Talk:Cheesesteak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schuylkill water makes Amoroso rolls special?[edit]

I'm moving this here. It's been marked unreferenced since March 2008 but has been in the article, unreferenced, for far longer than that.

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh-heh, I've heard it's the "limestone" in the water. Ah, food mythology!--BillFlis (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Philly winners[edit]

Yeah, I know Philly Mag gets a fair amount of local attention from their awards, but is this really encyclopeadic? Surely there are other local press outlets doing similar "work". I personally don't pay much attention to them. Do they get coverage outside of their own magazine? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of including the "Best of Philly" winners was to set an objective, verifiable criterion for inclusion of cheesesteak restaurants... and therefore to give an objective criterion for throwing out all the drive-by additions of people's local faves. Why did you delete Sam's Steaks? Because it's not in Best of Philly. Not in Best of Philly, not in the article. Easy, simple, two different editors can agree on the criterion.
Without such a criterion, what do you do? Not mention any of them? Not even Pat's and Geno's? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with the other articles[edit]

That are about essentially the same thing. Steak sandwich, Italian beef, French dip sandwich. BillyTFried (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French dip is nothing like cheesesteak. --Bobak (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user "Bobak"; these are all distinct things when made properly. True, there are many places outside Philadelphia that claim to make "Philly cheesesteaks" that turn out to be closer to French dips, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The use of "Philly" strikes me as a false attempt to imply authenticity, sort of like the place I saw in Copenhagen that called itself "Manhattan Deep Pan Pizza House"! I also note that the article about "Italian beef" specifically identifies said sandwich with Chicago, which further suggests a difference. I think the current setup in which the links to other Wikipedia articles include the other sandwiches you've mentioned is a perfectly reasonable solution. 1995hoo (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are useless unless you go to the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So copy them there, as the box above said you intended to do. 1995hoo (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. I already did for those who originally posted here. The notice is in regards to any further discussion, ie you. If you make a comment here, your voices won't be heard in the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

This article has a lot of problems; I have corrected several of them but it is still of poor quality.

Here are some things I found wrong:

  1. WP:Not violations
    1. The list of award winning cheesesteak is a violation of WP:Not a directory.
    2. The instructions on how to cook a cheesesteak violated WP:Not an instruction manual ie a cookbook
  2. WP:OR
    1. The section on "imitation" cheesesteaks at Quiznos and Subway is pure WP:synthesis
    2. The commentary about why cheesesteaks not being authentic because only rolls from one bakery can be used is also unsupported opinion
No, it's not. It's well supported opinion, that was sourced until someone removed the source. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an opinion, thus violates WP:NPOV guidelines. Jeremy (blah blah...) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Massive WP:NPOV violations and weasel words are spread throughout the article.
  2. Parts of it read like an essay on the sandwich and its cultural place in Phily.
  3. Large parts of the article are uncited

It borders on trying to be a travel guide on explaining the culture of Philadelphia; this article is about the sandwich. It should have a history section, a description of the sandwich with its variants and a section on some of the famous restaurants. That is it. No etiquette section, no commentaries on how you can't get a real one outside Phily or how sandwiches with or without a particular ingredient list don't qualify. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards of WP:NPOV.

