Talk:Ketchup on hot dogs

This page was nominated for deletion on April 4, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why in God's name is there an article on this!?--195.195.244.153 11:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is written in a humorous fashion and can hardly be held to violate the NPOV policy insofar as the anti-ketchup people are the only ones to have commented openly about the topic. I will gladly incorporate any pro-ketchup views that I can locate, though I have not run into any of those yet. Jtmichcock 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're trying to only express one point of view or anything, as it seems that you've only moved this debate from the Hot dog article/talk page. I added the POV-check tag because it appears that only one side of the debate is being represented. Also, "those who consider themselves hot dog connoisseurs are often vehemently opposed to eating (or even witnessing) hot dogs with ketchup; they think the flavor of ketchup overpowers and destroys the taste of the hot dog instead of complementing it" does not seem like a NPOV statement. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's those who "consider themselves" connoissers, as a means of identification, not to import the title. As to those pro-kethchup folks, I have yet to find any usable quotes (I tried). I left a note on your Talk page: I believe that the pro-ketchup folks simply don't care. This is a one-sided debate that is done in the spirit of humor and no one on the pro-ketchup side takes seriously enough to take a stand.

I do agree that this debate is mainly one-sided, but I don't think that it's in the spirit of humor. The excerpt "rebuff may range from a polite refusal to an angry confrontation" is not an exaggeration, especially in Chicago hot doggeries where the presence of ketchup on a hot dog is often a serious matter. Overall, I don't think the article is too POV. We are documenting a debate where one side is vehement and the other is almost oblivious. Nowhere in the article does wikipedia itself make any comment about the acceptability of ketchup on a dog. --Nuffle 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this thing became an article-by-itself. And I would recommend removing that remark about the "angry confrontation" in Chicago....if too many people read it, I won't be able to try and pull that joke on any visitors ;). --L. 21:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed part of the hotdog connoseiur sentence, and also removed the NPOV tag. Hopefully this will be acceptable. I'm not sure how much of the article is true (such as referring to ketchup as "the k-word", and tricking visitors)... but please try not to exaggerate. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article does tend to lean a bit on the ridiculous side. I know ketchup is frowned upon on hot dogs, but come on. It ain't some sort of unpardonable sin to have ketchup on a hot dog (and it complements the flavor of the hot dog quite well, IMHO). :) Misternuvistor 08:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the article being somewhat ridiculous. You may find the opinion itself ridiculous, but the article is describing accurately the vehemence that many people feel about this. I won't go as far as Cecil from Straight Dope put it], Misternuvistor, by calling you a "an alfalfa-chewing barbarian" for dressing your dogs with ketchup, but I know there are many that would. :) As for it being an unpardonable sin, you will have to reconcile that with your diety. ;) --Nuffle 15:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I read Cecil's article (I really enjoy his column, BTW), but I still just don't understand why all the extreme vehemence towards ketchup as it relates to frankfurters (especially throughout the Chicagoland area). Christ, it's not like it's dioxin or something. ;) It just seems all quite irrational IMHO, when it comes to ketchup & hot dogs (especially among Chicagoans). I still think this whole topic (& article) is somewhat of, as the British say, a piss-take, if you don't mind me saying so. Sheesh, it's just a condiment, people! :):) misternuvistor 20:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, maybe there should be signs or billboards throughout Chicago stating: "Everytime you put ketchup on your hot dog, God kills a kitten. (Please, think of the kittens)" :):) misternuvistor 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the point, talk with a Brit about adding cream to tea. Every place seems to have hang-ups over certain "sacred" food items. --L. 18:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't know how much the European opinion counts in this debate but usually we dont use ketchup either, even though the option is usually there. At least that's what I was taught... I... think... uh... // Gargaj 23:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a part-time cultural anthropologist I have to say this is deeply fascinating stuff. Wikipedia would be a poorer place without such penetrating insight into la condition humaine.... Sjc 12:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU PEOPLE MAD? This article is unnecessary, pointless and inane. It has to go! 69.159.124.46 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is some nerd shit right here.

Dang, reading this article really made me want a hotdog with a lot of Ketchup. My stomach is growling and I'm sort of drooling or something.

Despite the fact that ketchup does indeed suck on hot dogs, this article does seem a trifle unnecessary on its own. The topic is probably at least somewhat noteworthy, though, and it may be worth creating a new article on food related taboos, or something along those lines: despite being in the mentioned Chicago-land area, my personal experience would show that "ketchuping" one's EGGS is a matter of much stronger/heated debate than on weiners (though the hot dog is fairly 'sacred' around these parts.) I'm sure there are probably plenty of similar examples that I am either forgetting, or more likely, am not aware of. The obvious problems are that it may be hard to come up with one all-encompassing title/subject for the article, and that it will be tricky to decide what DOES fit into this category (the 'soda/pop/Coke' terminology debate immediately springs to mind as occupying the gray area) and of course, the biggest problem is that compiling an article such as this would take a good deal of effort... and since I almost get the feeling that the effort I'm putting into this mere discussion-page addition is frivolous, it begs the question: is it really worth it? I think as it stands, the best efforts would probably be away from 'is this topic worth mentioning' and toward an expansion into the social phenomenon it illustrates, but my sincere lack of motivation at the moment precludes personal efforts in that direction. 68.78.129.90 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hotdog is nothing more than a sausage. Ketchup (catsup) when combined with mustard, onion, relish is nothing less than putting a deconstructed barbeque sauce on a sausage. Some people like that combination. Some people smother their hotdog with chili (with beans no less) and cheese. Each way you consume yours is fine, and each has a different taste, and it is all about what you like. Any other opinion on what you eat is not important. 162.222.245.211 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburgers

I think this article should also expand onto other foods such as hamburgers. Louis' Lunch in New Haven, CT does not serve ketchup with their burgers for similar reasons as people do not put ketchup on hot dogs: they overpower the taste of the hot dog. --Blue387 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental difference, though. Certainly there are individual preferences throughout the world not to put ketchup on certain items. However, ketchup on hot dogs goes beyond the level of isolated areas, and is (at least regionally) quite a strong theme. This article is not here to tell people whether ketchup is good on things. It is to document a social phenomena: the taboo of ketchup on a hot dog. As an aside, some people keep asking why there is an article on this subject, but I can't understand why there is any objection. I am guessing that they are misunderstaning the point. Nowhere does this article say you shouldn't put ketchup on a hot dog. It does, however, document a largely held belief that affects many people. And no, it's not real important in the grand scheme, but there are movie references, newspaper columns, straight dope articles, and plenty of chicago hot dog vendors ready to yell at you, all regarding this subject. If you had heard these things, and wanted to understand what was going on, you would not have been ble to go to Wikipedia for the answer before this article was written. --Nuffle 20:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will they physically engage me in a fight?

I like ketchup on hot dogs, if I was to demand it should I be prepared for a battle? BobbyAFC 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would would more likely be entertained as long as you are prepared for the street theater that will likely result. Jtmichcock 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be Deleted

This is a joke....

Merge to hot dog

All relevant portions of this article have been merged with hot dog. Further details regarding hot dogs in Chicago (that pass WP:V and WP:CITE) should go into the Chicago-style hot dog article. JDoorj a m Talk 00:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that didn't seem to have lasted very long. I've reverted to an earlier version that omitted uncited, difficult-to-verify information; please provide a source before replacing it. JDoorj a m Talk 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is worth preserving as it is; it is a noted and verifiable phenomenon. BoojiBoy 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... what is? That people put ketchup on hot dogs? I agree -- that's why it's discussed in hot dog. No one's saying this isn't valuable content; it simply already exists elsewhere. Putting it in one place keeps it consistent and more easily updated. JDoorj a m Talk 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no problem with the merge if all the content of the article is merged, but you've been pretty selective with what you've merged over. Move the whole article as it stands now and I would have no problem with the redir. BoojiBoy 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of it's already over there except for the quotations, but sure, I'll put those in as well. I'm assuming you're ok without the picture at the top, which is already the lead photo in the hot dog article. JDoorjam Talk 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the content as the article now in this article is in the hot dog article. JDoorjam Talk 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm good with it as it now stands. BoojiBoy 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Should be merged. Nothing notable about the article that can't be mentioned in the hot dog article. --FrankCostanza 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed -- more to the point, there is nothing at all currently in the article that isn't already in the hot dog article. JDoorj a m Talk 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be merged. I have tagged it. --Ezeu 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is strange, the merger was already completed amicably with all the relevant content moved over and someone reverted it. It should be changed back to a redir. BoojiBoy 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redir was reverted by User:Jtmichcock with the comment "Merger proposal received objections, no votes in support of a raw merger". I'm assuming this is in reference to the December AfD. I thought the user should have a chance to explain his point of view and have left a message at User talk:Jtmichcock asking him to comment here. JDoorj a m Talk 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All merger requests should be posted and left for comment a minimum of seven days per WP:MERGE. This article was merged after less than 24 hours. Can't do that. For the record, OBJECT to merger. Article was partly calved off from Hot dog entry, it was out of place there, which is why this daughter article was created. Jtmichcock 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- My apologies if I'm missing it, but nowhere on that page do I see a policy or even a guideline that merge notices should stand seven days before being put through. JDoorjam Talk 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subpage referencing the five day (sorry, said seven), is Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, stating "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so." Jtmichcock 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it or Delete it. Its ridiculous and unacceptable as an article on its own. Articles like this hurt Wikipedia Bwithh 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like many people, I put butter on my bread before applying cheese. I am off to write Butter on my bread. Anyone who wants to verify the "phenomenon" can come to my place around five, when I will be buttering my bread. Grace Note 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Bread and butter (actual article). Jtmichcock 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a redirect to employment. Jtmichcock, you gotta admit it really looks like consensus is forming toward the redir to hot dog. I can understand that, as the article's creator, you might be somewhat attached to it, but this article is redundant and makes for a strange off-shoot. JDoorjam Talk 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand. What's the rush? Are you threatening to do something with the article before the time is up? Jtmichcock 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, I don't like edit wars and I certainly don't like threats -- both tend to be uncivil, counterproductive, and really, not all that fun. I think everyone involved in the discussion would much rather have you onboard for the redir. JDoorj a m Talk 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]