# Talk:Ketchup chips

@Escape Orbit: Apart from the artifical flavour issue I brought up in my edit summary here, phrasing stuff like that is generally discouraged (see Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained and MOS:REDUNDANCY. The average reader will know what ketchup is, it doesn't need to be stated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss The problem is that nowhere in the lead is flavour even mentioned, so the reader has to go all the way into the depths of the article to find out what is distinctive about these chips.  I myself was unclear, thinking that the lack of any mention of this was perhaps indication that they had no additional flavour, and were simply designed to be dipped in ketchup.
Believing the average reader knows what flavour "ketchup" is, is North American thinking. In the UK, for instance, the flavour is always tomato ketchup, because "ketchup" alone isn't enough (something the ketchup article is very specific about, if the reader were allowed to find it).  Australians are confused to what ketchup even is], tomato sauce being the usual term, something in common with the UK.
So this average reader was perfectly willing to be told that Canadian Ketchup Chips weren't tomato, but some other flavour entirely, but recieved no absolutely no help from the lead.   This information, which I believe to be pretty key, is buried in the article, under a paragraph explaining that they aren't much flavoured like ketchup, but like tomatoes and sugar.
Can you see why the reader might be confused and how this article can do much better? Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm aware of regional differences but I think the current phrasing suits this well: regional variety of potato chip. If someone is confused about what ketchup is, they can type in "ketchup", where the concept is explained. As for the taste, that's one reader describing it, which is why it isn't included in the lead. One person's interpretation would be WP:UNDUE. If you still happen to disagree, you can ask for a third opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I never suggested one person's opinion should be in the lead, and you addressing my reply as if I was is worrisome.
You don't see a problem with the reader having to find the first mention of flavour some way into the article, under an opinion about what the chips are not?  Would it not be preferable that the article starts with what they are?  And while finding the ketchup article may help, cos heaven forbid this article help by linking it in the lead, it still won't unequivocally explain what is distictive about this product. Is it the flavour? Do I dip these chips in ketchup?  Is it tomato ketchup?  Why is this something the article thinks I should work out, rather than be told?  As a feature of Canadian identity, the lead gives the impression that what is distinctive about them is either so dull it is not worth mentioning, or excitingly secret.
The standard you're applying here means that Mint chocolate chip, Strawberry ice cream, Cheese puffs, Back bacon and Maple leaf (I could go on) also require attention.  Their leads all link to words in the title that the average reader might know, or could look up themselves. Except, that's not the criteria that Wikipedia applies for linking words.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the standard I'm applying would indeed include those other articles. It's known to be a common issue, which is why I linked the relevant parts of the MOS. I instinctively used such phrasing for a good part of my early editing career until other editors pointed it out to me. As for common words, that is entirely my point (see WP:OVERLINKING). Ketchup also says that tomato ketchup is the modern use of the term, so I don't see what value there is to the reader in telling something they are likely to already know.
I admit to not understanding why you find the lead sentence confusing. Describing something as a regional potato chip flavour is going to tell the reader that is indeed a flavour. I honestly think it's a good first sentence. As for "addressing my reply as if I was is worrisome", I'm presenting counterarguments because we disagree. I'm not sure how I gave the impression that your thoughts were "worrisome" but sometimes things don't come across well through text. We're clearly at an impasse here so please seek a third opinion or some other form of outside feedback. I think I'm right and you think you're right, so I doubt we're going to convince each other at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
If it helps at all, this situation reminds me of WP:THISISALIST. Trying to follow that has been a newer experience for me and it came with the same obstacles I initially had when trying to follow MOS:REDUNDANCY. I found it frustrating to wrap my head around it because I was so used to writing and reading things a particular way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I've got so far, some of it might be less useful than the rest. The newspapers.com citations are uncorrected.

https://www.proquest.com/other-sources/moment-father-son-duo-drove-days-get-ketchup/docview/2840948685/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/u-s-food-writers-have-just-discovered-canadian/docview/2284228859/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/gold-medal-snacks-ketchup-chips-top-board-olympic/docview/3085319269/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/de-emphasis-on-food-brings-focus-back-traditional/docview/204826490/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ketchup-potato-chips-take-tiers-taste-test/docview/438994326/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/are-ketchup-chips-good-bad-andrew-garfield-says/docview/3120560716/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/walkers-launches-controversial-new-crisps-brits/docview/3094562442/se-2?accountid=196403

 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll try to take a look at these within the next week or so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I've taken a look through these.
Proquest sources: source 1 is about the American road trip (already covered in the article), used source 2, source 3 has a SkipTheDishes survey but it hardly seems relevant, source 4 is about a small pharmacy making an off-handed comment about people not caring if he's temporarily out of stock on ketchup chips, source 5 goes into the Herr/Heinz partnership which is already mentioned, source 6 is a republished version of the National Post cited in this article, and source 7 mentions the UK ketchup/sausage limited edition flavour already mentioned in the article.
Newspaper.com sources: source 1 looks useful but I'm unsure if "chips with ketchup" is exactly what it sounds like, source 2 is just a Hostess ad, source 3 could potentially be useful but I'm not sure if saying something like "a 1982 college class in Ohio produced ketchup chips" is DUE, source 4 is amusing but I'm not sure it could be used, will use source 5, source 6 seems to be a columnist suggested ketchup chips would have a market in a specific area, will use source 7 for a flavour description, source 8 is a Canadian expatriate missing home, will use source 9 for a flavour description, source 10 is an ad, source 11 mentions Uncle Ray's selling them but I think this information is outdated because it isn't listed on their website as a flavour they sell. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Two more potential sources:
The mystery of the history of ketchup chips in Canada, Postmedia Network
Starting Points: A Sociological Journey Second Edition, page 162
Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rollinginhisgrave: The first source is largely duplicative but could probably be used for a sentence or two more about the US. I'm not sure the latter could really be used for anything. All it says that ketchup chips were included in a poll about the Canadianness of different food items but doesn't give any information about how it ranked. It also only sampled 1,000 people and it was conducted in 2012. I guess I'll have to think about it. If it is included, I'd say it's crucial to mention the small sample size and that it was grouped with other items.
In any case, I appreciate the suggestions. How you'd find the first source? I see that there's a Wayback Machine link with it and I'm guessing it's not currently online. I gave everything my best shot so knowing how to eviscerate the Internet further would be nice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I searched Wikipedia :) It was in List of potato chip brands. Unusual, but pulls up sources you wouldn't otherwise find. I'm working on using LLMs to search the Wayback machine, which has had mixed success, but would be really great if I can figure it out. I think it's interesting from the first source that no one at Lays in the story "could provide any verification or elaboration." of its origin claim. The 1000 people sampled shouldn't be an issue, the margin of error would be quite low. I am reading that even if they don't give information on where it ranked, ketchup chips were considered less associated with Canada than salmon, poutine, back bacon, Timbits and Montreal bagels. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rollinginhisgrave: Oh, okay. My method was digging through every search result on Google and newspapers.com for ketchup chips. Believe me, there were a lot of false positives (the words "ketchup" and "chip" show up in a lot of irrelevant newspaper snippets). Anyways, I'll hopefully find a way to use both sources in the next day or so. Thank you again for finding them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rollinginhisgrave:  Done now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Potato chip which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to a related discussion and Third opinion. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There was also a Teahouse discussion Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1256#Use of sources. Sharnadd, I'd really appreciate if you didn't keep trying to add this back in without a consensus for inclusion. There are other forms of dispute resolution if you really want to escalate this. Courtesy pings to the other editors involved in that discussion ColinFine and Michael D. Turnbull. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: @Lee Vilenski, @Iazyges, @Trainsandotherthings, and @Chipmunkdavis Floating Orb Talk! my edits 15:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Best to avoid splitting discussion from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ketchup chips/1. CMD (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh. I thought I was supposed to put it here too. By the way, this is actually my 3,200 edit right now. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Not a problem, for future reference the pings should work on the GAR page. CMD (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, Floating Orb Talk! my edits 16:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, since I added an earlier description, the lead ("introduced in the 1970s... first produced by Hostess Potato Chips") has been contradicting the body. I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling the two, do you have any suggestions? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: "Introduced in the 70s but has disputed origins" would probably be more accurate to the body. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I think "introduced in the 70s" is inaccurate without qualification. How about introduced by the 70s? As to the Hostess material, is "an early variety was produced by Hostess Potato Chips" okay with you? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)