Misplaced Pages

Talk:Burrito: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:31, 19 January 2013 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,133 edits re← Previous edit Revision as of 01:33, 19 January 2013 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,133 edits reNext edit →
Line 201: Line 201:
::::::The "quote' is wrong and shows ignorance of NOR. Please stop posting erroneous quotes and engage directly in the discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC) ::::::The "quote' is wrong and shows ignorance of NOR. Please stop posting erroneous quotes and engage directly in the discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Opinions are neither right or wrong. Someone can disagree with the opinion of someone else, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong. Feel free to disagree, however others have posted that I have addressed the issues that Viriditas has posted on this talk page. Again, please stop accusing me of not doing so.--] (]) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC) ::::::Opinions are neither right or wrong. Someone can disagree with the opinion of someone else, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong. Feel free to disagree, however others have posted that I have addressed the issues that Viriditas has posted on this talk page. Again, please stop accusing me of not doing so.--] (]) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::In this case, the opinion of the SPA with eight edits to its name that you so cherish is wrong. Funny how these SPA's always show up when you're in a bind. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


== Potential usable source == == Potential usable source ==

Revision as of 01:33, 19 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burrito article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMexico Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSan Diego Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject San Diego To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCalifornia: Los Angeles Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
It is requested that an image or photograph of cross-section of San Diego style, California, and San Francisco style burritos be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Vicky's Cafe

An editor added the following material to the Development in the U.S. section. I removed it from the article, and am putting it here for verification. I was unable to corroborate it or find reliable sources for it. If the editor (or anyone else) can verify it, then it's been preserved here for reintroduction to the article. Here it is:

While Alejandro Borquez may have served burritos in his Sonora cafe, it is controversial to say he was first to serve burritos to the American public. One must research and acknowledge the contributions of another Sonoran restauranteur in Los Angeles, California, one Victoria Rico, who owned and operated "Vicky's Cafe" in downtown Los Angeles, just a couple of blocks from City Hall and many business offices, where much of her clientele worked or frequented. Newly arrived in the United States, having left the Hermosillo region of Sonora due to political and personal hardship, Victoria, along with her mother Mercedes Rico and oldest brother Jose Rico researched local American food eating habits and discovered the popularity of hot dogs and hamburgers. Thus, in the mid-1920's, Victoria--with the help of her family--made her initial foray into the restaurant business serving breakfast and lunch out of a little "hole in the wall" location. Vicky's Cafe opened for breakfast and lunch only: eggs, bacon, and potatoes were the morning favorites; while hot dogs, hamburgers and french fries became lunchtime winners.

All of this changed when two customers arrived at the end of her typical lunch service and she had sold out of all her regular items. Pressing Victoria for something to eat, and asking her what she normally ate when she was in a hurry, she told them to give her a couple of minutes and she would prepare them something traditional to her Sonoran family roots. She went back to her kitchen and made each of them a "green chile verde" and a "red chile colorado" burrito, and asked them to try it and that they didn't have to pay if they didn't like it. The two men not only loved her "new specialty" they paid her and gave her a five cent tip (a lot of money back in the late 1920's). When they began bringing their friends and business associates to taste Vicky's wonderful "BEW-REE-TOES" ... she decided to not only add them to her menu, but to add favorite some of her favorite Sonoran cuisine as additional items to her standard fare. Throughout the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, Vicky's cafe expanded and became a regular Mexican dining favorite for the Los Angeles crowd. Many celebrities frequented her establishment, which was known as "The Home of the Original Burrito".

Comments welcome. Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting bold change

I am reverting a bold change done by Viriditas, per WP:BRD. The section in question is not a history section, and thus it is not necessary to list the types of burritos chronologically. As the section is a list of the types of Burritos in the United States, and not a history of burritos in the United States, it falls under MOS:LIST.

Furthermore, as there is a main article about San Francisco Burritos, I could argue that there is too much content about the burrito here in this article, and only a one paragraph summary should be included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You failed to supply an actual reason for your reversion. Instead, you reverted for no reason and then proceeded to distract from your failure to provide a reason for you revert with off topic red herrings that have no bearing on his discussion. Food history most certainly appears in chronological order in both prose and section headings, and our own sources describe this history, so your blind reversion without reason serves no rational aim nor purpose. We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT. I wil be restoring the sourced order of sections in my next series of edits. Unless you are willing and able to provide reasons for your edits, there is no point in continuing this non-discussion. The history of the burrito is told in chronological order, not by order of your personal preference or pet theories and whims. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:CIVIL (specifically WP:AVOIDYOU) & WP:OWN. The section of the article is not about food history, but about describing a list of types of burritos. Therefore the linked MOS applies; thus it should not be listed chronologically, but alphabetically. Furthermore, no one editor owns an article, and given that I have stated here MOS justifying the edit, reverting my reversion would begin an edit war and I kindly ask that this not happen.
Nowhere did I say that I do not like that "Mission-style" burrito. If you look at my profile I have spent time both in the SF Bay Area, and in San Diego, and enjoy both types of Burrito (actually its hard for me to find a good "Mission-style" burrito in the greater San Diego Area (Chipotle does not do it justice)), so to accuse me of reverting the order based on IDONTLIKEIT is false, and I kindly ask that unfounded accusations against me stop.
I have stated my reason for reverting the bold edit in the opening paragraph. There is not reason to make this an uncivil conversation, and I kindly ask that any incivility stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You apparently did not understand what I wrote. Nothing I said violated CIIVL. You must use the sources and you must have reasons for your edits. End of discussion. You provided reasons for editing other material that has nothing to do with your edits under discussion. Until you discuss why you reversed the structure outside the timeline of the food history presented in the soureces, there is nothing to talk about. We don't edit based on personal preferences, personal beliefs, or personal whim. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I did read what was written, and it is my view that the initial response was uncivil at worse, at felt condescending at least. My source for the reversion of the bold change is that MOS does not support the bold change. The section in question, is not a history section. There is already a section on that. Rather, it is in a section entitled "Regional varieties", and goes on to List those varieties. In cases where there is a primary article about that variety, a summary is included in this article. In cases where there is no primary article, or where that article has been redirected here, verified content is included.
I see my reversion based on WP:BRD and keeping with MOS:LIST, has itself been reverted. I have asked before that this not be done, as it is initiating an edit war, something I kindly asked not to start.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand a single word of what you've written above nor how it could amount to a semblance of reasonable rationale for your recent blind reverting of material that both reflects the sources and our relevant policies and guidelines. We don't use guidelines like the MOS to support arguments about encyclopedia content, such as the chronological food history of regional burrito varieties. It really does sound like you did not read my comments, as you haven't supported your reverts with a single solid argument. (Personal attack removed) Contrary to your repeated claims, we do write food history in a chronological order, and we don't use the MOS guidelines as some kind of strategy to avoid it. This discussion is beyond bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
"I don't understand what was written" is a poor reason to begin an edit war, and to not follow BRD.
In the edit summary, there is a unilateral claim that two separate sections are in fact one, and thus the follow on section should be listed chronologically. This is no consensus to support this reasoning.
To state my reversion is blind, is false.
Please see the MOS, as the section is a list of regional varieties, the content should be listed alphabetically as the MOS:LIST indicates. Furthermore, even if there was a local consensus here to support it being listed based on the date a variety was first documented, that is not sufficient reason to ignore the guideline and continue to list it non-alphabetically.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)This isn't a list and we don't write history alphabetically. Please try to find an actual rationale for your edits that applies to this discussion. History is written chronologically. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, let me state that no one editor owns an article. The reversion of the bold edit was supported by a MOS guideline. As another editor continues, in my humble opinion, to be incivil towards me I will take a break from editing this article for a day or two, as there will always be time to come back to improve this article. Good day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to work with you, but lets both try to work towards improvement. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Third opinion

Hi, one of you requested a third opinion, and I'm here to provide one. After reading through the above discussion, reading through the diffs and the MOS link, I think I would side with RCLC because, as he mentioned, this section is regarding regional varieties, not history. If it were regarding the history, then it would make sense to discuss them chronologically, but it seems that this is simply a list of various varieties, and therefore I believe it makes sense to list alphabetically. That would be my third opinion. Of course, you are welcome to carry this further in the dispute resolution process, but over something this minor, I would strongly urge you both to simply drop it and move on. It's not the end of the world. Thanks to you both for remaining relatively civil to one another, and happy belated new year to you both. Go Phightins! 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is most certainly not a list at all, and it was never intended as a list. The sources themselves discuss the variations in terms of their chronological history in the context of the culinary history of the burrito. RCLC claims it is a list because he's attempting to POV push his preference for the San Diego variety. The chronological history of burrito development goes from Mexico in the 19th to early 20th century to regional variations in San Francisco in the 1960s to the most recent development in San Diego in the 1980s. Any other variations, such as wet and breakfast burritos are not "lists" but rather regional variations (Los Angeles in the 1950s and New Mexico in the 1970s respectively) waiting to be put back into their appropriate timeline. This is a food history of the burrito not a list of variations. And finally, to put the nail in the coffin of this most absurd argument by RCLC, best practice on Misplaced Pages is always to convert list style to prose style using narrative (in this case food history), not to turn prose into a list and remove the narrative. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I reverted Viriditas's changes. It makes no sense to put the wet burrito and breakfast burrito sections into new L.A. and New Mexico sections, respectively. Looking at the content of what was moved shows that the content was not intended to be limited to those regions. The structure of the article had been to show early development, and then show the current state of different varieties - both by region and by style. The changes I reverted made a strange hybrid of history and the present. I also object - again - to the assertion that San Diego-style = California burrito. The sources back me up, and I address that below. Dohn joe (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
One misrepresentation and misunderstanding at a time, please. Working backwards, your assertion that the California Burrito is distinct from other types of San Diego style burritos is reasonable, however it is not evidenced by the sources in use, and in fact, you are misusing sources about the California Burrito, not a San Diego style as you claim. Please look again. I've further explained this at the bottom of this page since you raise the point twice. Finally, to address your revert, there was no "strange hybrid of history and the present". While there are multiple ways to present this content, regional food history is best presented in terms of its place and time. As for your statement that something was "not intended to be limited to those regions", I must again disagree. That is not how the sections were used. Nobody limits a food item to a region. Anyone reading this and other related topics knows quite well that regional foods that occur in one place are not limited to that place. Grouping related content into prose form and linking that prose together using a central thematic thread (in this case history) is best practice. Converting this history to a random list of variations goes against virtually every source we have. Your perception of a "strange hybrid of history and the present" is called food history. Please look into it. This is not a list, nor is it intended to be a list, nor do we attempt to turn encyclopedia articles into lists. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus for following the MOS guideline concerning the list of regional varieties of burritos that they be listed alphabetically, as is done with the list of non-regional varieties lower on the page.

The section of each variety gives background to that particular variety's development, but is not intended to be a history of burritos as a whole; there is already a section for history, and it is not the regional varieties. This article is not History of burrito development, but on burritos in general. It has a lead section, gives a history of burritos in general, list regional varieties, and list non-regional varieties, has a related food section, and so on and so forth.

Viriditas stated the above:

While there are multiple ways to present this content...

Now it is the opinion of Viriditas that:

...regional food history is best presented in terms of its place and time.

That being said, that is one opinion of the best layout of content, and there appears to be a majority (with the understanding that wikipedia is edited by consensus and not by majority) of editors who seek to follow the MOS guideline and list the regional varieties alphabetically. And any local consensus opposed otherwise to not following the MOS would in the end eventually be found in error.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is not a list. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't turn encyclopedia content into lists, we turn it into prose. Your proposal is exactly contrary to the way we write articles and violates best policies on how we use sources and WP:IINFO. There are zero sources that list regional burritos in an alphabetical order because they are treated, by almost all of the reliable sources, in terms of food history. Policy dictates that "to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." That context is the history of the burrito. Guidelines exist to help us write better articles, not to subvert our policies regarding content. This article is about the regional food history of the burrito, not about an alphabetical list of regional variations that have no connection to each other. (Personal attack removed) Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Viriditas: The focus should be on making this more encyclopedic, not less. That means better organization and more context, not less.
I've not looked at the sources yet. Is there anything that can clear up the confusion by being obviously more scholarly? --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just now removed an entire paragraph of original research from the San Diego section. The "history" section should not be separate from the rest of the article. As it stands right now, that section is really a subsection about "Early development" of the burrito before and after first contact. "Mexico" is not a "regional variation" at all, but rather where the notion of the burrito arises. The movement of the burrito throughout the United States is reflected by the movement of immigrants, by the interpenetration of farm workers into urban areas, and finally into food carts and restaurants. Peter Fox, Gustavo Arellano and other authors have written about this development not in terms of an alphabetized list of variations but in terms of history, as seen through time. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If this is the case, why not merge the History and variants sections?
I have posted my concern about unilateral declaration that verified to reliable sources is OR below. At worse it can be argued to be SYNTH, but the references themselves are reliable, IMHO, including one to an academic journal, and the content should not be removed.
Presently there is no consensus as to whether the regional variety section is part of the history section. I agree with Dohn joe and Go Phightins that the section is a list of regional varieties, and is separate from the history section. Moreover, I believe they should remain so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but your comment makes no sense. You said, "why not merge the History and variants sections?" That's exactly what I did and what we are discussing. There is no reliable source that treats the history separate from the varieties, nor is there any reliable source that exists as a "list of reigional varieties". Misplaced Pages editors don't get to make stuff up, they need to use the sources. Arellano and others treat this as food history, and as editors we do as well. We don't simply list varieties out of context as you are proposing. This is an encyclopedia article not a list. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I just stumbled on to this discussion--I hope my comments are helpful and don't inflame things any further. It seems like the main question is whether the section "Regional variants" is a history or a list. Right now, it has a heading on the same level as the "History" heading, so it doesn't look like part of history. I can understand why RightCowLeftCoast would treat it like a list. On the other hand, it doesn't look like a true list either. More important, in this setting in the article, it might make more sense to treat it as part of the pedigree of the burrito, if you will. Maybe we can make that more clear by changing the name to "Development of Regional Varieties", or by adding an intro line at the top. The goal would be to make it clear this isn't simply a listing of all current regional varieties, but rather traces a lineage of development of different varieties over time. I'll attempt that after I finish this comment.

(Personal attack removed)

I changed the section heading to "Development of Regional Varieties," which is not perfect--maybe someone has a better idea? Biancles (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional opinion. Perhaps, History and Development of Regional varieties should be merged into Developments and the time period which the other non-regional varities can be merged into the new Developments section. Moreover, perhaps a summary can also be included in this article of the Chimichanga, which itself is a deep fried burrito, and thus can be seen as a variant (even if its notable itself) (Perhaps same can be done in a recreation of the California Burrito article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to an editor for removing content on this talk page not focused on the article content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

California Burrito

In doing a search about the California Burrito, which use to have its own article, which was boldly and unilaterally changed into a redirect article, I have found 76 book mentions, multiple news mentions, and even more webhits (55.8K) of the subject. It can be argued that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, per WP:GNG.

