| Revision as of 20:37, 11 January 2013 editRightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,091 edits →Request for comment: notice← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:00, 21 November 2024 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,592 edits →Current status: ce |
| (214 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |
|
|
|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mexico|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|breakfast=yes|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject San Diego|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|la=yes |importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Nile Cappello |
|
|
| title = California Burrito: Get To Know This Local Favorite |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/california-burrito_n_3625554.html |
|
|
| date = July 22, 2013 |
|
|
| quote = I mean really, it even has its own section in the burrito Misplaced Pages page. |
|
|
| accessdate = May 11, 2017 |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Burrito/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Burrito/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mexico|class=Start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject San Diego|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|la=yes|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Image requested|of= cross-section of San Diego style, ''California'', and San Francisco style burritos|in=California}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vicky's Cafe == |
|
|
|
|
|
An editor added the following material to the Development in the U.S. section. I removed it from the article, and am putting it here for verification. I was unable to corroborate it or find reliable sources for it. If the editor (or anyone else) can verify it, then it's been preserved here for reintroduction to the article. Here it is: <blockquote>While Alejandro Borquez may have served burritos in his Sonora cafe, it is controversial to say he was first to serve burritos to the American public. One must research and acknowledge the contributions of another Sonoran restauranteur in Los Angeles, California, one Victoria Rico, who owned and operated "Vicky's Cafe" in downtown Los Angeles, just a couple of blocks from City Hall and many business offices, where much of her clientele worked or frequented. Newly arrived in the United States, having left the Hermosillo region of Sonora due to political and personal hardship, Victoria, along with her mother Mercedes Rico and oldest brother Jose Rico researched local American food eating habits and discovered the popularity of hot dogs and hamburgers. Thus, in the mid-1920's, Victoria--with the help of her family--made her initial foray into the restaurant business serving breakfast and lunch out of a little "hole in the wall" location. Vicky's Cafe opened for breakfast and lunch only: eggs, bacon, and potatoes were the morning favorites; while hot dogs, hamburgers and french fries became lunchtime winners.<p>All of this changed when two customers arrived at the end of her typical lunch service and she had sold out of all her regular items. Pressing Victoria for something to eat, and asking her what she normally ate when she was in a hurry, she told them to give her a couple of minutes and she would prepare them something traditional to her Sonoran family roots. She went back to her kitchen and made each of them a "green chile verde" and a "red chile colorado" burrito, and asked them to try it and that they didn't have to pay if they didn't like it. The two men not only loved her "new specialty" they paid her and gave her a five cent tip (a lot of money back in the late 1920's). When they began bringing their friends and business associates to taste Vicky's wonderful "BEW-REE-TOES" ... she decided to not only add them to her menu, but to add favorite some of her favorite Sonoran cuisine as additional items to her standard fare. Throughout the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, Vicky's cafe expanded and became a regular Mexican dining favorite for the Los Angeles crowd. Many celebrities frequented her establishment, which was known as "The Home of the Original Burrito".</blockquote> |
|
|
Comments welcome. ] (]) 20:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverting bold change == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am a ] by Viriditas, per ]. The section in question is not a history section, and thus it is not necessary to list the types of burritos chronologically. As the section is a list of the types of Burritos in the United States, and not a history of burritos in the United States, it falls under ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, as there is a main article about San Francisco Burritos, I could argue that there is too much content about the burrito here in this article, and only a one paragraph ] should be included in this article.--] (]) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:You failed to supply an actual ''reason'' for your reversion. Instead, you reverted for no reason and then proceeded to distract from your failure to provide a reason for you revert with off topic red herrings that have no bearing on his discussion. Food history most certainly appears in chronological order in both prose and section headings, and our own sources describe this history, so your blind reversion without reason serves no rational aim nor purpose. We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT. I wil be restoring the sourced order of sections in my next series of edits. Unless you are willing and able to provide reasons for your edits, there is no point in continuing this non-discussion. The history of the burrito is told in chronological order, not by order of your personal preference or pet theories and whims. ] (]) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please see ] (specifically ]) & ]. The section of the article is not about food history, but about describing a list of types of burritos. Therefore the linked MOS applies; thus it should not be listed chronologically, but alphabetically. Furthermore, no one editor owns an article, and given that I have stated here MOS justifying the edit, reverting my reversion would begin an ] and I kindly ask that this not happen. |
|
|
::Nowhere did I say that I do not like that "Mission-style" burrito. If you look at my profile I have spent time both in the SF Bay Area, and in San Diego, and enjoy both types of Burrito (actually its hard for me to find a good "Mission-style" burrito in the greater San Diego Area (''Chipotle'' does not do it justice)), so to accuse me of reverting the order based on IDONTLIKEIT is false, and I kindly ask that unfounded accusations against me stop. |
|
|
::I have stated my reason for reverting the bold edit in the opening paragraph. There is not reason to make this an uncivil conversation, and I kindly ask that any incivility stop.--] (]) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You apparently did not understand what I wrote. Nothing I said violated CIIVL. You must use the sources and you must have ''reasons'' for your edits. End of discussion. You provided reasons for editing ''other material'' that has ''nothing'' to do with your edits under discussion. Until you discuss ''why'' you reversed the structure outside the timeline of the food history presented in the soureces, there is nothing to talk about. We don't edit based on personal preferences, personal beliefs, or personal whim. ] (]) 01:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ec}}I did read what was written, and it is my view that the initial response was uncivil at worse, at felt condescending at least. My source for the reversion of the bold change is that MOS does not support the bold change. The section in question, is not a history section. There is already a section on that. Rather, it is in a section entitled "Regional varieties", and goes on to '''List''' those varieties. In cases where there is a primary article about that variety, a summary is included in this article. In cases where there is no primary article, or where that article has been redirected here, verified content is included. |
|
|
::::I see my reversion based on ] and keeping with ], has . I have asked before that this not be done, as it is initiating an edit war, something I kindly asked not to start.--] (]) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm afraid I don't understand a single word of what you've written above nor how it could amount to a semblance of reasonable rationale for your recent blind reverting of material that both reflects the sources and our relevant policies and guidelines. We don't use guidelines like the MOS to support arguments about encyclopedia content, such as the chronological food history of regional burrito varieties. It really does sound like you did not read my comments, as you haven't supported your reverts with a single solid argument. As I said before, you appear to be blindly reverting based on your personal preferences, personal beliefs and personal whims about the subject rather than the actual sources. Contrary to your repeated claims, we ''do'' write food ''history'' in a chronological order, and we ''don't'' use the MOS guidelines as some kind of strategy to avoid it. This discussion is beyond bizarre. ] (]) 01:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::] is a poor reason to begin an edit war, and to not follow BRD. |
|
|
::::::In the , there is a unilateral claim that two separate sections are in fact one, and thus the follow on section should be listed chronologically. This is no ] to support this reasoning. |
|
|
::::::To state my reversion is blind, is false. |
|
|
::::::Please see the MOS, as the section is a list of regional varieties, the content should be listed alphabetically as the MOS:LIST indicates. Furthermore, even if there was a ] to support it being listed based on the date a variety was first documented, that is not sufficient reason to ] and continue to list it non-alphabetically.--] (]) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm sorry, you are not making any sense. This isn't a list and we don't write history alphabetically. Please try to find an actual rationale for your edits that applies to this discussion. History is written chronologically. ] (]) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Again, let me state that no one editor ]. The reversion of the bold edit was supported by a MOS guideline. As another editor continues, in my humble opinion, to be incivil towards me I will ] this article for a day or two, as there will always be ] to improve this article. Good day.--] (]) 01:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I'm happy to work with you, but lets both try to work towards improvement. ] (]) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
;Third opinion |
|
|
Hi, one of you requested a ], and I'm here to provide one. After reading through the above discussion, reading through the diffs and the MOS link, I think I would side with RCLC because, as he mentioned, this section is regarding regional varieties, not history. If it were regarding the history, then it would make sense to discuss them chronologically, but it seems that this is simply a list of various varieties, and therefore I believe it makes sense to list alphabetically. That would be my third opinion. Of course, you are welcome to carry this further in the ], but over something this minor, I would strongly urge you both to simply ]. It's not the end of the world. Thanks to you both for remaining relatively civil to one another, and happy belated new year to you both. ] ]] 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is most certainly not a list at all, and it was never intended as a list. The sources themselves discuss the variations in terms of their chronological history in the context of the culinary history of the burrito. RCLC claims it is a list because he's attempting to POV push his preference for the San Diego variety. The chronological history of burrito development goes from Mexico in the 19th to early 20th century to regional variations in San Francisco in the 1960s to the most recent