Talk:Chocolate chip cookie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Dubious Origins

Now, I'm no food historian, but something about the second paragraph of this article strikes as highly suspect. The writing is poor (to say the least), and very little is given to back up any of the claims. It seems to be ripe for deletion, although I will leave that to people with more authority on the matter. Maclaine diemer

[edit] Edited Article

Hello, I just edited the article in response to the "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." tag. I believe that it is now more in line with the guidelines of Wikipedia. If no one objects I am going to remove the tag on 10 June 2007.

Jerem43 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

removed on 11 June 2007 Jerem43 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PS

I slightly edited the talk page so that it is easier to read (I put the discussions and posts separated by horizontal rules their own headings.)

[edit] Trademarks

It might be a good idea to remove the trademarks from this article.

I agree its daft for an encyclopedia to be referencing a proprietary chocolate chip! I'm also not convinced the recipe needs vanilla or nuts. Daniel.Allen

I didn't write the article, just added the first paragraph, but those are all quality ingredients for a more intense recipe and might be justified on that ground. I don't think the person who wrote the recipe should sign it though. It certainly isn't original. Ortolan88

Well, the change to using a mixture of fats is not normal. Doubling the vanilla extract is mentioned in other recipes I've found. In any event, the changes are insignificant but are delicious. BernFarr

Actually, didn't Nestle license the name Toll House cookies from the restaurant? I know Nestle invented the chocolate chip just for the recipe. That would justify keeping their name in there. ~

The phrase 'Toll House Cookie' is trademarked to Nestle, I checked after someone pointed it out. BernFarr

[edit] Allergen Information

Copyrighted material from http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/f4092.htm

Peanut And Tree Nut Allergy Affects Three Million Americans MILWAUKEE, WI -- April 12, 1999 -- Researchers from New York, Virginia and Arkansas report in this month?s issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology that peanut and/or tree nut (such as walnut, almond and cashew) allergy affects about three million Americans or 1.1 percent of the population. The prevalence of this allergy in the general population was unknown until now ...

[edit] Toll House Cookie Move

Would anyone have any problems with me moving this to chocolate chip cookie? Google reports 256,000 results for that name and only 4,440 for the current name. [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 10:22, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it, as I've never heard of a "Toll House cookie" in all my life. "Chocolate chip" is a much more internationally-known term. Tom- 22:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invention

Does anybody actually believe that crock about how they were "accidentally" invented? There's no reason for the chips to melt while stirring, and you would have to be quite the fool to think they'd be mixed up once in the oven. Any cook knows (particularly a woman in the 1930s) that whatever you don't blend beforehand doesn't get blended by magic during baking. Seems pretty far-fetched to me. Is there actual proof of that, or is it just Nestle's claim? Kafziel 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect move

Last November it looks like User:Delirium moved the article to chocolate-chip cookie from chocolate chip cookie. A cursory Google search shows that "chocolate chip cookie" is the far more common term (it is also the grammatically correct one)! If no one defends the spelling with the hyphen, I will eventually move this back to chocolate chip cookie. --Coolcaesar 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. No one responded. I will move it right now. --Coolcaesar 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] 23-January-2007

  • User:Threeafterthree, in using a purely arbitrary, childish judgment in removing my links in all of my contributions throughout the last year to Geocities-hosted pages with relevant content, as well as in replying to my inquiry -Just the kind of guy I am I guess.
Here is a copy of the exchange:
QUOTE:There is nothing wrong with pages hosted on geocities. What's your sanctimonious reason for taking upon yourself the crusade of removing these pages? Bo Basil 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Just the kind of guy I am I guess??--Tom 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)UNQUOTE
The links were:
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/2idf.htm (A rare glimpse into the IDF), on the IDF article,and
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/1entencookies.html (The Original Entenmann's Chocolate Chip Cookies Recipe) on two relevant articles.
again - the pages contain meaningful, useful content, and I intend to restore them to the relevant articles. Bo Basil 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can do better than geocities for sources can't we?--Tom 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have maintained the site myself. The content speaks for itself. It is imperative to analyze instead of performing underinformed censorship. Desist from the practice, and thank you. 16:51, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
      • And you are whom?--Tom 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I am somebody that uses concrete, factual information, and has a site that serves people who want to know. Since you had such an easy time hunting down my URLs, then please replace the links. It should take you very little time if any. Thanks. 18:49, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
          • geocities.com is not considered a reliable source as far as I can determine. I actually remove those links whenever I see them, so nothing personal. I am sort of a mindless pileus as it were. Carry on.--Tom 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, a third-party evaluation:
    • Both of you would do well to reread WP:Talk page with regard to indenting.
    • Bo - please sign all posts to this page, per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (yes, this isn't a talk page, but there is a dialog going on)
    • Tom - the And you are whom? posting was either catty (not constructive; please stop) or indicates that you should (re)read Wikipedia:How to read an article history. I'm inclined to go with the former, given other things you've said, above. Catty remarks might not violate the letter of WP:CIVIL, but they certainly violate the spirit of that guideline.
    • A large part of the problem here, I'm guessing, is the failure by Tom to cite WP:V and WP:EL and WP:RS. Unless policy and guidelines are cited to support an action by an editor, the discuss inevitably looks like just a difference of opinion between two editors - and that isn't easy to settle. What should be discussed is whether the links do or do not meet those these policies.
    • In general, geocities links do not meet these three policies, but there are exceptions. Wikipedia just blacklisted any links to blogs.myspace.com because it was decided that there were no exceptions that justified any such links. I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate.
    • Article talk pages are the right places to discuss deletions of links (assuming edit summaries don't suffice -- usually they should). Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a process whereby content disputes (like this) should be settled, starting with informal discussions. Please do not post anything further here arguing that the above two links are or are not appropriate (among other things, that depends on what article they appear in, and whether they are used to support text in an article or are used as an external link, which has weaker requirements).
Thank you for your time. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the third party evaluation, John. It injects the air of civility and maturity to the Wikipedia experience.

I amy quote one of your paragraphs above:

QUOTE: I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate. UNQUOTE

There are many unprofessional, irrelevant pages on MySpace and Geocities. However, the links I have posted a while ago, that have been deleted in the herein discussed summary action, happen to point to the content I have maintained personally, for over 10 years, almost from the time when Geocities were still an independnet entity.

The linked pages contain serious materials that I have compiled and are of use in research on Hebrew grammar, Judaism, and genetics in Bible. One of the pages has also been famous in the Jewish community for listing a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

That is why the content serves to rule out the probably inappropriate in this case. When I get the time, I plan to reverse the deletions.Bo Basil 13:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1933

is there a link somewhere that proves it was invented in 1933? I see many different dates at other places: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1129451,00.html 1930? http://www.foodreference.com/html/fchocolatechipcook.html 1930?

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/CookieHistory.htm 1937?

Another wiki article says 1937: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_chip

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=360757 I've been searching for answers, too. And I haven't really found anything conclusive. I saw a new york times article that I think said it was 1930. Anyway, eventually I'm just going to edit it in the wiki articles to "1930s" if I can't find better sources.

[edit] Earlier origins

The QSR chain Baja Fresh, headquartered in Thousand Oaks, Calif., offers an "Aztec Chocolate Chip Cookie." This would seem to indicate that the origins of the chocolate chip cookie go back much farther than 1933 — perhaps to the 14th Century. Sca 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The chocolate, yes, the cookie no. I believe you are reading that wrong: your theory is that the word "Aztec" is being used as an adjective that is modifying the noun "cookie", it is not. Instead it is being used as an adverb to modify the adjective chocolate (in this case "chocolate" is an adjective modifying the word "chip"). So it is not the cookie that is "Aztec," but the chocolate used to make the chocolate chip.
Jerem43 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Jerem(y?): I was joking. I just thought it was funny that this Mexican food chain thought it was cool to slap "Aztec" on their very un-Mexican cookies. Sca 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought as much... 8-) I was going to say "unless you were joking", but with some people you see on Wiki...

Yeah, its Jeremy E.: Jerem43, you can thank IBM Global Network (Now AT&T Worldnet) for that one. 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edits

I recently made a bunch of edits to this articles, someone had split all of the paragraphs into single sentences. Single sentences are discouraged as part of the WP:MoS. Jeremy (Jerem43 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Anoptional ingredient for chocolate chip cookies

Hi, I thought I would add an optional ingredient not listed in the article that I always use when I make chocolate chip cookies - oatmeal. Just add 2 cups to the batter and it makes a great cookie healthier. (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPenfold56 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who invented the cookie?

This article uses the last names Bjorklund, Wakefield, Erickson, and Cavanagh almost interchangeably and is very confusing. Whotookthatguy (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive vandalism distorted the article, I just reverted it. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] POV!

This article's statement that "…the inclusion of nuts bringing the cookie to a different level." is highly non-NPOV! :P I'm a bit tongue in cheek here, but there's a hint o truth. Personally, I despise cookies with nuts, and I'm sure those with nut allergies are not too fond of 'em either. Of course, I'll just go ahead and fix it myself. But since my first reaction was "NNPOV!", I just had to share! — gogobera (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree, good catch. - Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] origin

get the facts right, chocolate chip cookies were invented in Holland way before silly americans knew abou tit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.180.193 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have any sources that can back up that statement, please cite them. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)