Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 October 1

= October 1 =

Aluminum versus stainless steel cookware
I'd like to buy a 40 quart stock pot, and see that stainless steel costs about twice as much. What are the advantages over aluminum that make it worth this investment ? StuRat (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently unlike aluminium cookware stainless steel does not react to acidic or alkaline foods that are cooked in it. Aluminium pans however supposedly conduct heat better. Here is a discussion. Chevy  monte  carlo  06:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some types of cooktop react badly with copper, aluminium etc, and stainless steel is the only realistic option. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Meaning electric ranges, especially induction ? No worries here, I'm cooking with gas. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We've always known that, Stu, but how do you make your dinner? :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's what Alton Brown has to say about it.A8875 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that brought up another Q. He said you want (sulfuric acid) anodized aluminum.  The problem is, most pots for sale don't say it's that type.  Can I just assume they all are ? StuRat (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. I had an aluminum pot that didn't appear anodized at all (look at the color in the video; you can see it's visibly different from bare metal).  The instructions said to pre-treat it with oil and heat before cooking with it.


 * The pre-treatment, in my estimation, didn't really work &mdash; the pot was better after it wore off. Maybe I did it wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Many users advise boiling water in them first for an hour, to oxidize the finish, in order to avoid a metallic taste. I take it this is only an issue in non-anodized aluminum ? StuRat (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I may have said this here before but here goes. Purely OR. In the early 1970s my aunt was admitted to Oswestry Orthopaedic Hospital with severely and acutely arthritic joints. After some tests were carried out, their advice was to get rid of every aluminium pot as the aluminium had accumulated in the joints causing an arthritic response. Every member of our family did just that and none of us have ever used aluminium pots since. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Did your aunt's condition improve? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you. She didn't fully recover but the swellings diminished somewhat over time. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, that describes my condition after the wife hit me over the head with one. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whose wife? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I heard that aluminium cookware was maybe implicated in Alzheimer's disease, but now read that "... a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly unlikely". Astronaut (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, that as the aluminum article says, it is the most abundant metal in the earth's crust, and there is a lot of aluminum in the dirt we all swallow a lot of as kids, probably much more entering our system that whatever we get from aluminum cookware. Except for cases of massive overdoses of aluminum antacids or such, aluminum depositing in brains or joints is probably a result of a disease, not an example of normal aluminum exposure causing buildup which causes disease. Which may or may not mean that going on an aluminum-free lifestyle can interrupt the further progress of the disease of which aluminum buildup is one symptom.Gzuckier (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The one thing I am concerned about is when I torch an aluminum pot and inhale the aluminum vapors. So, just to be safe, I bought a 30 quart stainless steel stock pot, with glass lid and steamer basket, for $40.  Not bad ! StuRat (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't some American restaurants and fast-food chains expand internationally?
This is the sequel to my previous question about household-name American restaurants that do not have any branches outside of the United States. This time, this is not a question of "what", it is a question of "why". Some of the restaurants mentioned in the previous question are quite prominent, notably Chick-fil-A, Bojangles' and White Castle (prominent in that Chick-fil-A has a bowl game named after it, Bojangles' has an arena named after it, and of course there's Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), and due to the restaurants' popularity, it's quite surprising that they haven't expanded internationally. Why is this the case? I know all countries have chains that don't expand internationally, but the US is different in that those that do become extremely popular overseas. If Jollibee can have branches outside of the Philippines, why cant Chick-fil-A have branches in Canada? Is it a business decision, nationalist decision, religious decision, or a combination of those factors? If they expand even only into Canada it's likely they will do well anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are additional costs and risks to operating overseas, so it may make sense to keep expanding into new markets in their home country, at least until that nation is completely saturated. There can also be other ways to expand.  White Castle, for example, sells frozen sliders in grocery stores, for those who want to be sickened in the discomfort of their own home, where the toilet is always handy. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe Canada is too liberal for Chik-fil-A? Seriously though, it's mostly due to economic concerns.  If a company were to expand to Canada, they'd have to make sure their lawyers were familiar with Canadian law as well as US law.  Or hire a Canadian firm to cover their butts in Canada.    And there's not just liability to be concerned with there but also labor laws and host of other things.  And then there's the accountants.  You'll have another country to pay taxes to.  You run into the same issue with having trained accountants.  Then what about the food?  Are you shipping the food to Canada or getting food from Canadian sources?  If you're shipping it, there are taxes and customs to deal with.  And if you're getting it from Canadian sources, then you have to establish an entirely new supply line.  But let's say you do ship everything over the border and you own a burger chain.  What happens when there's a mad cow scare in the US and Canada says that you can't import any beef?  (hrm...  Canada/US chains predominantly chicken outfits?)  So there's a lot more to opening a store in another country than there is to opening one in another state.  Dismas |(talk) 07:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada's poultry marketing laws wouldn't allow a restaurant chain to import chicken at all - and our chicken is much more expensive than American chicken. Too, it's not just liberals that would run screaming from Chik-fil-A; I know a lot of staunch conservatives who wouldn't set a foot in the place and who would go so far as to hold protest marches if they tried to expand here. Add to that the higher wages here (and especially out West, where you just aren't going to get anyone at minimum wage), the fact that labour laws are provincial (so ten different jurisdictions) *and* the fact that fried chicken simply isn't that popular in most of the country and I don't think Chik-fil-A would have a chance. Many American chain restaurants have failed here specifically because head office stupidly thought Canada was USA Jr. --NellieBly (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In reference to the above answers, note also that expansion is not always one sided, particularly when it comes to a chain which operates under a franchise model and expansion in to a smaller/less important and distant region. It may be a local (whether completely local or a semi foreign company but with extisting operations in that country) company is interested in opening some restaurant chain and so goes looking for an existing chain they can get the franchise rights of for their region (even if the chain doesn't operate under a franchise model in their local region, it's possible they may be be willing to expand in that way). Of course the owners of the brand will need to agree, but the point is that the issue may not just that the owners had no interest in expanding but that no other company has yet been interested in bringing the owners brand to their region. (Or to put it a different way, in some cases the reason why some restaurant is 'international' is because someone decided to bring the brand to their region.) And even when a company is interested in expanding and pushes for it, local laws or simply business reasons may mean they will need to find a partner or a local company to run the stores.
