Talk:Hamburger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.

"Here are some milestones in the history of hamburgers." (April 28, 2004). Cleveland Plain Dealer. [1].

[edit] Old top posts

I think this article is wrong. However that may just be my Midwest U.S.A. perspective. I have never heard of a "hamburger" that did not contain ground beef. If a burger contains another meat it is called something else, "turkey burger" and "veggie burger" being the most common alternatives. Also if a hamburger has cheese it is usually called a cheeseburger, although not always. American burgers are often made with tomatoes, lettuce, pickles, onion, "special sauce", etc. -remember the Big Mac mention. In Michigan hamburgers are rarely called "hamburgs". --rmhermen

cut from subject page:

A BigMac meal costs 89 pesos in the Philippines.

I occasionally hear the term "Hamburg Sandwich", though "Hamburger" and "Burger" are much more common. I've also seen it called a "Hamburg" in a collection of early 20th-Century New Yorker cartoons. -- Logotu 17:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that a hamburger IS a sandwich by definition, and not a variation of one.

While the hamburger is LIKE a sandwich, it has evolved to become its own seperate entity and can no longer be categorized as a sandwich. While one always refers to a peanut butter and jelly SANDWICH, a ham SANDWICH, a sub SANDWICH, one rarely says a hamburger sandwich. A sandwich is composed of two slices of bread while the hamburger is placed in its own hamburger bun. You wouldn't call a hot dog a sandwich simply because it is meat on bread, would you? The hamburger patty combined with the hamburger bun, therefore, has taken a step beyond its sandwich origins and has become a food category of its own.

Most restaurants now recognize the hamburger as being its own category of food and list hamburgers, cheeseburgers, bacon cheeseburgers, etc. in a seperate category labelled as "Hamburger". In this definition, a hamburger is anything with a meat patty on a hamburger bun. Sandwiches are typically listed in a different section of the menu.

There is a description of something that is almost certainly similar in Roman texts. Where, Apicius? or is this more like "Legend has it that the hamburger was created in ancient Greco-Roman days..." Wetman

[edit] Merge Suggestion: Cheeseburger

Shouldn't this article be merged with cheeseburger???

Update: I have suggested this article to be merged with cheeseburger, as one is a variation of the other. I'd Rather have a mod or more experienced person do it, as I may accidentaly mess it up.

[edit] That picture...

Seriously, that picture, the second one, is all wrong. The cheese should be on top of the patty, with the lettuce, tomato, etc. on top of that. This picture, with all the stuff under the patty, is horribly nonstandard and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia artice. Zeno Izen 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's standard somewhere else...Cameron Nedland 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA link

I was asked to justify why I removed the PETA link. Well, it's just not relevant. I mean, I know PETA is against eating meat, but that doesn't make a link to them that relevant. The link is quite non-sequitur. By the same justification you could add a link to some Hindu organization. On the "Beer" article you could link to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's just not justifiable, especially considering that PETA was never mentioned in the article text, and probably couldn't be mentioned while staying within the realm of sanity or relevance. The addition of the PETA link stinks of propagandism. That is why it was removed. Philwelch 00:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PETA.org has a LOT of information about the production of hamburger in the United States. Perhaps instead of a link to just [2], should I put specific pages which are relevant to the article? I am doubtful MADD has information about the production of beer on thier website. I just think that this article should be well-rounded and approach the issue from every perspective. DryGrain 02:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More specific links would be better, yes. But I wouldn't suggest that you immediately post them--animal rights groups are pretty unreliable, ethically (the founder of PETA, if I recall correctly, condoned arson and breaking and entering for "the cause", so I doubt outright lying would really give them a guilty conscience). None of us want links to biased and dishonest propaganda on Wikipedia, My suggestion would be: post the links to Talk:Hamburger, do some independent fact-checking and post some confirmation from non-animal-rights and non-vegetarian sources, and then I'll have no objections. Philwelch 04:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethics are objective. And I'm not suggesting that PETA be the only external link, however, they have video from slaughterhouses and facts verifiable from independent sources. However, I object to you requiring confirmation from non-vegetarian sources, it suggests that only carnivores are trustworthy enough to provide reliable information. It seems to me that anyone actively eating meat would start out with a bias against vegetarianism to begin with. DryGrain 02:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And it would seem that any vegetarian would start out with a bias against meat. Again, animal rights activists have resorted to pretty seriously illegal and unethical actions such as arson, breaking and entering, vandalism, etc. That's why I consider them more likely to engage in propaganda and dishonesty. I mean, I could provide you with video from the Amazon jungle proving that natives regularly eat explorers but video can be falsified, and I just don't see *some* animal rights activists as being above that. Philwelch 03:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the issue is (or ought to be) well covered in Animal rights, vegetarian, and other related links. Posting information to the issue on "Hamburger" would also involve posting it on "Steak" "Pork chop", etc. Again, that would be like MADD propaganda on the article for every single alcoholic drink, including every variety of beer, every mixed drink, etc. Taken too far, Wikipedia articles may become the metaphorical telephone poles for fliers posted by any passerby who has strong opinions related to the given issue. And, eventually, the fliers will cover the telephone pole. It's just a bad precedent--take the issue to the relevant articles. Philwelch 03:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we add the PETA link to encourage or discorage vegetarianism or even to give a POV on the issue. The fact is, regardless of bias, there is information on the production of hamburger in the United States on the site. You can find the same information on totally neutral sites. I would not suggest adding the same information to pork chop or steak, because the information is not relevant to either of those meat products. However, I believe the article should have external links which point to information about the production of hamburger and not just the history of it. And as I said, ethics are objective. The things you mentioned that were allegedy perfomed by animal rights activists (arson, breaking and entering, and vandalism) have a common denominator: they do not involve pain and suffering of any living creature. However, the production of meat is an inherently violent process. To leave this factor out of the article is to conceal part of the truth, therefore not doing Wikipedians justice. I have added the NPOV tag to it as of today. DryGrain 06:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you can find information on the production of hamburger on totally neutral sites, then post links. I don't disagree that ethics are objective, by the way. Read my edit history, I've worked on Ayn Rand and Objectivism pretty thoroughly. But with the PETA link removed, I think the NPOV notation has to go. It has been removed. Philwelch 03:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced it. I am contesting the neutrality of this article, as it focuses solely on the aspect of "hamburger as food" and not "hamburger as flesh". I respect the fact that not everyone shares my moral point of view, but I believe that for this to be a well-rounded article with a neutral point of view, it needs to have honest information on the actual production of hamburger. Right now the point of view completely leaves out the entire process of pasture to slaughterhouse to dinner table. Until this is corrected, the NPOV tag will remain. DryGrain 05:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What information should be there? That cows are raised, killed, butchered, and that their meat is ground into ground beef? Isn't that information implicitly there? The article clearly states that hamburgers are made from ground beef--it's pressed into patties, sometimes mechanically, sometimes by hand. My family, we usually just buy ground beef and make the patties ourselves. Ground beef is beef that's ground, and beef is meat from cattle. Everyone recognizes that hamburgers are made of meat, what needs to be added? Nothing but your own fringe point of view. By the same standard someone could claim that Bomb isn't neutral because it doesn't make it clear that bombs kill people. Or that Soy sauce doesn't make it clear enough that we're killing LIVING SOYBEANS (in great offense to Fructarian sensibilities) to make overly salty condiments! Or that Penicillin doesn't make it clear enough that penicillin kills LIVING BACTERIA!!!

Your contest is without merit. Philwelch 07:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality debate over this article is REDICULOUS! While I am against inhumane slaughter of animals, I am not against their consumption. Articles about food do not have to go into detail on how every little piece of everything comes into being.

If you really want to do that, then I suggest making a new article entitled ground beef (I haven't checked if its real yet). A hamburger is a SANDWICH. If you wish to discuss the process in which the PARTS of the sandwich are manufactured and processed, then go right ahead. But in their own separate articles. What next? neutral debates in ALL meat dishes?

I don't see NPOV debates about other sandwiches such as turkey or chicken club (mind you I don't see articles for such sandwiches either) Why don't we complain about every kind of meat, about every kind of food, Why not put NPOV debates about the harvesting of vegetables and how exploitive it is against the working class?

We are getting too anal about this, put such information in articles that would suit it better.

User:JessPKC --209.226.132.148 11:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hamburger is synonymous with ground beef. If you'd like to make a ground beef article, go right ahead. I don't think its too much to ask to include the elements of production in the article. And it isn't a "fringe point of view", it's not a POV at all. It's funny how all of you omnivores are going off the deep end when I try to add something to the article that doesnt include the consumption of meat and actually something about how it is produced. If you want to lie to yourselves about what's in your sandwich, go ahead, but don't limit the Wikipedia to your euphemisms. DryGrain 20:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's there do lie to ourselves about? Steers are killed and their muscle tissue is mechanically ground into ground beef. Everybody knows that. Stating it outright in the article would insult the intelligence of our readers. What next, mentioning in the article for bomb that exploding bombs kill people by burning them and tearing them apart with compression waves? Mentioning in the article for firearm that firearms shoot bullets at people, and that the bullets punch holes into their bodies, causing death by blood loss or tissue damage? By the way, technically speaking, a hamburger is a hot sandwich made with a ground beef patty while ground beef is a meat product that's used for hamburgers, lasagna, spaghetti sauce, meatballs, and other tasty products that you're denying yourself. I feel sorry for you. But that is neither here nor there. Philwelch 00:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Seems to me that the link(s) in question might actually be more appropriate in articles such as beef or meat rather than in an entry on a particular kind of food with meat ingredients (if the hamburger article doesn't link to meat maybe it should). -- Logotu 20:52, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

The PETA link does not appear to be relevant, as the process by which the meat is derived is neither here nor there. By the same standard, we would be including links on how buns and pickles are made, which is not the point.

I personally am an omnivore, so maybe I'm just spewing out my POV, but it doesn't seem necessary to put the PETA link. Mind you, I'm not saying anything against vegeatarians or what PETA stands for (however I don't like their methods), it just doesn't seem necessary. That's my 2 cents.Cameron Nedland 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to remove NPOV stub

[edit] Yes

Yes. Philwelch 00:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes. User:JessPKC --209.226.132.148 06:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tannin 06:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes. - - Paul Richter 07:52, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No

No. DryGrain 12:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) (And I don't mind if I'm the only no vote that turns up, my ethics require me to contest the neutrality and I harbor no ill will towards anyone involved in this dispute, meat eater or otherwise.)

Time check. Philwelch 09:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. It's been over 24 hours. I think it's reasonable at this point to remove the NPOV stub and I will do so now. Philwelch 09:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 4th of July photo

The photo and its caption that I removed are extremely POV and inappropriate. Burgers are used at barbecues worldwide, and just because American Independence Day is a common barbecue for most Americans doesn't mean that burgers are "quintessentially American." –Andre (talk) 18:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Samclem 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)== Origin of Hamburger ==

Seymour, Wisconsin supposedly invented the hamburger - they allegedly won a lawsuit over who invented the hamburger. They are home of the Hamburger Hall of Fame and the world's largest hamburger. Mydotnet 14:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This should certainly be present in the article. Andre (talk) 16:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The entire section about who invented the hamburger, which includes the recently added Fletcher Davis info, is just so much conjecture. If anyone is privy to the info about the Midway/1904/Expo/"Old Dave's Hamburger Stand" crap, please show me where I can read it. No one has ever presented any primary evidence that any of the claimants[Davis(Texas), Louis Lunch(CT), Menches(Akron), or Nagreen(Wisconsin)] "invented" the hamburger. If anyone CAN show such evidence, then do so. Otherwise, the entire speculative section should be rewritten as "legend has it." Samclem 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patty melt under Japan?

Just out of curiosity, why is the sentence about the patty melt under Japan? I'm not going to move it until someone confirms it was just a mistake and not intentional.

It was a mistake and unintentional. It used to be in a different section, maybe "Ingredients" section, maybe "Serving style: United States", when a lot of national/regional sections developed and this sentence just happened to be swallowed up by the Japanese section "unintentionally". It should definately be moved to an appropriate section. Perhaps at the same time one might rethink really where it belongs, also a lot of stuff under the United States section. I live in Denmark and a bacon double cheeseburger is just the same as one in USA, so why is it there? I suspect that anywhere one finds a McDonalds-- a bacon double cheeseburger is a bacon double cheeseburger. Sfdan 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Not only that, but is it relevant? There's already a Patty melt entry. Osakadave 11:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

Doesn't 'In the mid-2000s' mean around the year 2500?

No, "2000s" refers to the decade, so "mid-2000s" means around 2005-ish. -- Zeno Izen

[edit] Nutritional facts

I was thinking maybe to caculate out the "calories/gram" and put it beside the number of grams. That is maybe a better indication of comparison. From the table it seems that the Whopper is the most unhealthy, but it is just the biggest. --None-of-the-Above 18:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left Out

I had to add White Castle and In-N-Out Burger to the (lengthy) list of burger dependant fast-food chains; each of them because of their limited burger-only menus and their cult-like followings. --Dsutton 14:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Info

I added some stuff about Australian hamburger habits. I left what was originally written but it wasn't written by an Aussie, I can tell ;p James Pinnell 12:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some stuff about Indian burgers, but this is just wh@ I remember from a vac@ion a long time ago. So go ahead & change it if it's wrong.Cameron Nedland 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese burgers

Added some information regarding Japanese burgers. There's a lot of interesting, very high quality burgers in Japan. When I have time, I'll elaborate more on this subject. Alexthe5th 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK burgers

I removed some erroneous info stating that in the UK a beefburger is different from a hamburger, and that British people would expect a hamburger to be made from ham. Sorry, that is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. The two words are synonomous. I also added a lot of extra info about a few quintessentially British innovations - the battered beefburger for instance. Also beefed up (sorry for the pun) the information regarding pub grub and inserted a reference to Wimpys, the old-fashioned UK hamburger chain.

UK has influenced Hong Kong and, across the bay, Kowloon. Ate at a British-style restaraunt in Kowloon. Not a super fancy place but not a dive, either. Ordered the "hamburger." Well, when it arrived.... here in the USA I believe the vast majority of Americans would declare it was a meatloaf sandwich and nothing like what folks in the USA term a hamburger. Flat white bread with a hunk of meatloaf vice a beef patty inbetween. Just some general info to add to the fray. Obbop pecked at the keyboard to tell you this.68.13.191.153 07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China

This sentence is unfounded here... I'm not sure if it should be removed or not?

"Restaurants such as Peter Burger, although they attempt to copy McDonald's, use hamburger patties that are not 100% beef, although they claim to be." --Selena 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burger to merge with Hamburger

[edit] Proposal

I've proposed a merger of burger and hamburger, since hamburger is an excellent article, while burger is much smaller, and nearly all the information is already here. Please discuss below... Con Dem^Talk 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I agree (and I suggested it once over on Talk:Burger. Other "burgers" are clearly derivatives of the hamburger, and a nice little section on "Hamburger derivatives" or somesuch, and making Burger redirect here seems like the best approach, IMHO. -- Kaszeta 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Makes perfect sense; there's not enough new information in "burger" that's not already here for it to merit its own article. While we're at it, should cheeseburger and veggie burger be merged too? Keppa 22:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. On the German Wikipedia, "Burger" is a redirect page, listing persons with the last name Burger, as well as hamburger. Veggie burger is a different product. This German method makes the most sense to me. GilliamJF 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

I 'opposse. A Burger is ALL burgers be it hamburger, cheeseburger, veggie burger, bean burger, big mac, whopper, etc, etc... the list is endless. A hamburger is but one of these and therefore the articles should remain separate! 64.12.117.13 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose. I think that burger and hamburger should remain seperate. Hamburger is ground beef (and not even necessarily a sandwich- hamburger meat is hamburger, IMO. "Raw Hamburger" is hamburger!- there is no such thing as 'raw burger.' Burger is a style of a sandwich (a patty, bread, extras). I say- keep them seperate!!! - amyanda2000 68.77.109.193 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please see the Wiktionary enry for hamburger which claims that hamburger includes both ground beef and meat substitutes. Con D e m^Talk 23:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Burgers don't need to be made from beef. Hamburgers refer to only ground beef burgers (at least to me), whereas you might say "buffalo burger" "moose burger" or "tofu burger" for ones made from other things. SECProto 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

There seems to be no consensus on whether or not to merge the articles, and so I will leave them as they are, and remove the merge tags. Con D e m^Talk 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followup

Ther merge tags came back, without discussion, in September of 2006. There is very, very little content in burger that isn't better dealt with in hamburger other than the treatment of different meats and the British use of the term in place of the American "patty". As such, I have proposed a move of Burger to Patty, and intend to introduce relevant links to this article should that proposal be accepted. Discuss at Talk:Burger#Merge.2FMove. MrZaius^talk 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horsemeat?

In Swedish the term 'hamburger meat' usually refers to horse meat. I am curious about the etymology of this. Hamburgers in Sweden, like everywhere else, are made of beef. At least nowadays! Was the original hamburger made of beef? --Drdan 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] veggie burgers

This section had a few subtle problems with it. I think my cleanup is reasonable. Put a See vegetarianism, because to work a vegetarianism link into the prose would have made an opportunity for npov issues and disagreements. Zeno Izen 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers?

As written the article seems to suggest Brian Peppers invented the hamburger bun:

The hamburger bun is said to have been invented in 1916 by Brian Peppers

Although this could be an amusing coincidence, I doubt it; someone probably vandalized the page, making a reference to the convicted sex offender YTMND loves to make fun of at every opportunity. Unless someone knows for sure that this *is* a cosmic coincidence, I will edit the article and remove the Peppers reference.--Caliga10 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beefburger?

I don't know about Saudi Arabia - but in the UK, "hamburger" generally refers to the entire sandwich, whereas the term "beefburger" is only ever used to refer to the beef patty contained within.

In fact, Brits often "shun the bun" and eat the beefburger either on its own, or accompanied by chips (french fries); peas; and/or baked beans. This was a popular childhood culinary choice during the 1970s and 1980s. 220.157.82.109 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"the beefburger ... on its own, ... accompanied by ... peas" EW! Zeno Izen 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As an Englishman myself, I've certainly rarely seen anyone eat a burger in this fashion - it's certainly not something I'd describe us as often doing.

Yeah, I'm in the UK also, and I just don't think this is the case. I would say that "beef burger" or just "burger" is the more commonly used term, rather than hamburger, but the usage is the same - it can refer to either the patty in a bun or just the patty itself. The terms patty and sandwhich are almost never used in relation to hamburgers in the UK, from my experience.

It's true that in the home cooking environment patties are sometimes eaten without buns, served with beans, chips and the like, but I wouldn't say that this is the most common method; and it's the probably the case that most hamburgers are eaten at fast food joints such as McDonald's and Burger King anyway. This is just my experience anyway, I can't speak for the entire UK, but as it is the article's description of UK terminology and preperation with regard to hamburgers seems incorrect and misleading. It's also probably worth noting that this information isn't sourced either, and so could fall foul to being original research (which is prohibited obviously). - 85.210.146.49 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburgers in UK

I think it's worth noting that in the UK, the hamburger is made from a more choicer cut of beef than is found here in the US. (At least at the place I went to over there it was steak-like in quality). Jon 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trim and consolidate the varaties into a short section

Like Chicken Burgers, Turkey Burgers, Veggie Burgers, etc; no need to duplicate details of every type of burger under ever burger article. Jon 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donut burger

Did anyone else see the "Donut Burger" on the news? It was a donut cut in half with the beef, cheese & bacon inside? Sounds like it would taste good, but probably kill you.Cameron Nedland 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Steak

I know that I have read in some history book that during the WWI hamburgers were renamed "liberty steak". The rationale behind this was supposedly to prevent good things from being associated with Germany. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Thanks. PJ 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Fries... Roses of the prophet Mohammed... happens all the time. I'd believe it--Nog64 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Photo Down

Is it my eyes, or is the photo that presumes to show mass-produced fast food hamburgers actually showing....brisket sandwiches?

[edit] Vandalism

Sorry, i am new but this has been vandalize by some lowbrow idiot. will someone please revert it? I love wiki..even when asshats like whoever did this do their thing, there is always the history (a feature many users and media talking heads know nothing about) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.107.205 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll monitor the vandalizing user for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about ingredients

I would be interested to know more about which parts of the beef are used in making hamburger. Is it just certain cuts or is it leftover scrap. Any info would be appreciated.

Whatever can be ground up, which can vary from the very best cuts to the scrap to a mixture of both. It all depends on what you're looking for flavor/texture-wise and what your budget is. According to the Wiki on hamburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_meat), it's generally made from the tougher bits and leftovers, but nothing anyone would normally think twice about. Of course, most stores with a butcher can grind up whatever you want if you have to know exactly what's in it before it gets all mushed together. Generally, though, it's just the stuff that didn't make it into the larger cuts of meat. Nothing to worry about as long as it gets cooked well. 69.175.50.2 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the hamburger a sandwich?

A hamburger is still regarded as a sandwich, as is a hot-dog. A sandwich is two pieces of bread with something in between - that's pretty much the only requirement. Do hot-dog and hamburger buns somehow not count as bread? 69.175.50.2 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

recategorizing hamburger sounds like origianl research. Can you cite a relaible source who states that it's not a sandwich? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athens, Texas

I added the following text after the part about Fletcher Davis:

In November 2006, The Texas State Legislature introduced Bill HCR-15, designating Athens as the "Original Home of the Hamburger".

The actual text can be found here. — Loadmaster 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburgers Today

I removed the picture of the "mass produced" hamburgers in this section, because it seemed very clear in the picture that they were roast beef (or some other type of meat) sandwiches, not hamburgers. feel free to find a new one, if you can. - President David Palmer

[edit] Comments within article

These comments in "Cultural Associations" look more like an in-article discussion:-

[[Oprah Winfrey]] was sued for saying she would stop eating hamburgers when there was a [[mad cow disease]] scare.

That's what the talk page is for. If it's felt necessary to draw someone's attention to something that has caused problems in the past (and likely will again in future) then fair enough, put in a comment, but please keep it short.

If it gets as long as the stuff above, something like the following might be more appropriate:

.

Thanks.

Fourohfour 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the intro picture that of a cow?

Wouldn't the picture of a hamburger be more appropriate?--Boffob 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed that; looks like that was a piece of vandalism that nobody bothered reverting. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/m/Talk%7EHamburger_b2a4.html"

Categories: Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested) | Articles referenced by the press