Talk:City chicken

Comment
I live in southeastern Michigan, and "city chicken" is a staple in restaurants here.

The manner in which it is prepared varies tremendously from place to place and restaurant to restaurant. All the dishes with this name really have in common is that they are something else, usually pork but occasionally veal or even lamb, placed on a skewer to mimic a chicken drumstick.

The last time I had it, at a place called the Royalty on Eleven Mile Road in Farmington Hills, it was boneless pork cubes on a skewer, browned on two sides and then simmered in chicken stock with flour dumplings. It can, however, appear in any poultryish disguise--quasi fried chicken, pseudo roast chicken legs, mock chicken stew with whole drumsticks that are not really drumsticks. The only way I have not yet seen it is in the form of an artificial whole fowl made from pork and stuffed with cornbread dressing. Who knows? Someone is probably making one up right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

What?!

In the Binghamton area it is marinated with speadie sauce, breaded and deep-fried. Patrick

About thirty miles southeast of Pittsburgh, it's breaded, then fried, then baked. Dean (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My mom always made it using seasoned flour and browning it, then tossed it in the oven and made the gravy from the pan drippings. We usually ate it with rice. No one I've ever asked here in Chicago seems to know anything about it... which is a first! ;-) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I live in the same general area and have never heard of this dish in my life. Semininja (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

see also vs cat
I'd like to discuss your rationale behind using or not using the See Also section for connections to other articles that might be of interest to the readers of this article. If a person is interested in one regional dish, they might be interested in finding others. List of regional dishes of the United States is a navigational aid for that. Per WP:CLN either is fine. The See Also section is the obvious place to include such a list. Can we discuss? valereee (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, lists are just that: lists. They can be problematic, particularly when they are simply bullet-pointing names of articles on one page -- that type of list doesn't do anything to enhance a reader's experience. Categories, on the other hand, do the same thing, however they don't appear in the body of the article -- and in this case, (regarding the 'see also' question) what I was trying to explain is that 'see also' sections typically contain articles that are directly related to or are of similar subject matter: e.g. Shawarma and Gyros are both culturally significant sandwiches that share common ground being served on a pita and containing similar ingredients, hence adding them to the respective 'see also' section. But adding a 'List of Mediterranean dishes' to either page's 'see also' category would be overkill -- such a list encompasses a vast of array of things that are in no way similar to a sandwich on pita (e.g.couscous). City Chicken (since we are having this conversation here) is similar to things like spiedies and kebabs -- all three are related in that they are cooked on skewers -- but is completely unrelated to a Chicago-style hotdog. If we're going to start throwing lists in there (or any 'see also' category), where does the line get drawn? Which lists get included and which do not? Using the rationale you're presenting, someone could make a compelling argument for including a whole bunch of lists that don't necessarily belong in a 'see also' section. The list you're compiling was, until last week or so, non-existent and I understand you want to link it to articles; but in this case a category is more suitable to the task you are performing here. If you look at the bottom of pretty much any cuisine-related article on Wikipedia, you'll see there is a massive amount of precedent for categories vs. lists when it comes to various cuisines. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Replying so it'll show up in my watchlist as something I need to followup on to reply! Thanks for the food for thought -- I'll be back. :) valereee (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pork?
Usually veal sometimes Pork and veal, because chicken was expensive.

See Below: http://firstwefeast.com/features/2016/08/how-chicken-conquered-america/nugget

"By the end of the 19th century, trains, steel, and industry had replaced plows, fields, and cotton as the engines of the American economy. The nation was rapidly urbanizing, and more and more workers were drawn to American cities by the prospect of industrial jobs. The distance between most people and the farm-raised chickens they ate grew exponentially at this time. Supply dropped and prices skyrocketed. A food only largely available during the spring, the exorbitant costs of a chickens for sale in city markets elevated the food from pedestrian Sunday Supper into something, as the ladies' magazine Good Housekeeping remarked in 1885, “sought by the rich because [it is] so costly as to be an uncommon dish.”

During this time, the American upper classes demanded their serving staff mince and mash the bird into chicken salad, which would be served as the plate du jour at many a ball, gala, and convention. '''The lower rungs of society, unable to afford chicken since it was now priced at four times the cost of a sirloin steak, instead prepared "veal birds": veal wound around a stick, then browned and simmered in an attempt to make a baby cow taste like the prestige of a chicken drumstick. In a complete reversal of modern price schemes, veal was one of the cheapest meats in the marketplace the end of the 19th century, ushering in a new era of chicken prestige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:8000:EA00:CD7D:5A41:BC46:65B0 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Historically perhaps. But today veal is not only way more expensive than both chicken and pork, it's also not even available in many grocery stores. It doesn't go in the lead. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"mock chicken" ? How about "veal birds"
see

By the end of the 19th century, trains, steel, and industry had replaced plows, fields, and cotton as the engines of the American economy. The nation was rapidly urbanizing, and more and more workers were drawn to American cities by the prospect of industrial jobs. The distance between most people and the farm-raised chickens they ate grew exponentially at this time. Supply dropped and prices skyrocketed. A food only largely available during the spring, the exorbitant costs of a chickens for sale in city markets elevated the food from pedestrian Sunday Supper into something, as the ladies' magazine Good Housekeeping remarked in 1885, “sought by the rich because [it is] so costly as to be an uncommon dish.”

During this time, the American upper classes demanded their serving staff mince and mash the bird into chicken salad, which would be served as the plate du jour at many a ball, gala, and convention. The lower rungs of society, unable to afford chicken since it was now priced at four times the cost of a sirloin steak, instead prepared "veal birds": veal wound around a stick, then browned and simmered in an attempt to make a baby cow taste like the prestige of a chicken drumstick. In a complete reversal of modern price schemes, veal was one of the cheapest meats in the marketplace the end of the 19th century, ushering in a new era of chicken prestige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:8000:EA00:CD7D:5A41:BC46:65B0 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

almost never means somtimes
Article reads: "Despite the name of the dish, city chicken almost never contains chicken." "Almost never" means "sometimes." This article should discuss when and why city chicken would sometimes contain chicken, since that defeats the whole concept, doesn't it? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)