Talk:San Francisco burrito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments about chain restaurants 2 Edited "location" sentences at the beginning 3 Are they Mission burritos or San Francisco burritos? 4 In re: cheese 5 How huge are they? 6 NPOV? 7 Merge tag

[edit] Comments about chain restaurants

Below are several comments about chain restaurants. As the number of SF burrito-serving chains increases, I have deleted descriptive information on the page itself, while keeping a list of Qdoba, Chipotle, and Taco del Mar; the links to each of the chains can serve this purpose for those interested in learning more. Joewright 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Taco del Mar not mentioned here? I'm in Canada, and we have these places all over. I've never even heard of this "Chipotle's" that is apparently the biggest effort to spread the SF style burrito...

Additionally, Taco del Mar advertises Mission Style Burritos, not SF Style... But Taco del Mar is definitely serving what is being described in this article. --Icarusone 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Chipotle is yet another proof that God does exist and loves its creatures. I can divide my Mexican food culinary life in the U.S. as B.C. and A.C.--this is, Before Chipotle and After Chipotle.

Although it doesn't pretend to be Mexican food, it is the closest thing that I have found to it. The Salsas taste right and they are hot. The carnitas are correct, and the barbacoa is recognizable as Mexican.

Ironically, Chipotle, who calls itself tex-mex, is closer to Jalisco cooking than other restaurants, including some run by Mexicans.

Hugo Estrada, 20, July, 2006.

[edit] Edited "location" sentences at the beginning

Hi, I'm located in the East Bay, quite near Oakland, and I can safely say that "SF" burritos are not only found in the Mission District, but all around, and so I've added a few sentences in the introduction to reflect that. Nobody around here, obviously, calls them "San Francisco" burritos, or knows them as such. Jazzcello 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but the point of the article is that this particular style--Spanish rice, no potatoes (as in San Diego), the assembly line, the huge size and so on--started in the Mission District of San Francisco. I've tried to adapt your point into a sentence that better flows with the theme of the whole article. Joewright 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are they Mission burritos or San Francisco burritos?

I think these are properly known as "Mission" burritos, not "San Francisco" burritos, the name of this should be changed, dont you think?

There are a couple of reasons for the title of this page. First, some San Franciscans would argue that respectable or even great SF burritos (or "Mission" burritos) can be found outside the Mission and while this proposition is debatable [1], I think Wikipedia does best with an ecumenical attitude about such things. Also, when the burritos are described outside of San Francisco, they are generally described as "San Francisco" burritos (e.g., NY's Benny's "Cal-Mex San Francisco style burritos", which also advertises a "Mission burrito" as their vegetarian offering). The Calvin Trillin piece cited in the article also uses the phrase "San Francisco burrito" while the SF Gate article uses the phrase "Mission burrito"; however, a google search for "mission burrito" brings up a Houston joint first, and I think that most non-San Franciscans will not understand the phrase "Mission burrito" as easily. For San Franciscans, specifying that it is a Mission burrito is a useful way of solidifying the point that the burritos in the Marina aren't any better than the burritos in Boston; for non-San Franciscans, however, the term does not signify anything other than (as in the Houston example) some vaguely old California/SW theme. However, I am adding the synonym and you can feel free to add a redirect page. Joewright 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your googling method is a bit off, I'd say; a googlewar seems a more appropriate. And googling for "mission style burrito" and "mission burrito" yields 13000+ hits[2], while "san francisco style burrito"[3] and "san francisco burrito"[4]combine for about 2600. Why do you think the first hit for "mission burrito" being a place in Houston is somehow a knock against the term being known or common outside of SF? There are no historic missions in Houston, and their menu clearly supports the notion that the place is so named because they serve (or think they serve) SF/Mission-style burritos. Google also tells me there are also "Mission Burrito" restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and I can attest that in Seattle, "Mission-style" is a common descriptor seen at Mexican restaurants. Personally, I think the page should be renamed because it seems clear that Mission is more common than San Francisco, but I'll settle for simply making it more explicit that it's often called a Mission burrito. -- Severinus 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When seeking out these burritos, I've traditionally searched for "Mission burritos." I'd at least expect that the alternate(??) name "Mission burrito" be mentioned early on? -HiFiGuy 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (A New Yorker who spent 4 years in Berkeley.)

[edit] In re: cheese

I just want to say that this article is fucking well done. I worry a bit that it might be a little too tongue-in-cheek in places for a serious "academic" discussion of the burrito. But as a resident of San Francisco I have to say that just about every single thing I've read here is spot-on correct ... except, maybe, that in my experience relatively few burrito joints melt the cheese onto the tortilla. I do frequent a few taqueries that do it that way, but most just throw it in there and let the heat from the cooked ingredients do the job. -NM

I'm glad you liked the article. In re: cheese: now duly noted in the main article. Thanks for reading--and feel free to be bold in editing. Joewright 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How huge are they?

Okay, they're huge. But how huge? FreplySpang (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a verifiable source that quantifies this. You're a Bostonian--the largest burritos at Anna's are on the small side for San Francisco. The picture also gives some sense of scale. Joewright 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's malarkey. I lived in Boston for five years, and the burritos at Anna's and at Boca Grande are just as large as the ones found in the Mission. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Anna's is just as good as any taqueria I've had in the City. The idea of a "San Francisco Burrito" is a myth. There's nothing different about them from burritos I've had in other cities.69.105.224.112 01:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of the burritos you mention are explicit and acknowledged imitators of the San Francisco style, served by chains owned by rival members of an originally Californian family of Japanese descent, who in turn are cousins of the owner of the San Francisco chain Gordo's. (For info about the two Boston imitators, see: [5][6][7]) To throw in another Boston taqueria, Felipe's is owned by a man of Mexican descent--who used to work at Anna's. [8]

Gordo's, the direct or indirect inspiration for all three Boston versions of the burrito, is a chain whose outlets are located entirely outside of the Mission, but which use the style of preparation and assembly that (as this wiki article documents) originated in the Mission District. I offer these details on the talk page to give evidence for the fact that these kinds of chains, cropping up in more and more places, are imitators of a distinct San Francisco style; whenever you trace back the culinary ancestry of a non-San Francisco taqueria serving a similar style of burritos, it always traces back eventually to San Francisco and specifically to the Mission District. To review the example I give above, although Felipes is a Mexican-owned restaurant, its burrito style comes through a long line of descent back to SF--there is no original source for this style in Mexico. In other words, the idea that burritos in lots of cities are the same and somehow organically evolved as a national (rather than neighborhood) phenomenon, or as simply many variants of "Mexican food" originating in Mexico is demonstrably untrue.

Whether the burritos of these or other purveyors are on average the same size, or how to judge what level of difference is significant, is hard to know without weighing them, and I apologize for putting non-verifiable information up, even on the talk page, which exists for the purpose of improving the article, not as a forum on the topic. It is also clearly a matter of taste whether the burritos outside of SF are as good as the ones that are there; many would disagree with you, as regular posts on Chowhound boards outside of SF will demonstrate. Clearly many people would disagree with you that "the idea of a 'San Francisco Burrito' is a myth" but you can of course be bold and include this minority viewpoint in the article if you can find a verifiable source for it. Joewright 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as size, the standard that I was given as a native San Franciscan is that the burrito should be so thick and tightly packed that when placed on end, it can stand on its own. Luxuryrevenge 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

"The de-Mexicanization of America is a problem. See, now a burrito's not good enough. It has to be a wrap now. It's nothing more than an assimilated over-priced burrito. If it will make America feel better buying a spinach wrap—so be it. It's still a fucking burrito that you're eating.[12]"

Does this strike anyone as a little unnecessary? Could this citation be used without the long quote? As it stands it seems to be attacking anyone who eats a "wrap."—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Easily fixed by removing the wholly unnecessary quote and intro sentence. This pointlessly inflammatory race-baiting nonsense never should have been here in the first place. NPOV template removed as a result.palecur 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with having this quote deleted, for reasons I will explain below, but it was not there for nothing. The point of it being there was to show that how some people view the wrap echoes general themes pointed out elsewhere in the article as they related specifically to wraps and debates about how the Mission relates to the larger culture (i.e., is it swallowed up by a new but less culturally-specific prosperity, or does it survive in its older form? this is a debate with lots of implications for ethnic politics, like them or not). And this was one source that could be actually cited that suggested one set of reasons that many San Franciscans exhibit disdain for the concept of the wrap, even though it also originated in San Francisco and has spread farther than the SF burrito idea. It might also be worth noting that an older version also contained a defense of the wrap that countered this criticism, but someone rightly pointed out that the defense had no cite (perhaps because no one cares enough about wraps to defend them in print?) and deleted it. As for me, I think the better reason to delete the quote is that it suggests that a wrap might reasonably be considered a burrito; on reflection I must conclude that the quote was a pointlessly inflammatory wrap-baiting insult to the burrito. Joewright 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag

I've removed the merge tag for the second time by User:Ortcutt. After viewing the relevant discussion on Talk:Burrito, there does not appear to be any reason for the merge. If the editor would like to add a summary of this article to that page, he/she is welcome to do so. —Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)