Because of the problems I have downgraded the article's rating to C-class. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has a perpetual problem with drive-by additions of unsourced material. However, you've thrown out some babies with the bathwater. The list of award-winning cheesesteaks, for example, is there for a reason. Before we had it, there were constant additions of people mentioning their fave cheesesteak places. I suggested that restricting the list to "Best of Philly" winners was a way to keep the list verifiable, and an objective way of deciding what places got included.
Now that the "Best of Philly" list has been eliminated, I expect that the article will again experience rapid addition of personal favorites, and that some people who add them will feel justified in edit-warring with people who remove them, because there is no longer any objective criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Not, specifically Wikipedia is not a directory, that is the only object criteria that should be used. Additionally this could be a copyright violation as it is the work of a magazine. Please remember, this is not an article about Philadelphia or restaurants in Philadelphia - it is a article about a sandwich. The whole thing needs a rewrite from the lead down. Read the lead and then the article, they are two different things. This should not be an article about Philly and its culture, it should be an article about a sandwich with origins in Philly akin to the cheeseburger article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've never been in Philadelphia and have no Philadelphia connections. I base all my editing actions in this article on what I read in good sources. Balance in the article is a legitimate matter of editorial judgment. But the idea that there should be no reference at all to Philadelphia culture and context in an article about Philadelphia cheesesteaks is extreme. The dish is as tied to the locale as any food can be. One might as well suggest that New Orleans is irrelevant to the article on Oysters Rockefeller. Please see WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that there's anything wrong with mentioning that, like it or not, the most prolific makers of Cheesesteaks are the large GLOBAL chains Quiznos and Subway. It's not up to us to decide what constitutes a "Real" or "Imitation" Cheesesteak. And if you happen to live in Tokyo or Berlin, the fact is that you DO NOT need to travel to Philadelphia or even America to try a Cheesesteak yourself. If Subway makes "Imitation Cheesesteaks" then McDonald's makes "Imitation Hamburgers" but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that all mention of McDonald's should removed from the article on Hamburgers. The same should go for this article.BillyTFried (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that complicated. "The sandwhich has grown in popularity yada yada yada and versions of it can now be found throughout the world/at chains/wherever".Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I have already re-added the section I wrote up on their global availability that had previously been removed. BillyTFried (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. You removed all the names of the continents. That's fine I guess. BillyTFried (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the company's menu's is also weird. It would be better to find reliable sources showing note worthiness for the trend in chains. Instead of using the menus, google news it and you will see tons of articles related to Doninos, McDonalds, Subway, Hardee's, and more. These news sources offer a better context and more informaiton to the reader. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and related pages for info on the use, format (no space in between ref tags), and principles of citing sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: This aticle needs clean-up. Information is getting stuffed in with disregard to layout and guidelines to the point that it is a mess. The sandwhich description can be easily fixed by making it easier on the reader. There are two pretty decent sources that can be used to get it going: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090710/LIFE/907100334 http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_cheesesteak_cometh/page1 These will take care of all of the citation needed flags and give the reader some understanding as to what the sandwhich is.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheeses: This should be conolidated into the prose instead of 1 line subsections.
  • Sources: Editors need to try harder to find some that improve and verify the information provided by the article. These should be put in a better context for the reader
  • The cheesesteak wars could info could use expansion Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one. This is from the Food in Philly catagory listed at the bottom of the page. Try doing some poking around and you will find much better sources than expected: Brookes, Karin; John Gattuso, Lou Harry, Edward Jardim, Donald Kraybill, Susan Lewis, Dave Nelson and Carol Turkington (2005). Zoë Ross. ed. Insight Guides: Philadelphia and Surroundings (Second Edition (Updated) ed.). APA Publications. ISBN 1-58573-026-2. Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be some description of chicken cheesesteaks, as those are more popular than most varieties on the article. --Kibadunno (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it WAS referenced... originally[edit]

Several different facts in the article were referenced to a single source, so a named "ref" tag was used, and the reference itself given only in the first of them. The remaining "ref" tag no longer referred to anything, so the fact it supported as removed as "unreferenced."

This is the third or fourth example I've run into in which editor A removed a valid reference, usually through carelessness or clumsiness, and then editor B removeds the fact as unreferenced. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, but it's pretty frustrating.

Quite a few sources say that the rolls used in Philadelphia are important. This is suggested by the fact that some restaurants outside Philadelphia go to the effort of having Philadelphia-baked rolls shipped to them. That's verifiable, too, but I don't have the time to track it down now. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither clumsy or careless - the source was not reliable. That is just as bad as being unreferenced. I know exactly what I was doing when I removed them.--Jeremy (blah blah) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The images need some work. I do not know how to fit the ones in right now since they are too big for the text (my opinion not manual of style). The "how to order" sign is OK. It was under locations (which describes the "war" and is also a sign seen in other locations throughout the county. If it compliments the text it should be in. The images used could also be better. I will check to see if there is a commons page so that we can find some higher quality ones.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: For the sake of improving the prject, please add images to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheesesteaks[ before deleting so they are easily accesible to editor's in the future.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a picture of a vegetarian cheesesteak is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.73.211 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to order a cheesesteak[edit]

