Talk:Burrito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes in LA, it's just called a Burro.

Contents 1 Etymology 2 Cleanup 3 Link removed 4 Merging San Francisco Burrito into Burrito 5 Burritos and sandwiches 6 Dumb middle of the night question

[edit] Etymology

I probably read that same SF Weekly article, which, I believe, was published between 1990 and 1993. The article claims that the burrito was invented in northern California several decades ago. It cites Mexican farm workers in the Salinas Valley (John Steinbeck's home) receiving wheat flour from their employers. The farm workers used that flour to make tortillas. They wrapped leftover beans, rice and meat in the flour tortillas and carried them into the fields for lunch. That farm worker's lunch item evolved into the familiar taqueria burritos that non-Latino San Franciscans have been buying for the past 35 years. Currently, this writer favors the al pastor burrito (in a grilled tortilla) from Taqueria Cancun (Mission & 19th). Caveat emptor! Favorite taquerias are subject to change. I still mourn the loss of Taqueria Tepatitlan which did not survive the Loma Prieta earthquake. I also feel sorry for folks in the 'burbs who must choose among La Salsa, Del Taco and Taco Bell. User:the Ghost of Tom Joad

That's swell, but one cite out of a local hippie newspaper isn't much research. I don't think there's much doubt that Indians in New Mexico and Chihuahua were beating tortillas out of wheat flour for years, probably centuries, before anyone in San Francisco made a burrito. Cultivation of wheat was introduced to them by the Spanish, and when did they show up? 1520? NO ONE thought of rolling up stuff in a wheat tortilla until some migrant farm workers in California got some free wheat flour? I think a better description of that event would be the introduction of the burrito to Californians. Heck, Mexicans were making Cornish pasties out of wheat flour years before any migrant workers turned up in the Salinas Valley, empanadas are a well known examples of Latin American and Spanish cuisine, concoctions similar to burritos can be traced to Arab and Greek culture, for that matter, unleavened wheat cakes date at least to Biblical times, if we really want to push the envelope. So we know the concept of wrapping edibles up in a wheat envelope predates the US occupation of California. Last, I've been to like a kajillion places in Chicago that make burritos, and I have never seen a dish titled "San Francisco Burrito". That doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist, it's a big town, but at least here, giant burritos aren't commonly attributed to San Francisco. That said, I do agree that al pastor burritos kick ass. Tubezone 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I read that SF Weekly Article. I never said that I accepted it as the gospel. When I was a kid, in the mid-20th century, a burrito was a rolled & folded tortilla filled with refried beans and, maybe, a little cheese. They were about the size of a big candy bar. Two of them might have been enough for a light lunch. I didn't have a big burrito containing rice, beans, meat & salsa rolled in an LP-sized tortilla until the early '70s. I went to LA back then, and the best I could find there was the Hollenbeck burrito, which was a wet burrito drenched in red sauce. Now, there are plenty of non-Latino "wraps" that contain just about anything. The definitive history of the burrito is probably as difficult to document as the evolution of the sandwich. [the Ghost of Tom Joad]

I cannot cite a source (other than that I think I read it in the SF Weekly 10-15 years ago) but I read that the burrito, while certainly part of Mexican cuisine, was actually "invented" in the U.S. The story I read (and it seems plausible) was that traditionally there was not wheat/flour in Mexico, only corn. And you simply can't "wrap" a self-contained burrito in a corn tortilla - if will fall open and/or apart. The story went on to say that the burrito originated with migrant Mexican workers California's Central Valley and, as noted below, was preferred because it enabled the whole meal to be conveniently wrapped up to take into the fields - suggesting the donkey as porter/"best of burden," not a roll on the donkey's back or a donkey's ear.

Does anyone know why the spanish word meaning "little donkey" came to mean a tortilla wrap?...I've asked quite a few people, including a number of Mexicans, but nobody seems to know...--4.244.105.218 05:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My understanding, which I would not consider reliable, is that the name is derived based on utility... The burrito became initially popular as a means of transporting food conveniently (to work, when travelling, et cetera), and gained its name because of its similarity in function to the burro, a pack animal. 66.74.210.17

It is said to be so named because it is like a miniaturized version of the packs, or rolls, one uses to transport things on a pack animal, such as a donkey.--Aaron Walden 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy either explanation. If you roll up a wheat tortilla with one end folded, what does it look like? A donkey ear. The origin would have been an oral tradition, so written citations to document the origin are going to be sparse or non-existent, but think about it: Little donkey ear " oreja de burrito ", easy to chop down to just "burrito", especially because there's other edibles in Mexico (pastries and actual ears} called " oreja ".Tubezone 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I cleaned up this article - I stumbled upon it at random and the writing style struck me as sophomoric and repetitious. I divided it up into chunks, moved external links to the bottom, cleaned up the prose as best I could (I know nothing about burritos) and turned one of the paragraphs, which was a comma separated list of ingredients into an actual list. If this doesn't fit in with the rest of wikipedia, let me know - I'm new here. --Moe Aboulkheir 01:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link removed

• Search for the Origins of the Burrito

The link required a password. Enough said.

[edit] Merging San Francisco Burrito into Burrito

Just as Chicago-style Pizza is covered on the Pizza page, style or types of burritos should be treated on the Burrito page not on an independent page. Much of the information on the San Francisco Burrito page is about burritos in general anyway. Ortcutt 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Jack Cain 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. 63.84.231.3 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Ortcutt 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge summary of article only, between one and three paragraphs with main article link pointing to the full subject which is still under expansion. I've removed the merge tag since this does not effect the regional page in any way. This is an independent page and always will be, just like Chicago-style pizza ; this is regional cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Burrito page should cover the burrito and its regional variations, unless the page becomes overly long. That seems to be what has happened with Pizza. As it stands, the Burrito page is pathetic, and almost all of the material from the San Francisco Burrito page should be included in the Burrito page in terms of describing the generic burrito. For example, practically everything in the section "How San Francisco Burritos are Made" is true of burritos in general. What is that section doing in this page rather than in the Burrito page then? Similarly, the "Imitators and Descendents" section is about imitators and descendents of Burritos in general, not of San Francisco Burritos. The only two section which I think should remain in the San Francisco Burrito page are "History of San Francisco Burrito" and "Culture and Politics of San Francisco Burrito". However, some of the material in "History of San Francisco Burrito has to do with Central Valley farmers and the period earlier than 1969. This historical info should be in the Burrito page, not in the San Francisco Burrito page since it doesn't directly relate to burritos in San Francisco. Ortcutt 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The burrito page is welcome to quote the regional varieties in summary style. If you feel the burrito page is "pathetic", you are also welcome to expand it. Your claim regarding the universality of burrito production is, I'm afraid, mistaken, although the subtle nuances of that section might be missed on those unfamiliar with the SF burrito, which leads me to believe you might have a valid criticism in regards to making those distinctions obvious to the general reader. The Imitators and Descendents section is clearly about the SF burrito, so I'm not following your disagreement there. The hisory and culture section all directly relate to the SF burrito, even the Central Valley farmworkers, who have had a strong presence in SF's Mission District; they even re-named the Mission's Army Street after Cesar Chavez. I can't see any good reason to merge this article at this time. But, I do suggest expanding the Burrito article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As primary author of the SF burrito page, I agree with Viriditas--summary is fine, even better would be an expansion of the overall history of the burrito that then leads into the regional variations, which could include the SF burrito summary.

But merging misses the point--the point of the San Francisco burrito page is that this type of burrito has a distinct and interesting history and that this type of burrito is quite different than the burrito you buy at Taco Bell or the burrito you buy in Mexico or San Diego, while the burrito page is a summary of what a burrito is more generally. The San Francisco burrito page is far too long to be included in to the burrito article without overwhelming it, so to make a sensible and coherent burrito page, merging would mean axing the SF burrito page into a paragraph or so anyway (or devoting many pages to a more detailed burrito page). But why cut the original article? There have been a number of external links to it, it serves a local purpose for intent fans of the SF burrito (of which there are legions), and besides which it earned me an Oddball Barnstar which I am loath to see go to waste--or more seriously, as the text of that Barnstar suggested, the original page is the sort of thing that would never go into a traditional encyclopedia but has a potentially cool value nonetheless. Yeah, it's quirky that the SF burrito page is much bigger and more researched than the burrito page--but that certainly is not the most egregious such example of content on Wikipedia. And it is approximately proportional to the amount of passion and discussion that goes into burritos in San Francisco versus in other cities where they're just another food rather than some kind of socio-cultural-political-culinary icon, as they have become in SF. If you think the burrito page should be more detailed than the San Francisco burrito page, fair enough--but do it by expanding the burrito page, not axing the SF burrito page. Joewright 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The San Francisco Burrito info won't overwhelm the Burrito page because much of the material in the San Francisco Burrito page isn't distinctive to San Francisco. The section on "How a San Francisco Burrito is Made" could, if the word San Francisco is removed, be the section "How a Burrito is Made". Similarly for "Imitators and descendents". I just don't think your realize how strange it is to have all this generic burrito material in a page on San Francisco Burritos. Ortcutt 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Joewright and myself disagree. You're welcome to expand this article, and even use summary style for related articles, but please don't argue that certain similarities (which one can find in any two related articles) demand a merge. They don't, and there's absolutely no good reason why this article should be merged. The type of burrito referred to as "Mission style", or "San Francisco burrito" is unique and can be found on menus by that name throughout the United States. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "This San Francisco burrito - meat, rice, beans, cheese, sour cream, salsa, guacamole and lettuce rolled into a super-size tortilla - is an entirely different dish from what originated in northern Mexico, where flour tortillas tend to be more common than corn tortillas. Now as all-American as burgers and fries, the dish was first made by workers in San Francisco taquerias in the 1960s, who assembled them conveyor-belt style. La Cumbre was one of the first, and favorites like La Taqueria and Pancho Villa followed suit." (Bauer, Michael. (Feb 7, 2001). "101 Reasons We're America's Culinary Mecca.(FOOD)." San Francisco Chronicle. WB1.) So, with that in mind, I suggest that the San Francisco Burrito article be further expanded to include a history of the most notable SF taquerias that made this style popular, as well as make explicit the differences with the classic Mexican burrito. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is baloney. Look at the Burritophile page, and you will see descriptions of taquerias all over the country serving so-called San Francisco Burritos. San Diego, Chicago, Boston, LA, etc... It's Mexican Rice, Beans, Salsa, Meat, in a heated flour tortilla with sour cream, avocado, and cheese as options. What neither you nor joewright seem to be able to deal with is the absurd situation that we have a San Francisco Burrito page describing what it alleges to be food distinctive to one neighborhood of one city which is found all over the country in almost exactly the same format. Ortcutt 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading Fox, Peter. (Nov. 4, 1998). "Burritos -- A Search For Beginnings". The Washington Post. E01. That article will change your position. —Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The greater point here is that if you can verify your claims and prove that the extensive sourcing available on the SF Burrito page is somehow invalid, then OK. But none of your arguments are sourced at all, except to cite the Burritophile page--which you misrepresent. For instance, this review, [1] , points out that a Chicago place serves a different kind of burrito as its "regular" and then argues that the "super" at this place is the closest to a "Mission" burrito (i.e., from the Mission of SF, see previous discusson on the talk page of the SF burrito page). Meanwhile, another fan of this place on the same page (a man from San Diego, which has a different style) raves about its regular burrito _because_ it's just meat and doesn't have all the extra SF-style ingredients. There are _no_ burritos which originate in Mexico which resemble the SF burrito. And I'd argue that it's probably not a total coincidence that most of the Burritophile "top" taquerias are in the SF Bay Area--these are the kind of burritos that this guy and his friends like. I refer you also to [2]. Finally, the last paragraph of the SF Burrito article acknowledges that many similar burritos can now be found in other cities. But, as I've pointed out on that talk page, many of these burritos (e.g., in Boston, and in the case of Chipotle) can be directly traced back to SF inspiration.

I have looked for and not found any article claiming that the "SF Burrito" as a distinct regional cuisine is a myth, and San Franciscans around the country regularly refer to "San Francisco burritos" or "Mission burritos" on food forums (especially the chowhound boards in LA, NY and Boston); and a number of articles, as cited in the article, do discuss the SF burrito as a distinct phenomenon. The idea of putting rice in a burrito and using a 12 or 14 inch tortilla was formerly unique to SF; it's true that the style has spread (although most San Franciscans agree that the quality has not spread with it) but a number of people believe and have written in verifiable sources that it originated in San Francisco. In other words, until you can make a case based on verifiable content which tells me that you are right and all these other people are somehow wrong, I can't really see agreeing with you.

The example of Chicago style pizza--which certainly merits its own distinct and lengthy page that exists now--is an excellent parallel to this one. Another example, from a different point of view, might be sourdough bread. [3] describes the bread and its SF origins. In 100 years from now it may be that wikipedia has a single burrito page which describes the way in which the SF style spread across the nation and displaced all other styles of burritos including those that came from Mexico, but for now, let's just accept that it's a regional style.

And, seriously, what is the big emergency that requires us to eliminate this page? Is this page hurting someone? Joewright 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, I'm working on a very rough Timeline of the Burrito. Could you comment on that talk page with any critical comments and suggestions? It's a very rough outline, and I would like to fill in the gaps in respect to the migration of the burrito from Sonora, Mexico into the Southwestern U.S. I've also noticed that the burrito may have come to San Francisco after the Gold Rush in the late 19th century. Mickeysmassiveburritos.com mentions Carlos Diego ca. 1833, and I wonder if you've run across this name as well. This timeline can also be used to merge historical information into this article, particularly an expanded history section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burritos and sandwiches

why is a burrito not a sandwich??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.28.126 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, the burrito not sandwitch court link is dead. I wonderd the same thing myself.

--Link is changed to active link. Thanks for pointing out the dead link--and remember, you can always look for links and edit wikipedia yourself, too! Joewright 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

--Also added burritoblog link to entry which includes entire ruling in case--if folks know how to find and link to this ruling on its own we can change the link to that. Joewright 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb middle of the night question

Are breakfast burritos a US invention or are they eaten south of the border as well? Inquiring, over-caffeinated minds want to know. Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've eaten burritos for breakfast in Mexico, but that said, I've never seen burritos specifically sold as breakfast burritos (burrito de desayuno), altho it's possible to get egg + chorizo burritos. I think McDonald's de Mexico sells them. Tubezone 12:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dumb question. On the contrary, this is a serious topic in Burrito Studies and a subject of great debate among burritologists. According to the entry that I made in the timeline, Taco Bell and Carl's Jr. introduced the breakfast burrito in 1990. I have my suspicions that the secret ingredient that marks a good breakfast burrito from a bad one is a fresh, tangy salsa, which seems to have a complementary reaction with the eggs, enhancing the overall flavor. Steamed, as opposed to grilled breakfast burritos, reportedly has the same effect. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your pro-left coast anti-Texas California burritoist agenda has been clear for some time... and it's clear you got your burritology diploma from a non-accredited institution. (Probably Caltech) Whataburger was selling breakfast burritos at least 10 years earlier. Corner burrito stands in Juarez have been selling burritos in the morning for, jeez, years, Pancho Villa probably had them for breakfast during the Revolution. Tubezone 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The ranks of burritologists are beleaguered and embattled--let us not battle amongst ourselves when the anti-burritoist forces wait with bread-filled mouths cackling at the prospect of our demise. Let us only promote true scholarship which would elucidate and verify sources for the history of the breakfast burrito. Joewright 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tubezone's apt criticism raises the important question of the distinction between a burrito and a taquito. Whataburger's "Taquito with Cheese" is defined as a breakfast taco, described as "a soft flour tortilla filled with scrambled eggs and your choice of sausage or potato or bacon." One wonders if the Taco Bell or Carl's Jr. burrito versions are substantially different. —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that currently, Whatburger merely offers what they call a "Breakfast Taquito" (which, BTW, besides using a flour tortilla, about the same size as the burritos sold in Juarez, so "breakfast taquito" is a bit of a misnomer), but when I lived in El Paso in 1980, Whataburger really did sell a breakfast burrito, unfortunately at the time, burritology was in its infancy as a scientific discipline, so this wasn't documented for posterity as an important event in burrito history. I suppose someone would have to dig up old TV or print ads (I don't think WB had a printed menu back then) to document this. (As a transplanted Illinoisan I merely saw it as a El Paso food novelty, like Chico's Tacos) It might be interesting if one could dig through old copies of the Times and find the earliest print mention of a burrito, as the closest large US city to the state of Chihuahua, that's the most likely place to find the first printed citation of the word in English. I think the idea of putting eggs (with or without chorizo) in a burrito may goes back a lot further that many burritologists suspect. Tubezone 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking further into this, there seems to be a rough consensus that in the 1970s, the breakfast taco was popularized in Texas, while the breakfast burrito emerged out of New Mexico. Closer to home, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the BB came directly over from New Mexico to Hawaii during the '70s, where it can still be found on many menus today. —Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If all you want to do is find when a word or phrase is mentioned, it's easy to search the LA Times archives. The only pre-1985 mention of "breakfast burrito" was on May 21, 1982 in an article about "fast food trucks" (aka lunch wagons or ptomaine wagons) [4]. That suggests that breakfast burritos were already well established in the LA area by then. 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a resource with dated references [5]. Here are some samples from the webpage:

• 25 July 1975, The New Mexican (Santa Fe, NM), pg. A7? ad: . Breakfast Burrito
• 9 June 1977, Los Angeles Times, “Burrito Banishes the Breakfast Blahs,” pg. II6: BREAKFAST BURRITOS.

  [a reference the LA Times archives search engine missed!]

• (Trademark) Word Mark THE BURRITO BREAKFAST,... FIRST USE: 19810407. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19810407, ... Owner (REGISTRANT) TACO VILLA, INC. CORPORATION TEXAS P. O. BOX 6504 MIDLAND TEXAS 79701

^BlankVerse 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yow, cool. I lived in NM before I lived in El Paso, and indeedy, I recall seeing such a thing, albeit not part of a major chain menu. BTW, further to the original question posed, I'd say breakfast tamales are far more common in Mexico proper, than breakfast burritos. Tamales and champurrado or chocolate are probably the most common things for Mexicans to have for breakfast. Tubezone 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My grandmother on my mother's side came from NM and she used to serve cheese enchiladas and fried eggs for breakfast. Now that was some damn fine eating. Add a chocolate malted and Nirvana is found on earth. Kyaa the Catlord 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand in awe of your breakfast burrito knowledge, my fellow burritologists. Let us not fight over this issue, instead, join me for a tasty burrito and we shall become enlightened... together! (And amuse the hell out of my coworkers.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was such a swell idea I partook of a burrito al pastor for lunch. I also thought the burrito was good enough to take a picture of ;-) Tubezone 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)