Talk:Burrito/Archive 1

Burro

Sometimes in LA, it's just called a Burro............

I'm from SF and latino. I also call it a "burro". I don't think it has to do with region, but rather native language. I've never heard native English-speakers ever say burro. It's always "burritos" with them. 70.137.169.123 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard it being called a burro as burro is Spanish for "donkey". It has always been referred to as a burrito. So, you're wrong there. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 14:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Burt Rito

In New Zealand we used to have a commercial about the burrito. It was done by Old El Paso and it made reference to "Burt Rito...yeah i know him" So where is Burt Rito? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda dan (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I probably read that same SF Weekly article, which, I believe, was published between 1990 and 1993. The article claims that the burrito was invented in northern California several decades ago. It cites Mexican farm workers in the Salinas Valley (John Steinbeck's home) receiving wheat flour from their employers. The farm workers used that flour to make tortillas. They wrapped leftover beans, rice and meat in the flour tortillas and carried them into the fields for lunch. That farm worker's lunch item evolved into the familiar taqueria burritos that non-Latino San Franciscans have been buying for the past 35 years. Currently, this writer favors the al pastor burrito (in a grilled tortilla) from Taqueria Cancun (Mission & 19th). Caveat emptor! Favorite taquerias are subject to change. I still mourn the loss of Taqueria Tepatitlan which did not survive the Loma Prieta earthquake. I also feel sorry for folks in the 'burbs who must choose among La Salsa, Del Taco and Taco Bell. User:the Ghost of Tom Joad

That's swell, but one cite out of a local hippie newspaper isn't much research. I don't think there's much doubt that Indians in New Mexico and Chihuahua were beating tortillas out of wheat flour for years, probably centuries, before anyone in San Francisco made a burrito. Cultivation of wheat was introduced to them by the Spanish, and when did they show up? 1520? NO ONE thought of rolling up stuff in a wheat tortilla until some migrant farm workers in California got some free wheat flour? I think a better description of that event would be the introduction of the burrito to Californians. Heck, Mexicans were making Cornish pasties out of wheat flour years before any migrant workers turned up in the Salinas Valley, empanadas are a well known examples of Latin American and Spanish cuisine, concoctions similar to burritos can be traced to Arab and Greek culture, for that matter, unleavened wheat cakes date at least to Biblical times, if we really want to push the envelope. So we know the concept of wrapping edibles up in a wheat envelope predates the US occupation of California. Last, I've been to like a kajillion places in Chicago that make burritos, and I have never seen a dish titled "San Francisco Burrito". That doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist, it's a big town, but at least here, giant burritos aren't commonly attributed to San Francisco. That said, I do agree that al pastor burritos kick ass. Tubezone 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I read that SF Weekly Article. I never said that I accepted it as the gospel. When I was a kid, in the mid-20th century, a burrito was a rolled & folded tortilla filled with refried beans and, maybe, a little cheese. They were about the size of a big candy bar. Two of them might have been enough for a light lunch. I didn't have a big burrito containing rice, beans, meat & salsa rolled in an LP-sized tortilla until the early '70s. I went to LA back then, and the best I could find there was the Hollenbeck burrito, which was a wet burrito drenched in red sauce. Now, there are plenty of non-Latino "wraps" that contain just about anything. The definitive history of the burrito is probably as difficult to document as the evolution of the sandwich. [the Ghost of Tom Joad]

I cannot cite a source (other than that I think I read it in the SF Weekly 10-15 years ago) but I read that the burrito, while certainly part of Mexican cuisine, was actually "invented" in the U.S. The story I read (and it seems plausible) was that traditionally there was not wheat/flour in Mexico, only corn. And you simply can't "wrap" a self-contained burrito in a corn tortilla - if will fall open and/or apart. The story went on to say that the burrito originated with migrant Mexican workers California's Central Valley and, as noted below, was preferred because it enabled the whole meal to be conveniently wrapped up to take into the fields - suggesting the donkey as porter/"best of burden," not a roll on the donkey's back or a donkey's ear.

Does anyone know why the spanish word meaning "little donkey" came to mean a tortilla wrap?...I've asked quite a few people, including a number of Mexicans, but nobody seems to know...--4.244.105.218 05:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My understanding, which I would not consider reliable, is that the name is derived based on utility... The burrito became initially popular as a means of transporting food conveniently (to work, when travelling, et cetera), and gained its name because of its similarity in function to the burro, a pack animal. 66.74.210.17

It is said to be so named because it is like a miniaturized version of the packs, or rolls, one uses to transport things on a pack animal, such as a donkey.--Aaron Walden 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy either explanation. If you roll up a wheat tortilla with one end folded, what does it look like? A donkey ear. The origin would have been an oral tradition, so written citations to document the origin are going to be sparse or non-existent, but think about it: Little donkey ear " oreja de burrito ", easy to chop down to just "burrito", especially because there's other edibles in Mexico (pastries and actual ears} called " oreja ".Tubezone 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up this article - I stumbled upon it at random and the writing style struck me as sophomoric and repetitious. I divided it up into chunks, moved external links to the bottom, cleaned up the prose as best I could (I know nothing about burritos) and turned one of the paragraphs, which was a comma separated list of ingredients into an actual list. If this doesn't fit in with the rest of wikipedia, let me know - I'm new here. --Moe Aboulkheir 01:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Link removed

• Search for the Origins of the Burrito

The link required a password. Enough said.

Merging San Francisco Burrito into Burrito

Just as Chicago-style Pizza is covered on the Pizza page, style or types of burritos should be treated on the Burrito page not on an independent page. Much of the information on the San Francisco Burrito page is about burritos in general anyway. Ortcutt 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Jack Cain 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. 63.84.231.3 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Ortcutt 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge summary of article only, between one and three paragraphs with main article link pointing to the full subject which is still under expansion. I've removed the merge tag since this does not effect the regional page in any way. This is an independent page and always will be, just like Chicago-style pizza ; this is regional cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Burrito page should cover the burrito and its regional variations, unless the page becomes overly long. That seems to be what has happened with Pizza. As it stands, the Burrito page is pathetic, and almost all of the material from the San Francisco Burrito page should be included in the Burrito page in terms of describing the generic burrito. For example, practically everything in the section "How San Francisco Burritos are Made" is true of burritos in general. What is that section doing in this page rather than in the Burrito page then? Similarly, the "Imitators and Descendents" section is about imitators and descendents of Burritos in general, not of San Francisco Burritos. The only two section which I think should remain in the San Francisco Burrito page are "History of San Francisco Burrito" and "Culture and Politics of San Francisco Burrito". However, some of the material in "History of San Francisco Burrito has to do with Central Valley farmers and the period earlier than 1969. This historical info should be in the Burrito page, not in the San Francisco Burrito page since it doesn't directly relate to burritos in San Francisco. Ortcutt 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The burrito page is welcome to quote the regional varieties in summary style. If you feel the burrito page is "pathetic", you are also welcome to expand it. Your claim regarding the universality of burrito production is, I'm afraid, mistaken, although the subtle nuances of that section might be missed on those unfamiliar with the SF burrito, which leads me to believe you might have a valid criticism in regards to making those distinctions obvious to the general reader. The Imitators and Descendents section is clearly about the SF burrito, so I'm not following your disagreement there. The hisory and culture section all directly relate to the SF burrito, even the Central Valley farmworkers, who have had a strong presence in SF's Mission District; they even re-named the Mission's Army Street after Cesar Chavez. I can't see any good reason to merge this article at this time. But, I do suggest expanding the Burrito article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As primary author of the SF burrito page, I agree with Viriditas--summary is fine, even better would be an expansion of the overall history of the burrito that then leads into the regional variations, which could include the SF burrito summary.

But merging misses the point--the point of the San Francisco burrito page is that this type of burrito has a distinct and interesting history and that this type of burrito is quite different than the burrito you buy at Taco Bell or the burrito you buy in Mexico or San Diego, while the burrito page is a summary of what a burrito is more generally. The San Francisco burrito page is far too long to be included in to the burrito article without overwhelming it, so to make a sensible and coherent burrito page, merging would mean axing the SF burrito page into a paragraph or so anyway (or devoting many pages to a more detailed burrito page). But why cut the original article? There have been a number of external links to it, it serves a local purpose for intent fans of the SF burrito (of which there are legions), and besides which it earned me an Oddball Barnstar which I am loath to see go to waste--or more seriously, as the text of that Barnstar suggested, the original page is the sort of thing that would never go into a traditional encyclopedia but has a potentially cool value nonetheless. Yeah, it's quirky that the SF burrito page is much bigger and more researched than the burrito page--but that certainly is not the most egregious such example of content on Wikipedia. And it is approximately proportional to the amount of passion and discussion that goes into burritos in San Francisco versus in other cities where they're just another food rather than some kind of socio-cultural-political-culinary icon, as they have become in SF. If you think the burrito page should be more detailed than the San Francisco burrito page, fair enough--but do it by expanding the burrito page, not axing the SF burrito page. Joewright 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The San Francisco Burrito info won't overwhelm the Burrito page because much of the material in the San Francisco Burrito page isn't distinctive to San Francisco. The section on "How a San Francisco Burrito is Made" could, if the word San Francisco is removed, be the section "How a Burrito is Made". Similarly for "Imitators and descendents". I just don't think your realize how strange it is to have all this generic burrito material in a page on San Francisco Burritos. Ortcutt 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Joewright and myself disagree. You're welcome to expand this article, and even use summary style for related articles, but please don't argue that certain similarities (which one can find in any two related articles) demand a merge. They don't, and there's absolutely no good reason why this article should be merged. The type of burrito referred to as "Mission style", or "San Francisco burrito" is unique and can be found on menus by that name throughout the United States. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "This San Francisco burrito - meat, rice, beans, cheese, sour cream, salsa, guacamole and lettuce rolled into a super-size tortilla - is an entirely different dish from what originated in northern Mexico, where flour tortillas tend to be more common than corn tortillas. Now as all-American as burgers and fries, the dish was first made by workers in San Francisco taquerias in the 1960s, who assembled them conveyor-belt style. La Cumbre was one of the first, and favorites like La Taqueria and Pancho Villa followed suit." (Bauer, Michael. (Feb 7, 2001). "101 Reasons We're America's Culinary Mecca.(FOOD)." San Francisco Chronicle. WB1.) So, with that in mind, I suggest that the San Francisco Burrito article be further expanded to include a history of the most notable SF taquerias that made this style popular, as well as make explicit the differences with the classic Mexican burrito. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is baloney. Look at the Burritophile page, and you will see descriptions of taquerias all over the country serving so-called San Francisco Burritos. San Diego, Chicago, Boston, LA, etc... It's Mexican Rice, Beans, Salsa, Meat, in a heated flour tortilla with sour cream, avocado, and cheese as options. What neither you nor joewright seem to be able to deal with is the absurd situation that we have a San Francisco Burrito page describing what it alleges to be food distinctive to one neighborhood of one city which is found all over the country in almost exactly the same format. Ortcutt 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading Fox, Peter. (Nov. 4, 1998). "Burritos -- A Search For Beginnings". The Washington Post. E01. That article will change your position. —Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The greater point here is that if you can verify your claims and prove that the extensive sourcing available on the SF Burrito page is somehow invalid, then OK. But none of your arguments are sourced at all, except to cite the Burritophile page--which you misrepresent. For instance, this review, [1] , points out that a Chicago place serves a different kind of burrito as its "regular" and then argues that the "super" at this place is the closest to a "Mission" burrito (i.e., from the Mission of SF, see previous discusson on the talk page of the SF burrito page). Meanwhile, another fan of this place on the same page (a man from San Diego, which has a different style) raves about its regular burrito _because_ it's just meat and doesn't have all the extra SF-style ingredients. There are _no_ burritos which originate in Mexico which resemble the SF burrito. And I'd argue that it's probably not a total coincidence that most of the Burritophile "top" taquerias are in the SF Bay Area--these are the kind of burritos that this guy and his friends like. I refer you also to [2]. Finally, the last paragraph of the SF Burrito article acknowledges that many similar burritos can now be found in other cities. But, as I've pointed out on that talk page, many of these burritos (e.g., in Boston, and in the case of Chipotle) can be directly traced back to SF inspiration.

I have looked for and not found any article claiming that the "SF Burrito" as a distinct regional cuisine is a myth, and San Franciscans around the country regularly refer to "San Francisco burritos" or "Mission burritos" on food forums (especially the chowhound boards in LA, NY and Boston); and a number of articles, as cited in the article, do discuss the SF burrito as a distinct phenomenon. The idea of putting rice in a burrito and using a 12 or 14 inch tortilla was formerly unique to SF; it's true that the style has spread (although most San Franciscans agree that the quality has not spread with it) but a number of people believe and have written in verifiable sources that it originated in San Francisco. In other words, until you can make a case based on verifiable content which tells me that you are right and all these other people are somehow wrong, I can't really see agreeing with you.

The example of Chicago style pizza--which certainly merits its own distinct and lengthy page that exists now--is an excellent parallel to this one. Another example, from a different point of view, might be sourdough bread. [3] describes the bread and its SF origins. In 100 years from now it may be that wikipedia has a single burrito page which describes the way in which the SF style spread across the nation and displaced all other styles of burritos including those that came from Mexico, but for now, let's just accept that it's a regional style.

And, seriously, what is the big emergency that requires us to eliminate this page? Is this page hurting someone? Joewright 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, I'm working on a very rough Timeline of the Burrito. Could you comment on that talk page with any critical comments and suggestions? It's a very rough outline, and I would like to fill in the gaps in respect to the migration of the burrito from Sonora, Mexico into the Southwestern U.S. I've also noticed that the burrito may have come to San Francisco after the Gold Rush in the late 19th century. Mickeysmassiveburritos.com mentions Carlos Diego ca. 1833, and I wonder if you've run across this name as well. This timeline can also be used to merge historical information into this article, particularly an expanded history section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Burritos and sandwiches

why is a burrito not a sandwich??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.28.126 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, the burrito not sandwitch court link is dead. I wonderd the same thing myself.

SIMPLE: Burritos have tortillas, sandwiches have two peices of bread. If you want something that's between a sandwich and burrito, eat a Torta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzTyne (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

--Link is changed to active link. Thanks for pointing out the dead link--and remember, you can always look for links and edit wikipedia yourself, too! Joewright 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

--Also added burritoblog link to entry which includes entire ruling in case--if folks know how to find and link to this ruling on its own we can change the link to that. Joewright 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The burrito is sandwich. JMarsh (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb middle of the night question

Are breakfast burritos a US invention or are they eaten south of the border as well? Inquiring, over-caffeinated minds want to know. Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've eaten burritos for breakfast in Mexico, but that said, I've never seen burritos specifically sold as breakfast burritos (burrito de desayuno), altho it's possible to get egg + chorizo burritos. I think McDonald's de Mexico sells them. Tubezone 12:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dumb question. On the contrary, this is a serious topic in Burrito Studies and a subject of great debate among burritologists. According to the entry that I made in the timeline, Taco Bell and Carl's Jr. introduced the breakfast burrito in 1990. I have my suspicions that the secret ingredient that marks a good breakfast burrito from a bad one is a fresh, tangy salsa, which seems to have a complementary reaction with the eggs, enhancing the overall flavor. Steamed, as opposed to grilled breakfast burritos, reportedly has the same effect. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your pro-left coast anti-Texas California burritoist agenda has been clear for some time... and it's clear you got your burritology diploma from a non-accredited institution. (Probably Caltech) Whataburger was selling breakfast burritos at least 10 years earlier. Corner burrito stands in Juarez have been selling burritos in the morning for, jeez, years, Pancho Villa probably had them for breakfast during the Revolution. Tubezone 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The ranks of burritologists are beleaguered and embattled--let us not battle amongst ourselves when the anti-burritoist forces wait with bread-filled mouths cackling at the prospect of our demise. Let us only promote true scholarship which would elucidate and verify sources for the history of the breakfast burrito. Joewright 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tubezone's apt criticism raises the important question of the distinction between a burrito and a taquito. Whataburger's "Taquito with Cheese" is defined as a breakfast taco, described as "a soft flour tortilla filled with scrambled eggs and your choice of sausage or potato or bacon." One wonders if the Taco Bell or Carl's Jr. burrito versions are substantially different. —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that currently, Whatburger merely offers what they call a "Breakfast Taquito" (which, BTW, besides using a flour tortilla, about the same size as the burritos sold in Juarez, so "breakfast taquito" is a bit of a misnomer), but when I lived in El Paso in 1980, Whataburger really did sell a breakfast burrito, unfortunately at the time, burritology was in its infancy as a scientific discipline, so this wasn't documented for posterity as an important event in burrito history. I suppose someone would have to dig up old TV or print ads (I don't think WB had a printed menu back then) to document this. (As a transplanted Illinoisan I merely saw it as a El Paso food novelty, like Chico's Tacos) It might be interesting if one could dig through old copies of the Times and find the earliest print mention of a burrito, as the closest large US city to the state of Chihuahua, that's the most likely place to find the first printed citation of the word in English. I think the idea of putting eggs (with or without chorizo) in a burrito may goes back a lot further that many burritologists suspect. Tubezone 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking further into this, there seems to be a rough consensus that in the 1970s, the breakfast taco was popularized in Texas, while the breakfast burrito emerged out of New Mexico. Closer to home, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the BB came directly over from New Mexico to Hawaii during the '70s, where it can still be found on many menus today. —Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If all you want to do is find when a word or phrase is mentioned, it's easy to search the LA Times archives. The only pre-1985 mention of "breakfast burrito" was on May 21, 1982 in an article about "fast food trucks" (aka lunch wagons or ptomaine wagons) [4]. That suggests that breakfast burritos were already well established in the LA area by then. 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a resource with dated references [5]. Here are some samples from the webpage:

• 25 July 1975, The New Mexican (Santa Fe, NM), pg. A7? ad: . Breakfast Burrito
• 9 June 1977, Los Angeles Times, “Burrito Banishes the Breakfast Blahs,” pg. II6: BREAKFAST BURRITOS.

  [a reference the LA Times archives search engine missed!]

• (Trademark) Word Mark THE BURRITO BREAKFAST,... FIRST USE: 19810407. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19810407, ... Owner (REGISTRANT) TACO VILLA, INC. CORPORATION TEXAS P. O. BOX 6504 MIDLAND TEXAS 79701

^BlankVerse 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yow, cool. I lived in NM before I lived in El Paso, and indeedy, I recall seeing such a thing, albeit not part of a major chain menu. BTW, further to the original question posed, I'd say breakfast tamales are far more common in Mexico proper, than breakfast burritos. Tamales and champurrado or chocolate are probably the most common things for Mexicans to have for breakfast. Tubezone 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My grandmother on my mother's side came from NM and she used to serve cheese enchiladas and fried eggs for breakfast. Now that was some damn fine eating. Add a chocolate malted and Nirvana is found on earth. Kyaa the Catlord 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand in awe of your breakfast burrito knowledge, my fellow burritologists. Let us not fight over this issue, instead, join me for a tasty burrito and we shall become enlightened... together! (And amuse the hell out of my coworkers.) Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was such a swell idea I partook of a burrito al pastor for lunch. I also thought the burrito was good enough to take a picture of ;-) Tubezone 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Two new sections needed

Sections on Southern California burritos and Burrito culture are needed. —Viriditas | Talk 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Timeline of the burrito here

I think Timeline of the burrito should be merged here. That list is composed primarily of the dates when various Mexican restaurants opened, has no citations, and no wikilinks except for SF Weekly. Tocharianne 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with a merge. The timeline stands on its own like other timelines, and is best categorized as a separate page. Additionally, lists like this don't belong in a main article. The citations are widely available, and I will be adding them to the timeline as time permits. —Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

List oList of burrito fillings

List of taco fillings has been nominated for deletion, along with List of burrito fillings. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of taco fillings. BlankVerse 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic burrito

I deleted this because I think its potentially offensive and ridiculous to randomly put in to an otherwise innocuous article on a type of food. If you want to put it in, find a new page for it under slang terms for homosexuals or something of that nature.User talk:Mediterraneo

Research

Was the intention of the Taco Bell chef in grilling the burrito really to make it taste bad? What source is this intent cited from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.171.170 (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Not Mexican food but Chicana/Chicano food

A few of my Mexican friends tell me that burritos are not Mexican food but rather Chicano/Chicana food. That is, the burrito originated among the hispanic population of the U.S. and is not directly from Mexico.

Where are they from? If they are from central or south Mexico, it might be they are not that familiar with it. I'm not saying I know who invented the burrito, but that some people in Mexico do not eat it as regularly as those from northern Mexico, and might believe no one does. Icecypher 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--Warfreak 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree...This is not real Mexican Food. So Stop with all of this BS and saying its Autentic Mexican Food as Taco Bell says it is..Im Mexican and I consider it very insulting when you say this..its like saying Spagettii is all italinans eat evey day... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.64.242 (talk • contribs)

Pronunciation of "winnys"?

The article says that "winnys" is pronounced "weinies". This doesn't help things much. Is the word derived from "Wiener"? If so, note that in that word, the i precedes the e -- they are, after all, named after Wien (Vienna), Austria. ("Wien" rhymes with English "bean", whereas "Wein" would rhyme with English "wine".) There's the added confusion that in the journey from German to English, the pronunciation of the 'w' in "wiener" changed to reflect English usage. Was this change preserved in the Spanish version? Perhaps an IPA pronunciation would help disambiguate. --Cholling 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where I am in Central America winnie is the hot dog and is a Spanish word (rhyming with Millie) so I have removed it as no evidence this word exists in English and just left the hot dog and description. I also would be interetsed to see a source that winnie is this chopped hot dog in tomato sauce mixture rathr than being the hot dog itself, SqueakBox 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexican and American Burritos

I just noticed that in the opening paragraph it states that with Mexican burritos "The meat is usually the only filling, and the burrito is rolled fairly thin." Well, I'm Mexican-American and I have family in Mexico. I have travelled throughout Mexico and I've never known a Mexican person who did not fill burritos with various ingredients including beans, rice and cheese. Some statements in the article also claim that burritos are not popular throughout central and southern Mexico. One paragraph actually states that McDonald's and Taco Bell popularized burritos in Mexico. That is just plain ridiculous. That's like saying that sandwiches are foreign to people who live in the Northwestern part of the US. The only difference I've noticed between Mexican and American burritos is that American burritos tend to be larger because they are made with a larger flour tortilla.

There is not even any Taco Bell in Mexico ¬¬ and the Burritos sold on Burger King are the only ones I have ever eaten, I live in Mexico City, and I can say that I have been to lots of parts in Mexico where burritos are really unknown or barely eatenç —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.83.27 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

East L. A. Burrito

I totally agree with the article that the burrito is actually a chicano invention. This is a food made with mexican ingredients but made by mexicans that either have been here awhile or are 2nd and 3rd generation. If you were to ask a mexican national what a "burrito" was he would tell you it was a "baby donkey". If you showed him a "burrito" he would call it a "taco". Their was never a food in Mexico called a "burrito". Maybe now there is, with so much american influence in mexico. The "burrito" originated at a mexican restaraunt Called "Vickys" in E.L.A. which was located on the corner of 1st and Indiana. "Vicky" invented the burrito for those on the go who wanted a big meal, since we put just about everything into it. It was especially made for police officers who frequented Vickys but wanted a "fast food". This was in the early 50's. As most of the police officers of that day were white who lived out of the area, they took that concept out of E.L.A. and into the mexican restaurants where they lived and so on and so on. We have to be careful when people talk about authentic mexican food. Back in the Late 60's and early 70's people in other parts of the country thought "Taco Bell" was authentic mexican food. The burrito could be considered the first fast food and you can put anything inside of it even peanut butter.mmmmm Crowleyposse 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See also timeline of the burrito. The first burrito-related fast food originates with the Aztecs and the Pueblo peoples. There is a dispute as to where the modern burrito originated, but if you have sources for Vicky's let's add it to the article. I've also got a link to Elvis-inspired, peanut butter and banana burritos in the timeline. Arreola's book, Tejano South Texas, very briefly delves into the cultural geography of the burrito/taco line of demarcation, which supports your idea that the burrito is also called a taco. —Viriditas | Talk 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Their was never a food in Mexico called a "burrito"."

That statement isn't entirely true, the word "burrito" isn't traditionally used in Mexico but the burrito itself certainly does exist, they call them "tacos de harina" (flouer tacos) instead of "burritos".

I agree that the Mexican American community isn't given enough credit for popularizing the "American style" burrito in the Southwestern United States, in fact, there's very little mention of the Mexican American communities role in this article or the fact that burritos are a staple of Mexican American cuisine.

However, I disagree with your claim that "The "burrito" originated at a mexican restaraunt Called "Vickys" in E.L.A.". Vicky certainly did not invent the flour tortilla therefore she could not have invented the burrito. People have been filling flour tortillas with every ingredient available ever since the flour tortilla was first created, Vicky certainly was not the first.Dreamcast88 (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are disagreeing with a claim made by Crowleyposse, not me. You may wish to adjust the threading (colons) to make that clear. —Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Tex-Mex

Someone undid my correction that the US-style burrito is not Tex-Mex. There is no justification calling a burrito Tex-Mex. See the discussion above of the reasons for merging San Francisco-style burrito with burrito. They are distinctive regional variations of the same thing. The same holds for other California burritos, which were originally developed in California from Mexican cuisine. They weren't imported from Texas.--Zeamays (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add sv:Burrito. /81.229.176.193 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Breakfast Burrito

This article states, "Tia Sophia's, a Mexican café in Santa Fe, New Mexico, claims to have invented the original breakfast burrito in 1975, filling a rolled tortilla with bacon and potatoes, served wet with chili and cheese"