As for it being a "San Diego-style" burrito, there are only two book mentions, no news mentions, and about 26K mentions on the web. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME any new article should be named California burrito.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Food writers and historians clearly refer to it as a "San Diego-style" burrito, which explains its regional variation and development, so you're wrong. As usual, your cherry picking of sources (using GHits is problematic as you've been informed over and over and over again) leaves a lot to be desired. The term "California burrito" is used interchangeably, and can be a source of great confusion while discussing regional burrito variations within California. The reason the standalone article no longer exists is because it was created by POV pushers using original research and poor sources. Since that time additional sources have become available, but they are extremely poor and consist mostly of food reviews of restaurants and say little to nothing about the subject. Do I think it deserves its own subject? Yes, per Gustavo Arellano, but you need to actually do the research and use good sources, not just passing mentions in restaurant reviews published in blogs. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
"California burrito" and "San-Diego-style burrito" are not synonymous, as the sources indicate. The California burrito is one kind of San Diego-style burrito. I thought we'd been over that at some point before... I restored the S.D. section to reflect that. Dohn joe (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion here. When we speak of a "San Diego-style" burrito, we are speaking primarily of the California Burrito. The sources make this very clear. It is not surprising that there might be other types of San Diego-style burritos, but you need to get back to your sources and actually read them. For example, the Ellwood & Edwards source you use isn't very helpful because it is just speaking about general characteristics. There's no way to know what they are actually talking about because they are just mentioning it in passing. And the Arellano sources you cite as discussing the San Diego-style are actually talking about the California Burrito, so please take another look. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole point is the general characteristics, though - which is simple and no-frills. Plus, the San-Diego style predates the California burrito. If you look at the Arellano source, he says that San Diego has "burritos as sturdy as San Francisco's. No frills. no add-ons, no fancy assembly line, just rapid-fire delivery. These -berto's also prepare and originated the California burrito: the regular burrito, but now engorged with French fries". The also means that California burritos and regular San Diego-style burritos are not the same. Dohn joe (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Following is the original post by User:Viriditas to which I responded: I'm afraid you have misread the sources and created your own unique interpretation. Arellano is solely and singularly discussing the California Burrito, a San Diego style of burritos that are available at restaurants like Roberto's, Alberto's, Filiberto's, etc. He is not referring to other San Diego style burritos. Please find other sources to make your point because this isn't it. Further, you are misusing the sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And following is Viriditas's rewording of his comment, after I had replied below: Aside from the fact that burritos in Southern California are smaller, where does Arellano discuss actual San Diego style burritos that are not California burritos? Please cite the page numbers and quote the content to the books you've added. Arellano is discussing San Diego purveyors of burritos, not a specific style. And when he does discuss style, he talks about the California burrito. You are misusing the source. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two concepts - the San Diego-style of burrito, which has been described generally - by sources - as austere and no-frills. (Here's a recipe for one.) Then you have the California burrito, which is a specific burrito with meat and French fries that happened to be developed in San Diego. There is essentially no such thing as a "California-style burrito". A Google Books search for the phrase shows it's used by non-California sources to mean "like a burrito you'd find in California", or a synonym for the Mission-style burrito, and never as a synonym for the California burrito or for San Diego-style. Please read the sources more closely. Again, Arellano is saying that San Diego burritos (-berto's ones in particular) are no frills. He then says they also make California burritos. Why say "also" if they're synonymous? Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Dohn joe, the sources in the article don't support these claims, and I notice you've now made additions that make the problem worse. Since you don't understand the problem with your edits, I'll break it down for you edit by edit in the next comment. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Now to the problem. Please note how all of these sources have been poorly cobbled together to lend credence to the existence of an imaginary "San Diego style" that is somehow different than a "California style". The sources say otherwise:

  • The San Diego-style of burrito has been described as "austere", "simple", and "no-frills
    • There are three cites for this statement, all of which establish that burritos are smaller in Southern California. However, Newberry says nothing about the so-called San Diego style and neither does the Arellano source you cite. Please show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The typical San Diego burrito is not produced on an assembly table
  • and is usually wrapped in butcher paper, not aluminum foil.
    • This statement is sourced to writer/poet Bill Luoma's book of prose poetry, Works & Days, specifically the work "We were in burrito", which was previously used as an installation in an art gallery. This is not a reliable source for our article. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A carne asada burrito in San Diego typically consists solely of chunks of carne asada and guacamole
    • The source is an unreliable student publication that says nothing about any kind of San Diego style burrito at all, only carne asada. Why is this carne asada burrito different from a carne asada burrito in New York City? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • or carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa
    • Dead link to a student newspaper that says nothing about any San Diego style burrito. What is special about carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa in relation to San Diego? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • without other ingredients such as rice and beans. One may also encounter non-traditional, "healthy" burrito fillings such as eggplant.
    • Source discusses California burritos. Nothing about the lack of rice and beans. The source actually states that the eggplant filling is traditional Mexican, not non-traditional, and explains it as Mexican not San Diego style. I would need to see the full context, but this apparently has nothing to do with the subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been accused of editing content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the major deletion of verified to reliable source(s) by one editor, smacks of WP:OWN. And seriously concerns me greatly. Regarding references that do no cite page numbers, the best way to handle this is to leave the content there and tag the source with Template:Verify source, and allow a non-involved third party to check the source. As for the SDSU publication, to unilaterally claim that the source is not a reliable source, and delete its information is not the best way to go about it; take the concern to WP:RSN to allow non-involved third party editors to comment whether the Student Newspaper meets the criteria set forth in WP:RS. Perhaps this edit should be reviewed, or taken to RFC?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the bold deletion unilaterally claiming that verified to reliable research content is OR could be reverted per WP:BRD. That being said as I have stated above the opinion that Viriditas had engaged in an edit war, and have asked that discussion occur, consensus reached, rather than further bold editing. I will not exacerbation the edit conflict which is being instigated by reverting the bold action, and hope that my concern(s) can be resolved civilly without the need for actions by administrators. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the best way to handle content we can't verify is to remove it, not to leave it in the article. Please familiarize yourself with our most basic policies and guidelines. As for the SDSU publication you claim is notable, please evaluate it for reliability and demonstrate that the content is verifiable and concerns San Diego burritos. You have the burden, not me. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That is one editors opinion on how best to layout the content, and there is no consensus to support Viriditas' layout. As stated by Dohn joe:

It makes no sense to put the wet burrito and breakfast burrito sections into new L.A. and New Mexico sections, respectively. Looking at the content of what was moved shows that the content was not intended to be limited to those regions. The structure of the article had been to show early development, and then show the current state of different varieties - both by region and by style. The changes I reverted made a strange hybrid of history and the present.

