Talk:Freedom fries/Archives/2016

Archiving
The length of this talkpage is unwieldy and I'd like to start archiving it. I'll probably get one of the automated archival bots to do it. I am posting here to allow objectors to speak up. If nobody objects I'll start the archiving process.

How long should we wait before archiving a section? 2 years? 3? Cliff (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"is" Vs "was"
Here's a few references to show that the term is still in use - couldn't really find a place for them in the lede:


 * Huffington Post (2015) - "From "Freedom Fries" to "We are all French." The Republicans' History of Vilifying the French"
 * Huffington Post (2015) - "Freedom Fries and the Republican Right's Faux Solidarity with France"
 * The Atlantic (2012) - "Beyond Freedom Fries: The Roots of American Francophobia"

Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for taking this to the talk page.


 * I note that all three example references use the term in a historic manner. They all use the term "freedom fries" in the context of what happened back in 2003. I would say it strengthens the view the term lacks a current context. Do note that we can refer to a saying in the past tense without that to suggest the term isn't understood anymore, or that everybody has forgotten about it. I changed "is" to "was" since to me it looks as if the usage of the term has died out, except in historic references. And a term that is used today, but only to refer to a past age, is a posterchild of a good "was" usage.
 * Do note that I remain open to suggestions of references where the term has contemporary usage. (And please also note that it would be a fallacy to ask me to present a source verifying a "was": by the nature of these things the burden of verification needs to be "find a contemporary usage" rather than the opposite: "not find a contemporary usage" is impossible to verify. Otherwise we would always have to wait until the term 1) enters the lexicons and 2) is tagged "historical" or some such. That level of verification is too harsh in my opinion per WP:CK: to me informing the reader upfront the article is about something that mainly concerned the 2003-2006 period takes precedence.
 * But you know what? I'll let you decide if you agree with my assessment. If you feel the term "freedom fries" is still used today (in the manner detailed by our article), then we should let "is" stand. If you accept my arguments, feel free to change it to "was".
 * Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's complicated - or at least how I see it is complicated. The term is not in general usage today, because it was a Zeitgeist thing, and very much relevant to a specific part of history.  However, it is still used in a referential manner as I pointed out above.  Even if the term is not used to describe chips (or fries for you Yankees!) it is still in use - albeit if only to refer back to that part of history.  Surely for a term to be referred in past tense implies that it is no longer in any kind of usage at all.
 * I suppose we could throw wp:otherstuff out of the window and look for other terms that had a brief notoriety and see if they're described in past or present tense? I can't think of any right now, but it would give a precedent.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Kiwi" Fries
Are there any references for the idea that there were ‘Kiwi fries’ outside of a brand name? Personal observation would indicate that over here even McDonalds and Burger King sell ‘chips’, not fries. So if there is no reference to the contrary, that section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.56.249 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of Kiwi fries, and I am a kiwi.101.98.74.13 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)