Jump to content

Talk:Chicago-style hot dog: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nick Graves (talk | contribs)
4,593 edits
Line 205: Line 205:


::::::Please supply the quotes where it is stated that ketchup is never put on a Chicago hot dog. [[User:Nick Graves|Nick Graves]] ([[User talk:Nick Graves|talk]]) 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Please supply the quotes where it is stated that ketchup is never put on a Chicago hot dog. [[User:Nick Graves|Nick Graves]] ([[User talk:Nick Graves|talk]]) 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::We've already been over this. I have cited books that claim this. Others have cited articles and recipes. It was in the article and removed. It is above in the comments. If you think because you've found one article where ketchup can be inferred as "optional," you have proven that it is optional, you would be wrong. Ketchup NEVER goes on a Chicago hot dog. If you went in ANY hot dog shop in or near the city and asked for "a chicago hot dog" you would NEVER get ketchup on it. Not once. Anywhere. As I said, I, and others, have stated this and cited this, but you want to win the pissing match...that's fine. But you are wrong. JimmyBallgame 23:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 15 July 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Comparison to burger chains

No Way There is no way there are more hot dog places than McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King combined. I took that out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsandweatherfreak (talk • contribs)

Actually, it is an oft-quoted figure. I added a citation (though there's probably a better one). --Karnesky 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Down Town, just off the Dan Ryan around Taylor, there are three stands side by side that share walls. Each is open 24/7 and each is busy even at 3 or 4 am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.192.92 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Bridget Quote

"...The Girls Next Door, Bridget visits her hometown Chicago..." I was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Marquardt there is no mention that she is from Chicago or has lived in Chicago. While I have no doubt she was in Chicago, she is not from Chicago. Heff is from Chicago, perhaps that is who they meant? snachodog (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "hometown" portion. The entire trivia section needs to be removed or cited and incorporated into the article proper. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber slices

I added in a mention that cucumber slices are often put on Chicago style dogs. I didn't see it mentioned in the sources in the first section, although one of the links that has pictures of them features some dogs with cucumbers.

I'd say at least half of the places I've purchased Chicago dogs in Illinois have cucumber slices on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition. It needs to be cited; otherwise, it's original research, which is not allowed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I point out above, the "pictures" link features several with cucumber slices. Seems to me that it was already sourced then...but I went ahead and added yet another source to the top section. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the source. The existing sources were not adqueate. Having to analyze an image to come to a conclusion is original research (see WP:OR). It has to be specifically stated by the source to be used on Wikipedia. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HOLD ON!, I MIGHT HAVE SOMTHING THAT WILL PUT AN END TO ALL OF THIS! I believe the interpitation of the picture constitute what would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR. --Holamitch (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. A reader should not have to click links to find a picture of a hot dog and then interpret what it has on it. Could be pickles for all I know. They do look an awful lot like cucumbers for some reason. Beating a dead horse now anyway. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport peppers

An anonymous user has repeatedly removed the link to sport peppers, which currently is a redirect to capsicum annuum. Klichka has re-added the link and so have I. There is no discernible reason given for not having some link there. Perhaps sport peppers are notable enough to warrant their own article (I don't know), but the current redirect is also appropriate (as they are a variety of domesticated chili pepper). --Karnesky (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it proper to redirect sport peppers to capsicum annuum? The target article does not mention them. I don't have an opinion at this point. I'm just curious if the redirect itself is verifiable or WP:OR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't know of an online WP:RS for this, but can direct you to some books on pepper varieties. Various seed sellers market it as a variety of capsicum annum [1]. I don't know if the capsicum annum article really needs a list of the hundreds of varieties of pepper. --Karnesky (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Food and Color Additives By George A. Burdock has a limited preview on google books & refers to the sports pepper variety of C annum. --Karnesky (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the link here is appropriate and the redirect should remain until such a time as a sport peppers article is created, if ever. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna need to see a citation for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.139 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your disagreement is with the redirect, not with the wikilink. However, I gave citations that sports peppers are varieties of C annum, so what more citations do you want? --Karnesky (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information isn't cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.139 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks don't require a citation. Also, please sign your comments in the future. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no ambiguity, a wiki link to sport pepper is appropriate. You apparently disagree that sports peppers are actually a variety of the species capsicum annuum, where the sport pepper article is redirected to. As Wordbuilder pointed out, the correct place to raise that concern is WP:Redirects for discussion. Please be prepared to state what species you think the peppers belong to & to provide evidence, as I will refer to the online sources I mentioned above & also to printed sources. --Karnesky (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that...but the link is not the most appropriate one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.139 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is fine. If you have a problem with where it redirects, address it at WP:RFD. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise editors to carefully look at the history at User talk:130.127.230.139 for the history of an editor using this IP that has been warned and blocked for disruptive editing by making demands that are routinely not backed up by references or reliable sources, and then continues to revert despite a lack of evidence. At least one of the references notes that sport peppers are an ingredient. The source has not be en challenged in this regard, and I have seen no reason to support not linking to sport peppers. There is an odor here that smells like WP:POINT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not disputing that sport peppers are an ingredient. I'm saying the link is incorrect. Which it is. Thanks for clarifying where we were misunderstanding each other. I'll go fix the page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.139 (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is sport peppers. How is it incorrect? →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sport peppers are a variety of the capsicum annuum species. This species encompasses anaheims, jalapenos, poblanos, serranos, and many other varieties. While the sport peppers on Chicago-style hot dogs are often mildly pickled, the unpickled pepper is still referred to as a "sport pepper." I have added "sport pepper" to the bulleted list on the C. annum page. I don't know if your most recent edits followed WP:CIVIL. --Karnesky (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Hanson, Beth (2000). Chile Peppers. p. 111. ISBN 1889538132, 9781889538136. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • "Capsicum annuum ( Mississippi Sport Pepper )". Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  • Mercuri, Becky (2004). American Sandwich. p. 141. ISBN 1586854704, 9781586854706. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Parry, John William (1962). Spices: Their Morphology, Histology and Chemistry. p. 226.
  • --Karnesky (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article with Recipe and Good Photos

I am a newbie here so I leave this suggestion with the hopes that someone more experienced will know what to do. Here is a good article on the Chicago Hot Dog, how it is made, with a good recipe, a review of hot dog stands, and a tasting of all beef franks. http://www.amazingribs.com/recipes/beef/chicago_hot_dogs.html Quedude (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have included your suggested site under the Additional references Header. I didn't fully read the site but it looked "delicious" (yum-yum). If there are additional stands mentioned you could include them in the list of stands. Or, you could write an additional thread about all-beef franks, skinless or with skin, etc. Be Bold! As long as you don't add Sauerkraut or cheese wedges, everything should be fine.--Buster7 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Hot Dogs do not include cucumber slices. or ketchup. or sauerkraut. or cheese wedges. or lettuce. or mushrooms. Period!--Buster7 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link. It wasn't being used as a reference and is not a reliable source. It's too ad-heavy for an external link per WP:ELNO #5. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW must we include every ingredient listed? Especially that weird green relish? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragged Through the Garden

I have added a credible citation from a food magazine saying that Atlanta dogs are "dragged through the garden." This change was reverted by Karnesky. I would like an explanation why. I have put the change back as I clearly cited an article that makes this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what one editor says, no one has offered any argument as to why "Real Simple" magazine is not a credible source. It is a legitimate food magazine. I know that its claim contradicts what many people here think...which is why my edit keeps getting reverted. If you would like to discuss the actual credibility of the claim, I would encourage you to do so, but without reverting my edit which comes from a viable resource about food and food culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Simple Magazine has 8.6 million readers per month. You cannot just dismiss this source outright b/c you disagree with the information. You are not going to find academic journal articles about topics like this...THIS is a credible source in this circumstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been multiple editors. You're just not getting that Atlanta dogs have no article of their own and so are not notable in this one. Keep going. We're happy to keep reverting you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of actually discussing the issue or considering the source, which is credible...you just keep reverting. Good adherence to Wikipedia policy. And no, it hasn't been multiple editors. And even if it has been multiple editors reverting this contribution, all that shows is that multiple editors refuse to recognize the verifiable information in the reference article I have linked to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then write an article on the Atlanta dog and quit being a DICK. Usually whines that start off with "multiple editors refuse to recognize..." don't hold water. Signing my contributions, (you should try it!) --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this user reprimanded for their usage of a personal attack/insult. This type of behavior is uncalled for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click the hyperlink-it's Wikipedia policy. When multiple editors are talking to you and you are ignoring all their suggestions, you are a contentious editor. You can get banned for violating WP:3RR. You should start listening. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, I would suggest looking at WP:SPADE. There is nothing insulting going on here. This IP has a long history of contentious editing, and from what I have seen, there has been exceptional restraint. You have been repeatedly, and quite politely, been pointed to the policies of this website such as Consensus, Verifiability, and others. You repeatedly game the system to push edits that you want, and then reverse course when it suits your personal opinions (see St. Rita of Cascia High School for more of the same from this editor). We would all like you to make positive contributions within the constraints of policy, however you have repeatedly demonstrated activities akin to being a bull in a china shop. As far as this article is concerned, you have been advised:

1. The term "dragged through the garden" means something totally different in this article, and to how it relates to these Atlanta hot dogs. Therefore, the term really does not belong here. 2. If you are really interested in Atlanta hot dogs getting their due, start an article on them. Make sure it is properly referenced with reliable sources, and I have no doubt it will stick around. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you get to call me a dick and it is ok? That's great. Very nice. I thought that personal attacks were not allowed on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia policy as stated above twice, and once below. Next step will be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Step away from the article and go do something productive with your time. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have NEVER edited any St. Rita page. 2. I have made a good faith change here, people keep reverting my change and I'm the one getting warned???? WHY??? This is bull. There is a cited information in this reference. It clearly complicates the claim that only chicago hot dogs are "dragged through the garden." I am baffled as to why people keep reverting this change for no reason and make personal attacks on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.20 (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you because you are the one edit warring, since September 2009. Three other editors (Karnesky, LonelyBeacon and Kintetsubuffalo) agree your edits don't belong here. As LonelyBeacon says, the terminology may be similar, but the description is vastly different. Next step is taking this to WP:3O, and to WP:3RR if it comes to that, or you can write the article on the Atlanta-style hot dog where it belongs. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
130.127.230.20 has been blocked for one week. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the source in question:
At the Varsity’s famous drive-through, Atlantans order their hot dogs “dragged through the garden”―in other words, slipped into a top-sliced bun and blanketed with coleslaw.
Thus the terminology may be similar, but the description is vastly different. You cannot say that the Chicago dog "is like" the Atlanta dog because they have this description attached to both. Reflecting my statements much further up this page, I suspect there is some kind of point trying to be made. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick G-search, and this confirmed my suspicion ... the term "dragged through the garden" in an Atlanta dog invariably means "with cole slaw". That is not what it means in the context of this article. It might be made clear exactly what it means in the context of this article ... references to Atlanta or other regional variations will lead to a lot of confusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found this article on WP:30. I'll do my best to provide a neutral opinion (despite there are already three or more editors participating). Including any mention of the "Atlanta dog" in the article is not needed (see WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK). Since the Atlanta Dog isn't notable enough to have it's own article, its mention here doesn't add anything to the article. If the IP continues to be disruptive, I suggest taking the issue to WP:AN/EW. Mildly MadTC 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

64.234.75.16 is a sockpuppet of that presently-blocked IP, beating that same dead horse. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so those editing the article are aware, the user behind the IPs, who originally had an account at User:JimmyBallgame, has been unblocked after agreeing to certain terms at User talk:JimmyBallgame, including to follow WP:SOCK and WP:EW. I will still be keeping an eye on the article for a bit though. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to ketchup

Ok, so let me start by saying that the recent ketchup disputes have been by me (NastalgicCam). I'm posting from different IP's because I've used different computers for the posts. Either way, lets move on. Taste is taste and opinion is opinion. Certain things are verifiable when it comes to recipes such as in the case of meatloaf. Meatloaf will always have the following: ground meat. If you use tofu, it's a tofuloaf, if you use a whole steak, it's a whole steak, but meatloaf will always have ground beef (or minced meat for that matter). Either way, I think you see the point. In terms of recipes, some things are obvious like that. But, not everyone, for example, puts ketchup on their meatloaf. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone. Common practice is by no means standard. This article, in actuality is very hard to write for, given the fact that a number of the restaurants and vendors that serve these hotdogs may not even use all of the ingredients mentioned, but there's no legal, or official standard to go by. Remember this. We don't know who made this hot dog, and they aren't around to dictate the truth towards us. Very few recipes that you may find are viable as being "the correct way" to prepare a food item, because it's all done to taste. This is one such case. A situation where we COULD specify the ingredients down to the wire would be with something like confit byaldi where the chef who created the meal (or at least publicized it) has given the specific instructions, but just like in the case of meatloaf, the Chicago-style hot dog is made to preference in regards to ketchup. Also, a book ref from 1983 stating "no ketchup" doesn't outweigh a ref from 1980 saying "ketchup optional" in this kind of situation. The standarization of recipes never (or very rarely) change WITH time. 66.177.40.44 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one removing properly cited material-the record shows who is being unencyclopedic. I will be most happy to report you and your sockpuppets for 3RR, or you can stop now. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, those aren't intentional sockpuppets, but instead having three different computers I use on a daily basis. Secondly, prove to me that it doesn't make it a chicago hot dog? You're telling me that if I visit Chicago right now, order a Chicago style hot dog, and put ketchup on it, I can't claim it as a Chicago-style hot dog? Where's the jurisdiction saying so? It's non-existent, that's where. You're using invalid references that are based on opinion. If I go online and find a website that claims that ketchup on these hots dogs are fine, suddenly I can invalidate everything you say in that case. 67.223.194.79 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...order a Chicago style hot dog, and put ketchup on it, I can't claim it as a Chicago-style hot dog?" Yes, that's exactly right. The sources say that some store owners refuse to put the ketchup on, and throw some packets of ketchup they keep in the back at you. They say, "defile it yourself". How much more disapprobation does it take? Read this column [2] by Mike Royko, in which he castigates Senator Carol Moseley Braun for suggesting ketchup. He calls it "shameful", "utter madness", "'No ketchup, no kraut, that's the law'", "...you can put toenail clippings or cat hair on a hot dog." Then there are the other sources that can be found in a Google Books search [3] which inlcudes such gems as, "strict censure of ketchup", "sacrilege of putting ketchup on your hot dog", "ketchup is as gross a culinary faux pas", "Chicagoans disdain ketchup, deeming it an unacceptable condiment on their franks", "Definitely no ketchup. It's criminal to a Chicagoan", "Remember, never put ketchup on a hot dog in Chicago. Josh disregarded this local prohibition, much to the dismay of management and...". This is the evidence from the sources. Speciate (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The finest red hot, according to Chicago's weiner cognoscenti, is nestled in a poppyseed roll and covered with layers of condiments. ... Ask for a dog 'with everything' and one can expect condiments like mustard, chopped onions, sweet relish, a dill pickle spear, sport peppers ..., and sliced tomatoes. Celery salt, sauerkraut, and catsup are optional." Than don't have conflicting sources.....-CamT|C 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NastalgicCam keep off my talkpage-your actions will only hurt you in the long run. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should read "Ketchup is never used on a chicago hot dog." Case closed. End of story. That is the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBallgame (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of making posts on your talk page, when I haven't @Kintetsubuffalo -CamT|C 19:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission, one of your socks did. The records will prove it. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And through investigation you would find that the IP adress of 137.140.131.221 (the ip that made the admission on your talk page is a new york IP, whereas mine is a Florida IP. Assuming you're talking about this [4]. Otherwise, I don't know what you're referring to. -CamT|C 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that User:NastalgicCam continues to edit this article against consensus. Since the overwhelming opinion of the sources is that ketchup is not used on Chicago-style hot dogs, and that the majority of editors here also believe so, I hope that User:NastalgicCam will internalize the message, and realize that this issue is trivial and not worth wasting any more of our time. Speciate (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More like I realized Chicago isn't worth my time-CamT|C 03:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KTHXBYE. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to ketchup, July 2010 rehash

User Nick Graves continues to remove the statement "never" in regards to ketchup on a Chicago Hot Dog. Can someone with more authority than I warn/keep an eye on this change. The information is verified and properly cited 4 times in that sentence. JimmyBallgame 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBallgame (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I'm missing something. Can someone please supply the quotes from these sources that state that ketchup is never put on a Chicago-style hot dog? Because I'm looking at the sources, and all I see are:
  1. a recipe that omits ketchup, but does not state that it is never included by anyone;
  2. a source that denigrates Chicagoans who choose ketchup on their dog, but does not state that it is never included by anyone;
  3. a source that advises against putting ketchup on a Chicago dog, but does not state that it is never included by anyone (indeed, if no one ever applied the condiment, there would be no need to point out that it is a "no-no" to do so), and;
  4. a book title that implores readers to "never put ketchup on a hot dog," but does not state that it is never included by anyone.
Incidentally, in the latest reversion, I've been accused of violating WP:3RR. Kintetsubuffalo, please review that policy and the edit history, and you'll see that I have not violated it.
Consensus consists of more than a mere majority head count, or outlasting a dissenter without truly refuting their reasons. A lot of sources have been cited for the claim that "ketchup is never included," but none of the sources currently cited for this claim actually state this. The only sources I've seen that say that no hot dog with ketchup qualifies as a Chicago dog both drip with comic hyperbole: a Royko humor/opinion column; and a a highly opinionated article by Charles Leroux, who grandly declares that "The Chicago hot dog is perfect." Even if these sources were cited for the claim, it still would not change the reality that what properly belongs or does not belong on a Chicago dog is a matter of preference, and not of fact, no matter how prevalent or vehement that preference is. There is no original, canonical recipe to point to, and no official authority that authenticates the acceptable ingredients.
What's documented is a widely-shared, strong opinion among many Chicagoans and aficionados that, whatever else goes on your Chicago dog, ketchup is unacceptable. And that's what the article should report, rather than the unverified (and falsified) assertion that "ketchup is never included." A universal negative is notoriously difficult to support, since it only takes one counterexample to refute it. And that's exactly what we have: a recipe from a Margaret Sheridan article in the Chicago Tribune that lists ketchup as optional.
I'm not insisting that we cite the Sheridan article, or that ketchup must be listed as an optional ingredient. By all means, report the strong (rabid, even) and overwhelming view that ketchup is verboten. Report that ketchup is never included by the staff at Superdawg, or any of the other Chicago hot dog stands that have gone on record with their policy against including the condiment. Report that many sources say that ketchup is inauthentic or taboo. Report Royko's assertion that the moment ketchup touches a Chicago dog, it is no longer a Chicago dog. All I ask is that the contents of sources be accurately relayed to the reader, in accordance with Wikipedia verifiability policy. The claim that "ketchup is never included" does not accomplish this. Using the current sources to back up that claim is rather like citing a prohibition on murder as evidence that murder never occurs. Nick Graves (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a sane compromise to me. Listing it as "optional" based on a couple recipes that don't belabor the point sniffs of WP:OR but rephrasing to note that, as you said, there is a widely-shared and strong opinion that it is unacceptable is verifiable from the sources already cited. --Karnesky (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous consensus was to have "never" included. Fairly lame how you make a decision against consensus, post on the talk page, edit and say "per discussion on talk page..." LAME. JimmyBallgame 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus can change (not that I see a very strong consensus for saying "never": if anything, I see a consensus for not saying "optional", which we maintain). The current phrasing satisfies WP:NPOV better. If you have any specific objections to this compromise, please share them. --Karnesky (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but in this case "changed consensus" consists of you and some other dude deciding you want to change the previous consensus. Repeat: LAME. JimmyBallgame 12:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBallgame (talk • contribs)

I could have missed something, but I only see your name attached to comments that include "never" on this talk page. I'm willing to come to some better compromise, but would appreciate if you tried to come to one with reason and/or by bringing in outside opinions, rather than attacking this as "lame". --Karnesky (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to come up with better suggestions, when the article was correct to begin with. I repeat, you posted on the talk page, then referenced yourself as a reason to change the page. LAME. But I'm not going to get in an edit war over it. These changes should be reverted as there was consensus before about "never." And I'm clearly not the only one commenting on this, you said as much yourself earlier. Up the page there is a prior consensus for keeping "never" in the article. JimmyBallgame 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is correct now! Rephrasing the statement in a less biased way that can actually be cited did not make it less correct.
I did not make reference to myself as if there was some new consensus. I merely pointed to this discussion. As I said, I'm willing to work with you on some better compromise.
There are at least two editors who think the current phrasing is better than the original phrasing that said "never". Yes; I said, above: there is consensus established to omit a claim that ketchup is optional. Can you please point to even one other person on this talk page who has said that the "never" phrasing is better than the current phrasing? --Karnesky (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From above "Remember, never put ketchup on a hot dog in Chicago." I'm sorry that you just can't admit that your change was lame. And it doesn't make the article better. It makes it incorrect. NEVER. Ketchup NEVER goes on a Chicago hot dog. I cited that with a book title that makes that very claim for crying out loud. But you, again, have some fake discussion on the talk page and then say "per the discussion on the talk page" and edit the article to be incorrect. I'm not going to change, but you should just know that you are wrong in this edit. The article, as it reads, is wrong. JimmyBallgame 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If this is your reason for supporting the wording "ketchup is never included," then you are in error. True, you can find several sources that advise you to never put ketchup on a Chicago hot dog. But this is not the same as saying that no-one ever includes ketchup on their Chicago hot dog. It happens. See, for example, this FAQ, where Superdawg owner Maurie Berman says that some customers choose to "mess it up with ketchup"--in other words, certain customers include ketchup on their dog, even though the stand will never put it on for them, and the owner obviously disapproves strongly. The claim that "ketchup is never included" is not supported by the sources cited, and it is contradicted by other sources. Nick Graves (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you would be incorrect. The owner, the purveyor of the Chicago hot dog, will not put ketchup on, because it NEVER goes on a Chicago-style hot dog. And yes, the claim that "ketchup is never included" IS supported by the sources cited, multiple times over.85.147.33.189 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the quotes where it is stated that ketchup is never put on a Chicago hot dog. Nick Graves (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been over this. I have cited books that claim this. Others have cited articles and recipes. It was in the article and removed. It is above in the comments. If you think because you've found one article where ketchup can be inferred as "optional," you have proven that it is optional, you would be wrong. Ketchup NEVER goes on a Chicago hot dog. If you went in ANY hot dog shop in or near the city and asked for "a chicago hot dog" you would NEVER get ketchup on it. Not once. Anywhere. As I said, I, and others, have stated this and cited this, but you want to win the pissing match...that's fine. But you are wrong. JimmyBallgame 23:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago-style_hot_dog&oldid=373709399"