Talk:Fish and chips

Is this picture appropriate for the article? The actual fish and chips is so small that it's hard to see, especially in the thumbnail. The beach and the two guys sitting on it take up most of the space. JIP | Talk 13:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how the woman on the left would feel about the "two guys" description, but that goes to show you that it's hard to tell what's going on in this picture. It's not a good photo, I'd say go ahead and delete or replace it. Also, do we really need to be advertising Gordon Ramsay's restaurant? --IamNotU (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good heavens. Did those poor folks know they were being photographed?! (Is the one on the right Mr Ronay?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the image from the article. JIP | Talk 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

In fairness, a lot of the images in this article are unneeded. How many photos of fish and chips does one need to get the handle on what it is? I support the removal, certainly. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I object to fish being called an immigrant food. We have been eating fish in the UK since the first people came here. Batter has been used here so long its not considered fusion either....No one knows where it came from. Stop with your contrived xenophillic nonsense! The Sephardic jewish story is not confirmed and we were eating battered food before they arrived. Its flour and water! Even an English cook can manage that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmOgy (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article is about "fish battered and fried in oil" and served with potato chips as a single dish. Not about fish in general, or even battered fish in general. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have actually updated this in the lead as it is currently quite misleading to put it that immigrants established it (or to say for certain it came from anywhere else for that matter) and it is disputed between two families - Lees (Manchester) and Malin (London) and I have added sources, but also fried fish and chips existed long before the first shops opened. The first commenter is correct when saying 'No one knows where it came from' in absolute terms. Due to this - asserting that it arrived with immigrants OR that it was purely homogeneous would thus both be incorrect, that is unless cast iron evidence emerges, which is very unlikely. In one of the sources used it even states that 'Who first had the bright idea to marry fish with chips remains the subject of fierce controversy and we will probably never know for sure. It is safe to say it was somewhere in England but arguments rage over whether it was up north or down south. Some credit a northern entrepreneur called John Lees. As early as 1863, it is believed he was selling fish and chips out of a wooden hut at Mossley market in industrial Lancashire. Others claim the first combined fish 'n' chip shop was actually opened by a Jewish immigrant, Joseph Malin, within the sound of Bow Bells in East London around 1860.' Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per the earlier reply above and my recent edit summaries, the article regards fish AND chips. Familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and do not WP:SOCK. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph states that the component ingredients were brought to Britain via immigrants. The fact that most likely Potatoes were brought back by Britons themselves and that Fish are native to Britain dispels that entire idea. Hence why to say Fish and Chips is an immigrant dish based on those factors is false. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are of course correct, but it's rather naive to assume that the other side of this debate is interested in an accurate history of fish and chips. They are interested in portraying as foreign something which is widely (and correctly) perceived as being quintessentially English and/or British.

Yes, potatoes existed in Britain, but finger-shaped chipped potatoes fried in oil are generally considered to have originated in Belgium or France. Similarly, while fish existed, fish coated in batter and fried in oil is considered to have been introduced in London by Jewish immigrants. Please see the article for the numerous cited references. --IamNotU (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Correct. The article is about Fish (from the sea) and chips (from potatoes) two basic things that have been available in the UK since...insert date here. The article lead seems to be able to know exactly ('as its two main ingredients were introduced by immigrants) who first paired this and attributes it to 'immigrants' - even though the sources used to assert this themselves say it is not as clear cut as that, thus the lead is false and not factual. I'm not sure why you are struggling with this? To say it was NOT created by immigrants or that it WAS, is not true at this time unless further evidence prevails, thus you are reverting the article to be incorrect and inaccurate.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also - you are accusing me of WP:SOCK - if you look at my IP, I have nothing to do with the other comments. You are totally incorrect, have zero evidence and should refrain from making stupid assumptions. What is causing you to be triggered in this way to accuse me of something, just because I agree with another user? Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, it does not attribute the pairing to immigrants, it attributes both elements of that pairing to immigrants. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Exactly - and that isn't proven to be true. You are struggling to answer my questions, accuse me of sock-puppetry and cannot seem to understand that the sources are dubious and allude to this fact. Perhaps get your facts right before making these silly assumptions. Thus I have every right to revert the page to be more factual where it states that 'The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, as its two main ingredients were introduced by immigrants' to 'The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, as its two main ingredients may have been introduced by immigrants, but this is disputed.' Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You would need to provide a WP:RS that actively notes this dispute, not your own misrepresentation of sources that say nothing of the kind. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, WP:BRD. Do not war to impose your edits, discuss to attain consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, You don't seem to understand or perhaps I don't understand you, and have already wrongly accused me of sockpuppetry. You mention that 'your own misrepresentation of sources that say nothing of the kind.' I have to wonder if you have even read the attributed sources yourself? You seem to be the disruptive one to me and I'm not sure why you accuse me of strange things and are not actually reading my points? Perhaps we need a third opinion as we might be crossing wires?

