Talk:Hamburger
|
|
Template:Onlinesource2004 I think this article is wrong. However that may just be my Midwest U.S.A. perspective. I have never heard of a "hamburger" that did not contain ground beef. If a burger contains another meat it is called something else, "turkey burger" and "veggie burger" being the most common alternatives. Also if a hamburger has cheese it is usually called a cheeseburger, although not always. American burgers are often made with tomatoes, lettuce, pickles, onion, "special sauce", etc. -remember the Big Mac mention. In Michigan hamburgers are rarely called "hamburgs". --rmhermen
cut from subject page:
- A BigMac meal costs 89 pesos in the Philippines.
I occasionally hear the term "Hamburg Sandwich", though "Hamburger" and "Burger" are much more common. I've also seen it called a "Hamburg" in a collection of early 20th-Century New Yorker cartoons. -- Logotu 17:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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
| Contents |
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] (http://www.peta.org), 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)
Vote to remove NPOV stub
Yes
- Yes. Philwelch 00:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. User:JessPKC --209.226.132.148 06:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Tannin 06:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. - - Paul Richter 07:52, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No
- No. DryGrain 12:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) (And I don't mind if I'm the only no vote that turns up, my ethics require me to contest the neutrality and I harbor no ill will towards anyone involved in this dispute, meat eater or otherwise.)
Time check. Philwelch 09:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK. It's been over 24 hours. I think it's reasonable at this point to remove the NPOV stub and I will do so now. Philwelch 09:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)