This view has been supported by myself and two other editors (one being someone who provided a third opinion). The view supported by Viriditas is only supported by one other editor. There is no consensus to support the layout supported by Viriditas, yet Viriditas continues to act in a manner that ignores the opinions of a majority of editors.
As for the content verified by the Daily Aztec, it is a reliable source, and although it is a dead link, the content should not be removed because it is; see WP:LINKROT regarding this.
Furthermore, please see the usage described in Template:Verify source. The content removed is NOT "very doubtful and very harmful", so the deletion of content outright was the wrong way to go about challenging the content; that would be the last step of the process and not the first.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that is wrong. Removing content we can't verify best practice. If you feel the content should be in the article, then you are welcome to use this talk page to answer the multitude of questions you've been asked about the content. You've refused to do this, preferring to keep changing the subject. Please evaluate the SDSU publication you claim is notable and relevant. What does it say? Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I kindly ask Viriditas to stop making false accusations against me, just as I have repeatedly kindly ask that he be civil when responding to fellow editors.
I have answered the issues possed in the RfC regarding the removal of content, however it apepars that Viriditas continues to state that I have not addressed his/her concerns about the content in the RfC content below. There has been a consensus against the removal of content, as can be seen below in the RfC, yet Viriditas editing against consensus in the article space had removed the content once again. The multiple deletions, and reversions of reversions could be seen as engaging in edit warring in the article space, and the subsequent re-addition of some of that removed content only after it is added by Viriditas could be interpretted as ownership of the article.
The reason for pointing out the Verify source template is that is describes actions editors can take if there is a dispute regarding content or the source(s) used to verify the content. The content and/or reference(s) used were not harmful and thus the content could have been tagged, and civil discussion could have been started to reach a consensus on outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No, we remove unverifiable content. Maintenance tagging isn't helpful when editors already have eyes on the page. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
And such removal can challenged and reverted per WP:BRD. This occurred, and the return of the material to the article space, was re-reverted by Viriditas. This does not keep with BRD, and can be seen as beginning an edit war. Please stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid your reading and understanding of policies is in error. We don't challenge and revert unverifiable content back into articles. We remove it, and if necessary, discuss it on the talk page. Please check your URL to make sure you are editing from Misplaced Pages and not some other website. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A user has deleted a paragraph of the article from the article space, claiming that the content is original research. This opinion is disputed, as is the deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In accordence with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I will notify involved editors, and appropriate WikiProjects of this RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the Edit Summary: "Original research composed of cherry picked googled sources that don't support the material removed." It's not Original Research because the editor did not go out and personally interview anybody, nor did he/she taste any burritos. All the sources seem to be WP:Reliable sources, and as for "cherry picking," that might be another issue, but nobody has shown any evidence that the sources are being misused in that way. Maybe Cow/Coast can explain what the problem is. Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed a paragraph from the San Diego section claiming that the paragraph was WP:OR, and boldly removed it.
Rather than reverting it, I have stated my concern, my disagreement with the assertion that the content was based on OR and that it should not have been removed, and began this RfC for review of the bold deletion.
In the past BRD was not sufficient for an editor to revert a reversion; therefore, this RfC was began for consensus building as to whether the removal was proper and should be kept, or the content re-added.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I explained exactly why I removed the paragraph in the above section, so this appears to be a bit of IDHT. The only thing that could be verified in all of the sources was that San Diego burritos were smaller than San Francisco burritos, that's it. Everything else was either unsourced synthesis and/or original research not supported by the sources in use. This is very simple to understand, so I don't know why there is an RFC in progress here. If RightCowLeftCoast doesn't understand what I've said, he's free to take this to the reliable source noticeboard where I would be happy to repeat what I've said here already. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I have understood what was previously stated by Viriditas; I just do not agree with the users opinion of the sources and based on that opinion the user's unilateral, and bold, decision to remove a paragraph of content from the articlespace of this subject.
The first source removed, states quiet clearly (emphasis mine):

Whereas a San Diego-style burrito can be an austere meal of meat, cheese, and salsa scattered about a standard-size tortilla, the San Francisco version stuffs a jumbo tortilla with any number of grilled or barbecued meats...

The second source states:

I ate my first burrito in Southern California back when oranges still grew in Orange County. The simple wraps were one of the defining foods of my childhood.

This sentence does not specify a burrito made in San Diego or San Diego County, just one made in Southern California.
The third source states (emphasis mine):

Their menus feature tacos, taquitos (known in in San Diego as rolled tacos), fries buried carne asada and fistfuls of guacamole and sour cream, and burritos as sturdy as San Francisco's. No frills, no add-ons, no fancy assembly line, just rapid-fire delivery.

Other than the second source, the sentence, which the sources was used to verify, synthesis anything. The sentence was as follows:

The San Diego-style of burrito has been described as "austere", "simple", and "no-frills".

The San Diego-style burrito was described as "Austere" and "No frills", so only the "simple" description should be removed, not the entire sentence. Or at worse, using only the first source the sentence should be rewritten in a way like the following:

In comparison to the San Francisco-style burrito the San Diego-style burrito has been described as "austere".

The third source is used to verify that "not produced on an assembly table" first sentence which was removed.
A fourth source, although being a poem, does describe burritos from San Diego. In it the source states:

Also, because they have less inside, no steamer is required for the tortillas. Nor are yards of tinfoil needed for wrap up.

