Talk:Burrito

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:

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.

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".

Comments welcome. Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting bold change

I am reverting a bold change done by Viriditas, per WP:BRD. 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 MOS:LIST.

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 summary should be included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL (specifically WP:AVOIDYOU) & WP:OWN. 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 edit war 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.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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 WP:BRD and keeping with MOS:LIST, has itself been reverted. I have asked before that this not be done, as it is initiating an edit war, something I kindly asked not to start.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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. (Personal attack removed) 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. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"I don't understand what was written" is a poor reason to begin an edit war, and to not follow BRD.

In the edit summary, 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 consensus 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 local consensus here to support it being listed based on the date a variety was first documented, that is not sufficient reason to ignore the guideline and continue to list it non-alphabetically.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)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. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, let me state that no one editor owns an article. 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 take a break from editing this article for a day or two, as there will always be time to come back to improve this article. Good day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with you, but lets both try to work towards improvement. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, one of you requested a third opinion, 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 dispute resolution process, but over something this minor, I would strongly urge you both to simply drop it and move on. 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. Go Phightins! 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 Wikipedia 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. Viriditas (talk) 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. Dohn joe (talk) 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 food history. 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. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus for following the MOS guideline concerning the list of regional varieties of burritos that they be listed alphabetically, as is done with the list 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 History of burrito development, 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:

While there are multiple ways to present this content...

Now it is the opinion of Viriditas that:

...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 majority) of editors who seek to follow the MOS guideline and list the regional varieties alphabetically. And any local consensus opposed otherwise to not following the MOS would in the end eventually be found in error.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is not a list. Wikipedia 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 WP:IINFO. 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. (Personal attack removed) Viriditas (talk) 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 scholarly? --Ronz (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 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 Dohn joe and Go Phightins that the section is a list of regional varieties, and is separate from the history section. Moreover, I believe they should remain so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

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.

(Personal attack removed)

I changed the section heading to "Development of Regional Varieties," which is not perfect--maybe someone has a better idea? Biancles (talk) 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 Chimichanga, 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 California Burrito article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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 boldly and unilaterally changed into a redirect article, I have found 76 book mentions, multiple news mentions, and even more webhits (55.8K) of the subject. It can be argued that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, per WP:GNG.

As for it being a "San Diego-style" burrito, there are only two book mentions, no news mentions, and about 26K mentions on the web. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME any new article should be named California burrito.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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 Gustavo Arellano, but you need to actually do the research and use good sources, not just passing mentions in restaurant reviews published in blogs. Viriditas (talk) 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. Dohn joe (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 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. Dohn joe (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Following is the original post by User:Viriditas to which I responded: 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. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And following is Viriditas's rewording of his comment, after I had replied below: 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. Viriditas (talk) 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. (Here's a recipe for one.) 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 Google Books search 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? Dohn joe (talk) 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.[1] Since you don't understand the problem with your edits, I'll break it down for you edit by edit in the next comment. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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. Viriditas (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 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? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• without other ingredients such as rice and beans. One may also encounter non-traditional, "healthy" burrito fillings such as eggplant.
  • 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. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been accused of editing content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the major deletion of verified to reliable source(s) by one editor, smacks of WP:OWN. 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 Template:Verify source, 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 WP:RSN to allow non-involved third party editors to comment whether the Student Newspaper meets the criteria set forth in WP:RS. Perhaps this edit should be reviewed, or taken to RFC?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the bold deletion unilaterally claiming that verified to reliable research content is OR could be reverted per WP:BRD. That being said as I have stated above the opinion that Viriditas had engaged in an edit war, 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. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

A user has deleted a paragraph of the article from the article space, claiming that the content is original research. This opinion is disputed, as is the deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In accordence with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I will notify involved editors, and appropriate WikiProjects of this RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid you

Again, I kindly ask that we follow WP:AVOIDYOU.

So are we in agreement that the subject is now notable enough for a stand alone article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 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. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

You may want to consider using the AfC process to create the article if there are concerns about sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The third opinion request is for the section above this one, Talk:Burrito#Reverting bold change, and not this section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential usable source

I would like to point towards a potential useable source:

• Rigoberto Hernandez (20 June 2010). "SoCal Infiltrates and Changes SF Burrito Cuisine". Mission Loc@l. Retrieved 9 January 2013.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)