Talk:Chicago-style hot dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Congratulations

The blatant trolling seen here has made its way to somethingawful.com to be laughed at and mocked by all, hooray! http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/internet-quotes.php?page=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.194.251 (talk • contribs) May 31, 2007

Signifigant Figures

With proper sig figs the conversion from Farenheit to Celsius should not be that specific, and should only be 77 degrees. I reccomend changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.39.33 (talk • contribs) Sep 5 2006

The reverter's comment

Please. Corporate shill? Whatever. I lived in Chicago for 9 years, and there are as many Vienna Beef hot dog places as Starbucks. Oh, and none in any other city. So, let's chill out and just put up some info for the nice Germans that depend on wikipedia for their understanding of America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs) .

My Response:

Excuse me, jacka**, but I'm a native of said city, have lived here a lot more than 9 years, come from a family that has lived in Chicago for well over a century, literally preceding the city itself in this region, so unlike you, when I talk about what is or is not traditional here, I know whereof I speak. Oh, and mystifyingly pointless, Cliff Claven - style BS from you to the contrary notwithstanding, there are practically NO "Vienna Beef hot dog places" here. Vienna beef sells to other businesses, such as the aforementioned "Five Faces", located on the north side of Division between State and Dearborn. It is not a chain restaurant like McDonald's. Anybody who had ever lived here, instead of just blowing smoke about the subject, would know that.

By the way, one of the so-called "facts" that you put back was that gem about Chicago being "universally associated" with the so-called "garbage dog". Just out of curiosity, I bounced that one off a long line of people in Chicago, and another long line of people from the suburbs of the same city, to see if even one of them had ever even heard of the expression, much less gotten used to seeing it in common use. I had never seen so many blank stares. NOBODY had ever heard of it before except me, and I've only encountered it in two locations - one was on the aforementioned Vienna Beef advertising poster, and the other was on Wikipedia. Which leaves us with the question, just how much of a geek do you have to be to get your view of reality from ad copy, and just how much more of a geek do you have to be to go out and fight the good fight on behalf of that distorted view?

If I seem a little hot under the collar, so much so that I had to go back and revise my own misspellings within a minute of initial posting, it is only because I have such good reason to be. I can be forgiving of stupidity. I can occasionally tolerate arrogance. When I see the two in combination, that's when I feel the urge to kill, and outside of the Internet, I'm far from being alone in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.172.107 (talk • contribs) .

Boy's, Boy's

OK Boys I’m a little hot under the collar! What 1st guy says about Vienna stands is correct! So why 2nd guy slams him I don’t know. Specifics about 1 add, I don’t know. I can tell you that the Vienna Beef Company was critical to the growth and development of both Vienna and the individual stands. To say it is not a franchise is technically correct but it was and is a symbiotic relationship. There are books on this and no reason to fight! WTTW the PBS channel had a show about this, If 2nd guy disputes he’s got head up ass syndrome (HUAS). Gotta go! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bad dog (talk • contribs) .

Speculation

Obviously, real traditions aren't built with specific brand names in mind, and when one encounters such an outlandish claim online, one should suspect that one has encountered the work of a corporate shill. Or that an overeager tourist took a well known advertising poster that he saw at "Five Faces" on Division Street far too seriously, mistaking ad copy for genuine cultural history. The remarks sometimes seen regarding this alleged tradition, as a matter of fact, are almost a word for word repetition of the text of ad posted in a prominent place in that diner, a small, but heavily visited location in one of Chicago's major tourist destinations, suggesting that in said poster was to be found the origin of the fakelore.

This section is entirely speculative. If the claims about an overeager tourist and such can be substantiated, please make that case here instead of simply reinserting it into the article. Thank you for removing the bizarre references to Wikipedia, by the way. Factitious 00:31, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________

Comment by "noneditor":

Wow, Factitious, wrong on so many different levels. There was nothing "bizarre" about my reference to Wikipedia. There most certainly is something bizarre about the policy that you're citing. I'll honor it because it is policy, but as we're talking about a rule that prohibits me from mentioning Wikipedia when mentioning misinformation that has been propogated using Wikipedia, any suggestion that common sense is on your side, or on the side of this policy, is clearly ludicrous.

As for the comment being "speculative", it is nothing of the sort, outside of the solipsistic view of a netizen who was forgotten that there is a real, physical world outside of his beloved Net. I'm not speculating about the existence of that advertising poster. I've laid eyes on it, and it's still up, and word for word, the content of the earlier versions of this article comes very close to being an exact repetition of what is on that poster. I do not merely refer to the content of what is being said, but the very way in which it is phrased.

I'm not going out on any sort of limb on this one, and as the only thing that makes my remarks appear more general than one might want them to be (IF one reads them very quickly and carelessly as you apparently have) is my adherence to the very policy you've been badgering me about, for you to then complain that my remarks could be taken to be ones about beliefs generally held is more than a little disingenuous. As I have said, as a user, I have to abide by Wikipedia policy, however assinine it may be. If you don't like where that fact can lead, kindly go take it up with Jimbo Wales; I'm not in the business of telling the man how to run his own site, even when I can make the case that he's found a way to run it badly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.172.95 (talk • contribs) .

Co-operation

Okay. You guys need to calm down a little about your hot dogs and remember we're all trying to make the best encyclopedic article possible. Please remember Civility and Assume good faith are core principles to promote the WP community and build an encyclopedia thriugh consensus. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article blatantly violates the policy on original research as well. In the absence of independently verifiable sources, any claims as to the origin of the term "Chicago-style hot dog," does not belong. As far as I can tell, the only way to write the article (that is acceptable for wikipedia) at present would be:

"The Chicago-Style Hot Dog is a dog with a large number of toppings, usually including diced onions, sliced tomatoes, a dill pickle spear, relish, mustard, and celery salt. It is featured prominently in advertisements by the Vienna Beef company."

In the absence of sources explaining the origin of the term, the subject ought to be avoided entirely. This has nothing to do with solipsism and everything to do with honest research. After all, this North Suburban user has heard the term used often and in a way that had led me to believe it was ubiquitous.

And finally, it's a damn hot dog. Go make one, watch the Sox win, and chill out.--Hal 28 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've now reverted to the article version before all this controversy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Reality

Pardon me, but that's horse crap. The original article, which "DoubleBlue" reverted to, ALSO was without references. I see no objection to this fact, suggesting that the "original research" rule is being applied in an inconsistent fashion.

And no, it's not a "damn dog". It's a distortion of folklore, and that's unacceptable, as a matter both of common sense, and of the policy some of you so love to fall back on, when it suits you. I quote:

    "Please do not create an article to promote yourself,
     a website, a product, or a business"

Vienna Beef is undebatably a business, and when you post, and stubbornly repost an article which is nearly a verbatim repetition of ad copy right off of the promotional literature, you are promoting a business. So I guess the rules only apply when you want them to?

Please do not delete my posts to the Discussion page. It's extremely rude. This is not promoting a product. This is reflecting a reality which is evidenced by the link to an Emeril show which I added. Moreover, your claim that this is "a distortion of folklore," remains unsubstantiated. This article is no more promotional than an article about a Big Mac which lists the ingredients would be, either. *Edit: sorry, forgot sig.--Hal 28 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

I most certainly did no such thing, Hal, and I'll thank you to be something other than a pathological liar. As for you link to the page for the Emeril show, which I did delete, we're talking about the popular cuisine of Chicago, Emeril is from Louisiana, and as such is not a credible authority on the subject which you're citing him as a reference for. If you'd like, though, I could always post a photo of the ad poster in question.

And Hal - I grew up here. My family has lived in Chicago since it was founded, and in the area for generations before that, and so unlike you, I know what I'm talking about when I say that the only reality this article was reflecting, was that of the contents of a really big dislay ad.

If reposting advertising as cultural history doesn't constitute a promotion of a product, what does?

I, too, grew up here. It doesn't matter. This article could be written by a sufficiently literate babboon from Mozambique. That's the way Wikipedia works- that is why there is such an emphasis on verifiable information, and, I reiterate, no original research. If your contention is that your verion of the article is not original research, please explain how that is.

As to my post's disappearance, you can find it in the history. Upper-right hand side of the page. Since you aren't logged in, I assume you're new at this and that you somehow editted over it by mistake. Please excuse the comment about prescience, it was unnecessarily snarky.*edit- my sig again! I need more sleep.--Hal 28 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Hal, I rather seriously doubt that you grew up anywhere near Chicago.

As for your argument: While I am amused at your reference to "a sufficiently literate babboon from Mozambique", as it seems a perfect metaphor for so much of Wikipedia's editorial process, here we run into a brick wall, and one of oh so many reasons why I am getting angry. When we talk about popular cuisine in Chicago, we're talking about a subject published about in no legitimate press, leaving us inescapably in the realm of oral tradition, if we are to avoid outright fakery, such as that seen in the Vienna Beef ad. Can I document the fact that what you people have been stubbornly reprinting is an ad? Absolutely. Let me go grab my camera. But how do you propose that I "document" what goes on in day-to-day life? Would you like me to start kicking in kitchen doors, and bring in the mini-cam?

In real life, customers seldom buy cookbooks out of anthropological interest. They buy them because they like the recipes. The recipes actually seen in widespread, popular use in Chicago are humble, simple little things that would not be of interest to outsiders, and thus of little commercial interest to publishers. They are, however, ours, and when we see part of our own culture being overwritten in a commercialised fashion, however humble a part that may be, we're likely to get severely pissed off about that - and rightly so.

"Overwriting" is exactly what one has a halfway decent chance of doing when one publishes fakelore as fact, because even if those of us who are old enough (to predate the fakelore by long enough to see it for what it is) know better, there's always another generation of kids to mislead. In this particular case, they'll have to be fairly stupid kids. We are talking about an article that claims that a traditional food preference was built around a specific brand name, and a food item (fresh tomatoes) whose near-inedibility in Chicago is a matter of some notoriety. But the corrosive effect is there.

Since this is apparently intractable, I'm putting this dispute up for moderation. *edit: mediation. I really need sleep. --Hal 28 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

And I look forward to passing the results of said moderation along to a website owner of my acquaintance, who plans on documenting the whole bizarre incident on his site. Says that it's a perfect illustration of exactly what's wrong with the entire Wikipedia concept. Toss in a few photos, and the point will be made.

Oh, and BTW, Hal - it's 3:09 pm Chicago time. Kind of a strange hour for an alleged Chicagoan to be getting sleepy at, isn't it? Doing shift work, buddy? As the saying goes, "on the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.172.13 (talk • contribs) .

Use proper deletion procedures

If anyone wishes to delete this article, they should use the proper deletion procedures as explained in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Do not simply delete the text of the article. For what it's worth, though, I'd vote for the article to remain here. --Alabamaboy 28 June 2005 18:34 (UTC)

And how interesting that you have an opinion regarding this article about an alleged CHICAGO food tradition, ALABAMAboy!

I mainly have an opinion on following the procedures and standards of the Wikipedia community. This means having a neutral point of view and working to make an article as encyclopedic as possible. While the nature and history of this hot dog may be in doubt, the hot dog is known to many people. Simply bring the doubt and questions about history into the article in a NPOV way.--Alabamaboy 28 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

There is no real doubt about the contents of the article, from the point of view of anybody familiar with the territory, Alabamaboy - it's crap. If somebody posts a claim that Lake Michigan is filled with salt water, should I get all NPOV on that too, or is it OK to call bullshit "bullshit", where there is no room for reasonable doubt?

Oh, and BTW - the only reason why the so-called Chicago style hot dog is "known to many people" is because of that ad and this article, so in essence, your argument breaks down to "this article is valid because it says it is". Bury this fact in bullshit all you want, the fact remains - the article is a repetition of ad copy from the Vienna Beef corporation. And about that, there can be no doubt, >as the ad is still in existence<.

I have removed the POV speculation from this article as it goes against the WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Please cite your claims. Thanks. Rhobite June 28, 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Here are some links to chicago style hot dogs: http://www.flukys.com/html/recipe.html, http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/ward/042001_NS_ward.html. In addition, the fact that a google search for "chicago style hot dog" turns up 5000 links indicates that this subject is somewhat broad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alabamaboy (talk • contribs) .

Sigh. And if it's on a webpage, it must be true. Fluky's is, of course, a commercial website, throwing us back to the mystifying faith Wikipedians seem to have in ad copy.

Guys, fine. I've made my point. If you want to be idiots, be idiots. It'll just get documented, and be a little more ammunition for your critics. As for comments about how apes could adequately edit this site, because it's all based on repeating what one has read - that's exactly how urban legends and fakelore get going. By people uncritically accepting what they read and hear, and passing it along. What difference does knowledge and familiarity with the subject matter make when one writes about a subject? For one thing, they allow one to know how to tell good sources from bad.

A concept you guys just can't seem to get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.172.13 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, urban legends start when people neatly sidestep requests to cite sources - as you have done. Your claimed experience as a Chicagoan is not going to change this article, nor is your extreme rudeness. See Wikipedia:Verifiability in addition to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research. These policies are central to Wikipedia's goal. If you think they are idiotic, you are free to start your own encyclopedia where you can publish your personal opinions unchallenged. Rhobite June 28, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

You know, as a Chicagoan (myself, both parents, and four grandparents born here, thank you for asking) reading the pissing contest going on here, I can see how our city became the "murder capital of America." --L. 23:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Work towards a consensus

I am struggling to understand your concerns with the article. I have no interest in Chicago style hot dogs other than to ensure we have an encyclopedic article under that title. Here's what I have done to try and address what I see as your problems with it.

• I have deleted the word "Vienna" from the article. It doesn't seem necessary from my research to have "Vienna" beef hot dogs, just beef hot dogs (though some sites do explicitly say they prefer them).
• I have listed external links to sites which discuss the association of this hot dog recipe with Chicago and two recipes that verify the info in the article.
• As you saw, I previously deleted all the extraneous comments on whether it was or wasn't corporate shilling or whatever else was in the rant. It is not encyclopedic to have POV arguments in the article. Such things belong in your diary or blog.
• You were correct that I should have left the Unreferenced tag when I previously reverted. I believe it now has references for the statements, except for "Much more popular within Chicago is a Maxwell Street Polish sausage, usually served on a plain bun with fried or grilled onions and mustard." which I noticed you never removed in your edits, so I presume you agree. Perhaps you or someone else can find a source for this. If you don't like it, you may remove that sentence or re-apply the {{Unreferenced}} tag.
• If it is that you object to Chicago being connected to this recipe, I'm afraid that it is the case. [1] Whether it was perpetuated by a company or not doesn't change the fact that they are known as Chicago-style now. Valentine's Day may have been promoted by greeting card companies but it still remains to be a cultural phenomenon whether we like it or not. If you can find some sources to prove the creation of the "Chicago-style" hot dog, that would make for an interesting History section.

I hope you find the changes to be improvements. If not, I encourage you to discuss what, in particular, you object to and work towards finding a consensus article. Please remember to be civil in your language and Assume good faith towards the efforts of your fellow Wikipedians. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Citation of Sources

Please excuse an extented quotation from "Hot Dog Chicago: A Native's Dining Guide", by Rich Bowen and Dick Fay, published in 1983 (now, sadly, out of print) by Chicago Review Press, pp 1-3:

What is a Chicago hot dog? First of all, the hot dogs served in Chicago are finest quality, usually all-beef or a blend of beef and pork without the fillers and additives found in supermarket vacuum-packed "kiddie" hot dogs. The hot dog stands of Chicago do not serve "missiles of death." The Chicago hot dog is ambitiously spiced, made for adult tastes, and not deadly bland and cloying like the kiddie kind. And the hot dog bun must be steamed until it is warm, airy and light. Nothing dry, nothing soggy.

A great dog on a perfect bun is a start, but what makes a Chicago hot dog totally unique is the "everything" that it comes with. Of course a Chicago hot dog has mustard, relish and chopped onion -- these are staples in much of America. But a basic hot dog also comes with a pickle spear, tomato slices, hot sport peppers and a sprinkling of celery salt. The extravagent "garden on a bun" Chicago school of hot dog thought specifies the addition of lettuce, cucumber slices and pieces of green pepper. Even a modestly done up dog in Chicago is a remarkable meal, with wonderful flavors and textures, full of spice, tang and snap.

[ ... ]

Most of the hot dog stands in Chicago are supplied by either the Vienna Sausage Co. or the David Berg Co. But many stands serve great hot dogs made by firms such as Leon's Sausages, the Palestine Kosher Sausage Co., the Sinai Kosher Sausage Co. and many others. The nationally known brands, such as Oscar Mayer and Armour, are little seen at Chicago hot dog stands. Kiddie dogs don't make it in Chicago; the natives prefer a dog with "bite" (a natural intestine casing), "spice" or both. Most stands prepare hot dogs by boiling or steeping the dogs in water. Sometimes they are cooked on a gas-fired charcoal grill, and rarely they are grilled on metal. There are also some area-wide variations in style and taste preference that make the notion of THE Chicago hot dog not a useful one.

This authoritative source (Bowen and Fay review over 100 Chicago-area hot dog stands in this work) on Chicago style hot dogs contradicts the current article in several respects, and I intend to revise the article to correct these discrepancies, barring objection.

tew 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent source. I've put it in an "External references" section. --Dcfleck 13:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

°×←→===Citation flags=== Mareino recently flagged two passages for citation:

There is however one area of Chicago where people love ketchup on their hot dogs. It's the suburb of Wilmette in the North Shore area.[citation needed] There they affectionately dub hot dogs with ketchup as Wilmette dogs.

I agree this needs one. While I live quite near Wilmette, I'm not aware of this. I wouldn't be surprised, but it might not even be notable.

When one eats a Chicago-style hot dog, the combined textures of the steamed hot dog with the natural intestine lining, pickle spear, and peppers create a sudden but appealing snap as the eater bites through the different items.

This one I don't understand...Except for the apparent typo of "steamed" rather than "boiled," it is fairly common knowledge and unrefuted that most Chicago dogs have natural casings, a pickle spear, and sports peppers. Furthermore, this is explicit in the first paragraph (without citations or a request for citations).--Karnesky 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding “Wilmette dogs” I think this is most likely a jab at Wilmette or the entire affluent “North Shore” (Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka and Glencoe). If it is not a slam on Wilmette it should still be removed. The way it is stated says in Wilmette. That is geographic. Wilmette has I think 2 Hot dog places. Sam’s Chuck wagon is downtown and in more recent years Irving’s. Hot Dog Island is in Evanston and Homers is in Winnetka so 1 or maybe 2 hot dog places in a town of 27,651 can hardly brand something, especially when even the way it is stated it has not gone beyond it’s own borders. It is kind of funny taking ownership of the “red haired step child” of Chicago dogs (dogs w/ketchup) it makes me laugh but do not think it belongs in the article. I suspect it is the previous, slam on Wilmette.

I have included a picture I took of Super Dawg so people can see what is referred to. They don’t use Vienna Beef, but most do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bad dog (talk • contribs) .