The half of the sentence it was used to verify was:

and is usually wrapped in butcher paper, not aluminum foil.

What is can verify is that aluminum foil is not used as wrapping, and not steamed. Therefore, it could be used to verify a sentence such as:

...and are not wrapped in aluminum foil or steamed

If this is a SYNTH concern the sentence can be split into two sentences.
The first third of the sentence (A carne asada burrito in San Diego typically consists solely of chunks of carne asada and guacamole) which was verified by the fifth source is published by College Prowler, and IMHO is a reliable source publisher. If Viriditas, disputes its reliability, the proper course was to tag the source, bring it up to RSN, leave a notification here on the talk page, and leave the content in the articlespace tagged until a consensus can be reached.
The second third of the sentence (or carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa,) was to the Daily Aztec and was used to verify a Carne Asada burrito made in the "San Diego-style".
Again, if there are SYNTH concerns, the sentences could be split into two separate sentences, if there are concerns about the publishers, tag, start a RSN conversation, notify, leave content tagged until consensus is reached.
I do not have access to the article "Is it border cuisine, or merely a case of NAFTA indigestion?" published in the Journal for the Study of Food and Society, so can not verify whether it verifies the content or not. Perhaps a better course of action, as the content is not harmful, is to tag the source using Template:Failed verification, and leave the additional tag Template:FACT, and if no other source is given after a reasonable period (say a month), remove the sentence.
In the end the entire paragraph should not have been removed.
This removal follows two past edits by Viriditas of removing San Diego related content (first time, second time).
Ultimately, there was no consensus for removal of the content, the majority of the content was sourced and could not be removed using WP:BURDEN, and thus the action was entirely improper.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
As I previously informed you, I already addressed the problems with these sources and the material in the above section, "California Burrito". You did not respond to any of these points. Instead, you continue to avoid the problems raised. Since there appears to be a serious communication problem, it may be helpful for you to address one problem at a time. With that in mind, let's begin. First, let's start with the most egregious problems and work our way out, beginning with the book of poetry by Bill Luoma. This is not an acceptable source for an article about burritos unless this primary fictional source has been referred to by secondary reliable sources. Since this is not acceptable, you will either need to 1) concede the point and drop the source and material, or 2) find other sources that support the material you want to add. Is this clear? Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I again, sincerely request (as I have asked again and again) Viriditas to be civil in his/her response, as I am presently of the opinion the response left by Viriditas is at least condescending and at worse uncivil. Just because I do not agree with Viriditas' opinion on the matter does not mean the other user gets to dictate what is right and wrong on this talk page. I have addressed the concerns above point by point that were addressed, yet am accused by Viriditas of avoiding the previously raised concerns.

I have shown where content that was removed was verified by the reference provided, and where content was not verified. I will not be baited by another editor of this article to engage in incivility or to engage in an edit war. If Viriditas disagrees with the validity of a source, I have outlined the RSN route that is available, and kindly request notification on this talk page, if an RSN discussion is began. Another solution is to attribute the description of the San Diego-style burrito to the writer of the source, which is the solution I support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been perfectly civil, however you have ignored the points raised and the questions asked of you. Do you understand what it means to evaluate a source for reliability? In order to even consider using Luoma as a source, you would need to show how it is even reliable first. You are welcome to take your concerns about your sources to the RSN but I'm afraid you will be given the same response. Please stop with the IDHT behavior and engage directly in this discussion. You have a list of sources which are neither reliable nor being used correctly. We will first address your use of Luoma. How does this source meet our RS guideline and how can we use it in this article? If you admit that we can't, then we will move on to the next source, but if you still maintain we can, then you will need to show me how it is reliable. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I again please request Viriditas to see WP:AVOIDYOU. As for the concern regarding the poem source, I did not add the content, nor did I originally add the source. This was done here by another user (who I will notify of this conversation). Therefore, Viriditas stating:

You are welcome to take your concerns about your sources to the RSN but I'm afraid you will be given the same response.

is incorrect, as it is not my source. That beign said, just because that source is a poem, and thus can be used only as a verification of what that person wrote about the burritos the person ate in San Diego, as I have stated, the content could be used if properly attributed as such.
Please stop accusing me of IDHT when I am properly responding. Same can be said of another editor ignoring my lengthy response and choosing to instead of rebut the response by accuse me of IDHT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, GeorgeLouis stated:

It's not Original Research because the editor did not go out and personally interview anybody, nor did he/she taste any burritos. All the sources seem to be WP:Reliable sources, and as for "cherry picking," that might be another issue, but nobody has shown any evidence that the sources are being misused in that way.

