Talk:Hamburger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamburger is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[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

[edit] Origins speculation is just wrong

To quote from http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HamburgerHistory.htm -

1844 - The original Boston Cooking School Cook Book, by Mrs. D.A. Lincoln (Mary Bailey), 1844 had a recipe for Broiled Meat Cakes and also Hamburgh Steak:
Broiled Meat Cakes - Chop lean, raw beef quite fine. Season with salt, pepper, and a little chopped onion, or onion juice. Make it into small flat cakes, and broil on a well-greased gridiron or on a hot fring pan. Serve very hot with butter or Maitre de' Hotel sauce.
Hamburgh Steak - Pound a slice of round steak enough to break the fibre. Fry two or three onions, minced fine, in butter until slightly browned. Spread the onions over the meat, fold the ends of the meat together, and pound again, to keep the onions in the middle. Broil two or three minutes. Spread with butter, salt, and pepper.

If it is in the Boston Cooking School Book as early as 1844 it didn't originate in St. Louis or Wisconsin or Pasadena or any other such place.


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

Interesting article on the origin (german): http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1075/die_hamburger_hypothese.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.206.254 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)
  • Both are standard, really. If you go to Sonic, you'll get the dressings on the bottom. Same with McDonald's, and a few other fast food joints. Yes, it's true, a better hamburger has the dressings on top where they won't get soiled by the juices of the meat, but they will still be wilted by the heat coming off the meat. So eat it quickly, or better yet (if you value your health), not at all. Lucifer arma 16:54, 4 August 2007 (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 [1], 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

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

[edit] No

  1. 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
Are you sure? The phrases '1800s' and '1900s' refer to the whole century. Whether '2000s' refers to the century or the whole millenium would seem to be difficult to answer, but I see no precedent for it referring to the only the first decade of the the 21st century. The only phrase I have heard that does refer to the current decade would be the 'noughties' but that isn't really used seriously. "The first decade of the 21st century", or something similar, would seem to be the best way to avoid ambiguity.221.66.22.33 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.

Actually, when I was little, I assumed hamburgers were made from ham, as opposed to beefburgers made from beef etc. As there were no McDonalds where I lived in those days I had never had the confusion of a 'cheeseburger'. So, it isn't as daft as you may think. I would not, however, argue in any way that 'British people would expect a hamburger to contain ham'.221.66.22.33 14:35, 23 February 2007 (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... ConDemTalk 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)
  • 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. ConDemTalk 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. MrZaiustalk 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)

hamburgers in ancient rome were also made of beef, and they were allot closer to modern hamburgers wikipedia is wrong about the modern hamburger creation history as it was invented several thousand years before Markthemac 16:45, 21 June 2007 (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)

This page has been vandalized again... it should be reverted so that a hamburger patty is made of beef. thanks

[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?

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. [Discovery Sandwich International: The Complete, Unambiguous Sandwich Definition]

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)

As a follow-up, I think I heard somewhere that the TX legislature finally passed the bill (within the last 10 days or so). I can't find any news on the web about this, perhaps someone could verify this? — Loadmaster 23:28, 7 May 2007 (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


Is it not true that restaurants that serve a 100% beef patty are the only ones who are allowed to call their product a "hamburger"? Hence, other restaurants that do not use 100% beef cannot, e.g. Hardee's "Thickburger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmcken (talk • contribs)

It would depend on the local food labelling regulations, in the UK a burger must have a meat content of 80% of the type named (e.g. a chicken burger must be 80% chicken) and 65% of the total must be lean meat. A hamburger in the UK can be made of Beef or Pork or a mixture of the two.[2] These are governed by the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 and Food Labelling Regulations 1996. Different countries will have differing regulations on what is and is not a hamburger. Foxhill 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments within article

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

<!--To add: Section on Oprah's rant !--> [[Oprah Winfrey]] was sued for saying she would stop eating hamburgers when there was a [[mad cow disease]] scare. <!--To add: Section on Paris Hilton's sexual commercial !--> <!--Changed "In the mid-2000s, some blah blah blah" to "in the early 2000s, some blah blah blah" because the mid-2000s is around 2500 which we haven't reached yet. I don't really know what the date was meant to be so that was a guess, change if if you want but not to mid-2000s, early is fine in the meantime. !--> <!-- Uh, no, the mid-2000s would be around AD 2050, just like the mid-1900s are around 1950. -->

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:

<!-- Mid-2000s being circa 2050. Please see (and if necessary reply to) discussion at talk page before changing. -->.

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)

[edit] Hamburger as synonymous with Ground Beef (meat)

I do believe that the reference to ground beef in general as "Hamburger" or "Hamburger meat" is peculiar to the United States and is not more generally used. I think this should be noted in the introduction to the article, but don't wish to make such an edit without a broader opinion. I grew up in South Africa and the United Kingdom and had never encountered this meaning of Hamburger until I came to live in the USA. Indeed the OED doesn't even mention this as a possible meaning for Hamburger (though I am entirely aware that the meaning does exists here - I'm not contesting, just suggesting it's qualified.)

Just to be completely confusing, in the USA a 'hamburger' can be the sandwich, the meat the sandwich is made of, and a grade of that meat. For example, a hamburger can be made of a hamburger patty made of hamburger, as opposed to ground round, ground chuck or ground sirloin. 'Hamburger' the grade of meat, according to Alton Brown on the Good Eats show dealing with hamburger, is made from the ground leftover scraps of whatever is trimmed, with a certain percentage of fat (which wasn't specified), where 'ground round' is all from the round primal, and 'ground chuck' is from the chuck primal, basically ground up round roast or chuck roast. It isn't bad meat, and may include scraps of all types of cow meat, including round, sirloin or even tenderloin. Kind of the luck o' the draw. --StarChaser Tyger 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology in doubt

I am surprised that there is no further reference to the controversy surrounding the naming - this all seems a bit vague.

Please see Burger's Birthplace for a very recent discussion. The Erie County Fair article also lays claim to have invented it. Whilst I absolutely do not suggest we get into a war about which one is the right one, I do feel that it might be germane to the article to include the fact that there is some controversy and some of the proposed explanations.

I did not want to just add a section which would cause a big stir, if people feel passionately about it, so thought rather than I would open up a discussion on the Talk page. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburger patents

I removed this edit. Any reliable sources for that information? Are patent numbers unique — freepatentsonline.com and the article modification disagree what the two mentioned patents are. Weregerbil 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally found the patents: 408136.pdf and 2148879.pdf. Still the claim that the hamburger was invented by a specific person, on a specific day, for a specific customer, using a specific list of ingredients — needs pretty good reliable sources. And I'm not sure about the lengthy history of a grill and its cooking implements belongs here; especially as the grill has an article of its own. Weregerbil 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As to why I didn't go to the U.S. Patent office: the closest one is actually half a planet away from me :-) As to detailing patents in this article: we need reliable sources that explain their significance to this article. There are many many many U.S. patents related to food preparation (and the USA is not the only country in the world either.) We need good reliable sources to explain why specific ones should be detailed in this article. Claims need reliable sources to be included. As you can see from the article, warm filled bread has been served since ancient Rome at least. So the claim that Louis Lassen invented the hamburger is a couple of millennia off. If your family is really an important part of that history that needs some reliable sources. Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COI. Thanks! Weregerbil 01:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be many unknowns in the history[3][4]. And what some call "hamburger" others call "steak sandwich"; etc. I think it is fair to document the fact that there is no clear cut answer. And Wikipedia is not the place to conduct original research in order to promote one person or business. Weregerbil 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Australian Style Hamburger

I'm sorry but this could just be me being a biased New Zealander but i was under the impression that a burger with the ingredients descibed under Aussie burger is known as a Kiwi burger, I'm not sure which is right nor who was first to create the said burger, but it definitly is contended.Guavafruit 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well i just went ahead and changed it. Can't have those aussies getting all the credit! I'm off to check pavlova, Russell Crowe, and Crowded House now!Guavafruit 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in said section

I believe this section does not maintain a neutral point of view, and lacks necessary citations and statistics for such specific information. Could someone take a look that knows a bit more on the subject? (I'm an Australian New Zealander but not a hamburger muncher). - Bennyboyz3000 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburgians? Really?

Even as an Englishman studying German, I've never heard the word "Hamburgian" before. Is there a source for this word, or are we using our own discretion? If the latter, I'd like to hear from people who use it. -- User:Wozocoxonoy 13:29 GMT 08/02/07

I never heard it, either. I've always called 'em Hamburgers. Trekphiler 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's my GPS?

I deleted "on Meadow Street", "Louis' Lunch was serving hamburgers from its closet-sized third location in the 1970s when it had to be re-located to 261-263 Crown Street to make room for a high-rise." & "café at 115 Tyler Street on the north side of the courthouse square" as interesting, but irrelevant. Looks like somebody went a bit overboard. Vasco da Gama 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal stories

(the following section was cut from the article...)

[edit] Precursors and origins

The concept of 'going out for a burger' has its origins in ancient Rome, where the poor living accommodation meant that it was hazardous to cook at home. As a result, street stalls selling the equivalent of 'meat in a ciabatta' rapidly became popular.[citation needed] The hamburger as ground meat can be traced back to the time when the Mongols (c. 1209) carried flat patties of lamb or mutton as a food source. Mongol riders would place the meat under the saddle; the saddle would tenderize the meat and the meat would be eaten raw. It gave the Mongols the ability to carry food, and eat it, all without dismounting from the horse.[citation needed] When the Mongols invaded Moscow, the hamburger was also brought and in turn was adopted as a cuisine named steak tartare after the invading Mongols (who were also known as the Tartars). Later, the German port of Hamburg had ships that visited a Baltic (by that time Russian) port and thus brought with it the new "tartare steak" as they would later call it. Ships from Hamburg, Germany coincidently shipped to New York also, and brought what is now known as the Hamburg steak.

In the Middle Ages, Hamburg was an important center of trade between Arab and European merchants. The theory is that Arab traders introduced Kibbeh, which is ground lamb mixed with spices, often eaten raw. The locals then adapted the dish by replacing the lamb with pork and/or beef, and more significantly, by cooking it to make a filet of ground meat, such as a "Hamburg Steak" or "Hamburger" as it eventually came to be known. From this they made a new and unique kind of Rundstück warm that came to be strongly associated with the city.

There is still a German tradition of making ground beef sandwiches, thought to descend from the original "Hamburg Rundstück," and which tend to be elongated like an American sub sandwich, and feature very different condiments than the typical modern hamburger. These are often referred to as "German hamburgers" outside of Germany, and are served in many German-food restaurants.

Within Germany, the specific connection between the food and the city of Hamburg became lost as the sandwich spread throughout the country and became a somewhat common dish. In other countries, the historical term "Hamburger" remained in popular usage to describe ground meat rolls and sandwiches. In modern times, the term hamburger may refer to the meat patty used to make the sandwich or to the sandwich itself.

This text has been cut from the article because it seems very anecdotal and unreliable. If someone can provide a reliable source or two, or three, then please replace it. Burntsauce 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burger King Cheesburger Photo

I want to know what burger king you can got to to get the double cheeseburger illustrated in the photo here! It does not resemble any I have seen--Agrofe 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Presence of ground bones, skin, etc'

Quote: "Important also to know that MacDonald's refused to answer about the presence of ground bones, skin and other animal rejects in their hamburgers (it is known that modern butchery widely uses this kind of reconstituted products. Industrial grinding can eliminate the hardness of some products such as bones). [4]"


That's a rather sensational claim, and as such requires a high standard of evidence. There are two problems with this citation: first of all, it's unclear as to whether it applies to merely the parenthetical statement (and the first bit is entirely uncited), or if it applies to the entire thing. Second, the source is not online, and in French to boot- so it's something of a bitch to check. When did McDonald's refuse to answer about the presence of animal rejects in their burgers? What representative of the company did so? In what context was the admission made? These are all questions that need to be answered, and the current citation just isn't cutting it. -Toptomcat 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


No one having stepped forward to defend or further source that tidbit, I've removed it myself. If you dispute this, please let me know here. -Toptomcat 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That's filthy, probably just vandalism anyways. 70.48.37.56 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

From the article: "Oprah Winfrey was sued for saying she would stop eating hamburgers when there was a mad cow disease scare as she had no interest in consuming her own." (Emphasis mine) Is that right? It sounds like a clumsy insertion to insult Oprah.

[edit] White Castle was in business decades before Mcdonald's

I have to strongly disagree with the sentence that states: "The fast-food hamburger began it's ascent to modern popularity with Ray Kroc and Mcdonald's in the 1950's". White Castle (restaurant) started selling hamburgers in the 1920's, and David Gerald Hogan writes in his book: "Selling Them by the Sack: White Castle and the Creation of American Food", that Billy Ingram, (one of the founders), helped to make the hamburger popular after the nation-wide scare from Upton Sinclair and his book "The Jungle". A History Channel documentary on fast food in the US, also credits White Castle with being the first major hamburger chain in America. White Castle, not Mcdonald's, was the pioneer restaurant that made the hamburger the popular food it is today. White Castle deserves more than a two word metion as just another hamburger seller.204.80.61.110 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Can you find a reliable source that says they were selling *burgers* before McDonalds was? Maybe that's the point of confusion- WC predates McDonalds, but McDonalds sold burgers first. -Toptomcat 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just go to the Wikipedia article on White Castle (restaurant). White Castle was selling hamburgers decades before McDonald's. The difference is that McDonald's is more famous,has more stores in more countries, and spends more on advertising than White Castle. There is no clown like symbol similar to Ronald McDonald for White Castle to make it appeal directly to children. McDonald's also probably invented the fast-food system of giving the food to the customer in minutes, instead of having them wait a longer period of time, as they would in any other sit-down restaurant at the time. The above metioned book: "Selling Them by the Sack: White Castle and the Creation of American Food" by David Gerald Hogan clearly gives credit to Billy Ingram and White Castle for making the restaurant-sold hamburger popular again after Upton Sinclair and the release of his book "The Jungle" made Americans wary of eating processed beef. White Castle started in the 1920's; McDonald's dates back to the end of the 1940's. White Castle was in business 20 years before McDonald's. White Castle made hamburgers popular again, while McDonald's found a way to give the burgers to the customers much faster, sort of like Henry Ford's assembly line way of making automobiles..204.80.61.110 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk
I think the more relevant issue is that White Castle is tiny, compared to McDonalds. They only have stores in 11 states by the page listed above, where McD's has hundreds of stores in all the states, plus most countries in the world. While White Castle may have been the firstest, they don't have the mostest. Me, I love In-N-Out Burgers, which really hurts since they don't have one store in Florida...:-p --StarChaser Tyger 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburg, New York or Akron, Ohio?

There are some discrepancies in the text regarding the Menches Brothers' version of the invention of the hamburger; it mentions both Akron, Ohio and later in the same paragraph Hamburg, New York (the location of the Erie County Fair, although there may well be an Erie County Fair in Ohio). I have no idea which version is correct so I'm reluctant to fix it. MrDarwin 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menches Brothers

No need to correct the Menches Brothers information. They were from Akron, Ohio and worked as food vendors and it was at the Erie County Fair held in Hamburg, NY when they ran out of pork and their supplier told them to fry beef. It was tastless so they added coffee, etc. as THEIR story goes....Tomticker5 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ham vs. Beef

Is it really necessary to harp on the fact that hamburgers are not made of ham? I noticed this twice in the article. Is there really that much confusion about it? RossEron 13:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove veggie burgers

The section on vegetarian burgers (I hate to use the words vegetarian and burger in the same sentence) should be removed as veggie ******* are not worthy of being called burgers as burgers are made of MEAT


[edit] Malaysia

In mentioning Malaysia, it is mentioned as "an Islamic country with a slight Muslim majority." According to the World Factbook, Muslims constitute 60%, which is an absolute majority. Second to that is Buddhists with 19%. I will change to "a predominantly Muslim country." Tamer 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is so wrong

In many American sit-down restaurants, a hamburger is not specifically prepared "all the way", "deluxe", "through the garden", or anything of the sort. That is not what distinguishes a serious burger from the fast-food kind. Those terms would be a cheap embarrassment for a fancy restaurant. Some prominent New American restaurants and high-end steak houses do serve burgers. They do not have to include lettuce, tomato, or anything else - if they do it is often from the back garden or a local artisan farmer. It could be plain. Or it could be truffles, foie gras, sherry reduction, fancy cheese, or grilled pickled onions as a topping. What distinguishes it is good-quality, healthy meat (e.g. sustainably-raised beef from a named farm), careful preparation, real fresh bread for a bun, fresh toppings (i.e. fresh aoli instead of mayo, special mustards, house-made pickles), good cooking technique (a hot flame grill or griddle), etc. I think if we're going to opine about the state of burgers we need citations, and some real understanding of what is going on in the culinary world. Right now it looks like someone just started typing. Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Library of Congress

The U.S. Library of Congress, the research arm of the U.S. Congress, has endorsed Louis' Lunch, New Haven, CT claim to have invented the hamburger sandwich in 1900.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? The article contains a link to a web page that mentions Louis' Lunch, but it makes no claim that the entire research resources of the U.S. Congress were brought to investigate the issue. The web page appears to be more like a humorous "on the lighter side of things" bit than a scholarly work. Not much of a reliable source. Weregerbil (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis' Lunch adspeak

In 2000, the Lassen family was approached by the government and asked to donate some artifacts for a permanent collection of American folklore for the Library of Congress in celebration of the library's bicentennial. Louis' Lunch donated historic photographs of famous patrons, magazine articles and newspaper clippings. If the Library of Congress makes the statement that Louis' Lunch made the first hamburger in the United States, just as it claims that Thomas Edison made the first phonograph, why is the reference to Louis' Lunch considered adspeak and not a statement of fact? I believe that the people who use your free encyclopedia are entitled to read the facts in a neutral point of view. The Library of Congress is a neutral reference source whose credibility should not be questioned by you. Allowing a reference to be made to a hypothetical story that was claimed to have been written by a New York Tribune reporter and mentioned so prominently in your article about the hamburger, puts your NPOV into question. The New York Tribune archives contain no such article about the 1904 World's Fair. On the other hand, the Library of Congress has pictures, newspaper articles, etc. in their collections and have stated, for the American public, that the first hamburgers were made by Louis Lassen at Louis' Lunch in New Haven, CT; this is a fact.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reliable sources? The web page in question[5] does not appear to be much of a scholarly work. Making over-inflated claims about "endorsement by the research arm of the U.S. Congress" based on that page is not particularly useful. Weregerbil (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, did a search and came up with the main article at the LOC [[6]]. Perhaps this will be a better link as it explains exactly what the LOC has in its collection relating to Louis' Lunch.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So what have is that relatives of a luncheon owner have made claims that their family invented the hamburger, and sent in newspaper clippings about their relative.
The web page says "Originally submitted by: Rosa L. DeLauro, Representative (3rd District)" — i.e. a Connecticut congressperson doing some flag-waving for Connecticut. Not even the only state or town to make the exact same claim. Not exactly historical research, or impartial scholarly work. Weregerbil (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's clear to me that you will discount ANY person, newspaper or magazine article that states the hamburger was invented at Louis' Lunch. Aren't you at all curious just exactly what photographs or newspaper articles were donated to pursuade the LOC to build web pages that make that statement to the public? The donation of historic photographs, letters, articles from newspapers and magazines are discounted by you in research value because they were contributed by the Lassen family and a U.S. Congresswoman? I don't believe that the Library of Congress would lend itself to be used to help commercialize an unfounded claim that Louis' Lunch invented the hamburger and the steak sandwich, do you? If you insist to tone-down the Louis' Lunch claim, wouldn't it be fair that you tone down the other ridiculous claims as well? Where is that article from the New York Tribune made famous by its non-existence? The antique stoves at Louis' Lunch are real, the patrons from Yale and surrounding New Haven are real too. If the Library of Congress states that the hamburger AND the steak sandwich were invented by Louis Lassen at Louis' Lunch then why doesn't your encyclopedia state the same thing? It's very confusing to your users and completely unfair. The LOC is a neutral, self-governing institution for the purpose of collecting and archiving articles of historic value for public use. You should be asking the other claimants to have invented the hamburger what, if ANY, evidence they have to support their claims. The evidence to support Louis' Lunch claim are now a part of the collections at the Library of Congress and maybe one day, the antique stoves will be at the Smithsonian. What will you say then, that they're just some old stoves that were donated by the relatives and some flag-waving friends of Louis' Lunch?Tomticker5 (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The Library of Congress is a library. Libraries store documents without it being a statement whether their contents are true or not. Sure the library contains material was meant to be commercial advertising by its authors or contributors. Storing a photograph does not equate to stating something about its contents. The web page[7] appears to be contributed to the library solely by people who have a conflict of interest in the matter - family members of the business and a politician from the area. Weregerbil (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Library of Congress, namely the American Folklife Center, was founded in 1928 and is America's first national archive of traditional life. It is one of the oldest, largest and most respected repositories in the world. The center accepts documents of national or international significance only. This is not your local library. To say that the LOC is just a library is like saying wikipedia is just a blog.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that I did not say "just a library", I would suggest your lecture is a straw man argument. Weregerbil (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you said that "the LOC is a library"; JUST a library? You do not give them any credit for being the world's largest repository of items of national or international significance or give their researchers any respect in determining what is considered significant. It's clear to me that winning you (wikipedia) over on this argument is not worth spending any more of my time. The LOC believes the hamburger and steak sandwich were first made at Louis' Lunch, why doesn't wikipedia? If it was the other way around, I'd be worried. Good luck!Tomticker5 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope your continuing habit of putting words that I never said into my mouth fools nobody.
I hope that others can see that libraries routinely store material without it meaning the library endorses said material in any way. Your continuing claims of what a library believes in remain sourced by your claims only. Weregerbil (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I used the Library of Congress website to do some research the other day on the history of the "steak sandwich". I was curious as to who made the first one in the U.S. So, I wrote "steak sandwich" into the search field and the LOC search engine returned the article on Louis' Lunch. So, I clicked on it, and learned that the LOC not only credits Louis' Lunch with making the first steak sandwich but the hamburger too. Thank you Library of Congress for helping me in my simple search for the facts surrounding who actually made the first steak sandwich and hamburger in the U.S. When I was interviewed on National Public Radio about Louis' Lunch, I never thought to say that you people at wikipedia were really just helping to cloud the facts about the introduction of the hamburger perhaps for YOUR own commercial benefit, but I thought it was possible. Next time I'm interviewed it will be a different story. Shame on you wikipedia editor weregerbil for deleting facts used by the LOC and found in the U.S. Patent Office about the the hinged gridirons used to cook the first steak sandwiches and hamburgers in the U.S.Tomticker5 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis' Lunch reliable NPOV endorsements to have made America's first hamburger

I found a very reliable source to the claim of who invented the hamburger. Earl Steinbicker makes the endorsement in his 2000 and 2002 edition of his book Daytrips New England: 50 One-Day Adventures, he writes that the great American hamburger was invented at Louis' Lunch. I am not related to Mr. Steinbicker, the Lassen family or anyone else who benefits from the sale of food at Louis' Lunch. I will populate this talk page with the endorsements as I find them. There are numerous cook books, travel guides, magazine and newspaper articles that state that Louis' Lunch invented the American hamburger. Tomticker5 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The travel book makes a one-sentence statement with no sources or explanation as to how the information was acquired. There is no mention of historians studying and comparing other claims of "inventing" the concept of meat between two sandwiches. The book lists various other area restaurants the same way; each reads like pure opinion or ad copy written by the restaurant rather than anything remotely resembling reliable sources. More likely the book's research staff copied the claim off the restaurant placemats than genuinely researched the claim in order to write that one sentence in a directory listing of local eateries. Weregerbil (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is not how long the statement is, but rather that there is one. The inclusion of the statement "hamburger was invented" also appears in both James Trager's Food Chronology and Good Housekeeping cookbooks. I would expect to see the history of the hamburger written in a cookbook not an encyclopedia; it's not rocket science. I believe that the Yale Press is researching the development of the hamburger, and will publish their findings soon. Will you consider that from a neutral source? Tomticker5 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The very same page of the book also lists a restaurant that "serves some of the best pizza in America". Can an encyclopedia tell apart reality and travel guide adspeak picked off restaurants' slogans?
You have made several claims of "congress research", "very reliable sources", and such, with no such things actually existing. With all due respect to WP:AGF, after your persistent campaign of advertising and misrepresentation of vaguely relevant sources, I would like to see pretty dang solid evidence before believing any Louis' Lunch spam.
If we really get down to it, the concept of putting meat between two pieces of bread probably pre-dates written history. With no mathematically exact definition of "hamburger" I would prefer that, all the desire to spam Wikipedia aside, actual reality be honored: no such thing as an "inventor of a hamburger" really exists. It would be a sad day if Wikipedia were to fall victim to such an advertising stunt. Weregerbil (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence would you like to see, you've already discounted all of the evidence. Louis' Lunch isn't claiming to have invented cooking, chewing, swallowing, pizza, steak or bread. They just claim to be the birthplace of the American steak sandwich and hamburger. Louis' Lunch did not pay the Library of Congress, or any other author, for a commercial endorsement either. There are many published reliable sources too, including the largest and most respected library in the world, to back Louis' Lunch claim. A more appropriate question is, how could wikipedia allow a reference to be made to a hypothetical article from the New York Tribune, when no article has ever been found? You're using a double standard. Show me a copy of that article naming Fletch Davis and the 1904 World's Fair in the same context and I'll eat it! Tomticker5 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"They just claim to be..." is a rather important observation, as it points to the origin of the claims.
A library is not a source, it is a repository of written material. The real source in question is a local politician with a vested interest in promoting area businesses, rather than an impartial historian or any other person in a position to know what's real and what's not.
I am not familiar with Fletcher Davis, your failure to find a newspaper article, or the reasons for that failure. Weregerbil (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the hamburger wars are over. Apparently, man has been eating hamburger for millions of years before Louis' Lunch opened in New Haven in 1895. Of course, early man didn't need to cook their hamburgers, pre-historic man just simply ate the meat right off the bone after "the catch". I'm sure now after researching this matter for quite some time, that the first meatball or ground steak probably was invented by a pre-historic mother who chewed some raw meat until it was tenderized, then she simply spit it out into her hand and fed her young children. This explains how "hand-formed" hamburgers really got their start. Now, if you're reading this and it makes you feel disgusted, that's because the thought of our ancestors behaving in this manner offends us, but it's how they survived. Can you call what that pre-historic mother fed her children a meatball or a hamburger? There is no article about Fletch Davis and when I remove that section from the hamburger article you continue to put it back in. How can you say you're not familiar with it. Just look at the history of your edits. Tomticker5 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, here you can find references describing hamburger sandwiches, dated before Louis' Lunch first opened. Weregerbil (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburger steak is not a hamburger sandwich

There's no doubt that the hamburger steak came first. But, there's a difference between a hamburger steak served on a plate with gravy, and a hamburger sandwich served between two pieces of bread with onion, cheese and tomato. All the references made to hamburger steak found in cookbooks and newspapers prior to 1895, refer to it as a steak served on a plate with gravy. It's never mentioned as a sandwich until after 1895. Louis served them that way too, until 1900, when a hurried businessman asked Louis to put the hamburger steak between two slices of bread. That was how the modern American hamburger sandwich was born. Louis' Lunch never said they invented the hamburger steak, they said they invented the hamburger sandwich. Louis' Lunch does not claim to have invented the plate, knife, fork, bread or the term sandwich either. The other people who claim they invented the American hamburger, lack any credible evidence. Louis' Lunch prepares, cooks and serves the hamburger sandwich the same way Louis Lassen did back in 1900. The other claimants have never said which stoves or gridirons they used and who manufactured them and when? Louis' Lunch evidence speaks for itself. They use the Bridge & Beach Manufacturing Co., St. Louis, MO, vertical cast iron date-stamped 1898 gas stoves with hinged steel wire gridirons that were made specifically for that vertical stove and patent protected in 1938. Tomticker5 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In here I find two references to hamburger sandwiches prior to the opening of Louis's Lunch. Several more before the claimed "invention" in 1900. Newspaper articles and cookbooks. Weregerbil (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the names of the restaurants that served "hamburger sandwiches" (hamburger steak on two slices of bread) prior to Louis' Lunch? The reference you cite uses James Trager's Food Chronology as a source for the hamburger steak but fails to include Trager's reference to Louis' Lunch and the introduction of the hamburger. Do you think he's biased? Tomticker5 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see, the web page does not mention the names you ask for. For example, in 1894 the Los Angeles Times writes about hamburger sandwich vendors without mentioning their names. Whether names are mentioned or not does not really affect the fact that the concept of a hamburger sandwich was known at the time. There are also recipes for the same thing; no restaurant names there as one could make the hamburger steak sandwich at home.
I am not familiar with James Trager; look at the other sources if you feel him unreliable. The fact that there are several mentions of hamburger steak sandwiches in print prior to the claimed "invention" of the concept pretty much settles the issue. Weregerbil (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe James Trager is a reliable source when he is cited completely and accurately. Trager states that the hamburger sandwich originated in New Haven at Louis' Lunch, not by some unknown vendor in Los Angeles or Chicago. As I stated before, if there were other restaurants, like Louis' Lunch, selling hamburger sandwiches at the time, there would certainly be records of those commercial establishments. They would not exist by way of a single mention in one obscure newspaper article. And, if these places were so numerous and common, it should be easy to find information about them. Nice try. Tomticker5 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are records of people selling hamburgers before Louis' Lunch existed. There are published recipes before the claimed "invention". Calling them "obscure" or demanding the names of restaurants doesn't change the fact, sorry. Weregerbil (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are records of people selling hamburgers before Louis' Lunch existed, then you should be able to provide the name of the person and the place. In other words, where are your facts? These records that you cite should be written into the article about the hamburger, don't you think? Tomticker5 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are records of people selling hamburgers before Louis' Lunch existed. There are published recipes for hamburgers that predate the founding of that restaurant. I do not know of reliable sources that mention the names of the street vendors who sold the hamburgers; the newspaper article I know of does not mention their names. This does not change the fact that they existed. Your demands to know their names does not change the fact that your advertising campaign is founded on fiction. Weregerbil (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North America

Could it be at all possible we get a better picture of a homemade hamburger. The one shown is downright unappetizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.157.10 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Roman" Recipe

I'm sorry, but that ancient Roman recipe only vaguely, remotely sounds like a hamburger. There are numerous foodstuffs that call for a minced/crushed/pounded meat. In fact, the addition of cracked wheat makes it closely resemble the kibbeh found in Middle Eastern cuisine. Therefore, I don't think the recipe belongs in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.85.211 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburgers are German!!

Hamburgers come from Germany, it doesnt take a genius to work it out --

  • Hamburgers- Come from Hamburg, Germany (In the german language, 'er' is added onto the end of a town name when something comes from there, E.G - Frankfurt - Frankfurter, Stuttgart - Stutgarter, Berlin - Berliner).

It will also mention in most dictionaries that hamburgers are infact German. It also mentions on most European McDonalds adverts that Hamburgers come from Hamburg in Germany. ←≈≠≈→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any names of restaurants in Hamburg, Germany that sold hamburgers before 1900? Tomticker5 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Like many foodstuffs, hamburgers were not invented in any particular restaurant anywhere. As mentioned above, hamburgers were made at home and sold before the particular restaurant you are trying to push even existed. No doubt you will continue your systematic spam campaign regardless of this. Weregerbil (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes this article does have multiple issues

I was just asking if there were any restaurants, still operating, that predate Louis' Lunch from 1895. They should be listed here.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Please do not type in all caps, as this is considered "shouting" and many users may find it irritating. (Also, there is strong evidence to suggest that text written in all capital letters is more difficult to read, but I digress...) I have taken the liberty of changing the section header to lower-case, but I will leave your comment as is.
I don't know anything about the issue you are asking about, but please refrain from all capital letter posts. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)