Jump to content

Talk:Chocolate chip cookie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Should it be noted that in the UK, the term "cookie" is usually totally synonymous with "chocolate chip cookie" as everything else is referred to as a biscuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.244.125 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial talk contribs

I have rearranged the contribs that recently made up the "Trademarks" secn, originally promiscuously co-mingled without regard to topic (nor, sometimes, sequence), to reflect who seems to have been responding to what and when.
--Jerzy•t 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks

Non-trademark-related contributions formerly under this section-title are now at #Recipe in article.

It might be a good idea to remove the trademarks from this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.46.129 (talk) 18:27 & :29, 27 August 2002

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. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ortolan88 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 August 2002
The phrase 'Toll House Cookie' is trademarked to Nestle, I checked after someone pointed it out. BernFarr —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 27 August 2002.
I agree its daft for an encyclopedia to be referencing a proprietary chocolate chip!
--Daniel.Allen —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 24 September 2005.

Recipe in article

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 —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 27 August 2002.

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 —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 27 August 2002.
The following was originally an ineffective attempt at a 2nd 'graph within a contrib that commented on both what the ed'r placed it immediately after, and something lower on the page; i've duplicated the sig & retrospective date above, on the first sent of that contrib. --Jerzy•t 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced the recipe needs vanilla or nuts.
--Daniel.Allen —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 24 September 2005.
The following portion of the 18:48 & :49, 27 August 2002 contrib was later removed by someone other than its contributor, under circumstances not yet determined. --Jerzy•t 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This recipe should be added to Wikipedia Cookbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ortolan88 (talk • contribs) 18:48 & :49, 27 August 2002
As admins can see at the deleted 17:12, 20 September 2003 revision, Wikipedia Cookbook later became a Rdr (since deleted) to Wikipedia:Cookbook, where further info & lks reside.
--Jerzy•t 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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 -- ....

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortolan88 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2002

  • The bulk of the copyright-protected material previously copied just above has been removed, since in the absence of a need to discuss its wording (per fair use), its inclusion here is a copyvio.
    If there is evidence that, e.g., nuts as an ingredient are causing removal of CCC recipies calling for them from cookbooks, we may need to discuss whether the wording in the cited article really means that, so we can say so in the accompanying article. There was nothing like that in what i removed.
    --Jerzy•t 05:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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 any current name we do not understand the cookie it is truely kind to us so make the cookies--98.71.202.88 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Italic text

Heading text

right now(nestle makes the very best). [[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)

t

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)

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)
  • There was nothing wrong w/ Delirium's grammar, since "chocolate chip" is functioning as a syntactic unit modifying "cookie". The three word phrase is so widely used and well known, however, to make the hyphen redundant, and bad usage: no one will mistake "chocolate chip cookie" for a reference to "chip cookies" made of chocolate, or flavored to match the flavor of chocolate, especially since no one has heard of "chip cookies". Thanks for the good rename.
    --Jerzy•t 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

23-January-2007

The heading of this section, and the portion of its text that i have enclosed in the green box, appear to have been copied from a discussion (incomplete at the time of copying) that is now at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive10#23-January-2007. Two {{unsigned}} transclusion-calls have in the interim been converted to subst-calls. --Jerzy•t 04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 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)

1933

Portions of the following have been added at different times by 2 different IPs; i have refactored it into a list of individual contribs with intro and closing, each individually signed, and added bullets. --Jerzy•t 04:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

is there a link somewhere that proves it was invented in 1933? I see many different dates at other places: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.151.172 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2007

I've been searching for answers, too. And Haven't 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.151.172 (talk) 05:42 & :43, 21 February 2007

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.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: Jerem43| Jerem43]] ([[User talk: Jerem43|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Jerem43|contribs]]) 20:27, 3 June 2007

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)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 July 2007

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))

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)

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))

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)


I have added a paragraph on how to bake "perfect" cookies. Might want to refine the wording to make the paragraph more NPOV (e.g., using "the NYT suggests the following"...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.2.16 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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 —Preceding undated comment added 21:53 & :54, 3 December 2007 .