That is the most ridiculous claim that I've ever heard. I'm Mexican American and my family has lived in the Southwestern US for many generations, the "breakfast burrito" has been around for as far back as anyone can remember. Flour tortillas are as common within the Mexican American community as white bread is common within mainstream America and Mexican Americans have been filling flour tortillas with every ingredient imaginable ever since its creation, including chorizo and eggs. Tia Sophia cafe's claim is as ridiculous as if an American restaurant claimed to have invented scrambled eggs on toast in 1975. Tia Sophia's may have created the specific combination of "bacon and potatoes, served wet with chili and cheese" but she did not invent the breakfast burrito itselfDreamcast88 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican and American burritos are considered vastly different and the burrito we know today around the world is an American variation on the Mexican original; this is made clear in the lead section and in the body of the article. It is in this context that the breakfast burrito claim by Tia Sophia's is made, and it is appropriately sourced and attributed. If you want to discuss the "Mexican breakfast burrito", by all means, please do so with references. —Viriditas | Talk 07:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry also discusses burritos in general, not just the American variety. The claim made by Tia Sophia's is in a separate section for "Breakfast Burritos" and it states that Sophia's created "the original breakfast burrito". That source provides no evidence that Tia Sophia's was the first to create it. Claiming to have been the first to create something, doesn't necessarily make it so. Trying to determine who created the first breakfast burrito (or burrito in general) would be a difficult task because they've been around for so long. You'd have to go back to the origins of the flour tortilla itself, which obviously goes back alot further than 1975.Dreamcast88 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read it again and pay particular attention to the sources and the attribution. If you have sources that say otherwise, or can show that "breakfast burritos" of the Mexican variety were popular prior to 1975, then by all means provide the sources. The variety of breakfast burritos attributed to Tia Sophia's are really a "fusion" style. The section makes it clear that it was popularized in New Mexico. If you can show it as a popular food before that time with sources, then do so. I'm not exactly clear what your disagreement is in this instance. Perhaps you can provide reliable references that make your case. After thinking about this some more, it appears that you are confusing a burrito eaten for breakfast with a "breakfast burrito". Does that make sense? "Breakfast burritos" of the fusion variety popularized by Tia Sophia's are not part of traditional Mexican cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed content

For San Franciscans, the burrito has become an important part of hipster and Chicano culture.

I'm removing this disputed content here because the sourcing isn't as tight as it should be. It could be rewritten with closer attention. —Viriditas | Talk 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The California Burrito

Sometime ago there was a page devoted to the California Burrito, but it has since disappeared and apparently been merged here. I find that the information given about the California burrito is a little off, so I deleted the wording of "San Diego style". If you go into any street Mexican place (Mexico Viejo, Roberto's, Karina's, Juanita's, Filiberto's, etc.) they will not know what you are talking about if you ask for a "San Diego style" burrito. A lot of the information that was on the old California Burrito page is not included here, such as that it is basically derived from Carne Asada Fries (or Super Fries) being wrapped in a tortilla. Any one as diehard about the California have more input? I am a newbie when it comes to wikipedia editing so I am tentative to alter anything dramatically. DEFmagic (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The original California burrito article can be found here. I'm not sure if the original editor of that page was confused or was trying to interpret the stylistic differences of regional Mexican-American cuisine or what. My understanding is that the "California burrito" is not necessarily a "San Diego style", and this is especially true outside of California. The "San Diego style" burrito isn't something you ask for by name; rather it's a description of the regional variation which could go by any name. The section in question needs to be rewritten with references, so if you can do some research using the links in the further reading section as your guide, that would help. I'm currently on wikibreak, but will try to help out as time permits. So, what is called for here is not deletion, but rather a sourced appraisal of the differences and similarities between "California" and "San Diego style". —Viriditas | Talk 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I must slightly disagree with your comments regarding "San Diego style" Viriditas, though I greatly appreciate your help in helping me (and others) investigate further to help in making the page more accurate. Having checked out the Fred's Mexican Cafe website, I do not think that it is reflective at all of a particular "San Diego style". First and foremost, their version of the California burrito on their menu does not even include meat which is a absolute must, secondly, they are located in the Gaslamp district which is primarily a tourist/clubbing area and can not be seen as indicative of really any tone of authentic San Diego-Mexican. A quick perusal of their website reinforces these notions to any native San Diegan. But I will continue to try and find proper sourcing, however I must dispute using Fred's as a source at all. DEFmagic (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred's has seven locations (four outside SD) and describes their food as "San Diego style". While I agree with your POV regarding them, it's definitely a source that can be supported in a number of ways, from the menu on their website to reviews in newspapers. Keep in mind, whenever a restaurant advertises their style as X, there's a good chance it probably isn't. It's the way of the world. The reason it is in the article is because it is easy to verify. Remember, verification not truth is our policy. —Viriditas | Talk 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind directing me to the newspaper articles that verify Fred's own claims? I didn't see them in the ref links on the article page. As I've said, I'm relatively new to wiki so I apologize if there is another area that I should have checked for the links. Thanks in advance. DEFmagic (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me see if I can find them. I thought they were already in the article, but when I looked I didn't see anything at all. Not sure what happened. In any case, regardless of the sources, I agree with your opinion on the matter. Just because Fred's bills themselves as "San Diego style" doesn't make it so. A good reason to keep them in the article is to show variety and popularity in the style, from small taquería style, to large corporate interpretations of folk cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one about the restaurant in general: Engle, Erika (Dec. 28, 2003). "Moose's sister Fred is coming to Hawaii". The Buzz. Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-03-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Here's a blurb about their Mahi burrito: Jones, Rachel (Nov. 10, 2004). "Pacific Beach and Mission Beach". Best of: Beaches. San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 2008-03-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Fred's Huntington Beach location seems to show up in a number of places, such as "The Guide" from the Los Angeles Times, and there's a small review of the Laguna Niguel location: Degen, Matt (Nov. 14, 2007). "Night Out in Laguna Niguel 2". Night Out. The Orange County Register. Retrieved 2008-03-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) —Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I do not see the evidence for promoting Fred's as anything of a definitive "San Diego-style", all of those articles are only copying Fred's own claims in use for reviewing the area. Any comments on the quality or nature of the food are independent of the claim of a "San Diego style" with absolutely no fact checking or investigative reporting. Of course Wikipedia is about verification, as you stated previously, but to say that it isn't about truth is to disregard what Wikipedia ought (implying a moral imperative) to be about. Just because you can find a source for something, does not make it true, nor should we endeavor to cite sources for erroneous material, specifically when the claims are patently false. Just because Carls Jr. claims it has the best burger for under 6 dollars, does not make it true, it only makes their claim to the fact verifiable. Furthermore, after having personally visited the Fred's in Downtown (Gaslamp) I can say that it is definably not in any way shape or form representative of San Diego mexican cuisine, and until a source can be verified that cites an opinion of such outside of Fred's chain's own claim I must remove it from the burrito entry. We should not add material to Wikipedia just because it is verifiable, but because it is both true and verifiable. I will not add any of my own material until I have collected further information, but as is, the information present must be cut. DEFmagic (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To better clarify my argument: It is verifiable that Fred's Mexican Cafe makes the claim that their style is "San Diego style", but their claim is not in of itself verifiable. DEFmagic (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct, and we do not at any time attempt to verify claims on Wikipedia; What we do, is best represent a reliable source using NPOV, which may help us to approximate "truth" using various points of view to get as close as possible. If you have evidence that Fred's claim of offering "San Diego style" Mexican food is in error, then by all means add another reliable source criticizing Fred's. However, we do not remove material based on your own personal opinion, which is what you have done. Since I am not a fan of Fred's, I will not be rushing to restore the material you removed, but the statement, "Fred's Mexican Café, the Southern California, "San Diego style" Mexican restaurant chain offers a one pound "California burrito" composed of black beans, guacamole, lettuce, melted cheese, and pico de gallo, served on a plate, with the optional "wet" topping of enchilada sauce, melted cheese and sour cream" is based on reliable sources such as a the newspaper linked above, and their own menu. The statement you made above, I can say that it is definably not in any way shape or form representative of San Diego mexican cuisine is your own opinion, and while you are welcome to it, and encouraged to find sources supporting it, your opinion while important to you and possibly informative to others, is not the issue. You say that Fred's is making a false claim, but in order to even make that argument you would have to establish a baseline for authentic San Diego style Mexican food - and you have not done this. A reliable source has been provided substantiating the claim about Fred's, not about the veracity of their claim. These are two different issues, and the argument you are making can never be proven. So then we are left with the current material, which left unsourced, will be removed as well. —Viriditas | Talk 08:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in the sense that my personal claims do not merit much which is why they remain on the talk page, but I must say that the burden of proof does not lie with me when asserting that Fred's represents a true type of San Diego style food. It lies with third party verification of such claims, which cannot be sustained via Fred's own claims. This, I believe would fall under "bias" in the article you cite concerning NPOV. Fred's is obviously biased in it's claim, so that until a claim can be made outside of it's own (something which none of the articles do as they only in turn recite Fred's own claim) it cannot be included. I do not intend to insult or degrade your additions to the wikipedia knowledge base Viriditas as I know you only have the site's best interests at heart, but I defend this point out of my own endeavor for the burrito page, specifically concerning my home region's nature, to be as factual as possible. DEFmagic (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless Fred's particular claim is in dispute as published in a RS, you cannot claim a dispute based on your own personal opinion. If you wish to provide sources, I would be happy to examine them, otherwise your argument isn't supported. You say that Fred is "obviously biased" but we still have no evidence for this bias. The Fred's material may find itself back into the article when there is more supporting evidence. Now tell me, since you claim to live in San Diego, what is your favorite taquería and what sources can you offer for the San Diego style burrito? You are of course, welcome to write a sourced section on this topic. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it bias enough that they are making the claim themselves about themselves? I believe that any company's own rhetoric about itself must be considered biased. But you are correct in asking that I provide source material for an alternative argument, for that I would submit for your own review: [6] followed with Santana's own claim that they are the home of the California Burrito on their website [santanas.com]. I can follow up with such blogs as [7]. How can one go about proving the legitimacy of the de facto nature of the California Burrito, or even the style that San Diego represents (which I would characterize as pay-as-you-play, in that you order whatever ingredients you want to be put into a burrito within a range of beans, cheese, carne asada, fries, potatos, sour cream, guacamole, salsa fresca ((also called pico de gallo, I suppose)), carnitas, chicken, or lettuce, or just add them on to one of the preexisting staple burrito choices)? If I were to interview management at Santana's and a sampling of the populous, where would I need to publish for it to be verifiable by Wikipedia? And since you asked, and I am quite apt to respond, I live in an area known as Linda Vista in San Diego, and my usual haunts are either Valencia's Cotijixan or Nico's in my area, but I must also pay my respects to Mexico Viejo and Filibertos located in Encinitas. Thanks for your help. DEFmagic (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not in a position to eliminate self-descriptions due to bias. We are only representing Fred's using RS; It could be bias if we deliberately removed criticism of Fred's, or neglected to include other restaurants who claimed to offer San Diego style. We can only use blogs if they are written by notable authors on the topic; If you are interested in how we use sources, you may also want to read the essay, WP:EVALUATE and follow some of the links for further reading. An interview would work for Wikinews, and you may be interested in doing that, but it's not clear if we could provide anything more than a link to it. You could also try to publish an article in the Los Angeles Times or a San Diego-based newspaper. The San Francisco Chronicle might actually publish your article if you compared the San Diego style to San Francisco, and engaged in the obligatory Northern vs. Southern California rivalry. The links to Peter Fox in the further reading section may give you some more pointers. I will look for some sources on the restaurants you have mentioned, and I hope you do the same. But remember, we are not in the business of "proving the legitimacy" of this or anything else. The reason I did not restore the Fred's material was because upon further examination, it had very little to do with burritos. —Viriditas | Talk 09:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

california burrito

at the mom and pop taco shops they come with cream cheese. Sickero (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean "sour cream" this is a patently false interpretation of the California burrito (which is not "San Diego-style" necessarily, as I mentioned above. I am doing some research, albeit slowly, so I can make some additions to the California Burrito information. Santana's on Morena Blvd in San Diego claims to be the progenitor of the type, and I live not too far from there so I was going to go and see if I could get some answers.) I have never in all my time eating burritos at the many venues in and around San Diego ever heard of "cream cheese" being added to any burrito for any reason. DEFmagic (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but the editor may be thinking of a Mexican form of "sour cream"; this seems very likely. But my understanding is that queso de crema is not sour cream. Perhaps that is what he means? —Viriditas | Talk 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but I've reverted your recent changes. You removed a reference to Fred's restaurant as "non-notable" and added an unreferenced addition to "cream cheese". Fred's appears to bill itself as "San-Diego style" Mexican food, and offers the California burrito on their menu; this can be verified on their website and is one example of the dish in question. As for notability, they have seven locations and are owned by the Moose Restaurant Group [8] which is a chain of restaurants notable in California and Hawaii. Any further additions you add will be aided with the name of the restaurant in question and the ability to verify the information. Merely adding "cream cheese" doesn't give editors the ability to track down the information. —Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

i think there really needs to be some note regarding the "california burrito" as ordered in san diego. it's a menu item that is ordered by the thousands daily - much more than any "california burrito" on offer by fred's mexican cafe. it's a significant dish - i see pictures of a cleveland baked burrito and a taipei-style burrito, both of which i'm sure are less prominent than the san diego/southern california "california burrito" (the basics of which, by the way, are carne asada,potatoes (fried or otherwise), and cheese - the sauce varies from branch to branch, be it guacamole, sour cream, or pico de gallo. does fred's mexican cafe sell a false version of it? sure. just as i'm sure some restaurants sell abominations that they call a "san francisco burrito." therefore should we remove the san francisco burrito, which personally i had never heard of, section? as for notability, santana's serves this style. though atm their website is under construction. still, i assure you that their menu item represents the california burrito style. http://www.santanas.com/ more locations than fred's...and santana's is ENTIRELY in the san diego area. here's another example http://www.robertos.us/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=81 and another: http://www.sombreromex.com/menu.shtml so, i'm sorry, but fred's is not truly notable in this case. they are just an aberration. ---ha, so now that i read this page, basically the reason there is no entry for the california burrito is that fred's mexican cafe is trying to restrict the use of the name. i can't belive that this is being allowed on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is that the content cannot be sourced in reliable secondary sources. It's fine to describe it using primary web links, but others disagree, so it was removed. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Carne asada fries

Perhaps California Burrito should be redirected to the Carne Asada Fries page and created as a subsection on that page, since both are very similar in concept and creation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ok

Im kinda new but i understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickero (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problema. I think that your addition should be added, but we need more information. For example, can you find out what kind of queso is used in these burritos? My understanding is that there are many different varieties of Mexican cheese. Also, if this style is popular, we should be able to trace it to a particular taqueria. Can you name any? —Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this be sufficient reference in regards to the difference between a San Francisco style burrito and a San Diego style burrito? San Diego Union Tribune --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this already. See the result below in the thread named, "Relevance". Search for "Crawford". The answer is "maybe, it depends". I am willing to discuss this with you if you like. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Help me out here, on the Nacho page some of the cited sources used were directly from commercial pages, thus showing the existance of the item or its variants. If that is the scrutiny of sources there, shouldn't that be the same level of scrutiny used here? And if that is the case, shouldn't we include sources such as the Santana's Mexican Grill webpage as relevent cited sources which to establish a subsection regarding the "California Burrito"? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May have been mentioned already, but I just want to point out that the term California Burrito is common in Tucson Az and has the same meaning. ike9898 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, our editing wars, maybe newsworthy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

-I find the resistance to adding a blurb about the "california burrito" as found in hundreds of taco shops in southern california (and arizona?) a bit odd. this idea of finding "secondary sources" for a food item.. well, I understand this is an encyclopedia, but as RightCowLeftCoast has mentioned, several food articles are not experiencing quite the same level of "enforcement" as this burrito page. just because people are not writing essays about it and its cultural impact, as may have been done for the mission burritos, doesn't mean they are not noteworthy. it's so common in san diego that I don't think I can find a single fast food Mexican restaurant that does not have it on the menu - they simply have to, because so many people order it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.213.173 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why is there a link to Pink Taco? Does it have anything to do with burritos, other than maybe it serves burritos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.106.125 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

I removed the see also section. The link to the cookbook was duplicated, and already appears at the bottom right of the page. Two more links, Frybread and Pink Taco do not have a good argument for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

San Diego style

Need sources for San Diego style burrito. See: Talk:Burrito#The_California_Burrito. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I here object, as this article has parts that are unsupported by reference(s), I will add a sentence regarding the contents of Carne asada fries, served in a tortilla. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

Things that could be removed? International Burrito photo section: A) Washington state isn't international if we're talking about a largely Mexican American food item. B) Having lived in Asia (albeit not Taipei), I sincerely doubt there is a "Taipei style" of burrito. There's just how the individual restaurant makes it...and I'll guess it's Texmex. Linda Furiya's recipe - I doubt many people other than Linda Furiya have eaten that burrito. And it's high time a section on the California burrito be added. Why can I not edit this page, by the way....is it protected???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See the California burrito section above. The "International Burrito" photo section is merely a gallery of burritos around the world. It's not intended to imply anything more than that. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But is it relevant? And how is Washington "international?" I've read above and still don't understand the california burrito controversy, other than one person saying something about cream cheese. http://www.fredsmexicancafe.com/Burritos.php Even the company fred's that's been mentioned several times sells a "classic california" which is basically what people have been trying to include. Of course recipes might vary, but there we have it - at least three primary links selling the same burrito. How many more do we need before this is accepted as a noteworthy style...more notable than "Taipei style," "washington style," "cleveland baked burritos," or "Linda Furiya's personal recipe?" Here also is a blog hosted by San Diego's largest newspaper reviewing a california burrito and taking for granted its ingredients...the dish is so common the reviewer doesn't even bother making a rundown of the ingredients for the reader: http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/sidedish/2007/04/burrito_chronicles_santanas.html http://www.signonsandiego.com/entertainment/street/2007/05/burrito_chronicles_meet_the_ex.html (Signonsandiego.com is the website of the San Diego Union-Tribune) I really don't understand the beef against the California burrito. Why are these other burritos not held up to the same standard - where are the necessary secondary sources for these 4 burritos that I've never heard of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already addressed this. The image gallery is nothing more than a placeholder and the California burrito section needs reliable secondary sources to support the material. As for Furiya, I'm sure we can haggle over the details, but her article on burritos as comfort food is unique and notable as a result. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If the San Diego Union-Tribune wasn't direct enough, here's another secondary source: http://curiculummag.com/ISSUE6/California%20Burrito/cali.html And,OK, how about a photo of the California burrito in the international burritos photo gallery, seeing as it's just a "placeholder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that link meets WP:RS. If you think we need a photo, then upload it. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the San Diego Union-Tribune article, we may be able to use it, but I seem to recall problems being raised with this particular article before in various venues. The so-called "expert", a Mr. Crawford Coates (is that his real name?) doesn't exactly meet the standard for a reliable source. You will notice that most, if not all of the information contained within the current Wikipedia article comes from reliable sources. I'm not convinced that Mr. Coates is a RS, but I am willing to change my mind. Keep in mind, Mr. Coates explicitly states that he is not an expert, and his comment that San Francisco burritos are "good only if you're drunk" is probably true for something like El Farolito, where everyone does seem to be drunk and the quality of the burrito is offset by the rice, but this is almost certainly false for an establishment like La Taqueria or Taqueria Cancun. It's hard to take Mr. Coates seriously with such ignorant generalizations. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - but Crawford is not the source in that article re: the California burrito. OK,his criticism of the "san francisco" burrito might be biased, but I've also seen bad things said about Texmex burritos. The source, regarding California burritos anyway, are the interviewers' review of the grub. And note that I gave you another article as well. I don't know what you're talking about re: La Taqueria or Taqueria Cancun - it's just as foreign to me as it is foreign to you if I start talking about Santana's or El Cotixan - or even Las Cuatras Milpas (which has nothing to do with cali burritos). Try to stay NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

An interview is generally considered a primary source. We tend to use secondary sources on Wikipedia. (See also WP:EVALUATE) Mr. Crawford Coates runs Dr Brurrito.com, which I would like to see in the article, but I'm not sure how helpful or informative the interview in the San Diego Union-Tribune is for this article, but feel free to recommend a portion of it. My point above was to confirm the stereotype Mr. Coates was referring to in regards to the San Francisco burrito. That is to say, it's true that some of the taquerias are frequented by the drinking crowd. This is supported by sources already in that article, so there is no NPOV issue. La Taqueria and Taqueria Cancun aren't "foreign" - they are considered two of the top taquerias in San Francisco, and they have been extensively written about for years in many places. If you run into something you don't know, try to look it up. Of course, any sources you can find for the Texmex burrito would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Crawford in the house. Not sure we can use it (it's a blog), but that pretty much sums up his position. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I read all of that main page - i've no intention to scour the thing because I don't really agree with all he (or the reader rebuttals....someone regularly saw people in san diego ordering and eating 2 burritos? i find that hard to believe) says. But it seems you and I (and Crawford) are talking about different things. You dislike the guy because he's ragging on San Francisco burritos, but wanting to add a section on California burritos (NOT "san diego style" mind you) is not to disparage San Francisco burritos. I frankly have zero interest in the SD-SF burrito debate and I am not sure why you are mentioning it to me...Secondly that link, unless I missed something, didn't talk much about the California burrito that we're trying to include (basic ingredients: carne asada, potatoes, cheese, plus a sauce [be it pico, guacamole, or sour cream]). There might be other burritos that are in a "san diego style" but I think it's mostly baja style - that is an, emphasis on meat and guacamole, and less emphasis on beans or rice (another very common order is a carne asada burrito - which is usually just beefsteak and guacamole and maybe pico de gallo, and the diner adds salsa to his/her preference). This is my experience at dozens of different taco shops in the SD and Tijuana area. However, the california burrito is a unique burrito style that is very very well known by a large demographic in the San Diego/southern california area and deserves inclusion. So, OK, I agree with you - this particular blog is not a great source because it doesnt deal with the topic at hand - but yes he did talk in that union-tribune article which mentions california burritos as an aside - the part I like is when his friends I believe (not crawford) review a california burrito without bothering to define it - they just talk about it taking for granted the ingredients, just like many people in san diego would. it's a taken-for-granted menu item and i really doubt you can find someone aged 15-35 who didn't know what it was unless they had never set food in a mexican restaurant before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.147.247.11 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Crawford is cool. I never said I disliked him. (How could you dislike this guy?) I just had never heard of him until I read about him in a SF paper about a year ago, and I guess they bashed him pretty hard in return for the Union-Tribune. This is just the usual NoCal/SoCal rivalry. I can't remember what they said about him, but he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his burrito criticism. But hey, it's like he says in the essay, it's just opinion. Thing is, he needs to write and publish more...so we can cite him! :) Viriditas (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to use the San Diego Union-Tribune article as a reference. I wouldn't recommend it as it really isn't a serious source, but if you disagree, then have at it. Here's the original unsourced material, again:

The California burrito is a Mexican-American dish created in San Diego. It is served in almost every Mexican restaurant in southern California. It is typically a flour tortilla stuffed with carne asada, salsa fresca, french fries, cheese, and sour cream. There is some debate whether sour cream or guacamole is in the "real" California burrito. The burrito itself, is similar to a typical "Carne Asada Fries" dish which consists of the same ingredients without being rolled into a burrito. This burrito is an Americanized Mexican dish; having french fries combined with a burrito is not a common dish known to Mexico.

This was redirected to this article because it was essentially unsourced OR. If you can change that, then great. Viriditas (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm unable to edit the main page (is it locked?). I realize that secondary sources are necessary, but sometimes it's hard to get some secondhand analysis on topics such as food. Take for example, the spanish rice article linked in the first paragraph. Not a single source. Should it be entirely scrapped then? Anyway, I would submit the above paragraphs with these edits:

The California burrito is a Mexican-American dish most likely created in San Diego(unverified). It is served in almost every Mexican restaurant in southern California (should this be changed to Metro San Diego? I'm not sure if this is true in LA or other cities). It is typically a flour tortilla stuffed with carne asada, french fries or fried potatoes, cheese, and a sauce (which varies from pico de gallo, guacamole, and sour cream). The burrito itself, is similar to a typical "Carne Asada Fries"(Can this be hyperlinked?) dish which consists of many of the same ingredients without being rolled into a burrito. (Removed the "Americanized" portion because Mexican burritos do contain potatoes sometimes, although not french fries).

--Sorry, I don't have much computer editing skill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.40.64.27 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're doing fine. The article is semi-protected due to vandalism, but you can edit it if you create an account and login. You're right, in that there are other articles that have problems, but we really want to focus on this article. The text you present for inclusion still has the same problems. What we need to to do first is agree on the sources we are going to use. I'll take a look around again and see if I can find something. Thanks for hanging in there. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start going through the podcasts and see if we can use them as sources. It's a shame they don't use indexing as it would be much easier to find the audio. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found a couple citable sources, I think, which I am using on the Carne asada fries article. Maybe they can be some use here, or maybe as what I am doing now the California Burrito can continue to be a subset there, as it is essentially the same entree but wrapped up for expediecy in a tortilla.

Gold, Jon (2006-09-07). "Road Trip - San Diego State (cont.)". SI On Campus. Time Inc. Retrieved 2009-06-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Davidson, Greg. "California Burrito's, an SD food phenomenon". Curiculum (6). Retrieved 2009-06-07. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"The Santana's California Burrito". 2006-09-25. Retrieved 2009-06-07.

Romero, Jose (June 5, 2009). "A "physical education" for Sounders FC". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Retrieved June 7, 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have covered most of those on the talk page. Did you read Talk:Burrito#The_California_Burrito No biggie if you didn't. Are you interested in putting something together? Please do so. There are a number of burritological problems with the California vs. San Diego-style approach, but nothing that can't be resolved. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)