 * Incidentally, the idea that any US brand is going to succeed is obviously flawed. Both Wendy's and Carl's Jr operated in Malaysia in the more distant past but exited the market after they failed, they're back now but only on a small scale. A&W Restaurants are still in Malaysia but only on a small scale and I know of many restaurants of theirs which closed down because they failed. Burger King a relative late come is potentially more successful although it's perhaps unsurprisignly dwarfed by McDonald's. If you check out the pages you'll probably see mention of plenty of local operations of which failed. Of course these also highlight another issue, a local company is also going to consider what getting the rights actually offer them compared to just starting their own brand from scratch.
 * P.S. In fact according to our article White Castle is one of the examples of a failed expansion, including in Malaysia. Also Chick-fil-A is potentially one of the few examples where religious and politicals reasons may be a resonable factor as potentially the owners will want a partner which a similar religious and world view.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just also point out that those chains aren't even completely national. Chick-Fil-A is only heavily represented in the Bible belt; White Castle is mostly the midwest; and Bojangles is just the South and some of the Eastern seaboard. Not one of those chains has a significant presence in California, one of the biggest domestic markets. If for whatever reason they don't think the California market can stomach their wares, I'm not surprised they aren't thinking about Malaysia. (I'd never ever heard of Bojangles before this question, as a long-time American resident who has never really lived in the South.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrawise, there are California brands that aren't known outside of California, excepting perhaps being seen in TV shows (as California is home to much of the media industry). Ubiquitous west coast chains like In-and-Out Burger and Pinkberry are unknown in other parts of the country.  As to why some regional brands stay regional, that's because of the additional cost incurred in expanding into a new area.  One needs to remember that things like much of the food, the packaging, marketing materials, etc.  have to be shipped, and there's an economy of scale.  I'm sure Bojangles would like to tap into the California market; there's certainly a market there for southern fried chicken (c.f. Roscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles) but the cost of opening the first store there would be prohibitive: How do you supply one store with the materials if the nearest distribution centers are 3000 miles away?  That's also a large part of why other regional brands DON'T end up in foreign countries: most U.S. brands probably want to saturate the entire U.S. first before spreading to other countries.  Brands that haven't left a 10-state area aren't going to likely have the economic incentive to suddenly set up shop in Malaysia or Australa or Hungary or other such places.  -- Jayron  32  13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the point about In-and-Out Burger and Pinkberry, I've lived east of the Mississippi all my life and have only been to California once for a layover. If it hadn't have been for talk show hosts making remarks about In-and-Out, I'd have never heard of it.  And I've never heard of Pinkberry until now.  So establishing a brand in a foreign country would have a higher hurdle to jump.  A Five Guys (article?) just opened up near me (if you call 35 minutes away "near") and I haven't tried it yet.  But if an I-a-O opened as well, I'd go to the I-a-O first since I've heard of it and good things at that.
 * Also, local laws may be too restrictive for a new franchise to bother to open a store. Vermont, where I live, has very strict rules on signage.  For example, billboards are illegal.  Signs over a certain height are also restricted.  And god forbid you want to light it up.  When a McDonald's moved into a nearby town they initially wanted to put up their standard sign but found that they couldn't due to the laws.  So their current sign (and entire storefront) is much less grandiose than any in other states.  Dismas |(talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I had never heard of Pinkberry until one opened on the East Coast a few years ago, even though I'm from California originally. I must have missed their window. The In-and-Out vs. Five Guys is a matter of some dispute. I like to be a mediating force and say, guys, they're both pretty good. They're quite different tasting, though, and since one is never in a position to need to choose between them, why bother? As long as we all agree that both are better tasting and less pretentious than Shake Shack, then all is well as far as I am concerned. Shake Shack burgers taste like they have been steeped in beef broth, to my palette. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In In-n-Out burger's case, the problem was, for a long time, that they had only one distrubution plant, and as they do not freeze their patties for burgers, there was a practical limit to how far away they could go and remain within health codes. They now operate in Texas and Utah, having opened more plants, and I daresay they will expand further in time.  To foreign countries, there are issues with a) suppliers, b) laws regarding foreign ownership, and c) finding adequate labor that is not going to let down the brand, which is also an issue with the suppliers.  People expect consistency from fast food restaurants, for it to taste the same in Maine and California.  I imagine you can redo the taste for foreign countries to some extent, so long as it isn't totally bad.  I wasn't terribly impressed the time I went to a KFC in South Africa, but so it goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of all the chains mentioned so far, I haven't heard of any of them; and that's despite my extensive travel within the USA. No all chain restaurants go international, or maybe they are not quite the household names you imagine they are.  Have you heard of Little Chef or Wimpy, or the French chain Flunch? Astronaut (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I now notice that the last two have quite extensive interests outside their home countries. Astronaut (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OR: When franchise fast-food brand owners – these aren’t cooks, they’re corporations – decide to expand overseas, one of the key concerns is brand integrity. It is easy to lose your reputation in the very valuable home market through mistakes made abroad. So, you want top quality management that cares more for the brand than the near-term profits, and under the franchise model, that can be hard to guarantee.

One option is to own your own stores overseas, which gets into the labor and materials supply issues raised above. They aren’t insurmountable, just unfamiliar to most of the domestic franchisees and their regular suppliers. You want fries with that? They’d better be the right kind of potatoes, properly prepared and kept in strict conditions of temperature and cleanliness.

Further, profit margins on domestic franchises are based on a well-known set of assumptions about property prices, labor and other financial inputs. Overseas, the model may not work, which is why Starbucks didn’t enter the Hong Kong market for a long time (property was too expensive for their expected cut of the profits).DOR (HK) (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

West Bromwich
What is the origin of the name of the British town of West Bromwich? Has there once been an East Bromwich, also? Was the Bromwich originally somebody′s surname? --193.167.207.18 (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a read of our article West Bromwich, and come back if you need anything further. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those things really were there! Added some headings to the article for highlighting the etymology. --193.167.207.18 (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Toponymy is the usual heading for place-name origins in Wikipedia, but your version does the job. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure about East Bromwich, but there is a West Bromwich East.--Shantavira|feed me 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And there is a Castle Bromwich. Astronaut (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if you're collecting Bromwiches, try Little Bromwich! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a Wessex, a Sussex, and an Essex, but the county of Nossex pretty much dwindled into oblivion, due to population issues.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  10:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And Middlesex got moved to Thailand. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

why can't I see my edits
Today I did editing on the title"lingam" which refers to a symbol of devotion for all hindus. However my editing was removed, I want to know why? One more questions is the references quoted at the bottom of the article "Lingam".The references quoted there are of those authors who have nothing to do with the religion of Hindus.Is wikipedia's purpose of giving free information being distorted? Also religious topics should be dealt with more sensitiveness and Respect and references should only be quoted from the original texts,In case of lingam may be a reference from "shivpuran" will hold much relevance than from those who try to malign the religion and religious practices of Hinduism...my two cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeeprajkoul (talk • contribs) 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit removed a section of text, including references, and gave no explanation for the removal because you did not leave an edit summary. The text was restored in this edit. All articles in this encyclopaedia, whether their subject-matter is religious or otherwise, must be written in an encyclopaedic tone and from a neutral point of view, supported by references to what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. To find out how to reference a source correctly, so that others can consult and confirm the citation, please see Referencing for beginners. -  Ka renjc 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

French cuisine
Why did France develop such better cuisine than other countries? --168.7.228.189 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Better" is a matter of taste and rather subjective. Have you read our article on French cuisine? It describes how the french were at the forefront of haute cuisine and the innovation of the brigade system influenced how kitchens were run, both helping to quickly spread the popularity of French food. Livewireo (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See also some of the responses to this archived question from 2011. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some factors:


 * A) Periods of starvation. This led to trying to eat different things you wouldn't try unless desperate.  Most were horrid, a few were good.


 * B) Central location. Being near the center of Europe meant they had culinary influences from all sides.


 * C) Colonial culture. Colonies around the world brought in distant culinary influences.


 * D) A long period of monarchy. Kings and queens traditionally like to outshine one another, and one way to do so is with culinary excellence.


 * E) France lacks some of the more strict Puritan influences, which do not ascribe great value to the enjoyment of food. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not one of StuRat's suggestions stands up to any scrutiny at all. I shall try to start to pull together an answer, based on my reading of culinary history.
 * First, we must distinguish ordinary family cooking and haute cuisine. Only since the Second World War and the work of Elizabeth David have people valued ordinary French family cooking. So the real question is why haute cuisine developed in France and not elsewhere. This must be linked to the position of Paris in the 19th century as cultural capital of Europe. France also developed haute couture, impressionist painting, ballet and much more. Meanwhile, London was the economic capital of the world, and wealthy Londoners could afford to employ French chefs. But if you go back into previous centuries, there is little difference between English and French food. See Colin Spencer's history for the incredible variety of English ingredients in the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Even back in the early 1600s the English had fads for Italian and then for French dishes, and also many exotic ingredients, but that only made their food more inventive and interesting. So the real divergence happens from the 19th century, when urbanisation impoverished the English diet in a way that it is only just recovering from now. For how American food got so bad see Revolution at the Table. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Judith makes some valid points, but the roots of the issue may go back further. The English court and nobility had their eating habits badly disrupted by the English Civil War and the Commonwealth that followed it, when gluttony was a serious sin. Louis XIV made a point of cultivating all the arts to the highest degree possible; cooking was one of them. James II would have liked to copy him but had no cash and was kicked out in the Glorious Revolution. He was replaced by William of Orange - a meat and two veg man if ever there was. Voltaire said "In England, there are sixty different religions and only one sauce." A century on and the French had their own revolution - all the chefs of the aristocrats were out of a job and opened restaurants for the citizens. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the division in elite eating goes back to C17 and C18, and I should have thought of the points you mention. Home cooking, especially in the countryside, was still diverse and excellent in both places, except in times of scarcity. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The English are really good at desserts and sweet snacks. I don't know that anyone disputes that.  It's main dishes where most of the rest of the world finds typical English cuisine a bit dull. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the two answers above, I'll rest on the assertion that only Spanish cuisine, Italian cuisine, Thai cuisine, some Indian cuisine, and Chinese cuisine, all in the broad sense, and sushi, as opposed to certain dishes like pyrohy and scrapple, are worth mentioning outside their homelands, and that French cuisine is largely popular due to the worship of rude wait staff, and the fact that the British, whose language and culture dominate the world, have not a single native dish worth mention at all. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Indian" cuisine (including, but not limited to north Indian, Keralan, Goanese and Bengali), Iranian, Lebanese, Mexican and Vietnamese cuisines are among those cuisines highly regarded around the world. As an English dish, I would mention simnel cake, at least I find it usually gets eaten up. Parsnips fried with mace are nice too. As for  French food, you only get rude waiters in posh places, whereas the nicest food is in the unpretentious local places and in homes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you mention some Vietnamese reviewed as worth eating? My vietnamese friends and neighbors always cooked the most delicious Thai and Chinese.  The Vietnamese soup I had at Vietnames restaurants at their recommendation was bland enough to kill. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The food critic at the Village Voice calls Vietnamese cuisine "one of the best on the globe", but they lament the lack of good Vietnamese food in NYC. Still, they list some of their favorite Vietnamese restaurants there.  Maybe you could try one of those.  Also, taste is subjective, so you may just not like it.  It doesn't mean that it is generally bad.  -- Jayron  32  04:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * John Cleese once explained to a TV talk show host that England never developed great cuisine because, "we had an empire to run, you see." Then there's the old adage, "If your guest is French, serve Italian; if your guest is Italian, serve French; and if your guest is English, boil anything." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All this British food bashing is a bit rich from a country that gave Easy Cheese to the world. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Obscure line from The Blues Brothers movie: "Did you bring me my Cheez Whiz, boy?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The sins of the children shall be visited on the fathers unto the third and fourth generation. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, it also gave the world barbecue, so it can be excused. -- Jayron  32  23:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Which was probably also invented by the French. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Carribean natives.  But perfected in the southern U.S., broadly speaking.  -- Jayron  32  23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you have Cajun cuisine, also influenced by the French, Tex-Mex cuisine, influenced by Mexico, and many other US foods influenced by other cultures (pizza adapted from Italy, hot dogs and hamburgers adapted from Germany, Chinese-American foods, etc.). There are also uniquely American foods (a Philly Cheesesteak ?).  StuRat (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Reply to Jayron: Citation needed on that one. However, I am not quite sure why this turned to a thread about bashing English (or other countries) cooking in the first place when the subject is about the French cuisine. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is cited in the article Barbecue (already linked) and in Barbacoa, the Taino style of cooking that is the direct ancestor of barbecue. It's also fairly easy to find, typing "history of barbecue" into google gives a treasure trove of refs, including here in Time Magazine, and all broadly confirm that Barbecue originated in the Carribean and was adapted into its modern form in the American South.  -- Jayron  32  02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * John Cleese is American??? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who are unaware, John Cleese's surname was originally Cheese. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * His father changed it in 1915, 24 years before John was born. But yes, the family's surname was originally Cheese.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch was somewhat autobiographical (at least of the family). StuRat (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only to the same extent that if George Bush (take your pick) went behind a bush to take a leak, he'd be pissing on a member of his family. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Bush is Welsh?Gzuckier (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Cassia fistula grows down where the moon is small? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the OP: The French seems to have an incredibly varied cuisine, with a tradition of local dishes based mostly on local produce, and the traditions varies from each and every little village all across France, while in most other countries the variation seems mainly to be on a regional basis. I would think only Italy comes close to match this kind of local variation. Why this is so is indeed a very good question, and I will also eagerly await qualified answers to this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the Italians, the French cook so well because of Catherine de Medici, who imported Italian cooking to France. Before that, they ate nothing but boiled hen. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just like Chekov said that baseball was "inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is confused by that joke, Bugs refers to Pavel Chekov, a character in the original Star Trek with a penchant for attributing too many contributions to Russia, not Anton Chekhov, a Russian writer who died before there was a Leningrad. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, if Leningrad still exists by that name in the Star Trek universe, that rather implies that the Eugenics Wars of the late 20th century prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union - which might go some way to explaining why all-American Captain Kirk lives in a world without money, works as a representative of a vast state which is constantly seeking to absorb sufficiently advanced neighbouring civilisations, and regards capitalists like Harry Mudd as pretty much nothing but trouble. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing that they can travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, boldly go where no man has gone before yada yada, but still can't properly romanise Russian names. Pavel's surname should be spelt Chekhov, just like Anton's, because they're identical in Russian.  Admittedtly, "kh" is not a great approximation for the sound of the consonant represented by the Russian letter х, and in some romanisation systems "h" is used (Chehov).  Either "kh" or "h", but never "k" alone.  That's reserved for к. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a very brief comment on French food at about 4:10 of this clip: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a very brief comment on French food somewhere in this thread, I believe, but I can't locate it now...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One can also point to the percieved bias of the Michelin Guide, which started out only rating French restaurants and only within the last decade began rating restaurants outside of Europe. I would also like to ask the OP what he or she thinks makes French food better than food from other countries. Livewireo (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To attempt a serious answer, I watched a cooking show with a French chef on PBS who said the four secrets of good food are butter, table sugar, table salt, and black pepper. This would have been in the nineties, and I can't remember who it was.  To that list I would add olive oil, garlic, wine and roux. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also with a view to a serious answer, for the OP and Saddhiyama. Social anthropology of peasant societies distinguishes "high" and "low" traditions. Many traces of this distinction remain in France. The "high" tradition is that of haute cuisine, and the history of that is known - Alansplodge mentioned some of the key moments in its emergence. I introduced the comparison with England because this is a common theme in discussion of French food, also it was the popularity of French chefs in wealthy 19th century England that helped establish the high reputation of French high cooking worldwide. Saddhiyama, when you say: "The French seems to have an incredibly varied cuisine, with a tradition of local dishes based mostly on local produce, and the traditions varies from each and every little village all across France," you are really talking about the "low" tradition of everyday food. That tradition got its worldwide reputation after the Second World War. Italian spaghetti and tomato dishes, garlic, cheap red wine, all came in as part of the same fad for the authentic food of the Mediterranean poor. In France itself there was a gradual rediscovery of everyday food. I think it's Elizabeth David who describes how a late 19th century Parisian chef, originally from the Midi, adapts a dish to be smart enough for a restaurant menu, replacing the olive oil with butter, removing the garlic, laying it out in an ornate design. By the 1970s, people had rediscovered the original and were proud to use the authentic olive oil instead of the inauthentic butter. Nowadays, I think there is considerable crossflow between high and low traditions, and also there is fusion food and openness to other countries' foodways. That all combines to make French people consciously proud of their food traditions. The defence of the long(ish) lunchbreak and rejection of what the French food sociologist Claude Fischler calls aperiodic eating comes into it too. Then the question is: how did France retain its "low" food traditions in this way? I think, mainly because urbanisation came late to France. I'm sure that every part of Europe once had the local variety that you mention - the French call it cuisine du terroir. It was lost in some places because of urbanisation and then because of industrialisation of agriculture and food processing. But it can be, and is being regained, through the local food movement, farmers' markets, and a general rejection of junk food. Would be interested to read any reactions to this, as it is mainly speculative, though based on some reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting enough to deserve a star, can you provide bluelinks from the net for those WP redlinks? I am fascinated. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Judith raises some very salient points on the distinction between "high" and "low" cuisine, a theme that shows up often in the arts (the difference between "high" culture, created for the tastes of the aristocracy and upper classes, and "low" culture, for the people living in squalor in the rest of the country). Just to add some credence to Judith's excellent (if slightly OR) analysis is to compare two common French dishes: Lobster Thermidor and Bouillabaisse.  They're both French seafood dishes, but the similarities end there.  The former is French High Cuisine writ large: Created in Paris for Parisian restaurant culture, use of "classic" restaurant techniques, cream sauces, butter, expensive liquors, etc.  The latter is a peasant fish stew, highly local in nature, simple in technique and ingredients.  It is the opposite of Haute Cuisine: throw a bunch of stuff in a pot and cook it.  One could probably find dozens of contrasting examples from various parts of France.  So, when trying to decide what one means by the "reputation of French cuisine", one first must answer the question "Which French cuisine?"  -- Jayron  32  20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