Anyone else think that there should be a section on how to order a steak in Philly? From personal experience, if you go up to the front of the line at Pat's or Gino's and if you don't know what you want, you get sent back to the end of said line. A simple section of the basics (wiz wit, wiz witout) would be cool, especially for the Philly locals that are tired of tourists taking 3 minutes to order a simple wiz wit, ya know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.252.155 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably not. The specific procedure for ordering a specific cheesesteak at a specific restaurant likely falls outside of the realm of what Wikipedia is designed for. See WP:NOT. Even though Gino's and Pat's are the most famous cheesesteak places, the quirks of each restaurant doesn't really belong in a general article on cheesesteaks. --Jayron32 05:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Philadelphia, lived here my whole life, and I'd go with not mentioning it. Philly locals don't order like that, and I hate the image the tourism market paints of the whole thing.--SexyKick 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] ref from the Inquirer for interest. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese steak page edits[edit]

(This discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SummerPhD&oldid=424972887 began at my talk page. As the discussion was solely about the article contents, I'm moving it here.)

Dear SummerPhd: The edits to the above page were made for the reasons given: the Olivieris did not invent the cheese steak, no matter popular attribution: the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century. They popularized it.

The edit attributing the popularity of Cheeze Whiz to Pat's introduction is not unsourced or unsupported. It simply condenses what is established elsewhere in the article. You want to trim that down to merely re-state that Pat introduced it and no more, be my guest.

The "Variations" subhead is a flytrap for all manner of variation. I had cheese steaks yesterday and today from two different places. You want me to list them, too? A cheese steak is a cheese steak: steak, cheese, onions, peppers and mushooms if you please. Going beyond that is not encyclopedic, it's fanpage stuff. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries do not summarize your edits. They should. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point made. I'll endeavor to do better. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the history directly above says "The cheesesteak was developed in the early 20th century" and the sources say the Oliveris are "credited with inventing" the cheesesteak. I've made this correction again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I find no source elsewhere in the article claiming Pat's introduced Whiz, I've added a {{cn}} tag for the moment. I've returned a reduced version of the varieties section, keeping only brief descriptions of the very common chicken cheesesteaks and pizza steaks, as sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of cheese in general and Whiz in particular has a bit of unsourced competing claims in Pat's_King_of_Steaks. Pending a source, I've removed it from this article. Further discussion re edits will go to the article talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I see you prefer a patently erroneous "sourced" claim to simple reality - as stated at the top of the History section - that the sandwich existed for some thirty to forty years before the Olivieris as credited with having "invented" it. This is preposterous, and thoroughly non-encylopedic editing. "Citing" an error does not make it so. Respectfully, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty to forty years (unsourced) before 1930 is no longer the "early 20th century" cited. 1930, as sourced, is. I'm moving this to the article talk page. Please respond there. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, move it. I'm done with it. "1930, as sourced, is". Is what? Transparently in error. Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1930, as sourced, is in the "early 20th century" (also cited). Your various claims, including the factually incorrect claims about what the article says ("Pat's introduction (of Whiz)... is established elsewhere in the article" and "the history directly above their mention establishes the sandwich existed at the end of the 19th century") are unsourced. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pat's did introduce whiz though...and I wouldn't even call it popular, as Pat's is just about the only cheesesteak place where whiz is the default cheese, instead of white american. Most places don't even offer whiz as a choice, just American, Provolone, and Mozzerella. You can find swiss cheese about as often as whiz. Whiz is what we use to make fun of foolish tourists.--SexyKick 09:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, at some point I'll have to take a better picture of a regular/normal cheese steak.--SexyKick 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have used some decent sources and have tons to pick from. I get that there is some dispute but am shocked that it is a big deal. "Source A says x. Source b says z". Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who introduced what and what is common are all moot points without reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And which source says whiz is common? I've started to ask most vendors in the street (center city Philadelphia) if they have whiz, and they don't.--SexyKick 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your study of Center City street vendors may someday be published as a resource on Center City street vendors, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Get it? Low brow food + high brow lit = humor. Har.) Anyway, the sources that were there covered the subject. Unfortunately, the tendency of newspapers to either kill off old web content or bury it behind a paywall have made those sources hard to get to. (Your local library can rustle them up, of course.) So, I added another source. Seems the Inquy looked into your vexation recently and placed whiz as the third most popular cheese (though a runaway favorite at some venues). In my search, I also found a number of reviews of shops outside of Philly trying to produce a Philly-style vibe (shipping in Tastykakes and such), with reviewers either pointing to the use of whiz as a sign of "authentic" or grousing about someone trying to "pass off" other cheeses in its place. Maybe it's offered mostly at spots with a decent tourist population. This would explain the food carts not bothering with the stuff. Further, food carts often don't have fries. Cheese fries with whiz seems common. If I ran a high-volume, cheesesteak heavy fast food joint, I would stop just short of encouraging whiz, as it stores well (in cans) and is easy to add after cooking (no mess on the grill, no need to cook to order). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of the out of the area reviews claiming whiz is obligatory: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Actually, the last one has the guys saying whiz is for tourists, but the seem to sell a good bit of it. Frankly, I hate the stuff. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is relieving to see articles that mention those things. The sourced poll article even mentions Larry's, my personal favorite, though it's actually on 54th street (54th and City Line Ave, which 54th turns into "Old Lancaster Ave" once you pass City Line Ave, the real Lancaster Ave does not have a Larry's on it at all).--SexyKick 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about the Lehigh Valley version, as the citation was from 2008 but did not state what was presented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.105.197 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