development in San Diego in the 1980s. Any other variations, such as wet and breakfast burritos are not "lists" but rather regional variations (Los Angeles in the 1950s and New Mexico in the 1970s respectively) waiting to be put back into their appropriate timeline. This is a food history of the burrito not a list of variations. And finally, to put the nail in the coffin of this most absurd argument by RCLC, best practice on Misplaced Pages is always to convert list style to prose style using narrative (in this case food history), not to turn prose into a list and remove the narrative. ] (]) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I reverted Viriditas's changes. It makes no sense to put the wet burrito and breakfast burrito sections into new L.A. and New Mexico sections, respectively. Looking at the content of what was moved shows that the content was not intended to be limited to those regions. The structure of the article had been to show early development, and then show the current state of different varieties - both by region and by style. The changes I reverted made a strange hybrid of history and the present. I also object - again - to the assertion that San Diego-style = California burrito. The sources back me up, and I address that below. ] (]) 06:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::One misrepresentation and misunderstanding at a time, please. Working backwards, ''your'' assertion that the California Burrito is distinct from other types of San Diego style burritos is ''reasonable'', however it is not evidenced by the sources in use, and in fact, you are misusing sources ''about'' the California Burrito, not a San Diego style as you claim. Please look again. I've further explained this at the bottom of this page since you raise the point twice. Finally, to address your revert, there was no "strange hybrid of history and the present". While there are multiple ways to present this content, regional food history is best presented in terms of its place and time. As for your statement that something was "not intended to be limited to those regions", I must again disagree. That is not how the sections were used. Nobody limits a food item to a region. Anyone reading this and other related topics knows quite well that regional foods that occur in one place are not limited to that place. Grouping related content into prose form and linking that prose together using a central thematic thread (in this case history) is best practice. Converting this history to a random list of variations goes against virtually every source we have. Your perception of a "strange hybrid of history and the present" is called ]. Please look into it. This is not a list, nor is it intended to be a list, nor do we attempt to turn encyclopedia articles into lists. ] (]) 09:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}There appears to be a ] for following the ] concerning the <u>list of regional varieties</u> of burritos that they be listed <u>alphabetically</u>, as is done with the <u>list</u> of non-regional varieties lower on the page. |
|
|
|
|
|
The section of each variety gives background to that particular variety's development, but is not intended to be a history of burritos as a whole; there is already a section for history, and it is not the regional varieties. This article is not ], but on burritos in general. It has a lead section, gives a history of burritos in general, list regional varieties, and list non-regional varieties, has a related food section, and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Viriditas stated the above: |
|
|
{{quote|While there are multiple ways to present this content...}} |
|
|
Now it is the opinion of Viriditas that: |
|
|
{{quote|...regional food history is best presented in terms of its place and time.}} |
|
|
That being said, that is one opinion of the best layout of content, and there appears to be a majority (with the understanding that wikipedia is edited by consensus and not by ]) of editors who seek to follow the ] and list the regional varieties alphabetically. And any ] ] would in the end eventually be found in error.--] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Absolutely not. This is not a list. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't turn encyclopedia content into lists, we turn it into prose. Your proposal is exactly contrary to the way we write articles and violates best policies on how we use sources and ]. There are ''zero'' sources that list regional burritos in an alphabetical order because they are treated, by almost all of the reliable sources, in terms of food history. Policy dictates that "to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That context is the history of the burrito. Guidelines exist to help us write better articles, not to subvert our policies regarding content. This article is about the regional food history of the burrito, not about an alphabetical list of regional variations that have no connection to each other. The only reason you are making this ridiculous argument is because you are trying to push "San Diego" higher on the page, which is the most childish, immature thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've got to agree with Viriditas: The focus should be on making this more encyclopedic, not less. That means better organization and more context, not less. |
|
|
::I've not looked at the sources yet. Is there anything that can clear up the confusion by being obviously more ]? --] (]) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've just now removed an entire paragraph of original research from the San Diego section. The "history" section should not be separate from the rest of the article. As it stands right now, that section is really a subsection about "Early development" of the burrito before and after first contact. "Mexico" is not a "regional variation" at all, but rather where the notion of the burrito arises. The movement of the burrito throughout the United States is reflected by the movement of immigrants, by the interpenetration of farm workers into urban areas, and finally into food carts and restaurants. Peter Fox, Gustavo Arellano and other authors have written about this development not in terms of an alphabetized list of variations but in terms of history, as seen through time. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If this is the case, why not merge the History and variants sections? |