De gustibus non est disputandum, or as some might say, chacun a son gout. But this article provides a cautionary tale for those like the OP, who are well advised to abstain from the cuisine of the French, no matter how much better they are.John Z (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say French cuisine is better than other countries. I've travelled to 35 different countries, myself, including France (four times on business (unfortunately, because Air France messed up every single time - they even couldn't find my PLANE) and once as a kid for an exchange trip), and to be honest, the only interesting thing I had in France was garlic snails. Sashimi and sushi are much more palatable, as well as most food made in Sichuan, China. Bangers & Mash with a bit of gravy from the UK is also good. Same with out good old roasted Sunday dinner. Anything made in Korea is lovely and spicy, and if you go to Nepal, just eat the curry slowly. German sausages are really good, and so are Hungarian ones. The British have the best beer (not too light and fizzy) and the Germans have the best Schnapps. French wine might be considered the best, but I don't care about wine. Spain makes decent Paella, and Italy is good with Lasagne. Pizza was invented in America, apparently. Hungary has decent gulyas, which varies from town to town, and you can make it as spicy or un-spicy as you want. I like to grill chicken breast on skewers with spring onions, and put that on a salad with a bed of rice, then coat it in chilli sauce, minced garlic, and black pepper. The whole world has good food. This is why they eat it.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  06:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)