Source 1 states (and is included in the opening lead): 'Who first had the bright idea to marry fish with chips remains the subject of fierce controversy and we will probably never know for sure. It is safe to say it was somewhere in England but arguments rage over whether it was up north or down south.'

The key words being 'we will probably never know for sure' ^[1] This renders the opening lead incorrect on it's own. But lets look at some other sources.

Source 2 (that you delete) states: 'The first fish and chip shop in the North of England is thought to have opened in Mossely, near Oldham, Lancashire, around 1863. Mr Lees sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in the market and later he transferred the business to a permanent shop across the road which had the following inscription in the window, “This is the first fish and chip shop in the world”. However in London, it is said that Joseph Malin opened a fish and chip shop in Cleveland Street within the sound of Bow Bells in 1860.'^[2]

The key words here being 'thought to have' and 'is said that' - meaning there is ambiguity around these assertions that should be represented in the opening lead for transparency.

Source 3 states that; 'Fish and chips were first served together as a complete dish around 1860 - the Malin family of London and the Lee's of Mossley, near Manchester both staking claims to be the first.'

The key words here being 'both staking claims to be the first' thus they refrain from deciding who did it first because....(drum roll) - no one knows, thus the opening lead is incorrect. ^[3]

So respectfully I ask, Please do enlighten me - how am I misrepresenting sources? I don't even eat fish (but I do love chips) and I don't care if 'immigrants' (Who HAVE undeniably contributed to what makes this country great in other cuisines etc.) paired the two or not and I don't care if 'non-immigrants' paired it or not - as a member of an 'immigrant' family myself, I just care that wikipedia presents articles fairly and am simply trying to say that; 'we do not know for sure' thus the article opening of 'as its two main ingredients were introduced by immigrants' is incorrect and could be easily corrected by adding 'as its two main ingredients may have been introduced by immigrants, but this is disputed.'Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Glaaaastonbury88, you wrote: it is currently quite misleading to put it that immigrants established it. You seem to be misreading the sentence, which to me is quite clear: it says "its two main ingredients were introduced by immigrants". That means:

1. Chips of potatoes fried in oil were introduced by immigrants from France or Belgium (or wherever).
2. Fish coated in batter and fried in oil was introduced by immigrants from the Netherlands (or Spain, Portugal, or wherever).
3. That is all.

It does not mean:

1. The two ingredients were first combined by immigrants to create the dish "fish and chips".
2. The first fish and chip shop was opened by an immigrant.
3. Anything else.

It says this (first list) makes it an example of culinary fusion. Culinary fusion is the combination of traditional dishes or techniques and ingredients from two or more different regional or ethnic cuisines, to create a novel dish. It doesn't imply that the person creating the fusion is affiliated with either of the constituent cuisines, and it's often the case that they aren't.

You have talked at length regarding a dispute about whether the new dish "fish and chips" was established, or the ingredients first paired, by immigrants or by persons unknown. Your arguments, and the sources you've given, do support the idea that we don't know for certain who did the things in the second list. But there is no actual dispute about this; the sentence does not purport to address that question, but rather the things in the first list only.

Claiming that the sources support a dispute about the first list, rather than the second list, would be a misrepresentation of said sources.

Note that the original comment claimed that battered fried fish on its own was not introduced to the UK by immigrants, but has been popular there since time immemorial, and No one knows where it came from. ... The Sephardic jewish story is not confirmed and we were eating battered food before they arrived. - this is a completely different claim, and I have not seen any sources that support it. --IamNotU (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

IamNotU Ahhhhhh I see! Thank you for taking the time to point this out. It makes more sense now. In that case, I of course concede the point.I would perhaps suggest that to make this clearer to us dunces it should read ' The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, as its two main ingredients were introduced by immigrants and then combined together to be sold in different cities.' Or something like that, I just think it might need to be spelled out in more detail and wrapped up a bit better. As for the latter part of battering fish - I read a blog that it was indeed Jewish settlers who introduced batter to fish, although I would not say this means that it never happened before in the UK - but this is mentioned in the article. Thanks again. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

What about something like this?

Fish and chips is a hot dish consisting of fried fish in batter served with chips. The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, as its two main ingredients were introduced to the United Kingdom by immigrants,^[4][5] though it is not precisely known where or by whom the components were first combined to form the iconic British meal. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the UK and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations.

Does that solve it? (PS, could you look at WP:INDENT? Thanks.) --IamNotU (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wow yes, I think that makes it much clearer and adds to the alluring 'mystery' in a positive and informing way, but also helps to later explain the information better where it 'supposes' upon who first combined it. Ah yes sorry about not indenting. I read the page you suggested and think I have the hang of it now now. Thanks very much. :) Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's even worse, though. The word immigrant shouldn't even be in there. There's literally no evidence to say that immigrants brought Potatoes/Chips to Britain other than conjecture. It's arguably far more likely that Britons themselves brought back Potatoes from abroad. Fish are native to Britain. Frying Fish and making Chips are very much in the scope of possibility for a native origin. I would say likely. So to say it was immigrants, especially Jewish immigrants which seems oddly specific and biased, flies in the face of Occam's Razor when not presented with sufficient evidence to make such claims, at the least. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@IamNotU: thanks for engaging with this user at what should be quite unnecessary lengths, regarding the same unfounded claims about the article that I had countered this morning. Their very long, confused post, which came after my last engagement this morning, starts to convey that it was actually that they really were so obtuse that they were drawing these wholly unwarranted conclusions from the text.

I don't think your added wording is necessary for the lede, think it is more succinct without it, would be interested to hear if there are any objections from others but will hold off from opposing it if it somehow helps stem the periodic attacks on this aspect of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes some of what you said was quite obtuse - like accusing me of being a sockpuppet. All IamNotU did was kindly take some time to explain the text and actually read my posts - that's how he resolved it. You mention that you will 'hold off from opposing it if it somehow helps stem the periodic attacks on this aspect of the article' - you are conceding that there is an issue with the lede then given that there are these dramatic 'periodic attacks' on the article that you mention, thus an update would surely help stop these vicious and nasty attacks from obtuse and confused non-neurotypical editors like myself. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that IamNotU's proposal is an improvement. Accusing other editors of being "obtuse" is rarely a good idea - it usually simply shows that the text needs to be clarified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Obtuse" does not imply that good faith is lacking, as your link would indicate you believe it to.

If I am conceding anything about the lede, it is that the element of immigrant involvement in the subject's origins has attracted the negative attention of those who appear to be offended at such a notion, rather than contesting it on factual grounds. If this change assists in rebutting such, well and good.

I very evidently also read your posts since I pointed out the flaws in their claims from the start. Do not expect every editor to be as patient as IamNotU, particularly if you war as you did. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You also need to take more care about who you are responding to. I haven't commented before in this discussion, so I haven't made any claims, "flawed" or not. And it would be good if you withdrew the claim that I have "warred". Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

For clarity, the responses were to the various statements made by those who made them. I was pointing out to Ghmyrtle that whatever "obtuse" means, it doesn't imply bad faith; clarification rather than backpeddling (Glaaaastonbury88). That was a substantial part of my point, in that, with Glaaaastonbury88's subsequent posts it was clearer that they seemingly genuinely hadn't understood the article and either hadn't read or hadn't understood my responses to their misunderstanding, rather than the bad faith POV-pushing mischaracterisation of the article that I had assumed their editing had been. (The warring/disruptiveness is not so good on the GF front though...)

The comments regarding flawed claims and warring were intended for the editor responsible, ie. Glaaaastonbury88. Apologies to Ghmyrtle if it seemed I was atrributing this to them; I'm well aware of their editing and it would be highly out of character of them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it's worthwhile to mention not only that it's a "common take-away food" in the UK, but to give some indication of its legendary status... but it may be that my suggestion makes the second sentence a bit long. Happy to accept improvements. Let's keep the comments focused on the content and improving the article, ok? --IamNotU (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mutt LunkerYour replies have clearly come from a place of condescension though and now you back peddle on the use of 'Obtuse' - just own it instead. Definition of Obtuse: 'annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.' Similar words linked include 'stupid, dull, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent'. You clearly think I am all of those things and a quick look in the dictionary reveals it's meaning so nice try. And still no apology for accusing me of being a puppet person and you have revealed your own true discrimination's; 'it is that the element of immigrant involvement in the subject's origins has attracted the negative attention of those who appear to be offended at such a notion' - so you admit to thinking there is some kind of conspiracy to changing it because one previous editor (who doesn't seem to exist anymore?) and then myself brought up a link we felt didn't make sense? You also make another daft assumption that some kind of 'taking of offence' took place? I think you actually accused me of being a puppet to try and undermine my answers by pretending my 'attack' was linked to the other editor. You further try to demean me (despite conceding the point after someone bothered to reply to me properly) by assuming I am offended by immigrants - despite my Grandfathers family being of immigrants. Bizarre logic - so nobody in your world is able to criticise things if 'immigrants' are involved by the sound of it. Quite frankly you seem to be a bit of a bully and I won't be replying to you anymore and will now move on - wishing you all the best anyway.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