|
|
::::I have posted my concern about unilateral declaration that verified to reliable sources is OR below. At worse it can be argued to be SYNTH, but the references themselves are reliable, IMHO, including one to an academic journal, and the content should not be removed. |
|
|
::::Presently there is '''no consensus''' as to whether the regional variety section is part of the history section. I agree with ] and ] that the section is a list of regional varieties, and is separate from the history section. Moreover, I believe they should remain so.--] (]) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Additionally I kindly ask ] to remain civil and to assume good faith. The following statement, is impolite at best a ] attack upon myself at worst: |
|
|
{{quote|The only reason you are making this ridiculous argument is because you are trying to push "San Diego" higher on the page, which is the most childish, immature thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.|]}} |
|
|
::::Which itself goes back to an earlier statement: |
|
|
{{quote|We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.|]}} |
|
|
::::Please, I implore again that ] stop being uncivil.--] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I just stumbled on to this discussion--I hope my comments are helpful and don't inflame things any further. It seems like the main question is whether the section "Regional variants" is a history or a list. Right now, it has a heading on the same level as the "History" heading, so it doesn't ''look'' like part of history. I can understand why RightCowLeftCoast would treat it like a list. On the other hand, it doesn't look like a true list either. More important, in this setting in the article, it might make more sense to treat it as part of the pedigree of the burrito, if you will. Maybe we can make that more clear by changing the name to "Development of Regional Varieties", or by adding an intro line at the top. The goal would be to make it clear this isn't simply a listing of all current regional varieties, but rather traces a lineage of development of different varieties over time. I'll attempt that after I finish this comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
The second issue has to do with the tone of the debate. I have no idea how Viriditas meant his/her comments to be taken, but they struck me as somewhat unfriendly in tone. Viriditas, you repeatedly imputed motivation for RCLC's actions (e.g. "YOUDONTLIKEIT", "The only reason you are making this ridiculous argument is because you are trying to push 'San Diego' higher on the page, which is the most childish, immature thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.", "We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences"). You also repeatedly accused RCLC of failing to give a reason for his/her edits, but from the conversation here, it seems that several of us understood RCLC's reason: s/he interpreted this section as a list, and applied the style guidelines for lists. If you genuinely don't understand where someone is coming from, there are nicer ways to ask for clarification (e.g. "I'm sorry, I don't understand your explanation. Can you be more specific and clear?"). RCLC responded by politely asking you to make your tone more civil, which seems like a reasonable, and not nasty, request.] (]) 18:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I changed the section heading to "Development of Regional Varieties," which is not perfect--maybe someone has a better idea? ] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the additional opinion. Perhaps, History and Development of Regional varieties should be merged into Developments and the time period which the other non-regional varities can be merged into the new '''Developments''' section. Moreover, perhaps a summary can also be included in this article of the ], which itself is a deep fried burrito, and thus can be seen as a variant (even if its notable itself) (''Perhaps same can be done in a recreation of the ] article'').--] (]) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== California Burrito == |
|
|
|
|
|
In doing a search about the '''California Burrito''', which use to have its own article, which was ] changed into a , I have , multiple , and of the subject. It can be argued that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for it being a "San Diego-style" burrito, there are only , , and on the web. Therefore, per ] any new article should be named ].--] (]) 01:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Food writers and historians clearly refer to it as a "San Diego-style" burrito, which explains its regional variation and development, so you're wrong. As usual, your cherry picking of sources (using GHits is problematic as you've been informed over and over and over again) leaves a lot to be desired. The term "California burrito" is used interchangeably, and can be a source of great confusion while discussing regional burrito variations within California. The reason the standalone article no longer exists is because it was created by POV pushers using original research and poor sources. Since that time additional sources have become available, but they are extremely poor and consist mostly of food reviews of restaurants and say little to nothing about the subject. Do I think it deserves its own subject? Yes, per ], but you need to actually do the research and use good sources, not just passing mentions in restaurant reviews published in blogs. ] (]) 01:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::"California burrito" and "San-Diego-style burrito" are not synonymous, as the sources indicate. The California burrito is one ''kind'' of San Diego-style burrito. I thought we'd been over that at some point before... I restored the S.D. section to reflect that. ] (]) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think there's some confusion here. When we speak of a "San Diego-style" burrito, we are speaking primarily of the California Burrito. The sources make this very clear. It is not surprising that there might be other types of San Diego-style burritos, but you need to get back to your sources and actually read them. For example, the Ellwood & Edwards source you use isn't very helpful because it is just speaking about general characteristics. There's no way to know what they are actually talking about because they are just mentioning it in passing. And the Arellano sources you cite as discussing the San Diego-style are actually talking about the California Burrito, so please take another look. ] (]) 03:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The whole point is the general characteristics, though - which is simple and no-frills. Plus, the San-Diego style predates the California burrito. If you look at the Arellano source, he says that San Diego has "burritos as sturdy as San Francisco's. No frills. no add-ons, no fancy assembly line, just rapid-fire delivery. These -berto's also prepare and originated the California burrito: the regular burrito, but now engorged with French fries". The ''also'' means that California burritos and regular San Diego-style burritos are not the same. ] (]) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::<small>Following is the original post by User:Viriditas to which I responded:</small> I'm afraid you have misread the sources and created your own unique interpretation. Arellano is solely and singularly discussing the California Burrito, a San Diego style of burritos that are ''available'' at restaurants ''like'' Roberto's, Alberto's, Filiberto's, etc. He is not referring to ''other'' San Diego style burritos. Please find other sources to make your point because this isn't it. Further, you are misusing the sources. ] (]) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<p><small>And following is Viriditas's rewording of his comment, after I had replied below:</small> Aside from the fact that burritos in Southern California are smaller, where does Arellano discuss actual San Diego style burritos that are not California burritos? Please cite the page numbers and quote the content to the books you've added. Arellano is discussing San Diego purveyors of burritos, not a specific style. And when he does discuss style, he talks about the California burrito. You are misusing the source. ] (]) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You are conflating two concepts - the San Diego-style of burrito, which has been described generally - by sources - as austere and no-frills. ( Then you have the California burrito, which is ''a specific burrito'' with meat and French fries that happened to be developed in San Diego. There is essentially no such thing as a "California-style burrito". A for the phrase shows it's used by non-California sources to mean "like a burrito you'd find in California", or a synonym for the Mission-style burrito, and never as a synonym for the California burrito or for San Diego-style. Please read the sources more closely. Again, Arellano is saying that San Diego burritos (-berto's ones in particular) are no frills. He then says they ''also'' make California burritos. Why say "also" if they're synonymous? ] (]) 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Dohn joe, the sources in the article don't support these claims, and I notice you've now made additions that make the problem worse. Since you don't understand the problem with your edits, I'll break it down for you edit by edit in the next comment. ] (]) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Now to the problem. Please note how all of these sources have been poorly cobbled together to lend credence to the existence of an imaginary "San Diego style" that is somehow different than a "California style". The sources say otherwise: |
|
|
|
|
|
*''The San Diego-style of burrito has been described as "austere", "simple", and "no-frills'' |
|
|
**There are three cites for this statement, all of which establish that burritos are smaller in Southern California. However, Newberry says nothing about the so-called San Diego style and neither does the Arellano source you cite. Please show otherwise. ] (]) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*''The typical San Diego burrito is not produced on an assembly table'' |
|
|
**Again you cite Arellano with no page number. Please quote the actual content and page number. ] (]) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*''and is usually wrapped in butcher paper, not aluminum foil.'' |
|
|
**This statement is sourced to writer/poet Bill Luoma's book of prose poetry, ''Works & Days'', specifically the work "We were in burrito", which was previously used as an installation in an art gallery. This is not a reliable source for our article. ] (]) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*''A carne asada burrito in San Diego typically consists solely of chunks of carne asada and guacamole'' |
|
|
**The source is an unreliable student publication that says nothing about any kind of San Diego style burrito at all, only carne asada. Why is this carne asada burrito different from a carne asada burrito in New York City? ] (]) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 == |
|
*''or carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa'' |
|
|
**Dead link to a student newspaper that says nothing about any San Diego style burrito. What is special about carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa in relation to San Diego? ] (]) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Burrito|answered=yes}} |
|
*''without other ingredients such as rice and beans. One may also encounter non-traditional, "healthy" burrito fillings such as eggplant.'' |
|
|
|
The burrito is from Mexico. Please remove United States (modern version). That is redundant and cultural appropriation. ] (]) 11:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
**Source discusses California burritos. Nothing about the lack of rice and beans. The source actually states that the eggplant filling is ''traditional'' Mexican, not non-traditional, and explains it as Mexican not San Diego style. I would need to see the full context, but this apparently has nothing to do with the subject. ] (]) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> Countries aren't cultures, and multiple types of burritos are noteworthy. ] (]) 12:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with you. This does seem redundant. ] (]) 12:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am working in a rewrite that will clearly describe the different variations, including the multiple Mexican variations and the subsequent American variations. ] (]) 17:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== I move to remove Beltline Bar mention == |
|
I have been accused of editing content based on ], the major to ] by one editor, smacks of ]. And '''seriously concerns me greatly'''. Regarding references that do no cite page numbers, the best way to handle this is to leave the content there and tag the source with ], and allow a non-involved third party to check the source. As for the SDSU publication, to unilaterally claim that the source is not a reliable source, and delete its information is not the best way to go about it; take the concern to ] to allow non-involved third party editors to comment whether the Student Newspaper meets the criteria set forth in ]. Perhaps this edit should be reviewed, or taken to RFC?--] (]) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is worthwhile to remove the mention of Beltline Bar possibly being the creator of the wet burrito. It is widely contested locally. Just because they have the most advertising behind their claim does not make it credible. Other restaurants in town had them longer than beltline bar, and further, more places outside of West Michigan as a whole. ] (]) 12:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
Additionally, the ] deletion unilaterally claiming that verified to reliable research content is OR could be reverted per ]. That being said as I have stated above the opinion that ] had engaged in an ], and have asked that discussion occur, consensus reached, rather than further bold editing. I will not exacerbation the edit conflict which is being instigated by reverting the bold action, and hope that my concern(s) can be resolved civilly without the need for actions by administrators. --] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Wet burrito == |
|
===Request for comment=== |
|
|
{{rfc|soc|rfcid=D50D415}} |
|
|
A user has a paragraph of the article from the article space, claiming that the content is ]. This opinion is disputed, as is the deletion.--] (]) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is a lie Beltline bar did not invent the wet burrito sauce... It was at Little Mexico on bridge street A beautiful lady Named Maria Perez Mendoza made invented the sauce.... ] (]) 13:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
In accordence with ], I will notify involved editors, and appropriate WikiProjects of this RfC.--] (]) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Current status == |
|
===Avoid you=== |
|
|
:Again, I kindly ask that we follow ]. |
|
|
:So are we in agreement that the subject is now notable enough for a stand alone article?--] (]) 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::We don't have to be in agreement, I would still support the right of anyone to create the article. But it has to have good sources to survive the redirect and deletion process. I suggest you restart the article with improved sourcing if that is what you desire. ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;" |
|
|
|] '''Response to ]''': |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|You may want to consider using the AfC process to create the article if there are concerns about sourcing. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]]</span></span> 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
::The third opinion request is for the section above this one, ], and not this section.--] (]) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article has degraded significantly since I last visited, and it is now filled with errors and misinformation. I would like to suggest a major rewrite. If anyone with knowledge of the topic is interested in helping, please let me know. I think it's important to get it to at least a stable version that is not filled with nonsense. ] (]) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Potential usable source == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Update: I began by removing the ] photo, which Taco Bell corporate has said is ''not'' Mexican food but a new variation on the Mexican burrito for a US (and now global audience). (It's odd we don't have an article on institutional food). It was misleading keeping it at the top of the article and was also cluttering up the page. I think some effort should be made to explain how Taco Bell is not actually Mexican food, but a fast food version of it in American form. Sadly, a lot of people don't understand this difference. I also removed the silly statement about the wet burrito being from Michigan, which is confusing a lot of people on the internet. The wet burrito was invented (in its modern form at least) in Los Angeles, and I've previously discussed this before. I'm happy to add that material back in. Finally, I removed the photo of a half-eaten burrito showing a bite taken out of it. Not sure why anyone thought that was appropriate. ] (]) 20:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I would like to point towards a potential useable source: |
|
|
|
::Hi Viriditas! I've been planning a major rewrite as well, would be happy to collaborate on this. |
|
*{{cite news |title=SoCal Infiltrates and Changes SF Burrito Cuisine |author=Rigoberto Hernandez |url=http://missionlocal.org/2010/06/so-cal-infiltrates-and-changes-sf-burrito-cuisine/ |newspaper=Mission Loc@l |date=20 June 2010 |accessdate=9 January 2013}} |
|
|
|
::I'm tracking down the deeper sources for a lot of these claims to see where they originate from and see how they may best be fixed and replaced. |
|
--] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I live in DC and have an order for two books that might mention the Pueblo dish from back in the day |
|
|
::I'd also like to elaborate on the various types of burritos, finding sources that describe their origins and types |
|
|
::Mostly, I am planning to separate the modern burrito from other uses of the ''word'' burrito in the history section |
|
|
::I'm going home to Juarez for Thanksgiving and will also be taking new photographs of burritos in their most basic form to update the photos ] (]) 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This sounds very exciting. Please don't get my hopes up and then let me down. For me, the beautify of the art and cuisine of the burrito is in its basic simplicity, yet there is also a kind of rigidity and strict discipline that exemplifies the best of the best. I've tried to emphasize this fact in older versions of the article, but most of my changes are gone. We are not all on the same page, and I've noticed over time, people have lost the sense of what makes a burrito a burrito, and we need to get back to this fundamental understanding. I recently traveled to one of my favorite burrito spots in NoCal, a place I've been patronizing since it opened 39 years ago. What is remarkable to me is how they've managed to preserve the same recipe all this time. In the larger restaurant business, this is almost unheard of, so there is some kind of magic happening here that we need to explore in greater depth. How does one preserve a recipe over time without letting it degrade and become compromised by bean counters and inferior ingredients? Somehow, the best purveyors of the burrito have managed to do this, and for me, it's nothing short of a miracle. I think it's safe to say that the best burritos, the exemplar of the burrito, has an earthiness to it, a deep connection to the land and to the culture of a people who have been making these foods for centuries, perhaps for even thousands of years. This is what we need to discuss, that these foods aren't just something that corporate America can steal and market as their own (and brainwash 99% of the public into thinking Taco Bell is authentic), but are something that have been with us for a very long time, and it's that history we are experiencing with each bite. There is no separation between the people, the culture, and the food. I find there is a kind of human dignity here, a self-respect and appreciation for the people growing the food, making the food, and those patronizing the establishments that sell it. We need to get back to these roots. ] (]) 22:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh I 100% get you, and while I didn't start with this in mind I am certainly tackling it in a way that will preserve this. |
|
|
::::I'm about halfway through with my rewrite, and even once the new article is in I might need help with formatting which I would really appreciate from you. |
|
|
::::My approach is to present things with the attributable basics, especially the into, have a good history section that differentiates between the known history of the modern burrito and separate documented uses of the ''word'' burrito, and then have a robust section of variations that explains the original versions from north Mexico, traveling north each time to new variations that subsequently developed as the dish traveled and spread. |
|
|
::::One key thing I really want to find: the article currently says that the Puebloan dish of a wrapped tortilla around protein could have been an ancestor of the taco, but why does it say that? Why are we dismissing the chance that it might be an ancestor of the burrito? |
|
|
::::Think about it, the Maya are too far south for them to be the ancestors, but the Pueblo? The geography makes sense, the modern burrito is from northern Mexico and the Pueblo lived in what would become northern Mexico. |
|
|
::::I looked up the book cited in this article that describes this dish. That same book mentions it in only a very small paragraph, but it cited two sources for it. |
|
|
::::Those are the two books I ordered at the Library of Congress and they were ready this afternoon, so I'm going to go tomorrow to read them and see where the claim comes from. |
|
|
::::There's a chance we get SUPER lucky and the books describe the dish as being related to the Tigua, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. If that's the case then I could go myself to talk to one of their historians next week when I am home for thanksgiving. |
|
|
:::: ] (]) 23:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::When I visited Chaco Canyon in the 1990s, the first thing we learned was how NASA had tracked the ancient trade routes and road systems, which apparently went hundreds of miles into Mexico. I think I recall reading that these trade routes went farther than Mexico, but it's been a long time and I don't recall the details. I don't think the Maya are too far south at all here, and we know there are codices still in existence in libraries in Spain that show what appear to be tacos or burritos in the illustrations. ] (]) 08:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
I think it is worthwhile to remove the mention of Beltline Bar possibly being the creator of the wet burrito. It is widely contested locally. Just because they have the most advertising behind their claim does not make it credible. Other restaurants in town had them longer than beltline bar, and further, more places outside of West Michigan as a whole. 134.238.186.167 (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This article has degraded significantly since I last visited, and it is now filled with errors and misinformation. I would like to suggest a major rewrite. If anyone with knowledge of the topic is interested in helping, please let me know. I think it's important to get it to at least a stable version that is not filled with nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the