Talk:Fondue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

This article could do with a picture or two to realy help convey some of the ideas.

I think we should consider giving hot pot its own page. This page is about fondue, that is, the European family of dishes. While they are clearly related, the traditions are different, and I think the Asian hot pot deserves its own page. -- tooki 02:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused at first about what hot pot was because I was skipping around the article (etiquette looked interesting) and I was still curious after I read its section. It's probably very different from fondue, and the section on this page didn't describe it in enough detail to satisfy my wondering. It sounds yummy. --Deicidus 01:40, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

It would seem that fondue uses some sort of rich, viscous sauce in a warmed pot like cheese or chocolate. Hot pot uses boiling broth/water. I recently talked to a couple of friends over a hot pot dinner and we agreed that hot pot and fondue are not really the same thing at all. I would like to propose removing stuff about the Asian hot pot on the fondue page since there is already an extensive hot pot page with pictures. We could make a one sentence statement about similarities between hot pot and fondue and provide a link directly to the hot pot page. I think I'll make that revision soon if no one objects. Allentchang 22:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am going to return a section called "Fondue Chinoise", since it is still a variety of fondue -- you can go to any grocery store in Switzerland and buy pre-sliced "fondue chinoise" beef and ready-made sauces. The section will mention the similarity to hot pot, but only describe the European tradition, leaving the Asian tradition to the Hot pot page. -- tooki 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was considering adding a picture of the Chocolate Fondue Fountain from Chocolate Fountain UK as they had given me permission to use their images copyright free. Any objections?

Cheese Fondue Day

April 11 is Cheese Fondue Day. Happy Cheese Fondue Day! --161.210.251.100 20:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

caquelon?

what's a caquelon? -15:38, 28 December 2005 66.41.90.102

an earthenware pot --Bob 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fondue in Poplar Culture??

This whole paragraph although interesting seems a bit irrelavent to the article I suggest that it be removed. Enneagon 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A little suggestion

If you don't have swiss cheese at hand, try with old Cheddar cheese. It will definitely not be a "swiss" fondue, but it's very good.(Here a sample recipe: heat 2 cups of dry white wine with 2 cloves of garlic, chopped; add 1 pound of old Canadian Cheddar, shredded; add a pinch of nutmeg and some pepper, freshly ground; you finish with an ounce of Kirsch or Vermouth.) Boris Crépeau 08:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've never had any success with non-Swiss cheeses, not even French or German copies of Swiss cheeses. My personal opinion is that if you don't have any Swiss cheese at hand, eat something else. Clearly opinions vary, but if you haven't tried it before, use a Swiss cheese. After that works, you can experiment with others. Groogle (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason to use a dinner fork?

Some people consider it rude to allow one's lips or tongue to touch the fondue fork, and with meat fondues one should use a dinner fork to remove the meat from the dipping utensil.

- Well, I dono where to put it, but the more important reason than manners is that you'd burn your mouth when eating meat fondue with the fondue fork, since the soup (or oil) is a lot hotter than the cheese. 85.0.39.177 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Possible Citation Sources

While searching for possible citation sources for this article (specifically, the theory of the evolution of the fondue as stated in paragraph 3 under the heading 'Fondue' and paragraph 1 under the heading 'Cheese Fondue') I found the following possible links of interest:

http://www.hungrymonster.com/FoodFacts/Food_Facts.cfm?Phrase_vch=Fondue&fid=6539

http://www.wendylayne.com/gift-baskets/gift-baskets.html

http://www.foodmall.org/entry/top-7-tips-to-serve-fondue/

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-02-07/dining/that-70s-meal/

Perhaps somebody that knows more about this sort of research than me could decide whether or not these secondary sources* are applicable as citation material for this article.

• I'm calling it secondary because none of them have any citations of their own. I was taught long ago that just because a theory (even when stated in the form of fact) can found be in multiple locations that doesn't actually make it a fact (especially in the modern online context).

-Chef JD

First War of Kappel

The German language wiki http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappeler_Milchsuppe has a nice story about the possible origin of fondue. In 1529, the Zürich army marched against the Inner Schweiz army. As the leaders were talking about where and when to have the battle (First War of Kappel), the two troops set up a common soup pot. The people from Zug supplied the milk and the Zürich people supplied the bread. The troops had a good milk soup together and the war was avoided. There is a memorial milk soup stone at Ebertswil between Zürich and Zug. jmcw 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitchfork Fondue

Fondue being in vogue during the 1960s encouraged Darrly and Verna of Pindale, Wyoming to thread 8 oz. sirloin steaks on to a pitchfork and deep fry in a cast iron kettle. By the mid 1980's pitchfork fondue was served as a specialty in Wyoming, Montana, and Saskatchewan. Baseball steak is ideal as it has a large surface area and it is one of the few ways to cook baseball steak evenly.

Is this notable? Is this about fondue? Are there any sources? Google just shows commercial advertising. jmcw 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewritten

Got some raclette on sale at the Coop today and got stirred up to clean up this article, rm'd the unsupported (and dodgy) history, replaced it with a more supportable narrative. Gwen Gale 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the history. And "wontedly" is a delight. jmcw 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hi, all. Are we sure the commercial with the jumping into the snow in one's underwear wasn't just trying to be funny? It sounds a bit out there. I can just imagine a family gathering with a little old lady being dragged to the balcony while being stripped and being told, "Those are the rules, Granny." —Nricardo 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I've seen it happen it real life. Gwen Gale 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was to be funny. The Swiss enjoy an excellent sense of humor in their advertising. And I suspect the little old lady could specify the traditional custom of kissing the men anyway. jmcw 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha! You know, I don't care if it's in the article or not but I did want to say it happens in CH (like at winter resorts with college aged kids or whatever) and can be funny, kinda like playing strip poker. Obviously though, someone's gran wouldn't be in on "strip fondue."Gwen Gale 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I consulted the source which states the etymology, and as a nearly-native French speaker, I think that the name likely comes from the past-tense of "fondre", "fondu", meaning melted. As an extension, I could ask a Swiss friend of mine if the Swiss-French dialect adds an "-e" to the word in normal writing. A source, of course, would be needed, but I think this provides a better derivation than the infinitive and at least deserves mention in the article. Benwedge (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The e comes from gender. I'm Swiss and a native french speaker and the word fondue naturally arises from the phrase la raclette fondue (the grated cheese, melted, more or less) which is why there's an e tacked on the end. I've put this in the text. I guess I'll run across a source one of these days but for a French speaker who sees la raclette in the cheese section of the supermarket every day it's straight grammar. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot the "la raclette" part. Silly oversight. Benwedge (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raclette is a different dish, prepared with a cheese of the same name. Melted raclette cheese can be referred to as raclette fondue in French (although local people might prefer to call it raclette fondu, using a masculine form as an abbreviation of fromage à raclette fondu since fromage (cheese) is masculine). But the raclette dish and cheese has nothing to do with the etymology of the other dish, fondue. J. K. 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldacan (talk • contribs)

ethymology

I think it may be more appropriate to write that the word fondu come from the adjective form of fondre, and not the past form of fondre. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petit chocobo (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fondu is the past tense of fondre, not the adjective. However, fondu can be used as an adjective. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol burner

I was surprised to see no WP article on wicked alcohol burners but I guess folks don't use them much anymore. Everyone I know uses tealights for fondue, one can buy big bags of them on sale after each holiday. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

possible WP:OR

The following text was added to the etiquette section (where it would never belong). It was wholly unsourced and could be original research. Truth be told, what it describes doesn't even sound like fondue to me but rather, like a hunk of melted cheese on a plate. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In popular American culture with the demise of home-cooked meals prepared from scratch, an alternative form of fondue is often prepared using brick cheese and melting it on a microwave safe plate to be devoured with a spoon. Many will garnish this delicacy with artificial sweetners. This form of fondue is particularly popular in western Pennsylvania and is commonly served at events and ceremonies as well as prepared for after school snacks.

I have seen this done with Velveeta - a horrible invention and a probable by-product of the petroleum industry - it can't even be called cheese as it doesn't contain more than 51% cheese. But, as you pointed out, can't be called fondue, at least by traditional methods. --Bob (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

US Food and Drug Administration:

• "cheese" is cheese
• "cheese food" contains at least 51% cheese
• "cheese product" (Velveeta) contains less than 51% cheese

so fondue is "cheese food"<g>. jmcw (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the States, yes. In Switzerland, fondue is not cheese, nor is it cheese food, it's fondue :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Nun

It might be nice (if anyone knows) to provide the origin of the term religieuse. Jokes abound, but does anyone know where the term actually came from? Google turned up little of use. ZLMarshall (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always taken it as a kind of metaphor, le pain sans levain de la religieuse which is to say, the nun's unleavened bread, like a cracker. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish

Would that we could source this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Raclette?

There's a misconception here about raclette: it has two meanings. One is the cheese, le (fromage) raclette (masculine), and the other is a dish related to fondue, la raclette (feminine). See the French Wikipedia page for confirmation.

This means that the term fondue can't possibly come from la raclette fondue, because that refers to the dish, not the cheese. Clearly it also can't come from le raclette fondu, because the spelling is wrong. Also, the use of raclette cheese is not overly common in a fondue, and I see no reason to believe it was instrumental in the origins of the dish or the name.

There was a link to L'internaute provided as substantiation for the derivation, but it doesn't do so. Both Larousse and L'internaute agree that fondue is a noun, not a participle or an adjective. So I've removed the claim that the origin of the name has anything to do with raclette.

The French, German and Italian Wikipedia pages don't try to describe the origin of the word--though the Italian word is fonduta, also feminine--and I haven't seen any explanation elsewhere. Can anybody find a trustworthy source? Groogle (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the name of the dish fondue has nothing to do with the other dish raclette, although both dishes are made of (generally different) melted cheese. The feminine substantive fondue is a nominalization of the past participle fondu (feminine fondue), from fondre (to melt). (fondu is also an adjective since In French, any past participle can be used as an adjective, for example in the unrelated phrase la raclette fondue.)

As a reference: the dictionary Trésor de la langue française has a page on the dish fondue. For the etymology, they redirect to fondre, which has the example 1735 part. passé subst. fém. art. culin. (Cuisinier mod., IV, 220 ds QUEM. DDL t. 2 : fondue de fromage aux truffes fraîches). Note the "part. passé subst. fém" which means "past participle used as a feminine substantive". J. K. 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldacan (talk • contribs)

Serving meat with fondue with cheese?

I seem to have recalled some recipes of cheese-based fondue with meat instead of (or in addition to) bread. But some other literatures suggest the meat is never mixed with cheese because of its extreme resultant richness even in Swiss winters, and will only be used in oil. Does any Switzerland-based people know if cheese sauce fondue using meat ever exists as traditional recipes? --JNZ (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of meat into a cheese fondue - as original research, I would think that the cheese mixture is not hot enough to kill surface bacteria of raw meat (the function of the alcohol is to hold the temperature of the cheese mixture below the point of Denaturation.) It is quite common to have a starter of dried meat Bündnerfleisch before the cheese fondue. jmcw (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

haha, we just had meat and cheese fondue at work tonight- xsharp cedder/pep jack, with cubes of flank steak. i know thats prolly OR, but i think this article is too biased toward 'traditional' 'swiss' fondue. fondue as eaten commonly in the us, at least, rarely uses swiss cheese as a main ingredient, but i guess alot of contributers to this page arent familiar with this form of American cuisine, oh well... ... oh, and i've mostly seen the fondue pot heated with sterno cans;) 96.238.247.130 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How Much Cheese?

My credentials: I have cooked several hundred fondue dinners and all of my guests would gladly return<g>. When I am estimating how much cheese to use, I calculate 100 gr for a person with small appetite, 200 gr for a good appetite and 300 gr for each person who never, ever leaves something in the pot. For a lunch fondue, I would use half as much.

Similarly, one clove of garlic for each person who don't like garlic, two cloves for people who like garlic and three cloves each for garlic lovers. Minced and cooked in the wine before the cheese is added. jmcw (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Only to say so, where I come from, it hardly matters how much cheese mix there is, since it always seems to me that if there are 3-4 or more people and a few hours, it'll all be eaten :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fondue Bourguignonne

Neither of these have references:

Bourguignonne: in Fondue Bourguignone, there is nothing to melt (“fondue”) and is not a traditional dish from Burgundy. It is a dish that was invented in the mid XXth in a restaurant (where and when is not exactly known though Neufchatel is sometimes cited) where they wanted to offer something different from the too usual cheese fondue, using the same pot. They named it Fondue Bourguignonne because it uses chunks of beef meet cut the same way than for the “Boeuf Bourguignon” dish. The pot is filled with oil and brought to 150°-160°C. Each person spears small cubes of beef with a long, narrow fondue fork and fries them in the pot. An assortment of sauces is provided for dipping: Bourguignonne, Béarnaise, Ketchup, aromatized Mayonnaise are the most usual.

or

Bourguignonne: During the late middle ages as grapes ripened in the vineyards of Burgundy a quick harvest was needed and the noontime meal was often skipped. Johann du Putzxe was a monk who made a kind of fast food by dunking pieces of meat into hot oil. The Swiss later adapted this as a variety of fondue. The pot is filled with oil (or butter) and brought to simmer. Each person spears small cubes of beef or horse meat‎ with a long, narrow fondue fork and fries them in the pot. An assortment of sauces and sometimes a further cheese fondue are provided for dipping.

Does anyone have a good cookbook as a reference? jmcw (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Books and Google News

I tagged a footnote for clarification as it implies that Google News and Google Books existed in the 1950s. Both came into being in the 21st Century. B.Wind (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 edit warring

I saw references removed by an IP and assumed vandalism. In fact, the two references [1] [2] say nothing about the etymology of 'fondue'.

User_talk:79.97.171.208 is correct. Sorry! jmcw (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If editors don't agree with or understand the close link between raclette and fondue shown by those sources, that's ok, I did what I could with them. French language dictionaries are often lacking as to the etymologies of gender. Maybe a stronger way to source la raclette fondue will show up one day. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, if you happen to live in the French speaking part of Switzerland, did you try to ask a few people what they think of "la raclette fondue"? I'm a native Suisse romand (Swiss French or whatever it's called in English) and "la raclette fondue" really sounds silly to me. After seeing the Wikipedia page (that I tried to correct) I asked a few friends and only got laughs. It really doesn't make sense. These are two separate dishes, usually prepared with different cheese (although you can use raclette chesse for a fondue). Because they are both typical Swiss dishes involving melted cheese, they are often mentioned together, as in the two references you provided. But they are also always presented as separate dishes, and indeed your references don't mention "la raclette fondue". J. K. 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldacan (talk • contribs)

It would sound silly to me if someone said there was a dish called la raclette fondue, since there is no such thing that I'm aware of. Put it to a romand that way and yeah, they might laugh. Put as an etymological link laughs are unlikely. Either way though, sourcing on the origins of French gender is often way thin, I recall hearing about some wastefully expensive Académie francaise study into French word gender and they mostly came up with a big fat blank, no hint of any linguistic "patterns" and scant etymology. I think they were hoping for gender rules they could shove at schoolkids or something. Anyway, I agree the sourcing on this hasn't been nearly enough for some of the editors who've looked at this article and unless, by some fluke, something shows up later, I have no worries about it not being in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wontedly vs usually or typically

I find wontedly is a rarely used word. Google shows 20,000 entries for wontedly vs 110,000,000 for usually. I feel one should not have to read Wikipedia with a dictionary to hand because of the use of rare and erudite words. I believe wontedly should be replaced with a more common term such as usually or typically as done by a couple of recent edits. In my opinion the edit by 87.194.252.57 to typically should not be reverted without discussion and consensus here. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see 'wont' on the list of disputed words[3] in the MOS. Two possible alternatives to 'dumbing down' the vocabulary: add an in-line reference to Wictionary or I would volunteer to write the missing 'fondue' article in Simple English[4] for the sake of the people who have trouble with English. jmcw (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think it's fair to say my English vocabulary is utterly sprawling. Still, I'm wont to look stuff up in the dictionary. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UPE "An encyclopedia article is a piece of expository prose. Its purpose is not to impress its readers with your learning or lexicon, even if that is the reason that you write here. One of its chief purposes, instead, is to introduce new knowledge to people innocent of it; another is to remind readers of what they had half-forgotten. For these purposes, plain words work best." This says it all for me. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the word fits, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking my thesaurus (Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus) for 'usually' I find: "he usually arrived home about one o'clock: normally, generally, habitually, customarily, routinely,typically, ordinarily, commonly, conventionally, traditionally; as a rule, in general, more often than not, in the main, mainly, mostly, for the most part, nine times out of ten." Any of the thesaurus terms are plain english. 'Wontedly' is not. Three editors feel this way. Why is an obscure term 'wontedly' so important to this article when there is at least a dozen from the thesaurus above that do not cause similar concern? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I count two in favour of 'wontedly' and one against. jmcw (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring your reversions of Crazytales and 87.194.252.57 that started this thread? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Crazytales has not participated in this discussion. jmcw (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Wontedly' now has a link to Wiktionary: why do you need a simpler version? jmcw (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarity. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you find 'wontedly' to be jargon or vague or complex? jmcw (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I find wontedly to be obscure, if not archaic. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry has quotations that shows recent usage: neither obscure nor archaic. May I use 'nor'? jmcw (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Darrell_Greenwood alerted me to this thread; thanks. I changed wontedly to usually, even though I know what wontedly means and that it is in fact a word, because of the guideline in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Clarity that states that Plain English (yes I realize this is just an essay) is preferable and to avoid "unnecessarily complex wording". I don't see any encyclopedic benefit whatsoever to using an obscure word where a common one will suffice. If wontedly were explaining some technical aspect of fondue where no other word would suffice then I would be all for its inclusion. But it isn't. Also, jmcw, I don't see you making a compelling argument for the inclusion of the word wontedly. What does it add over usually or typically? —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I do not find 'wontedly' to be an obscure word - why do I need a compelling argument to use it? In consideration of this discussion, I have provided a link for the people who have difficulty. jmcw (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.. a classic example^ of pedants on Wikipedia. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. jmcw (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Google results for wontedly number about 19500. Google results for usually number about 426 million. Google results for typically number about 110 million. Bing and Yahoo results show a similar distribution. Also, all the quotations on Wiktionary for wontedly are from novels, which are necessarily stylistically different to an encyclopedia article.

In case internet search results don't convince you, the thesaurus in Darrell's possession apparently considers wontedly too obscure of a word to list it as a synonym for usually.

In any case, you haven't answered Darrell's question above: Why is an obscure term 'wontedly' so important to this article when there is at least a dozen from the thesaurus above that do not cause similar concern? You've also not answered mine: What does it [wontedly] add over usually or typically? —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Crazytales acknowledges the word but would like it to add something extra to Wikipedia. Darrell_Greenwood claims that it is obscure or possible archaic. 87.194.252.57 (after being given a Wiktionary link) claims that it is not a word. I have linked to 'wontedly' in Wiktionary where one can see recent quotes. I begin to think I see Wikipedia:I_DON'T_LIKE_IT here. Could someone supply some dictionary references as to 'wontedly's obscure, obsolete or archaic nature so that we could lift the level of this discussion? Thank you! jmcw (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not obscure or archaic. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You both are ignoring the questions asked upthread, and the statistics quoted. Only 20000 results from Google for 'wontedly', and you say we must prove to you with a dictionary reference that 'wontedly' is obscure. What is the matter with the Google results? A dozen widely used 'plain language' synonyms, and you are hanging onto 'wontedly'. Why wontedly? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hanging on to anything. This is an openly edited website. Meanwhile, your interpretation of a Google search is original research and has no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You have no problem with me changing 'wontedly' to 'usually' in the Fondue article? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You know that's not true and that you've shown zero support for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"You know that's not true". I didn't know because you said "I'm not hanging on to anything". Re: "you've shown zero support". In my opinion I've shown a lot of support for replacing wontedly, plain language requirement, obscure term, three editors changing or wishing to change from wontedly. All I am getting back is behaviour that I would not expect of experienced editors like dragging in red herrings about original research. I agree Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. There is no way Wikipedia bans original research in determining a word to use, not that I agree consulting Google is original research to begin with. If I were to characterize the above conversation it would be "no reasoning holds sway here, wontedly stays." Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, from Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0) © Oxford University Press 2009 -- wonted: Accustomed, customary, usual. Now archaic or U.S. wontedly, adv.[from preceding + -ly2.] Customarily, habitually, usually. -- Enough. I shall be bold as I have been assured by an Gwen Gale "This is an openly edited website." Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for supplying a dictionary reference that establishes the usage of this word. As this article is in American English, it is valid. jmcw (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Your continuation of your edit war over 'wontedly' and reversion of my edit and the edits of two other editors is unjustified. 'wontedly' is still obscure, archaic, and unsuitable. The fact that 'wontedly' is a US word does not justify its use when the requirement is for the lead to be "written in a clear, accessible style." You are not building consensus, you are simply demonstrating ownership of the word 'wontedly'. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe any English word is suitable for Wikipedia. If you have some dictionary references to support your beliefs about some words being forbidden as obscure, archaic or unsuitable, please supply them. jmcw (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You would ignore them. Wikipedia references have been supplied and ignored. You and Gwen Gale are ignoring the WP:MOS. You and Gwen have reverted 'usually', 'typically', 'normally', and 'generally' for the obviously obscure wikified word 'wontedly'. Why wontedly? Gwen said "this is an openly edited website." However this article is clearly closed for editing when one reads the edit summaries and this talk section. This section stands as a monument to the intransigence of you both. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT? Meanwhile, please gather consensus for what you want to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Never once in this discussion did I ever see any argument by either Gwen Gale or jmcw that explains what wontedly adds in meaning. It's a direct synonym for any of the words that have been substituted in for it. WP:LEAD states that the lead/lede should stand on its own as a concise version of the article (emphasis added)... this precludes obscure words that would necessitate a Wiktionary link. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, no argument is necessary. Any English word can be used in a Wikipedia article. The comments here are "I just don't like it". As I said above, show some objective information: some dictionary entries that say 'wontedly' is obscure, archaic or obtrusive. The wiktionary link was for the sake of the IP who did not know the word - I do not think it is necessary. Do you know of any list of valid English words that should not be used in Wikipedia other than [5]]? This whole drama could be quickly settled with some dictionary entries or some other reference. jmcw (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My perception is you are playing us. You are asking us to research for you. The results are reported back. You ignore the inconvenient, avoid the issue. You project that you are reasonable, while actually being unreasonable, ignoring the facts staring you in the face. Only 20,000 Google results for 'wontedly' and you focus on its use in the US and ignore that the OED reports it is archaic in the rest of the world.* You at no time, as it is inconvenient, refer to WP:LEAD and its exhortation for the lead to be "written in a clear, accessible style". OK, I'll play your game one more time. From the New Oxford American Dictionary: "Wontedly: not listed. Wonted: wonted |ˈwôntid; ˈwōn-|adjective poetic/literary : habitual; usual: the place had sunk back into its wonted quiet." Poetic/literary is not a clear, accessible style. *(sidebar: did you know that [China largest English speaking nation now.] ) Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

All I've ever said is, I believe the word fits most helpfully. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia (though I wouldn't say this is a tough word). It sounds to me as though y'all want wont and its ilk banned from en.WP text as a vocabulary word. I'd think that would be up to a consensus drawn at WP:MOS. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I hold the opinion that all words in the English language may be used in Wikipedia. You appear to wish to divide the English language into words that you approve ('clear') and words that you do not approve ('rare', 'obscure', 'archaic'). I ask for dictionary or reference information to support this dichotomy. For asking for this objective information, you accuse me of 'playing', 'ignoring the issues', 'ignore the inconvenient', 'ignoring the facts staring you in the face'.

I ask again, please give some references for your opinion and please assume good faith. jmcw (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could I refer you to a VOA article on vocabulary? "... media-speak. It's a small vocabulary, flat because it's overused; verbs such as spawned, spurred, fueled, triggered, decimated, sparked. They have these little bunches of words that fall into the sentence kind of fully born..."[6] jmcw (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Off the track again with straw men and vague incorrect assertions. Certainly 'wontedly' can be used in Wikipedia. It is. A whole three other times in article space. Always by the same editor. Gwen. Think about that, no other editor uses the word in article space. No other article but articles edited by Gwen use the word. And you hold the word is not rare or obscure. We are talking about WP:LEAD where there is the requirement, for good reason, that the lead be "written in a clear, accessible style." Not once through this whole section have either of you referred to WP:LEAD, I am beginning to think neither of you have read it. Your avoidance of WP:LEAD is painfully obvious to any reader of this section. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem Please find your good faith again. jmcw (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Facts. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I ask again, what facts do you present here that 'wontedly' is obscure or archaic? jmcw (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the dictionary references given previously, for facts look at the content of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has 13 million editors but only one editor who uses 'wontedly'. In all three and half million articles, twenty-two million pages, billions upon billions of words, only Gwen uses 'wontedly.' The 24 instances of 'wontedly' in Wikipedia, other than this page, are Gwen's edits (Gwen is User:Wyss). User:The Witch is not an exception, that user is a sockpuppet of Gwen's according to an admin with checkuser rights. 'Wontedly' is a rarely used and obscure word in Wikipedia, used by only one editor. It does not belong in the lead of an article per WP:LEAD. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One dictionary reference that does not support your POV, much WP:OR and multiple argumentum ad hominem. Please, a second and third dictionary reference that supports your POV, that this discussion ascends to a higher level. jmcw (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) We are discussing the wrong thing here. The problem edit is Gwen's on Sept 26. I have reverted that edit. We can discuss the real problem. Revision 387204345 does not conform to the requirements of WP:LEAD. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your English language usage worries to WP:MOS? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'll simply note that your revert of my edit constitutes edit warring. You made the (B)old change, I (R)everted, we are supposed to (D)iscuss. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your pointy (and worse) edits have aught to do with this article topic. Please take it to WP:MOS. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

this is lame; I recuse myself from further discussion in this pissing contest. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your evaluation of the situation. jmcw (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Can't we find some reliable sources that modern-style fondue (without eggs) existed before 1913? Can we actually prove that it is an old Swiss peasant dish and not a 1900 invention? I found an 1864 definition of a caquelon as an earthernware pot in which one makes fondue, but alas no definition of fondue in that book.... Surely there are some good Swiss historical sources? --Macrakis (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been playing with Google Labs Books Ngram Viewer using terms such as 'fondue', 'cheese fondue', 'caquelon', 'fondue au fromage' in different languages and focusing on the 19th century. If a "no egg" version was around then it didn't leave any trace that I can find. Interestingly I focused on a 1939 English language spike in "cheese fondue" and found that peak in usage was for egg versions. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried the same and came up with nothing. On the other hand, the French WP article fr:Fondue au fromage has some references to an 1885 cookbook. I've added them to the article, but am not completely satisfied -- the citations are incomplete and I'm not sure exactly what the sources say. --Macrakis (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Finally something more solid: interviews of a historian about fondue: http://blog.swisster.com/food_corner/page/2/, http://blog.swisster.com/food_corner/2009/10/29/history-of-cheese-fondue-part-ii-interview-with-isabelle-raboud-schule/ . I will incorporate this info when I get a chance. Confirms that this is indeed a late-19th century dish, popularized in the 1930's as part of a marketing campaign by the Swiss cheese industry. --Macrakis (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Bits of text from that, such as We can therefore say that the marketing of fondue has been a perfect success.The evolution of fondue recipes over the past three centuries leads us to conclude that fondue did not originate in the mountains and Today fondue is above all renowned for its social aspect. Sharing a national dish dates back to the spiritual defense of Switzerland in the years preceding the Second World War.Thereafter the consumption of fondue sustained the nation’s emblematic dairy industry and united the different regions of the country around one dish may be strong hints that the "centuries old Alpine folklore" about fondue was but an echo of 20th century cheese marketing in CH. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Melted Chocolate

The second on chocolate mentions that melted chocolate is more healthy because people eat it more slowly. The source for this is a website selling a fondue pot for melted chocolate. Of course they're going to be saying it's more healthy -- that's the product they're selling. -- anonymous comment by 97.114.53.62 at 2010-12-27T18:40:16

Thanks for pointing this out! I've removed this silliness -- you could have done that, too. --Macrakis (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

fondue article correction

Hello Jmcw37, sorry to bother you but I would like to explain my point of view about Fondue article you corrected. I didn't know how to develop a discussion in Wikipedia community about this article, so I apologize if this is the wrong place to discuss. Fondue/fonduta it's a typical Alpine dish, created basically with high calorical melted cheese to cope with typical Alpine cold wheather. Being Fondue/fonduta a traditional western Alpine dish, and sharing Italy a huge part of western Alps (overall Piedmont and Vallée d'Aote regions), shoundn't be seen strange or arkward that fondue/fonduta it's a Swiss, French and Italian dish. If you check out in internet "piedmont fondue" or "fonduta valdostana" you can see with your own eyes that it's by no mean a "spam" or a "good faith" issue. I can find as much liks and documents as you want supporting my point of view, but every time I publish the "correction" in wikipedia I'm being accused of "good faith" or "spam"... So, according to you, what am I supposed to do? I think that talking about france or swiss or italy can create confusion and unwanted exclusion, so wouldn't it be better to talk about fondue/fonduta as an "Alpine region traditional dish"? I see you're from Switzerland, so you'll find no difficulties in findind in a bookstore piedmont recipes of Piedmont or Vallée d'Aote Fondue/fonduta! :) Thank you very much for your suggestion, and sorry if my "correction" unwantedly seemed "spam" or lacking of "good faith". Thomas Villa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.219.131 (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1