This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
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). ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are notes not comments and they are allowed.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Hollandaise sauce. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