There have been several other editors, or identities, not just one, targetting this aspect of the text in recent weeks; one on the talk page and at least two four to the article itself. I think historically there has been similar targetting of it, though I have not checked further back. Again, per above, the objections of at least some of these editors appeared to be offence at the text, yours now appears instead to be an understanding of the text other than what was intended, of which it is apparent that IAmNotU successfully disabused you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now on the subject of Fish and chips, I can't really think of any better way of improving the lede better than IamNotU has already suggested, sorry - apart from maybe inserting the word 'traditional' somewhere to allude to it's legendary status?

Fish and chips is a traditional hot dish consisting of fried fish in batter served with chips. The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, as its two main ingredients were introduced to the United Kingdom by immigrants,^[6][5] though it is not precisely known where or by whom the components were first combined to form the iconic British meal. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the UK and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations.

Maybe? I don't mind if not. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not keen on "traditional", especially as there is clear evidence that the pairing was made in the relatively recent historical past, by person or persons unknown. And it's definitely not "legendary". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I thought that because of the 'Fish Friday' tradition that is still adhered to (well judging when I go past the local chippy) today, but not precious about it.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's just a commercial take on old religious traditions - article here - so not directly related to the "..and chips" meal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm late to the conversation, but shouldn't it be "two main components" rather than "two main ingredients" as suggested? Ingredient usually only refers to the "raw materials" (for lack of a better term) that go into the dish; once they are fried they are no longer ingredients. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that fish is something that wasn't eaten in England before immigrants brought it to the country. -- Calidum 17:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes - "components" would be better than "ingredients". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm not sure on 'components' over 'ingredients' - sounds very clinical. Unless that is how say a culinary school would describe them? I am thinking about a dish called 'Bubble & Squeak' which uses up food leftovers from a 'roast dinner'. They simply become ingredients again to remake a new dish so not sure on the rules. But take for example this recipe page - the cooked foods being used as called 'ingredients' again.^[7] Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree that, as they are two distinct elements, themselves composed of ingredients, ingredients is not really a satisfactory term. "Components" would be preferable or, though I have no preference for them, "component parts", "constituent (part)s", "items", "elements". Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm open to other terms, I just don't think ingredients is the right fit. -- Calidum 00:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article says "parts"... "The dish has two parts and the fish came first...." OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

In response to Mutt Lunker's comment about being succint, and the other comments above, I did some work to tighten it up a bit. This isn't much longer than the existing version:

Fish and chips is a hot dish consisting of fried fish in batter, served with chips. It originated in England, where these component foods had been introduced from separate immigrant cuisines. It is not known who first fused them to create the emblematic British meal.^[8][5] Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations.

--IamNotU (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think ingredients is fine', personally...it is the most natural sounding word out of all the alternatives toyed with, and I very sincerely doubt that any reader of this article would not know what 'ingredients' means in this case, nor would such usage implant any wrongful ideas in their heads regarding how the word ought to be used, or what it means...I attribute this getting carried away to you all being in a (justified) state of shell shock in this war-ravaged discussion thread. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

There were a few edits recently that left the sentence in a poor condition, with an incorrect explanation of what "culinary fusion" is - it's not just putting two foods together. Rather than revert to the older version, I went ahead with this, hope it's ok. I just referred to the "two components" because "component foods" sounds awkward to me.

Fish and chips is a hot dish consisting of fried fish in batter, served with chips. The dish originated in England, where these two components had been introduced from separate immigrant cultures; it is not known who created the culinary fusion that became the emblematic British meal.^[9][5] Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations.

--IamNotU (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Originated in England? No, fish and chips originated in the Netherlands. See Lekkerbekje!(Tongue in cheek)

Maybe the article should say something like: "the etymology of the words 'fish' and 'chips' suggests that 'fish and chips' originated in England, although other identical dishes are known throught the world." ;-)

One thing is certain, old world fish and chips did not exist before 1492!Aid1969 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tongue in cheek never sounds that appetising to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found this image in the category "Fish and chips in Mexico" at Commons. Is this really fish and chips? There is certainly fish in the picture, and chips, but the fish don't appear to be battered or deep-fried. Therefore I think this represents "fish" and "chips" but not "fish and chips". JIP | Talk 15:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

What's your point? Are you proposing to add this to the article? No, that should not be done. --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, I am asking whether the food in the picture is "fish and chips" or not. JIP | Talk 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would say that this is just fish with chips, and has nothing to do with this article ADookie (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm no culinary researcher, especially not in English cuisine, but should this be added to the English cuisine category article? I mean fish and chip shops is literally a section in the normal English Cuisine article. ECPBlue (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

How is this "a" dish? Is "burger and fries" a single dish? No. This is no different.--Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why is burger and fries not a dish? But there is a difference, as this one has no burger. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because they are separate items. Calling "fish and chips" a single dish is like saying that any two things eaten at the same meal is one dish. --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the metonymical use of noun is sufficiently loose to allow several components. So you'd have a dish of fish with a separate dish of chips? The Daily Express says here "FISH and chips is a dish more loved by this nation than any pie, pasty or Marmite soldier"? Martinevans123 (talk)

Yes, this is two dishes. A main dish of fish and a side dish of chips. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's usually wrapped in the same paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The assumption that two meal components eaten together should be described as two "dishes" is incorrect. Beans on toast. Curry with rice. Ham and eggs. Fish and chips. They are all single dishes, components of a meal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Beans on toast and curry on rice are no longer separable, just like biscuits and gravy or spaghetti with meat sauce. But ham and eggs or fish and chips retain their distinct identities. At least where I am from, those would not be described as single dishes. --Khajidha (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC) \Reply

PS- if the curry is served beside the rice instead of over it, it would be two dishes. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Where I'm from, "biscuits and gravy" is something one might feed a dog. So I suspect something may have been lost in translation here. I'm sure beans still have an identity, even when they are on toast. But what about very runny egg that runs all over the ham? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. if the curry and rice were served in two different restaurants, yes they would be separate dishes.Reply

• Fish and chips is "a dish" just as steak frites is a dish. Both dishes include proteins paired with friend potatoes. -- Calidum 19:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

That wouldn't be a single dish either. --Khajidha (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that article also calls it "a dish." "Haggis, neeps and tatties (mashed swede and potatoes) is a dish traditionally served on Burns' Night, the celebration of Scottish poet Robert Burns' birthday." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:Khajidha where are you from, it sounds fantastic. How many dishes is kedgeree? Irish stew must be at least five dishes, and corned beef hash is probably a culinary nightmare. Proper fish, chips, mushy peas, brown bread and butter and a pot of tea might just be divided into two dishes by a pedant, but an encyclopedia wont label a dish such as F+C as TWO dishes. hahaha. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

North Carolina. And kedgeree, Irish stew, and corned beef hash would all be individual dishes as they are mixed during the cooking. --Khajidha (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Liver and onions is a dish, it seems. But I suspect it's because the onions have lost their identity. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

In NC, nobody eats shakshouka, they eat eggs and tomatoes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mixtures of things thrown together and cooked in a single pot or pan are "one thing", while things cooked separately and placed beside each other on a plate are "multiple things", and things covered in glops of something (like a sauce, gravy, or baked beans) are "one thing". --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so the application of tomato ketchup makes fish and chips into a single dish?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen anyone apply that much ketchup to the plate, but sure, if you drown the plate in ketchup to make the whole thing an indistinguishable mass. I'd more commonly see the ketchup on the side and each piece of fish or chip dunked into it, leaving the two still separate. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the UK some folks actually have their fish and chips with gravy (even non-dog owners). I guess the chips might drown. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean real brown gravy Martin, or the white sauce that americans put on their scones? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Real brown gravy?? You were lucky.... we 'ad to suck on a piece of damp cloth!" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I recall hearing on the radio (NPR) about the cotton industry history. This program mentioned the growth of cottonseed exports to Britain along with the cotton itself for the oil to be used for fish and chips. This seems sensible as the oil was certainly available and Lancashire was both an origin of commercial fish and chips as well as a cotton textile center. A quick examination didn't turn up info about cottonseed and fish and chips but the assertion that animal fat was the primary source doesn't wash. The volume of oil required suggests something in addition to those sources.24.93.109.183 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

So how much oil was required? Why could that amount not be met with animal fat alone? And what period are we talking about, anyway? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You'll need references to back it up, but it doesn't sound right. There's always been plenty of animal fats and tallow in the UK plus other oils, so it doesn't seem likely. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are chips a type of french fry? Or are they something else entirely? Editors who are interested in this question are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Chip butty#Are chips a type of french fry?. (Please post there and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place. Thanks.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the Choice of fish subsection (the first subsection within Composition), the first paragraph mentions "… vendors also sell many other kinds of fish, especially other white fish, such as pollock, hake or coley, plaice, skate, ray, and huss or rock salmon (a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish)." [Note: All links removed from the quote except the relevant one.] That given description of rock salmon does not match the description of "rock salmon" on the rock salmon page. The rock salmon page is for a separate dish called "rock salmon", which seems to me to be distinct from the dish of fish and chips here.

My questions are, first, am I just missing something here, and does it all actually make sense? (I’m not from a culture that eats much fish and chips, so perhaps this is just me misunderstanding terminology or something.)

Second, assuming it’s not just me, then how is this issue corrected? Should there be a new, separate article to which this points, something like Rock salmon (types of fish), with a basic description that reads something like "Rock salmon is a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish, which are commonly used in fish and chips in the United Kingdom and Ireland."? Or should the current rock salmon page be amended in some way to clarify the different meanings, if perhaps the two are more closely linked than I realized?

I wasn’t sure what to do here, so I figured I’d add it to the talk page. Just some food – specifically fish and chips – for thought! Phatmatt12188 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the image on the rock salmon page is misleading, as is the statement there that it is "a dish popular in Britain, based on shark...". The photo is apparently from a restaurant in Santorini, Greece - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jabbarman/2600406103/ - and I have no idea what species it shows. I have never seen a dish like it in Britain - though I'm sure it could be done - and have never known rock salmon outside the context of it being sometimes part of fish and chips. I think the solution is to amend the rock salmon page - which I've now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The rock salmon mention in this article seems correct, it's the actual rock salmon article that needs just a little tweaking. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is the reference to John Lennon's liking of ketchup vital to the article? OptimizeAllTheThings (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. If it was someone like Harry Ramsden then it may be up for discussion, but a random celeb with no connection to fish and chips who takes ketchup, definitely not. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

He preferred fish and finger pies. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because fish and chips was not invented in England so the place of origin is wrong. Fish and chips was invented in Portugal. So putting as England is misinformation. Rin1990 (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://docksidehhi.com/the-history-of-fish-and-chips/ https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/little-known-history-fish-and-chips#:~:text=Some%20argue%20that%20the%20first,Spanish%2C%20and%20Eastern%20European%20refugees.

  Not done: The first website is that of a restaurant and hence isn't considered a reliable source. The same probably also applies for the second website, but that doesn't matter, because it says "it’s likely the popular dish originated from our capital", which explicitly contradicts your claim. Liu1126 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Last year, I took a trip to Iceland and only visited the Southern part of the country. Throughout my time there, I have noticed that restaurants and food trailers do in fact serve fish and chips, per part of the Icelandic cod. However, I highly recommend doing some deep searching for sources to prove this, unless you can spend some time yourself going to the country or do similar search results to find out this reliability. Also consider expanding into looking for more countries that house this recipe. Thank you, Ｍｏｄ ｃｒｅａｔｏｒ 🏡 🗨 📝 18:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are not a reliable source, you'll need reliable sources and the source you used previously in no way supported the content. Canterbury Tail talk 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's why I said, in quote "I highly recommend doing some deep searching for sources to prove this, unless you can spend some time yourself going to the country or do similar search results to find out this reliability." Ｍｏｄ ｃｒｅａｔｏｒ 🏡 🗨 📝 00:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not up to me to do any research into it. The WP:ONUS is on the person trying to add the information to ensure its properly referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 01:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well others can find the discussion right here, and then they'll really start looking for that stuff, or per my recommendation to go visit the country to see for themselves. Say what you gotta say. Ｍｏｄ ｃｒｅａｔｏｒ 🏡 🗨 📝 03:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply