Talk:San Francisco burrito/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

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.

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)

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.)

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)

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)

It's true. Try doing that with your average burrito; it won't work. However, in some instances, there may be a little bit of cheating involved. The more aluminum foil one uses, the easier it is to balance. In San Diego, some burrito joints will actually use wax paper, so forget about applying the Mission standard. In Hawaii, no matter how much foil they use, they still won't stand up. I'm thinking they should just give up completely, and stick with spam musubi and loco moco. It's a real shame. —Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

worst burritos in the world

Why does everyone put beans and rice in the burritos? San Diego style burritos are far superior to what passes as a burrito up here. If I order a Carne Asada burrito I just want meat and some salsa fresca and a little dab of guac. And what is up with beans and rice on tacos? This place is insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.137.210 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Your passion for San Diego-style burritos can be put to a positive use by expanding the section on the "burrito" page about the topic, or starting a new page if you have enough to write about. Joewright 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI..this apparent burrito rivalry is but a subset of the NoCal v. SoCal debate, which has been raging for decades and is referenced in reliable sources. I am confused as to the existence of the article entitled Southern California-Northern California rivalry. Either it was deleted or has yet to be created. —Viriditas | Talk 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gallery?

Is there a reason an editor keeps editing in a gallery of eateries that (I am assuming) serve burritoes? It seems rather crufty. I would invite the editor to share his reasons for the inclusion here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

El Farolito is considered "one of the legendary burrito spots in San Francisco" that serves Mission-style burritos, and is included in just about every published guide about San Francisco and the Mission District. I suggest you actually do some research instead of merely stalking my contributions because you have a dispute with me on another article. There is nothing "crufty" about adding an image of El Farolito to an article about San Francisco burritos. —Viriditas | Talk 05:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll sidestep the non-AGF commentary and move right on to asking why, if Farolito "one of the legendary burrito spots in San Francisco" that the only place it appears in the article is in an image. I would think that the restaurant would actually have some mention of it within the article, citing it as legendary. Perhaps you could do that research and find an appropriately-cited statement that might open the door to the inclusion of an image not as one in a gallery, but as part of a possible section on "legendary burrito spors in San Francisco." Until then, I am afraid that the image - without any proper notation within the article - is simply decorative. Sorry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Imagine that, a notable image about the subject in question being used in a "decorative" manner. Care to cite me the guideline/policy that you are using to prevent this image from illustrating the article in question? Note, self-referencing your ignorance of the subject is not proper justification. What exactly are you disputing? Most of the references in the article already mention El Farolito. You are welcome to expand the article, but please don't remove information simply because you are ignorant. That's not appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure how noting that the articee doesn't mention once the word Farolitio is demonstrating my ignorance. As for the appropriate policy that dissuades us from importing decorative imagery into the article? Let's start with notability. You are adding an image who;s subject hasn't been mentioned or noted in the article. The image in question is not descriptive, being a poor camera-angled photo of a order counter from 10'-15' away. Not really useful.
Now, I have given you the best advice on how to go about noting El Farolito within the article, and since you say the citations already present in the article can be further mined for into about the restaurant, your job gets that much easier. I am noit sure the image is really that useful, though. Perhaps you might want to ask an admin about it. Either way, the image cannot even be considered unless there is significant notation within the article to warrant it. Once we have that, then we can consider the merits of the image. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
El Farolito meets notability guidelines. We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal beliefs and opinions. You haven't made a citation request, you haven't cited a policy or guideline, and you haven't offered a rational justification for removing an image of one of the most famous taquerias in the Mission district other than, "I don't like it". You are supposed to educate yourself on the subject before editing an article: That's the entire basis of fact and referencing checking. We don't remove information merely because you "don't like it". If you notice a citation missing, then add it - that's the basis of the unreferenced articles project.—Viriditas | Talk 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you removed Image:El Farolito.jpg with the comment "rm crufty image - it's decorative without any other purpose".[9] There's nothing "crufty" about the image, and all images are "decorative". The photo depicts exactly what El Farolito looks like from the dining table, The place has always been ugly and disorienting, and the "diabolical fluorescent lighting and hideous blue-and-yellow tables" is a matter of public record and is notable (especially at two am when everyone is coming in from the bars). (See "Mission Taquerias Do Ample Justice to the All-Purpose Burrito", San Francisco Chronicle, (November 24, 2000) El Farolito appears in numerous books, magazines, and newspapers, including the definitive work, Burritos! Hot on the Trail of the Little Burro (1998, ISBN 0879058358); as well as Best Restaurants of San Francisco (1991, ISBN 0811800652); The Rough Guide to the USA (2004, ISBN 184353262X) calls El Farolito "a scruffy local institution"; San Francisco (2006, ISBN 1740598563) spotlights El Farolito as the place to get a burrito during a Mission Art tour; the beef burritos at El Farolito are spotlighted in "Best Stuff, Best City, 96 reasons that you gotta love this town in 96" in San Francisco Examiner (1995); vegetarian beans and rice burrito spotlighted in "Teens Pick Mission's Best Burrito Buys" in San Francisco Chronicle (1998); described as "a classic taqueria in the Mission...the perfect late-night eating spot post-bar and club. The carne asada always hits the spot" by notable musician Michael Franti in "On the Town With: Michael Franti. Musician feeds body and soul in Mission haunts" in San Francisco Chronicle (2005); highlighted review by Bill Addison in "In search of the transcendent taqueria, Our critic puts 85 beloved Bay Area burrito joints to the test" in San Francisco Chronicle (2006) and described as"one of the most oft-mentioned spots in the dozens of e-mails that The Chronicle received after we asked readers to tell us about their favorite taquerias. Colleagues and the online sites I scoured for suggestions also gave it high marks...El Farolito in San Francisco might be construed as a hipster hangout... stalwart Mission standby;" reviewed in "Mission Taquerias Do Ample Justice to the All-Purpose Burrito" in an article devoted to the top four taquerias in the San Francisco Chronicle (November 24, 2000); described as a "San Francisco classic"; reviewed in "On a Mission. Mission burritos" in SF Weekly (May 30, 2001); voted Best Burrito of 2006 by SF Weekly; controversial use of sour cream by El Farolito (according to purists) discussed in an article about San Francisco's Mission District and burritos in VIA Magazine (March 2003); described as "one of the legendary burrito spots in San Francisco" by burritophile.com. —Viriditas | Talk 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally bringing some research to the table, Viriditas. See, this is the sort of information that should have been included in the article before the gallery was included, in order to support its inclusion. It was akin to you dropping in a picture of your Uncle Ralph eating a cheeseburger - it had no connection to the article. It wasn't a matter of me "not liking it"; without support, it had no place int he article, and you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that you cannot add info without supporting it, and that you don't leave it to others to do your citation work. If you don't have the citations to reinforce your statements, or thusly-statements about your added images, you don't add them.
Also, you are well aware of the need for images in a given article to visually identify or demonstrate a point being made in the article. I am unclear how the picture of El Farolito (by Rick Audet) serves this purpose. It doesn't identify the product or the establishment, and doesn't really demonstrate anything about the San Francisco burrito. The picture is akin to taking a photo of the back wall of a McDonald's for an article about McDonald's food. That there is no connection to the actual food or discussion about the food renders the image inert, notably-speaking. When a picture thusly serves no purpose, it is purely decoratve - while all images are decorative, only those that serve a purpose (ie, directly related to the image, illustrate a point or define a point) can be included in Wikipedia, fair-use arguments notwithstanding. It is for this reason that the images you have since added of El Faro and La Taqueria are (in descending order) more acceptable images than the non-descriptive image image presumably from El Farolito.
Lastly, I am curious as to the licensing of Mr. Audet's pictures. You may or may not be aware that not all Flickr images are creative commons licensed or free, and usually belong to the photographer. A brief contact with Mr. Audet (here) suggests that the images are not in fact free images, and were used without his permission. Bc of this, I think that the images must be removed immediately, as they clearly have faulty licensing issues. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This information was always in the references, and the article has been under expansion for some time. The licensing was verified by FlickreviewR on September 11. Please educate yourself about Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. Mr. Audet's work is already attributed appropriately. The images used in this article all meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, are notable in relation to the topic, and identify specific points made in the article and are referenced appropriately. Please take your ongoing concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. —Viriditas | Talk 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not explaining that I am already familiar with Creative Commons 2.0, but thank you for the suggestion. Neither Mr. Audet nor Mr. Purves were aware of the usage of their images (which aren't Creative Commons images, as you marked them while uploading them). Tough Mr. Purves has since told me that he is okay with the images being used, so long as they are attributed to him, Mr. Audet has granted no such permission.
As for the information "being in the references" it is your responsibility to expand those reference to include statements for which you intend on adding images - before, not after. You don't add the images and expect people to do the heavy lifting for you.
Therefore, the Audet pictures will be removed immediately, leaving the Taqueria image by Tom Purves subsequent to connection as a no-wiki until which time you or someone else add statements to the article that effectively describe the images you use. Note that if you are able to add the proper statments within the article that connect the image to it, you can remove the no-wiki, but not before then. Please consult an admin or the appropriate noticeboard with any ongoing concerns you feel the burning need to pursue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The images were both licensed as Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution 2.0 Generic by the original authors and they were verified as such by FlickreviewR on September 11. Your removal of the images from this article in this edit is not supported by guideline or policy. In addition to your misinformation, your subsequent contacting of the author in an attempt to get him to remove the images[10] that were appropriately licensed is indicative of wikistalking. —Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both authors have confirmed the CC2A license status and have given their permission for their work to be used on Wikipedia.[11][12] —Viriditas | Talk 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See, if you had not been a bit too lazy to seek and receive the proper author permissions beforehand, most of this conversation would have been unnecessary. I am glad to have taught you something new about Wikipedia. :)
Now, the problem of inclusion in the article remains. Perhaps you could expand the article to reflect those comments which you feel justify the inclusion of the images. Specifically, you need to note somewhere in the artilcle these establishments and provide for why they are notable; a simple caption will not suffice. I am guessing you are a busy lad, so I will wait until tomorrow to confirm that youvhave either added the required info or removed the images as non-notable and decorative. If nothing has been added, I am afriad that i will have to remove the image gallery again. If you find that you have issue with this, I strongly suggest that you address these concerns, or ask an admin how best to proceed. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Both images were appropriately licensed as CC2A, no additional "proper permission" is neccessary. If you want to learn more about licensing please read Creative Commons licenses. Furthermore, I don't understand what you mean by "problem of inclusion". The images are all referenced and sourced, and their notability in regards to the topic is not in question. As I said above, if you have genuine concerns with the use of the images in this article, please invite an expert to take a look. Your criteria for inclusion has already been met. I want to warn you, Arcayne, that your continuing obsession wtih my edit contribution history and this article are looking more and more like WP:HA. —Viriditas | Talk 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've specifically addressed your more personal accusations on your user page, as you seem in your youth/haste/whatever to have forgotten that article Discussion pages are to address matters regarding the article, not your personal grievances.
That said, what I noted before about properly referencing in the body of the article the supposed notability of the establishments which you have managed to secure images for stands. Please present statements that support their inclusion in the article or they will be removed. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This is harassment. The images were properly licensed and the references refer to them. Your request to "present statements that support their inclusion in the article" has already been met. I don't understand your continued presence on this page or what you are trying to achieve. —Viriditas | Talk 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split gallery into a separate article

I've just added a {{splitsection}} tag to the gallery. I think that while it may well be notable enough to remain in Wikipedia, it does not belong in this article. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Galleries. Splitting galleries into separate articles was deprecated and rejected by the community some time ago. You haven't given any reason why this section doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the topic, in which case I would ask you to read the supporting citations which list these (and other) taquerias as examples of the finest producers of the San Francisco burrito. As such, these notable locations are directly responsible for the invention, manufactufacturing, and distribution of the San Francisco burrito, and are relevant to the topic. In fact, an article without a section on notable taquerias in this vein, would be incomplete. —Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A section on notable taquerias might be appropriate in this article -- if it were written better. However, this particular section is written like a travel guide, illustrated with photographs that are so bad as to be useless for illustrating the topic at hand, and too uncomprehensive to be of any interest. In any case, please do not remove the splitsection tag while discussion is ongoing. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) (desk) 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't valid reasons for splitting a section, let alone this section on notable taquerias. The split tag is used for long articles, articles requiring merges, and duplicate or forked sections. It sounds like you are looking for a reason, any reason, to add a tag to this article, which I find strange. While the section can certainly be expanded and improved, there is nothing to split at this time. Please take my previous suggestion to heart and actually read the article and citations. As for the quality of the images, I don't see any problem with them, however you are welcome to leave a more detailed critique, as well as ideas for improving the prose you feel is poorly written. I'm looking forward to your forthcoming advice. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)