Talk:Hamburger/Archive 2

Vandalism deleted
I took the liberty to delete an IMO nasty part that was probably exposing two women, and a slur at best.

[removed part]One girl that loves a big juicy hamburger is [name redacted]! Her and her friend [name redacted] both enjoy frequenting the burger joints to get big juicy burgers. They share them and eat them like lesbians do. It's very exciting to watch if your a man....well a straight man I suppose. If you would like to contact either one of them to watch the burger eating call [ phone no. EDITED OUT]. Or [ phone no edited out][/removed part]

Viktorin (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it really appropriate to repost it here? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
With respekt to the mentioned historical backround in that section, and the honor of my German fellows, but: I heard an other version of the etymology. Much simpler: HamBurger = Ham + Burger. A roasted peace (burger) of ham (smoked meet).

Wolfgang (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk)

Burgers in Hawaii
Yes, people in Hawaii commonly eat teri burgers (i.e., with teriyaki sauce, though usually a local variant that's much sweeter than Japanese teriyaki), but although you can get a burger with pineapple, especially in tourist areas, they are hardly typical or popular. Adding cooked pineapple to a dish (often ham, as well as burgers) and then calling it Hawaiian is a U.S. Mainland affectation, not an Island one.

Hard to find a reference since pineapple burgers are hardly a burning cultural issue, but try this http://www.nemu-nemu.com/2008/01/23/pinapple_burgers.php

Jgh808 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wimpy
The article states that in the UK "Wimpy table-service restaurants can still found in many town centers". Is there a source for this? I have never seen a Wimpy in a town centre, and I just in fact checked Wimpy's website and was unable to locate a store of any kind in the 4 nearest counties to where I live. --Beeurd (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's one in Colchester —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.228.132 (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wimpy is often found in bowling alleys and multiplex venues in Scotland.(I worked in a bowling alley for a while...)82.6.1.85 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

TEDS RESTAURANT
This is an obvious plug that has nothing to do with the invention or history of the hamburger. I would remove it if I could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.212.24 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No plug, it speaks to the invention of steaming the hamburgers.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Create a new page entitled History of the Hamburger?
Should there be a new page titled History of the Hamburger to separate the content of the variety of hamburgers, condiments, etc. from from the history of the hamburger? Tomticker5 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about a section above "American Origins" called "Origins" or "History"? Everyone knows the Hamburger was a traditional meal in Germany (hence the name) yet it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.228.132 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and add the German restaurants that served traditional hamburger sandwiches as they are known today to the regional section or the origins section Tomticker5 (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * not all traditional foods start out in restaurants ... Hanii (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We're just speaking to the origins of the (American) hamburger as it's known today, not the invention of beef, bread or cooking. Tomticker5 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hamburger, which you're referring to as The American Hamburger, originated in Hamburg and was brought over by german immigrants. Despite becoming thinner and fattier (due to corporatism), the Hamburger has largely remained unchanged. It has similar history to the Frankfurter and the Wiener (pronounced properly as the "Vee-en-er" - as it originated in the Austrian capital of Wien, or Vienna in english.) Hanii (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If the beef hamburger had its origins in Hamburg Germany then there should be some documentation you can find from German restaurants that will show the who, what, when and where, right? To date, references are made to Germany as the source because of the common name of the food, however, no references or citations have been made to document the source as Germany.Tomticker5 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The modern Hamburger definitely isn't a german tradition! But there is something called "Rundstück warm" (warm bread roll) in Hamburg which is a grilled steak in a bread roll with a sauce: de:Rundstück warm. Besides being a meat sandwich, it has not much to do with the american hamburger, but some say it could be the ancestor of the american sandwich. Polletfa (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin claims
Wouldn't it make sense to have a section devoted to "origin claims"? It would be a place where factual information about the various claims regarding the origin of the hamburger could be listed. For example, it is fact that the Wisconsin Legislature passed a resolution declaring the first hamburger to have been created by "Hamburger Charlie" Nagreen of Seymour, Wisconsin. (Whether the claim is valid is up for discussion--but it is indisputable fact that the Wisconsin Legislature passed such a declaration.) This way, all the various claims from Texas, Connecticut, Wisconsin, etc., can have a place to be civilly posted, rather than having some know-it-all moderators constantly deleting relevant and factually-based information simply because it doesn't happen to be indisputed.
 * That's why I created the page History of the Hamburger in May. Now they want to delete that page because its redundant. I agree with you, all the different restaurants, still open or closed, with all the NPOV claims, can be posted there on its own page. Also, doesn't it make sense to separate American (U.S.) Hamburger Restaurants from the rest of the world? Tomticker5 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tomticker5, looking through the revision history on that "History of the Hamburger" page, you yourself have deleted many of the posts I'm referring to. If the intent of that page was to include the various claims of origin, why purge it of its intended content???  It's that kind of over-editing that has caused that page to basically be a copy of the first section of the main "Hamburger" page, which in turn leads to the desire to delete it because of redundancy.  If you wnat that "History" page to include all the history, fine--then move all the restaurant stuff to that page, delete it from the main "Hamburger" page, and then stop deleting the additional properly-referenced origin claims from the page!!!
 * History of the Hamburger page was going to be dedicated to the history of the American (U.S.) hamburger restaurant not where the invention of ground meat or hamburger cube steak with brown gravy recipes or stories of mashed meatballs, 1904 World's Fair hamburger stands that never existed, etc. would be debated. Tomticker5 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my entry from the discussion page of History of the American Hamburger:
 * "This page will focus on the history, development and origins of the U.S. Hamburger and list restaurants, ingredients, cooking methods that are U.S. only. The Hamburger page contains mostly information outside the U.S. Tomticker5 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)"
 * "History of the Hamburger page was going to be dedicated to the history of the American (U.S.) hamburger restaurant..."
 * So which is it--"History of the Hamburger", or "History of the Hamburger RESTAURANT"??? If you're going to limit it to restaurants, then say that in the name of the page, and then have a different place/page for hamburger history that occurred outside of "restaurants", such as Charlie Nagreen's hamburger stand at the Seymour Fair in Wisconsin, and the other claims from other states.  Such claims are relevant to the history of the hamburger, even though they don't involve restaurants per se.

Was Charlie Nagreen the 15 year old kid who mashed meatballs between slices of bread at the fair? Just think of all the people who probably thought to themselves after seeing that, "geez, why didn't I think of that"? If a mashed meatball can become a hamburger, then I guess you have to credit the Romans for eating them too. Tomticker5 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TomTicker, IMHO, that's an incredibly naive and short-sighted viewpoint regarding this contribution to the history of the hamburger. Nagreen began using the term "hamburger" (not just "hamburgh", but "hamburger") for a cooked piece of ground meat served on/in bread earlier than any other account listed on this site, and used that term for that basic sandwich style for five years prior to the first "restaurant" serving them.

To say that what Nagreen invented wasn't a hamburger simply because you feel hamburgers start as "patties", and Nagreen's hamburgers started in a round meatball shape and then were smashed post-cooking, ignores the fact that the current incarnation of a "hamburger" wasn't simply invented, but is something which evolved over time from the early incarnations. Therefore, saying that Hamburger Charlie doesn't deserve even mention in this article is like saying that Dr. Naismith shouldn't be credited with having anything to do with the invention of basketball, simply because basketball as we know it has dribbling, three-point shots, and nets on the baskets; and the game he invented had none of those features. But both Naismith and Nagreen came up with the basic ideas for their creations, they both coined the original and still-primary names for their inventions, and both are deserving of their place as key inventors of their products.

As far as people saying "geez, why didn't I think of that?", that same statement can be made for most of the most successful inventions over the years--but that doesn't diminish the claim of the person who actually DID think of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All I would ask is that you give Amos Alonzo Stagg a little credit for inventing basketball too. But, that's another story. I would also ask on what cooking device (make and model) did young Charlie Nagreen cook those original "hamburgers" or "meatballs". Or, where did he buy his meat? Isn't that a reasonable request? Louis' Lunch still uses the original 1898 cast iron stoves with locally developed and patented gridirons that help to validate their claim to having served the first hamburgers on bread around 1900. They also buy their meat from the same vendor since 1900s. I can help you locate the patent for any stove or the like if you provide me with a name or description of it. Tomticker5 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what does it matter what cooking device was used, or what the source of his meat was? There's nothing in the definition of a "hamburger" specifying what type of cooking device is used, or that the beef be purchased from a certain source.  (Or that the beef even be purchased, for that matter, if you raise your own.)  The fact that Louis' Lunch uses certain cooking devices and vendors is great--but it in no way invalidates any other claims which don't have such recorded cooking device and vendor history.  If Nagreen happened to make his hamburgers using a homemade, non-patented frying pan made from a piece of scrap metal, cooked over an open flame, using beef that his uncle had butchered that morning--it's still a hamburger, and still pre-dates Louis' Lunch by five years.  Even if you dispute whether it meets the modern definition of "hamburger" because you feel it's actually a "smashed meatball", he is still a pertinent entry in this post simply for being, to my knowledge, the earliest known user of the term "hamburger" for this general style of sandwich.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it adds credibility when a place like Louis' Lunch, which opened in 1895, started out serving hot lunches to local workers during a time period that saw the population of New Haven double. Goes to the old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. Not that I doubt that Nagreen made his own frying pan from scrap metal but if that's what he did then that's your story and you're sticking to it (no pun intended). The story just gets better now that Nagreen's raised their own cattle, butchered it themselves and ground it themselves. Did he happen to use a homemade meat grinder too or did he buy one? You should add where the uncle's ranch was located and the breed of cattle they raised to the wiki article. Tomticker5 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * TomTicker, allow me to clarify, since you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "if"--I'm not at all saying that the Nagreens raised their own cattle, or that the he used a scrap metal frying pan. I have no idea.  I was just throwing those out as hypotheticals, to show that even IF these were the case, it really would have no impact on the validity of the Nagreen claim.
 * If Nagreen sold sandwiches in 1885 made of cooked pieces of ground beef served between slices of bread which he called "hamburgers"--and all indications are that that's the case--then THAT'S what matters. The brand of fying pan, the source of the beef, the source of the cooking heat, the source of the bread, etc. etc. etc., are all completely irrelevant--and the fact that these details are unknown does nothing to invalidate the claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut is a state with many "firsts" credited to it, not just the hamburger sandwich. If you go to the official state website, Connecticut claims that Louis' Lunch invented the hamburger. If you go to the Library of Congress, which I understand some people believe is not a reliable NPOV source, then you'll see that the LOC backs up their claim too. Charlie Nagreen, Fletch Davis and the other claimants have good stories about how they came up with the hamburger sandwich, however, they are no longer in business and there is NO documentation or proof of any kind to back up their claims.Tomticker5 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...there is NO documentation...of any kind to back up their claims." HUH?  I've linked to the official declaration of the State of Wisconsin legislature, declaring Seymour, Wisconsin, to be the "Original Home of the Hamburger", many times--and you keep deleting it!  How can you possibly justify saying that "If you go to the official state website, Connecticut claims that Louis' Lunch invented the hamburger," is somehow valid documentation, but that  is not???  I'll grant that the Wisconsin declaration is hardly NPOV, but it's at least as NPOV as Connecticut's official website!!!  If you accepst one, you need to accept both!


 * And how can you claim that whether or not a company is still in business has anything to do with the validity of any of their claims???


 * You keep assailing other sources for not being NPOV, when it's becoming abundantly clear that the least NPOV involved is yours!

I disagree with you, the Library of Congress, New York Times, New York Magazine, New Haven Register, James Trager Food Chronology, Stern's Road Food and NPR are all excellent NPOV sources for Louis' Lunch claim. Not to mention the City of New Haven, State of Connecticut and the fact that Louis' Lunch still uses the locally developed and U.S. patented broiler/gridirons to this day, certainly help to substantiate any claim they make. BTW, Texas legislature declared Athens, TX the birthplace of the hamburger too. Just because a state enacts a piece of legislation as a publicity stunt doesn't change the facts one bit. Why don't the other claimants have the same type of NPOV quality sources that Louis' Lunch has always had to back up their claims? In other words, where's the beef?Tomticker5 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...the Library of Congress, New York Times, New York Magazine, New Haven Register, James Trager Food Chronology, Stern's Road Food and NPR are all excellent NPOV sources for Louis' Lunch claim."
 * But you weren't citing any of those in the statement I was commenting on. You were citing the state of Connecticut's website, and claiming that THAT is a more superior NPOV source than the Wisconsin Legislature source--but that's simply not true.  "Just because a state enacts a piece of legislation as a publicity stunt doesn't change the facts one bit.  Absolutely--but if you replace the words "...enacts a piece of legislation..." with "...creates a website..." in that sentence, it's still completely true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Connecticut has ever felt it was necessary to enact legislation naming Louis' Lunch as the inventor of the American hamburger and steak sandwiches. But, they do state this as a fact on their official website. The Library of Congress received documentation as a part of their Local Legacies project and state as a fact that Louis' Lunch was the American birthplace of the hamburger and steak sandwiches. Many newspapers and other publications have stated this as a fact as well. Wisconson, Texas and Ohio had representatives in Congress in 2000 and I assume they all submitted their own documentation to the LOC on behalf of their respective claims to have invented the hamburger. Tomticker5 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference to the 1844 cookbook written by Mary Lincoln since she was born in 1844. This citation used a copyrighted website to include all the references to the hamburger prior to 1900. The Original Boston Cooking School Cook Book was actually written by Fannie Farmer in 1896 not 1844 and mentions the hamburger steak not the sandwich. This article is about the sandwich not the steak that was served on a plate with gravy. I cannot locate an 1802 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, also cited by this same website, but will keep looking.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Put changes for Fletcher Davis back in. Per Tomticker5 the New York Times article stated is an excellent NPOV source.  The date of the article is given too for verification.  -Mr._Camaro- 23 November 2009

Complete waste of time
Yes, 1885 etc etc (depending on claim) was the first year someone EVER thought about putting ground up meat between two slabs of bread. You'd have to be cerebrally impaired to believe that. The whole bit about "who invented the 'hamburger'" is pointless, especially with the vague defenition of what a hamburger is. If it indeed is ground meat between two slabs of bread, I bet it happened a whooole bunch of times in the old countries. Besides, what a clever "invention".

130.243.215.234 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I don't see the point in a separate article for cheeseburger. I think it should be merged into this.Tony P (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Cheeseburger has its own notability and history; it deserves its own article. This Hamburger article has a lot of tags and needs a lot of work, I'd suggest cleaning it up and making it a better article.  Dreadstar  ☥  15:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A question about burgers and WW2
should we include the topic of eating competitions ... also is there a section that details the past incident where the word " hamburgers " was banned .....

they called them " liberty sandwiches " .... during world war 2 ... 12.41.255.10 (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apocryphal anecdotes without true foundation in fact, so no they should not be included. Also please do not make the section header a whole sentence, keep it short and succinct and state your full question below the heading. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghengis Khan
What is all this stuff written about Genghis khan riding around with meat under his saddle. there are no sources for any of that and it sounds ridiculous. Luckily this page is protected or i would blank it in a second —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.189.39 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it sounded dubious to me too. It's gone. moreno oso (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Delmonico's
The Delmonico's menu of 1826 is supposedly a fake. Reportedly the company that allegedly printed the menu wasn't in business yet in 1826. Citations #4 and 5 are simply incorrect.72.78.15.183 (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the menu is a fake it should be removed as a source along with the source used by Tolbert from an article about the hamburger making a debut at the 1904 World's Fair. The article on the hamburger that was allegedly printed in the New York newspaper has never been found. Tomticker5 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does British English no longer differentiate between American style burger's (patties) and British style "burgers"?
The terms burger and parties are being used interchangeably in this article but I know there used to be a time in British English that a burger was known to be thick. (Like what you tend to find in a club sandwich style). The thinner fillet-style (like McDonalds) was merely a "beef patty". Is this no longer differentiated in the UK's common parlance??

I know in the sense of the former British colonies in the Caribbean, this is still so. Many people felt for example McDonald was falsely advertising their product. Essentially, because the thinner meat patties of McDonalds were being called as "burgers" and it was a big turn off for most people who felt they were being gypped. Hence McDonalds quick retreat from the Caribbean due to poor sales. CaribDigita (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is written in American English and the two terms are interchangeable in this dialect. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Really "two" buns?
I am not a native english speaker - actually I am from Hamburg, GER - but anyway... I am puzzled by the articles first sentence: is it correct to state that a burger consists of a Patty between "two" buns? 94.219.212.188 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've amended the article. It's usually a single bun sliced in two. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)