Talk:List of misleading food names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Contents

[edit] US specific

Most of the entries in this article are specific to the U.S.; only three or four of the names are used elsewhere (Danish pastries, hamburgers, and bolognese sauce; possibly the first two entries). Could that information be included somehow? As it stands, the article is rather misleading. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question: is Misnamed Foods misnamed? It implies they are named incorrectly by accident, rather than deliberately, sometimes as jokes. They are deceiving, but there may be a better word for it than this. Also, "alla Bolognese" applied to pasta in Italy and Bologna is indeed the classic tomato/meat sauce expected in other parts of the world. I think this entry should be deleted. Mothperson 21 March 2005

  1. Always post messages under what went before; not to do is as bad as if not worse than the same offence in e-mails (though fortunately less common).
  2. Don't tick the 'This is a minor edit' box if you've done more than tidying English, style, formatting, etc.
  3. Yes, you're probably right about the Bolognese entry.
  4. I've already put the specifically U.S. enties into their own section; all the others are used elsewhere.
  5. If you can think of a better title, post it here, and we can make a decision. I see your point, but I can't offhand think of a better title. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


If entries used mostly in the U.S. are separated out, then why not the British entries as well? For example, Welsh Rabbit is unknown in North America as a name of a culinary dish. Also, Caesar salad is not mis-named in the sense of this article. It's named for a person, just not the person most people think of. Dyl 22:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Because the ones that you might think of as British are probably shared by other countries (Australia, Canada, etc. — in the case of Welsh rabbit, apparently, the French [1]); are there any others unheard of in the U.S.? A sub-section of one would be a bit pointless. (In any case, I think that you're wrong about Welsh rabbit — see here, here, and perhaps here.) The U.S. section makes sense because there's a surprising number of U.S. names that refer foods to countries with which there's no connection (the reaction of a Frenchman to U.S. 'French dressing' is a wonder to behold).
  2. As was pointed out above, the term 'misnamed' is very loose; if you can think of a better, that would be great. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Gosh. Sorry. I'm new, and this place is a little confusing. Deceptive Food Names? I am not "probably right" about Bolognese sauce. And the statement that Welsh rabbit is unknown in North America is just plain wrong. Again, I regret the placement offense. Although I've probably done it wrong again. Mothperson 03:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, that's just fine. I said 'probably' (about 'Bolognese') because I think that the point is that the sauce doesn't actually come from Bologna, though everything else that you said is true (and a check suggested strongly that it does in fact come from Bologna, so I removed it).
How about Misleadingly named foods? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of adverbs but Misleading Food Names sounds good.

Mothperson 14:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll make the move, then (though I'm puzzled; what do you have against adverbs?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"The adverb is not your friend." I don't know who said that - I had thought Strunk. It wasn't, but it's his kind of position. Adverbs complicate things.

I'm not going to add these ideas, but for your consideration: (and by the way, I don't see why American and British terms have to be separated - we're not all ignorant savages. Maybe an abbreviation in parentheses - US, BR, etc. - would be sufficient)

  • Americanisms (?)
    • California roll - not a roll, but sushi.
    • Canadian bacon - more like what in the U.S. is called ham, although it's sold here under that name.
    • Boston Cream Pie and Washington Pie - not pies, but cakes.
    • Pigs in Blankets - no pigs, no blankets, although this may be simply a fanciful name.


  • Others:
    • Angels on Horseback - again, fanciful? No angels and no horses, for sure.
    • Black Bun - to this American, fruitcake is in no way a bun! A ton, maybe.
    • Scalloped dishes - rarely have scallops.
    • Biscuits - English, French, and American biscuits are not twice-cooked, unlike their namesake biscotti.
    • Digestive biscuits - from personal experience, no aid to the digestion, especially if you eat too many of the chocolate-covered ones.
    • Major Grey's Chutney is not a brand name.
    • Chicken à la King is not named for royalty.
    • Beef/veal olives or birds - no olives, no birds.
    • Shrimp Scampi - like nails on a blackboard - shrimp shrimp-style? Argh. This might be a U.S. thing. I don't know. I just know I hate it.
    • Victoria Sponge is not a sponge, or even a spongecake. Nor is it a Sandwich. (the "cake" label is often left off)

Just thinking here. I like lists.

Mothperson 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many of these are new to me. Some, as you say, are fanciful rather than misleading, though 'Chicken à la King' should be included. I think that 'biscuit' is only misleading for those who know its etymology — but etymology is in any case more often misleading than not. It sounds as though 'black bun' should be there (one I'd never heard of), and the cream pies (which I'd heard of, but knew nothing about). Here, at least, a Victoria sponge is two layers of sponge cakes sandwiching jam & cream. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And black bun is British! Scottish, anyway. It's a fruitcake encased in dough. As a long-time cake baker, I know that the British recipes for Victoria Sponge or Sandwich are not actually spongecakes, because they contain butter. True spongecake contains no form of shortening - just eggs. Most sources I've seen, including British ones, note that it isn't a true spongecake. I haven't put Chicken à la King on the food eponym list yet, but it's American, and was named after someone named Keene or King.

64.30.60.157 22:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hot dogs are not (usually) made from dogs. But I think I'll just leave that observation here on the Talk page, lest this whole thing be moved to WP:BJAODN. :-) RussBlau 16:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

But really, why isn't this list getting longer? Although RussBlau could be right. --Mothperson 22:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Buffalo Fingers. Are not made from fingers nor from buffalo meat, and instead are boneless Buffalo wings [spicy chicken wings commonly served with ranch sauce. Joncnunn 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleons

I'd never heard of these, and a quick Google gave the very strong impression that it's U.S. usage. Should I move it to that section, or is there reason to think that it's more widely used? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right - it is an American term, not used in Europe, except perhaps in Denmark. I'll move it. Mothperson 14:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Napoleons are mille feuilles, but you probably already figured that out.

Mothperson 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it was on the tip of my tongue, but I just couldn't bring it out. Thanks, you've saved me a sleepless night. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =Misunderstanding

I've just removed an entry under "I can't believe it's not butter", which the editor concerned thought was misleading because of the double negative. Aside from there not actually being a double negative, that's not the sort of "misleading" that the page is concerned with, as the other entries indicate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sweetbreads

So:

served as a food by people who think it is acceptable to eat body parts.

seems to get removed and reverted quite a bit. Perhaps it should be discussed here. My own opinion is that it implies that it is in fact not acceptable to eat body parts so perhaps it should be reworded a bit. Also "body parts" is far too vague a term. Legs, haunches, and wings are all body parts, but it's relatively non-notable that people eat them.--CVaneg 18:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My own view is that it's a nicely crafted, mildly humorous, NPoV way of expressing a point, which fits well with the non-serious nature of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe "...eat such body parts" or something like that? I'm fine with keeping the page mildly humourous (it's on Wikipedia:Unusual articles :) but let's keep it a little NPOV.
Actually, I just removed it again before reading this page - the such addition seems decent though. It doesn't sound very appetising to me either, true! -- Mithent 11:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But adding "such" makes the comment difficult to follow; it's not meant to refer to people who dislike eating certain bits of dead animals but not others... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Damn. I thought body parts was much more amusing. --Mothperson cocoon 13:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that to many people, the idea that it was acceptable to eat body parts would be exceedingly POV. Oh, well. --Mothperson cocoon 13:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could get consensus to change it back? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've got my vote. It's all those body-part-eating folks who want to throw a spanner in the works. Or a ham bone. --Mothperson cocoon 12:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I almost deleted that sentence before I saw this discussion. I can see the humour value, but I'm not sure "acceptable" is a good word to use, it implies that to do so is somehow wrong and the humour isn't apparent at first sight. Might I suggest the following sentence, which is more obviously tongue-in-cheek "[who eat] with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls" --BadSeed 09:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a matter of personal taste, but I find that heavy-handed rather than light-hearted. the humour, after all, lies precisely in the implication that others don't find the eating of body-parts acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I seems to me that the joke is not that people don't find the eating of organs acceptable, in the same way that some people don't find the eating of animals acceptable, but rather the implication that no sane person would want to eat certain body parts. --BadSeed 14:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself (though I believe that this view is shared by other editors), but I think that it's the vegetarian implication that's intended. "Acceptable" would be an odd word to use otherwise ("tempting" or "attractive" or something would be be more appropriate). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But then wouldn't that apply equally to Hamburgers, Bombay duck, and every other dish that contains animals. Surely the idea is that the "the pancreas or thymus gland" doesn't sound very appetising. That is my interpretation, which is indeed why I found the word "acceptable" strange. In any case, it's not exactly an important point. I'm sure sooner or later someone will come along and delete it again. :P --BadSeed 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
But hamburger is not identifiable body parts. Bombay duck is a fish. And, oh dear, who came along and reverted it again? We're not headed for lamest edit wars ever are we? By the way, jeezum crow probably does not involve crows, although it may. I'm not sure. --Mothperson cocoon 20:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

It has occurred to me that this should, according to Wikipedia naming conventions, be List of misleading food names. Would anybody object if I made the move? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pas moi. --Mothperson 15:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it can always be undone if anyone does object, so I'll be bold, and move it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial names

I've just removed this entry:

My understanding is that this article lists food names rather than brand names (which I assume that this is). Thousands of brand-names are misleading, in various ways, and tend to be very local. Is there general agreement on that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

  • Yep. At least, I, for one, do not want to think about my Chick-o-Stick candy bar actually being a stick of chicken, nor my Penguin made of penguins, nor my Freddo Frog to be a real frog filled with caramel. Not to mention... oh, forget it. I'm making myself feel sick. No brand names. That could be another list, though! --Mothperson 9 July 2005 12:33 (UTC) But this means you have to take out my Grape-nuts. Well, it's a sacrifice for the greater good, so I don't mind.--Mothperson
Of course, as soon as I started, possibilities for this list kept leaping to mind. For your consideration: string cheese, bread-and-butter pickles, kidney beans (which sound pretty creepy if you think about them), and catsup. No need to explain why they won't work. Just thinking. Although I still think black bun should have been added. --Mothperson 9 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
Actually I think that "grape nuts" is generic, so your entry may be OK. I've never known what "bread-and-butter pickles" are when I've come across them in U.S. novels; I thought that "string cheese" was stringy cheese, but I'm not sure. Remind me what "black buns" are. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)9 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
Black bun - some large dark Scottish fruitcake encased in pastry. String cheese actually comes apart (cold) in strings. Mostly, it tastes of salt. Salty string. Bread-and-butter pickles are a sweet cucumber pickle, and while I'm not sure where the name comes from, I always thought it was because the cucumber slices ended up looking somewhat like slices of bread, and the pickle juice was quite yellow from whole mustard seeds, so...bread and butter? But that may have sprung straight from my imagination. Certainly, no bread or butter is involved. The pickle is typically used as a condiment at dinner. --Mothperson 9 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
According to this website http://www.nbc4.com/answerstoaskliz2005/4440651/detail.html, bread and butter pickles were named for smorgasbords, which mean "bread and butter tables"--smorgasbords featured, among other things, a variety of pickled foods; hence, bread and butter pickles.--H-ko 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Black bun - some large dark Scottish fruitcake encased in pastry." Hmm, sure it's not deep-fried? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

LOL - you'd have to use a very very large pot and a giant construction crane, I think. --Mothperson 20:05, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The Scots are well used to such things (they're a race of engineers, remember). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
omg. I'd forgotten. I guess if whole turkeys can be deep-fried in Alaska, it isn't a stretch at all to imagine black bun being deep-fried in Aberdeen. But this is edging over into The Twilight Zone. --Mothperson 22:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a dought that "Hamburger Helper" and the like (Chicken Helper / Tuna Helper) belong on this list. Who really thinks it comes with another person? Joncnunn 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

I've reverted the latest major revision, largely because it looked (to my eye, at least) much less attractive and easy to read. The bolding, especially of links, was one of the worst features, but the country-origins were inconsistently and non-standardly abbreviated. There seemed to be a number of (unexplained — name only) new entries, and I've no doubt that some or all of them can be inserted, but they'd need an account of what they are (and thus why they're misleading).

If other editors disagree with me, it can be put back, of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Some of the added things made no sense to me, but German chocolate cake is a good one - not because it was invented in Dallas (a claim that I'm not certain about) but because most people don't realize it was named after Baker's German's chocolate - a sweet baking chocolate named after Sam(? I can't remember his first name offhand) German. It is not a "German" cake at all. I"ve never heard of "Hungarian stew" unless this is some form of American goulash. I'll look at this stuff more closely later today. Meanwhile, consider this classic (okay, not so much, but very 20th-century) American dish - "porcupine meat balls" - no porcupine, just uncooked rice which, in the cooking of the meatballs, expands and sticks out to form the quills. --Mothperson cocoon 12:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've looked at the removed additions. I don't think most of them were appropriate. French toast is pain perdu. Water chestnuts grow in water and look like chestnuts. Mexican wedding cakes are, in fact, a Mexican holiday cookie (very similar to Russian tea cakes and those Greek holiday cookies I can't spell). Russian dressing - I'd have to do more research on - I've never heard of the caviar history. Irish coffee has Irish whisky in it - so... Spanish eggs must be something regionally specific - unknown to me, despite my List of egg dishes research. German potato salad does, indeed, have German ancestry. The pineapple was named that for a reason I forget, and must look up again. The things I really have no experience with are the peameal/Canadian bacon association. I still think German chocolate cake is a good addition. --Mothperson cocoon 12:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pineapples are so called because they're fruit that look like pine cones. I don't know Mexican wedding cakes or Russian tea cakes, but I'm pretty good on Greek cakes (though I suppose you mean "biscuits", and apart from paximadia and amydalota I can't really think of any). Can you describe them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pinecones - of course. The Greek things are round butter cookies (shortbread biscuits) with powdered sugar on top, usually a clove stuck in the middle - kourambiedes? I don't know. I can't remember if they have ground nuts in them - the Mexican version has pecans, Russian/Polish ones have walnuts, I think, and others have almonds. They all get rolled in powdered sugar. --Mothperson cocoon 18:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Kourabiedes, of course — my mind's going. What they have stuck in them (if anything) is regional, I think; nothing is usal, but I've seen almonds (never a clove, though &mdash where was that? Sounds interesting). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the English muffin entry needs to be revised. This has been bothering me for months, but not enough to do anything about. However, as long as I'm here....
American English muffins are directly descended from English muffins, i.e. the kind raised with yeast. To say English muffins were unknown in England before being imported from the U.S. is just not true. I believe we started calling them English muffins well after the invention of the baking powder-raised muffins in the 19th century, to differentiate the two types. If you'll look at the article Muffin, which I researched, you'll see what I mean. The Drury Lane muffin man was selling something almost identical to American English muffins, not date-bran muffins. I read somewhere that at one point in the 19th century, Parliament was debating what to do about the maddeningly incessant ringing of muffin-sellers' bells in London.
I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to phrase this distinction. Given my druthers, I'd delete it entirely, but maybe it could run along the lines of French and Italian dressing. But something should be changed. It's misinformation as it stands. --Mothperson cocoon 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see it deleted, given what you say. It's widely believed here that what Americans call "English muffins" aren't English at all, so the entry is in fact an example of a misleading misleading-food-name. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The cloves may be a Greek-American thing. As for the muffins, yippee-ki-yo - I'm off to delete. Ki-yay. --Mothperson cocoon 00:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey-gland steak?

Could we maybe have a little more information on this peculiar dish? The assertion that it is not connected with monkey glands is nowhere near enough to make me believe this isn't a total joke. --Mothperson cocoon 02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I Googled it (I was unsure about it too), and found lots of hits, reciped, etc. it exists, and it doesn't involve momkeys. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Wonders never cease. --Mothperson cocoon 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant ears

I added Elephant ears under the "primarily US" section. That was an assumption on my part, I've never been to a carnival or county fair outside the US. LarryMac 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've certainly not heard the term here; I suspect that you're right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this really so misleading, though? True, there are no elephant parts in it--but the idea is that it resembles an elephant's ear in shape and conveys the implication that it is very large (though not really as large as an elephant's ear). It doesn't seem like a food name is misleading if it indicates some relationship other than the ingredients.--H-ko 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of mixed drinks - limits?

If names of mixed drinks are permitted, this list will quintuple in size. Everything from a Nazi Killer to Sex On the Beach will fair game. I'm not saying they shouldn't be included, just want to get a general feeling from the regulars of this article before submitting. Grika 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Something like a Long Island Ice Tea should be allowed, because the name implies there's tea in it. A Nazi Killer isn't the same. --Richy 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree (so long as it's correctly spelt...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Most unlike me, I have no arguments whatsoever. My lost New Orleans friend is found. I'm totally fine with Long Island Ice Tea. Or Greenland Walrus Bitter Orange. But Oysters Bienville - a decided no. Damn that guy. --Mothperson cocoon 20:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of non-misleading names removed

"Scalloped" doesn't mean "with scallops" — just a dish with peas isn't called "peaed" or a dish with aubergines isn't called "aubergined", etc. Thus I don't see that it's misleading (except to some who's ignorant or confused — but then we'd have to start adding all sorts of foods whose name aren't actually misleading.

"Lemonade" isn't misleading; the claim is that it's made in different ways in different places, and so might surprise the unwary transatlantic traveller (on that reasoning we'd have to include beer, cheese, coffee, etc. — I've tasted – in so far as there was any taste – the U.S. versions), and that the commercial lemonade sold in the U.K. uses lemon flavouring (again, on that reasoning we'd have to list all the processed foods that use flavouring instead of the genuine ingredients [cheese and onion crisps, etc.]). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I'm against it. The article List of misleading brand names of food is potentially vast (though at the moment tiny, and containing at least one entry - Animal Crackers - that stretches the notion a bit), and seems to be more of a consumer-awareness page than this one. What's the objection to having them as sparate articles? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, since both the articles are talking about misleading names in terms of food content, it may be a better idea to merge the brands page into this, as then this could serve as a single reference point. Without a merger, a potential problem could be that someone adds a misleading brand name here raher than that page. "See also with a link" may ameliorate that problem to some extent. Also, it is very diffi for anyone to remember such a long name (apart from admins and editors who may be having it on their watchlist). I'm thinking in terms of someone who is just trying to look up the matter through search. I feel it wd b better to merge these with 2 major divisions on the page - generic names and brand names. --Gurubrahma 11:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that a separate section wouldn't be so bad (I wasn't thinking), though I'm still a little worried that the section would be overbalancingly huge, as there are thousands of brand names that are misleading with regard to ingredients and quality. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd be for it - too much clicking is not what the doctor ordered. But the article should be cut up into sections, or at least be very clear what is what. But a definite yes for the merger. --Ouro 13:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm against it. In fact, being the person who started this cousin of the better list, I now wish I hadn't. I'm sorry, Mel. I didn't mean for it to come to this. I am very much against the merge. I'd rather put it up for deletion. Mothperson cocoon 17:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this proposed merge for many hours (what that says about how I spend my time, I'd rather not be told). I'm still against it, having tried to think of all the reasons for it. But, to my mind, they are very different beasts, and it would not be so much like combining gorillas and monkeys as combining gorillas and - uh - rabbits. Primarily, my objection is based on cultural grounds, as silly as that may sound. But it's the difference between a culture creating something and agreeing about it, versus something be imposed by a commercial entity. Welsh rabbit. Scotch woodcock. And then, take, for example, German Chocolate Cake, an American dessert. This was a cultural "mistake" of sorts, which had to make the Baker's Chocolate company very happy. But it was accidental. Commercially imposed names are not accidental, and therefore, I don't think they should be considered in the same light. For example, as someone who does not believe in eating my mammal cousins, Bacos (I don't know the legal spelling) could be quite awful-sounding if I didn't know they were made of soybeans. But this is not in the same category as Welsh rabbit, which is a cultural joke of sorts, agreed upon by long usage. Does this make any sense? Mothperson cocoon 13:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and it's pushed me back to being firmly against the proposed merge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with the last two comments above. I was waiting to see if any other comments would be forthcoming. I'll wait for a couple of days and remove the merge tags; I'll add a See also section on each of the articles with a link to the other article as a person interested in one wd be interested in the other (e.g. I was). trust that sounds okay. --Gurubrahma 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burritos

An anon IP added this but it was reverted as it fiddled with the cats. Interested people may check the veracity of this and add it to the article. Burritos: Even though they are served exclusively in Mexican restaraunts, the burrito is not a native Mexican dish, it is infact, an American originated dish. --Gurubrahma 13:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I wouldn't consider this to be a misleading food name, since the name itself doen't specify what is in it, or where it came from. The word doesn't suggest that its misleading at all. I can't see how calling something a Burrito, unless Burrito has some other meaning I don't know about, could possibly mislead anyone. Thor Malmjursson 12:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Burritos are a Mexican dish, but mostly limited to the northern edges of Mexico, and much smaller than the US made variety. They're all over Ciudad Juarez, and made with wheat rather than corn tortillas. Burrito is a Spanish word meaning "little donkey", and burritos, the food, obviously are not donkeys! Tubezone 08:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something's gone missing...

I placed an addition to this page some time ago, and the edit has disappeared. I listed the incident in North Africa, where women who couldnt read had been given canned Baby Food by the Gerber company, and the women wouldn't feed it to their children; being illiterate, they went by the picture on the can. As the pic on the can was of babies, the women assumed that the cans contained puréed baby, and wouldnt let their little ones touch it. The verification for this is here: http://www.foodreference.com/html/tbabyfood.html Thor Malmjursson 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Yack

That's just an urban legend that's been circulating for over 40 years. See this article at Snopes.com* for researched info & documented sources. — SampoTorgo [talk] @ 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Merge

Im putting this back up for merge.

Here are my reasons.

  • 1.These are virutualy the same concept, keeping them seperate is just splitting hairs.
  • 2.The other page is very small, with only eight entries, most of which are dubious or duplicated on this page.
  • 3.A section on this page dedicated to "confusing brand names" is much more efficent, and they can be split in the future, should "confusing brand names" become large enough.

I rest my case.

Jack Cain 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • sigh* I'm not too fond of putting something back up for a merger after it's been taken down, but I have to agree. They Are Both Articles About Foodstuffs with Misleading Names. So there may be different reasons for the odd names- you don't for a moment think that the reasons for them getting bizarre names are uniform in this article, do you? Maybe we should divide them into things that are the product of mispronunciation, too, and things that are based on their odd appearance, and while we're at it a seperate article for misconceptions... (That's, err, that's sarcasm.) You proponent of seperate articles have argued that there is vast potential for the misleading brands. Six months, and there are eight items on this list. Either there aren't as many misleading brands as you think, or you can't be bothered updating it. Sorry that an old argument has to be continued like this. (Darien Shields 08:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Absolutely support merge They are the same topic, just slightly varied subject matter. New article could be something like "List of misleading food nomenclature". Staxringold 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


      • Merge completed and it now redirects here. Ddocumented on that article's talk page. RJFJR 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican and German entries & other disputes

1. Many of the lists and categories in the Wikipedia aren't very serious and wouldn't make it into the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Examples: List of neologisms on The Simpsons and Category:Mexican murder victims. The murder victims categories are amibiguous and unencyclopaedic to a fault: they don't indicate if the victims or murders were of a given ethnicity or if the crimes simply occurred in -fill in the blank- country. Attempts to delete or disambiguate the mess have been voted down. So getting anal about what goes on this list is patently silly.

2. This is a list of non sequiturs. Non sequiturs are often funny. This is unavoidable. If someone wants to make a list of unfunny non sequiturs, here's your opportunity: List of unfunny and boring non sequiturs

3. Many German and Latin American (Spanish speaking, usually) people immigrated into the USA. Needless to say, some Spanish & German language non sequiturs and false cognates are going to make it on the list. If you're like JC and didn't take at least high school German or Spanish, or have a basic knowledge of the cuisine, there's no reason to run around deleting stuff one doesn't understand. I never studied Australian dialect, so I don't mess with Ozzie entries. There's probably some good Chinese and Yiddish ones, I can only imagine... Tubezone 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • HEY, Ive been trying to keep this not personal, so dont start insulting me at random just because you dont like the way I work. You dont know a damn thing about me. Jack Cain 10:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not just US

Chicken Kiev, hot dog, chop suey are certainly familiar terms in England. Hamburger and frankfurter would probably been seen as americanisms, but are still common in England. (In Cuba, hot dogs are referred to as perros calientes, which is the literal Spanish translation.)

Also chop suey is not misleading in the same way - nothing in the name claims to be from China.

-- Beardo 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Classification by English speaking countries is going to be a problem as there's considerable cross-pollination of volcabulary between dialects of English (American companies like McDonalds have branches all over, some British TV programs are broadcast in the US, etc). Perhaps there ought be a "English in general" heading then "US specific" "UK specific", etc.
  • Chop suey is indeed a Chinese phrase, and it's often served in Chinese restaurants, so to the casual observer, it'd appear to be a Chinese dish. I think Chinese cuisine may be like Mexican cuisine, in the sense that, in a pinch, the cooks make do with whatever ingredients they have on hand, rather than following recipes by rote. That may be how chop suey was invented in the first place, Chinese immigrants in the USA often found themselves in places where traditional Chinese ingredients were difficult to find, so it'd make sense that they'd have come up with something like chop suey as an impromptu dish.

Tubezone 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tubezone

I can see that Tubezone is adding more of his kind of entries, whats next?

  • Keebler Club Crackers, neither a bludgeon or an organization.
  • Big Mac, not big.
  • Honey Comb Cereal, not a hair-care product.
  • Fruity Pebbles, not any kind of rock or mineral.

Jack Cain 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sunny-side-up eggs, do not contain any actual sun.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have a hard time topping that last one :-) I hate these lists, I personally don't think the encyclopedia should have any articles like this. But if it's going to exist, there's only one way to manage it, really, and that's to strictly apply WP:V and WP:NOR. As it stands now, this list is just a big pile of original research. Get rid of any and all entries, no matter how "obviously" misleading, where someone can't provide a citation of a reliable source that states that the food name is misleading in some way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I know man, this article has been a thorn in my side and constant source of aggrivation for weeks now. Particularly because of good ol Tubezone. Jack Cain 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chili Con Carne

According to the Chili article, right here on Wikipedia:

"Chili con carne (or simply chili) is a spicy stew-like dish, the essential ingredients of which are beef, pork, venison, or other mature meat, and chile peppers."

As such, it does not belong on the list, being exactly as its name describes. Jack Cain 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of suggestions - mainly US

1. Yams: what are called yams in the US are not really true yams, but just sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas, a relative of the morning glory) of another color. True yams are from an unrelated plant, Dioscorea Species. 2. Corn: corn was originally (and still is in many parts of the world) a generic name for grain; what is called corn in the US is maize (zea mays). This is why sometimes you can find references to corn from before the "discovery" of the New World, and the introduction of maize and other American crops to Europeans. I don't know if these are misleading enough to qualify, but I thought I'd suggest them.--H-ko 22:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a few more

  • Lady fingers - does it make any sense to lure away and catch a whole lady just for her fingers instead of eating the whole girl? Seems a little much like one of those Addams Family horrors where she asks whether the girl guide cookies are made from real girl guides. [unknown user]
  • Philidelphia cream cheese (brand name) - supposedly made in a few different places, none of which are anywhere near Philadelphia, but the name sounded 'official' so Kraft went with this. [unknown user]
  • American steak - supposedly used to mean a rare (or tartar) steak in various places which are far overseas, but not in America itself [unknown user]
  • Chinese Fortune Cookie - Actualy invented in San Francisco. Joncnunn 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate

I hate this article so much. Jack Cain 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

where's spotted dick ?

[edit] I hate this article

I hate it, I hate it so much.

It has caused me endless torment.

I hate this article.

Jack Cain 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purge

I think a lot of this should go. For example: Shepherds Tacos simply means Lamb Tacos, as made by shepherds. It is no more confusing than Shepherd's pie. Full list:

  • Pabellon - Not misleading, just obscure.
  • Ranch Octopus - Simply means Octopus in Ranch Sauce (like Ranch Salad and Ranch Chicken)
  • Wiener - How is that confusing?
  • Bimbo brand bread - Mars bars aren't from Mars, should this be listed too?
  • Chop suey - Doesn't pretend to be Chinese, just has a chinese name
  • Bangers and mash - Bangers is common British slang for sausages, and mash is self-explanatory


Wiener is misleading because, when translated, it suggest that it is from Vienna which is afaik, wrong. The sausage has nothing to do with Vienna, either in its creation or sale. Thor Malmjursson 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refried beans

In some parts of rural México, beans are boiled in a pot, and later fried in a pan with some oil or pork lard. The batch usually is more than enough for one meal, so the remaining beans are mashed and fried again, so they will last longer. The pot beans are called "frijoles de olla", the fried whole beans are called "frijoles guisados", and the refried mashed beans are called "frijoles refritos".

There's also a rice dessert called "Bigotes de gato" (cat whiskers), because of the hourglass-shaped portions.


Comments? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


You are a mindreader. I was just about to come on this page and add a request to have Refried Beans removed from the list, since they can be refried, and as far as I am aware, this means the name of the dish is NOT misleading! Thor Malmjursson 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

I have removed some things which I thought inappropriate. I didn't remove everything I thought inappropriate, because I haven't been here for a while. But if you want to have a lame edit war with me, and I don't mean you, Mel, you can reach me at Mothperson cocoon 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish fish

There's a guy from Sweden who lives in my dorm. He was once asked about Swedish fish, and he had never heard of them. So, should that be mentioned, seeing as how there's a mention of swiss rolls? --Jnelson09 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removals deux

This article has gotten a little depressing. Whatever happened our ability to distinguish the line between jokily misleading and just plain fanciful? Just consider the difference between "egg cream" and "elephant ears." Or "Welsh rabbit" vs. "ants on a tree." Or... never mind. I'm going to remove some more. See above. Mothperson cocoon 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_misleading_food_names_5b8d.html"