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)

I maintain a website which has a recipe for Chocolate Chip Cookies. This recipe is unusual b/c it demonstrates the use of a mix of fats (butter/shortening) and sugars (brown/white) to achieve a particular cookie outcome. I think this link would be interesting to readers of this article. I'd like to propose adding the following link to the "External Links" section:

But I didn't want to just go ahead and put it there because the guidelines for External Links indicate that I have a conflict of interest in promoting my own website. The guidelines suggest that the use of this link is permissible if the editing community for the page accepts it first.

My interest is in providing this unusual recipe to interested readers - I don't make any money (or fame/glory/etc) off of my website - so I don't have a tangible incentive to promote it. Any feedback would be welcome. Thanks. Stevemidgley (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not appropriate. I would like to suggest you maybe look at the WikiBooks cook book. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The two narratives

I simply removed the following incoherent account, which shows no evidence of sufficient grasp of intellectual-property concepts to be able to convey accurately whatever the daughter heard:

Mrs. Cavanagh states that Mrs. Wakefield did not sell the ownership of the recipe to Nestlé, but she only gave them rights to print her recipe on the packages of their chocolate morsels. Later, Nestlé's lawyers found loopholes in the initial agreement that ceded the rights to the recipe from Mrs. Wakefield, and began mass-producing the cookies.

A copyright on a recipe is of no value bcz its substance may be paraphrased without violating the copyright holder's exclusive rights; a patent on the combination of crisp cookie and chocolate is not inconceivable as a "useful invention", but the filing process is expensive, slow of completion, would have had to begin before publication of the recipe (and maybe before selling any cookies), and is basically implausible. The claim is essentially that she was taken advantage of, but the information given is indistinguishable from her wishing (or her employees wishing), with the benefit of hindsight, that she had done it differently. But that is neither interesting nor credible without a statement of what kind of "ownership" right was involved. (More likely, what she received was in consideration of the use of the "Toll House" trademark and/or her personal name, for Nestle's commercial purposes; in that case the text is not merely vague, but false.)
--Jerzy•t 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also question the soundness of the style of presenting the two narratives (tho i've made some gestures in another direction).

  1. The gist of it is a he-said-she-said, between on one side the marketing style of a corporation that is probably under no more obligation to draw a line between facts and branding than is a superhero comic book, and on the other two people whose common interest is essentially their personal relationship, with no legitimate legal interest in the question but who have an opportunity to enhance their supposed role in a famous institution on the basis of their uncorroborated claims of remembering events now 70 years past, without offering any information as to when they began verifiably making their claims.
  2. I don't think a section heading is a sufficient means of making clear that the declarative sentences in it are not our assertions, but those of the company or "the Toll House" (well, of a family who worked there); in fact, the 'graph i removed above follows a "...Cavanagh states that ..." sentence with a bald "lawyers found loopholes" one.
  3. In fact, if we're going to use the word, i want to see verification that there is a "conflict": that anything Nestle thinks it has made factual claim about is denied by anyone who could have contrary knowledge but is not in a position of raising their own profile by the denial.

--Jerzy•t 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Toll House Cookie?!

To me, the phrase "A chocolate chip cookie, or Toll House Cookie" is unnecessary. Apparently this was a term for the early chocolate chip cookie, but is it really still known as that today? The only time I've heard "Toll House Cookie" used is in reference to "Nestle Toll House", now nothing but another brand that makes cookies. I have never heard this cookie referred to as a "Toll House Cookie". Is this term synonymous with "chocolate chip cookie" to anyone? It's not like we're dealing with many different cultures here, so is there a particular region in which the cookie is known as a "toll house"? SwarmTalk 20:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

It seems to me that ordinary chocolate chip cookies are the most popular cookie in the USA (The cookie equivalent of apple pie). If true, this should be stated near the top of the article. Can someone find statistics showing the popularity of chocolate chip cookies in the US, and include this information? Downtowngal (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chocolate_chip_cookie/Archive_1&oldid=561329048"