This did not appear to be responded to by Viriditas, and although Misplaced Pages is not a democracy it does appear that there maybe a consensus that the deletion was improper based on the original research reasoning which was given in the edit summary when the content was removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be a serious communication problem here. Either you do not understand what is being said or you are continuing to engage in IDHT behavior. It doesn't matter who originally added the source you are arguing to keep, what matters is that you are arguing to include the sources but you aren't able to evaluate the source for reliability. In order to use this source, you have to show how it is reliable. Now, please show how a non-notable primary source, namely a fictional poem is a reliable source about burritos. It isn't of course. We require secondary sources whenever possible, and authoritative sources that are relevant about this topic. The author appears to be a poet and the source appears to be a poem. This is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages. Of course, if you can find a reliable secondary source that points to this author and his poem about burritos and describes it as key to understanding the culture of burritos in San Diego, then we could include that secondary source. We just don't use unknown poems, films, paintings and songs as "sources". There just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about how we use reliable sources on your end. The way we use sources is based on research, not on random Google searches for keyword matches. Really, it boggles the mind that you think it is acceptable to cite a primary fictional source about burritos! Either you are trolling or you don't really understand how to use a source. As for GeorgeLouis, he seems to share your fundamental misunderstanding, as his definition of "original research" cannot be found at WP:NOR. To conclude, poet Bill Luoma's fictional work Works & Days is not a reliable source for this article. Please do not continue to refer to it or to bring it up. If you wish to use content from a fictional work in a non-fiction encyclopedia article, then you are free to start your own Wiki but you can't do it here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I must agree that there is a communication problem. On multiple occassions I have asked Viriditas to be civil, multiple times the editor has continued to be incivil, and at least condescending; I again implore Viriditas to be civil. Moreover, I kindly ask that Viriditas see WP:KEEPCOOL.
The poem source only one source that was removed, and it appears that there will not be an agreement between myself and Viriditas. But presently, that's OK, and we can agree to disagree, as GeorgeLouis does not appear to agree with Viriditas' view that the content was OR.
The other sources, are from either news or published books, and their usage was detailed above. Please do not ignore the lengthy response that was provided and continue to claim that I am ignoring what Viriditas' has written.
I have described a guideline and policy based way which the poem source can be used, and we can agree to disagree on how to properly use it. The reason for an RfC is to invite other non-involved editors to state their opinion(s) as to reach a consensus due to other active editors reaching an impass in their discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, Luoma can't be used. Please evaluate the source for reliability. It's a poem (primary source) that isn't notable and lacks secondary source coverage. The author is a poet, not a food writer or historian and is writing literature classified as fiction. This is not relevant to this encyclopedia article. If you want to use the content sourced in the poem, then you should be able to find another source—a more reliable non-fiction source that isn't a poem—about the subject of burritos. In fact, you should always be able to find two good sources for any single point in the article. The discussion about Luoma is now concluded, and there is no reason to revisit it unless you find a secondary reliable source talking about Luoma and burritos and how his poetry about burritos is important to understand the topic. Otherwise, it appears as if someone was once again doing random Google searches for keywords. This is not research. Please begin your research starting with established, authoritative publications, notable authors who write about the subject relevant to their field and this topic, and easy to verify information. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

After more than a week, the only outside contributor to this RFC has agreed that the removed material was not WP:OR, and supported by WP:Reliable sources. I therefore have largely restored the paragraph on San Diego-style burritos. With that said, Viriditas's concerns about the usage of some of the sources is not unreasonable. So I've omitted the Newberry cite and the USD Off the Record cite. As for the others, Ellwood and Edwards really can't be much more explicit when they say that the "San Diego-style burrito can be an austere meal of meat, cheese and salsa scattered about a standard-size tortilla." I put part of that quote in the text, and made explicit the contrast with SF-style burritos being made. For Arellano, the version I have is an e-book, without page cites - if someone knows a better way to pinpoint the cite, please do so. Otherwise, you can search the book for what the text says. I changed the text to say "a significant subgenre of SD Mexican restaurants," because that at least is supported by Arellano. The Daily Aztec is a reliable source for what the text cites. It's been around since 1913, as a daily since 1960, and it has editorial standards. The paper and its writers have been cited by other publications on numerous occasions (see Exploring Media Culture: A Guide, p.295; Your Guide to College Success, p. 470; Billboard Magazine, May 21, 1994, p. 85. And just because it's a local paper doesn't mean it's not reliable to report on local issues: in fact, it's the opposite. WP's own guidelines in assessing reliable sources asks you to consider the competency of a source, with the example: If the Easton Gazette is used to reference a claim that Easton High School opened in 1989, that's one thing. If it's used to reference a claim that Hitler died in Brazil, that's probably outside their area of competence. Here, a report on the burritos found within San Diego would certainly be within the competence of the SDSU newspaper. I added a second source as to the contents of a carne asada burrito from the Del Mar Times. The only online version is posted on a restaurant's website, but I contacted the journalist and she sent me the original version, which backs up the text on the website. Let me know if anyone would like to see it, and I can email you a pdf.

I also added a new sentence, that the carne asada burrito is a regional food of San Diego. This comes directly from a Fodor's guide to the USA that contains a list of American regional foods. The suggestions were sent in by readers, but the list itself was clearly subject to the editorial staff of Fodor's. I put in a sentence about its history in SD, also backed up by the Del Mar Times and Arellano refs. I also added as a see also ref a recipe for a "Carne asada burrito, San Diego-style" from food.com, which is published by Scripps Networks, and part of the Food Network family. If that's considered too primary, we can move it to the See Also section.

As for Luoma, it's just not true that "poetry = fiction". Just like any writing, it can be fiction or non-fiction. In this case, Luoma's not creating a magical world where burritos are wrapped in paper - he's describing reality. That said, I'd be happy to let that one go. Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The only outside contributor didn't read the NOR policy so they appear less than informed about the subject. Again, we don't use poetry as sources for our articles. You and RCLC should use the RS noticeboard if you have any questions. I would like to now knock Luoma off the list and begin with the next source. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The only editor who has the opinion that the content removed was original research is Viriditas. As shown in the discussion on this talk page, and through this RfC is there is no consensus to support Viriditas' claim that the content remove was original research, therefore the blanket removal, as well as the subsequent re-removal was wrong.
I understand that Viriditas has a concern regarding some of the references used to verify the content; however bold removal of non-harmful content (as I have stated above) has not been condusive and have created the present editing environment that can be seen on this talk page now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No, the present editing environment is due to your refusal to engage directly in the discussion about the sources. Instead, you keep trying to change to the subject to civility, what you think a policy means, what other editors think, etc. Please engage directly about the points at hand, not about meta-points. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have engaged in discussion of the sources, see the lengthy discussion of the sources that I posted here. Again, please stop accusing me of IDHT.
That being said, civility does matter. There is a reason why it is a pillar of our editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you did not engage in the questions asked and the discussion about the sources, and no, civility is not an issue here. You consistently yell "civility", "civility", in every discussion across multiple articles whenever faced with a point you can't counter or research you can't be bothered to do. This is called civil POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Scripps Networks source. It is classified as user generated content which isn't a RS. It doesn't matter that Scripps runs the site. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Fodor's, as a tertiary source, we should have at least one other secondary source talking about carne asada burritos as a regional food of San Diego. Frankly, Fodor's is not the best source for this subject, and their listing is very informal, but useful. I've left it in as undisputed for now, but it makes this article look amateurish. However, I'm thinking very seriously about removing it now. First, carne asada is a regional dish of Mexico, not San Diego. Second, there is no indication that there is anything special about carne asada burritos in San Diego, or how they are different from anywhere else. Third, Fodor's listing of regional cuisine is an informal designation used for tourists, not food experts, and is not intended to be taken seriously but rather as a dining recommendation; in other words, this is not an expert source. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Found a great burrito article in the LA Times with this quote: "For San Diegans, carne asada burritos are as integral to the experience of the place as a slice of pie is to a New Yorker", so I added it as a ref. The article itself makes a good starting point (along with Arellano) to getting more info about LA burritos. Here it is, if anyone wants to make use of it: The Wrap that Ate L.A.. Dohn joe (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Good find. Perhaps RCLC will make use of it. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As for Roberto's the sources aren't clear about Roberto's selling carne asada burritos in San Diego in 1964. Karen Billing says that Roberto's first restaurant opened in 1964, but according to Arellano, in 1964, Robledo was delivering tortillas to Mexican restaurants in San Diego. He didn't open his first restaurant (called La Lomita) until 1968. Looking into this further, he was not famous for selling carne asada burritos in 1964. He was famous for selling 10 cent, miniature bean burritos in 1968. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid you

Again, I kindly ask that we follow WP:AVOIDYOU.
So are we in agreement that the subject is now notable enough for a stand alone article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to be in agreement, I would still support the right of anyone to create the article. But it has to have good sources to survive the redirect and deletion process. I suggest you restart the article with improved sourcing if that is what you desire. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
You may want to consider using the AfC process to create the article if there are concerns about sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The third opinion request is for the section above this one, Talk:Burrito#Reverting bold change, and not this section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You have not addressed the points raised in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Other editors appear to disagree with this opinion, for instance, see this diff.

The second issue has to do with the tone of the debate. I have no idea how Viriditas meant his/her comments to be taken, but they struck me as somewhat unfriendly in tone. Viriditas, you repeatedly imputed motivation for RCLC's actions (e.g. "YOUDONTLIKEIT", "The only reason you are making this ridiculous argument is because you are trying to push 'San Diego' higher on the page, which is the most childish, immature thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.", "We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on your personal preferences"). You also repeatedly accused RCLC of failing to give a reason for his/her edits, but from the conversation here, it seems that several of us understood RCLC's reason: s/he interpreted this section as a list, and applied the style guidelines for lists. If you genuinely don't understand where someone is coming from, there are nicer ways to ask for clarification (e.g. "I'm sorry, I don't understand your explanation. Can you be more specific and clear?").

— Biancles
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Please directly engage in the discussion and address the points under discussion (currently the sources you want to use). Please refrain from changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I posted the quote, as I have been repeatedly accused (wrongly so) by Viriditas that I have not been addressing points raised by him/her. The quote shows that I have done so in the past, and if Viriditas reads the RFC sub-section above he/she can read by rebuttal for the reasons he/she posted for removing the content regarding the San Diego-style burrito.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The "quote' is wrong and shows ignorance of NOR. Please stop posting erroneous quotes and engage directly in the discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Opinions are neither right or wrong. Someone can disagree with the opinion of someone else, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong. Feel free to disagree, however others have posted that I have addressed the issues that Viriditas has posted on this talk page. Again, please stop accusing me of not doing so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the opinion of the SPA with eight edits to its name that you so cherish is wrong. Funny how these SPA's always show up when you're in a bind. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential usable source

I would like to point towards a potential useable source:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So there is a "San Diego-style" burrito, even though it was removed, even though there are reliable sources verify that the style exist.
The content could be used to verify where the California burrito is served and its impact on burritos served in the San Francisco Bay Area.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be a continuing communication problem. The California Burrito is a style of burrito from San Diego. That has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is your continuing misuse of sources to say things about this style that the sources don't say. As for the above source, it says nothing about any impact. It merely notes that one taqueria out of hundreds serves the food in question. The source is also quite amateurish, and hardly represents the best sources we are trying to use to write this topic. Please start your research with the best sources first. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Chimichangas

Chimichangas are independently notable as a subject, but is also very closely related to the subject of this article as they deep fried burritos. That being said, should there be a summary on this article page in the Other varieties section, supported by reliable sources, such as the one I linked?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You should first cross-reference Chetwynd's claim about the origin of the chimicahnga with other sources to make sure the information is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: