you are correct. However, I've changed it to Flemish instead for consistency with the other text in the paragraph. ― novov (t c) 08:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories