Talk:Frog legs

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoemorin, Wendyma.team8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article has several areas it's pretty obvious it was written by someone with only a working level of English, especially the portions regarding its status in Islam under "Religious" and under the Indonesia section, suggesting that it's probably written by someone from Indonesia. Many grammatical errors, odd usage of articles, singulars and plurals, as well as awkward word choice and other issues make it really unclear and difficult to read. If someone has any knowledge of this area and the time and interest it really does need a bit of work, and I think it's worth it since I didn't actually know anything about frog leg consumption in Indonesia, which seems to be very commonplace. It's also NPOV as in several areas there is reference to it being "disgusting," which is inherently NPOV without any kind of significance behind it (for instance, religious canonical terminology). MJXcess (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Untitled Frogs' are not related to chickens, much less lobsters. Frogs are amphibians, chickens are birds, and lobsters are anthropods. Frogs are as closely related to chickens as either is related tuna, and as related to lobster as each is related to an earthworm (actually, an earthworm has more in common with a lobster than with a frog). I'm going to remove that line now. Gentgeen 21:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Said the frog to the man, important to the ecology of the planet as a human is. Jmdeur (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some of the ways frogs are butchered are considered cruel. Often the frog is severed in half while still alive.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

How are either of these relevant to Gentgeen's point? Ecological importance or moral considerations do nothing to change facts of biology and genetics. MJXcess (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is gross. Maybe someone should delete this page? 83.31.217.182 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. Grosser is what some people get to eat in our sophisticated society of plastic burgers--Francisco Valverde 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. This dosen't gross me out. Infact, I have eaten frog legs before. Giant Blue Anteater 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wait, really? Theincredibleoctupus (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would oppose but there's nothing to oppose - this isn't a credible reason for even raising a discussion of deletion, and I'd far more suggest it's trolling. In fact, why hasn't this section been deleted as it violates the purpose of the talk page? MJXcess (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's a common statement but frogs don't taste like chicken. SchmuckyTheCat 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. I recently ate frog legs, and they totally taste like chicken. --YesIAmAnIdiot 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Concur. I enjoy frog legs whenever I can, and they don't really taste like chicken so much as like fish... oddly, in all respects they are like chicken. Sweetfreek (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Concur. per above. or maybe our frogs had just been swimming a lot :) --dicttrshp (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

ummmm,i haven't eaten frog before but i think they don't taste like chicken(for a random reason,dont ask me why). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.32.117 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter since this is all opinion unless some kind of credible secondary source is provided, either something objective, like double-blind taste testing, or perhaps even a chemical analysis. Personal opinion and allegorical evidence are NOT notable nor NPOV. MJXcess (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've eaten whole frogs in the Dome. How widespread is that in France? JeffBurdges 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC My french teacher who is actually french told me that they taste like chicken

Should there not be a section in this article devoted to Volta and Galvani and the phenomenon of electric current in a frog's leg? (Herbert Dingle 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)).Reply

I would say that maybe a link to it would be reasonable, but that topic is only related in that they used frog's legs (or some portion of a frog therewith). That would be like including a discussion on every machine that uses bolts in the "Bolt" article. MJXcess (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are only upper leg sections eaten? Is the rest not palatable? Please add info. -- 92.229.143.190 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to [1][2][3] the English had ate them first, so does this really mean that all them years ago the English were eating them as the French do now as a type of food in one's diet?--Windows66 (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No the article(s) implies that Ancient Britons ate them, not the English who came over 7000 years later from Germany. Some Celts later settled in Brittany, France. Sam 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx (talk • contribs)

Why there is such meat called "frog legs"?

It does not fit in with beef: (hamburger, steak, etc.), poultry: (chicken, turkey, etc.), pork: (ham, bacon, etc.), seafood: (fish, salmon, shrimp, tuna, etc.) or even with lamb.

Who made the creation of "frog legs"?

There are actually several different naming themse there:

1) English uses separate words for certain animals and their meats due to the influence of a Norman/French ruling class. (The common people raised what they called "pigs" and "cattle", and then the nobles ate what they called " boef" and "porc"). I don't know why fish doesn't follow this pattern - maybe they weren't restricted by class.

2) Various cuts and processed forms of meat have their own names for a variety of reasons: "hamburgers" are named after Hamburg, "ham" is an old word for the part of the leg that that meat comes from, "steak" is apparently from Norse (I guess the Vikings must have been keen on it).

3) Some other meats do follow the "frog legs" pattern of <animal> <part>: e.g. chicken wings, chicken thighs, ox tongue, shark fin, etc. I don't know why. ^{[original research?]}Maybe they didn't become popular or notable in English until there stopped being such a class-distinction in who ate them, and/or recently enough that their names are still meaningful words. Iapetus (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why are frog legs are from France, Portugal, Brazil, Slovenia, Croatia, Mexico, Greece, and etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.55 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The preparation of frog legs is done on living animals. There is no way doing that ethically without killing them first. First the head is cut off with a scissor, then the front legs are cut off, and then the lower part of the body is cut. Sometimes they are put in icy water first to "paralyse" them although that has nothing to do anesthesia in the clinical sense of the word. Even chopping off the head does not impede the organism to be alive for up to 15 minutes. 83.86.75.220 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply