Talk:Hollandaise sauce

Expert?

 * Much of this article uses weasel words, but more importantly, a lot of it seems to be based on unsourced opinion, especially the Preparation section (I'm a cook and I do agree with much of what is being said in that section, but still).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There are no fewer than 9 references in the Preparation section.  Other statements, like "There are many different preparations" are obvious since there are 6 or so of them listed.  (Btw, there was some good info lost when this page was archived.)  Another issue is that the section has to avoid becoming a "How-to", so instead must take the stance of an overview.  How would you change it?  Dmforcier (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is wrong if an article about a some food, includes recipes showing how-to prepare it. Cooking is not nuclear science, do you need an expert, to prepare you coffee in the morning, a `barist', or a gigolo to teach you how to make love to your wife. There are things too quotidian to do, to need an expert to talk about. Maybe the possible history of some dishes can be traced, and Historians mention in their research texts, many are part of the folklore, there is no need to be too rigorous to seek a Doctor in the subject. Wikipedia is lowering and lowering, it's quality due to intransigent and dogmatic attitudes in this kind of articles, but also in other subjects, even in scientific articles, where dogmatic ayatollahs force to over simplify the text, transforming wikipedia into an illustrated wiktionary, there is already one, will some time became melted in one unhelpful wiki-dogmatic-fights site? Please be more constructive, stop that policy to shorten every article, stop to forbid recipes in articles about food, stop inducing wikipedians to be short-sight. Some times I suspect that there is an orchestrated complot to dismantle the wikipedia, from those who think that every knowledge should be private property, and people ignorant unless they have money to pay everything, that is what is going to happen with wikipedia if that attitudes persist. Yes I am angry to see what is becoming wikipedia.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.228.177 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow those supposed references to the bottom of the page and you'll find that most of them aren't references at all; they're just comments disguised as references. Anyway, user-submitted recipes aren't exactly reliable.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are notes not comments and they are allowed.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I recounted. There are 14 notes in the Preparation section.  10 of those include real, not fake, references, and an eleventh requests a citation for its (quite accurate) comment.  I do agree about user-submitted recipes.  If the reader wants recipes, this isn't the place to get them.  The Preparation section is NOT a How-To in that there are no recipes but rather a discussion of the various different approaches to the same end, something I would think a "food expert" would appreciate.  (BTW, I have cooked professionally, though I don't believe that makes me any more of a food expert than you claim to be.)
 * So what is your *real* objection? And more importantly, what change do you propose? Dmforcier (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hollandaise sauce. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040416044425/http://www.frenchbrothers.com:80/H'S%20PAGE.htm to http://www.frenchbrothers.com/H%27S%20PAGE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No Joy
The reference to preparation method from Joy of Cooking is not fully accurate. The referenced volume contains several preparations for Hollandaise Sauce, and not all of them call for using whole eggs. The method I have used for years, taken from this same book calls for 3 egg YOLKS, not whole eggs. Further clarification of this section may be needed to correct the statement regarding Joy of Cooking.

Mgg4 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown that there is a contradiction. The section does not say that the 'whole egg method' is the only method JoC describes.  In fact, note the JoC citation under the first description where she uses water contra Escoffier in a yolk method. But JoC is the only reference I'm aware of that describes the whole egg method.  (If anyone has another, please add it.) Dmforcier (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

History and sources
The history section included much inconsistent information. Though it is well-documented (with WP:RS) that the name Hollandaise was used in the 17th century, we have kept a claim (Jack 2011) that it refers to the Huguenots, who were expelled in the 17th century, and didn't return until the late 18th century. Similarly, there is the claim (Alléno and Brenot, Carey) that it was originally called Isigny, and only renamed hollandaise after WWI, though there is no evidence for that the name Isigny before the 19th century, while hollandaise is documented in the 17th century.

I have rewritten the section to eliminate the inconsistent information, or at least to contextualize it ("Thus the popular theory that the name comes from a recipe that the Huguenots brought back from their exile in Holland[6] is chronologically untenable.")

I plan to remove these claims in my next round of edits, and to remove Alléno and Brenot, Carey, and Jack entirely from the reference list. As is often the case, cookbooks and anthologies are poor sources for history. See the Source list for food and drink. Comments welcome. --Macrakis (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)