File:PatsCheesesteak.jpg is superior to File:Cheesesteak3.jpg. More detail and more common cheese. I am reverting based on BRD and precedent for the previous one even though it looks like a stupid edit war is starting.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as per our discussion and sources in the article, whiz is not the more common cheese, it's 3rd place. The picture that was in the article is much more accurate for what cheesesteaks actually look like, until Val changed it we were doing fine here with no issues. I also disagree that a picture with a sharpness filter is higher quality. We can easily add the same sharpness filter to any other picture.--SexyKick 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with SexyKick's reasoning here: the more common cheese wins. (Additionally, by not including brand-identifying trappings, it avoids unnecessarily bringing up one side of a petty local feud. The caption alone is problematic.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiz is popular even if a poll said otherwise. I as not aware provolone was also popular but the source does not say definitively as I read it. Note the articles use of historic versions without cheese or different cheese and that it is not a "runaway favorite" which implies that it is still a favorite. That is why the article was written in the first place. It is commonly believed that it is the most popular even if it might be a misconception according to some very weak data.
  • But disregarding that reasoning altogether, since this is more important: the one you suggest is not clear. The toppings are not showcased which leads to ambiguity. If you provide a picture with provolone that shows more detail then I might agree You uploaded File:Cheesesteak2.jpg but its frame is all off so it is not as quality of an image. And File:Cheesesteak1.jpg is not clearly representitive since it has extra cheese, thus not showing a common version that emphasizes one ingredient over others.
  • Furthermore, I believe showing a sandwich from a shop that is discussed in the article makes sense. I understand your fear of promotion but it is a knee-jerk reaction to illustrating something discussed in the article and sources in great depth. Reducing what could be seen as promotion in the caption is fine with me even if I do not think it is 100% necessary. We should be concerned about SexyKick engaging in just as much promotion if promotion is a concern. Note the images he has uploaded say "Larry's Steaks - Home Of The Bellyfiller". Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I didn't think about the promotional implications when I wrote that in there. I'll just delete the mention of Larry's, I was just following suit from what I saw on the Pat's/Gino's uploads.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is not a weak source by any means, and while Whiz is the most popular at Pat's and Gino's, they happen to only be two places out of thousands in the city.--SexyKick 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the summary is too over the top (it might be a good idea to remove the "Home of the..." bit.
I didn't say the source was weak. I said the poll they used provided weak data. I can find plenty of sources that back a claim that Whiz is the most popular. See The New York Times piece in the article. But that is not the only reason for the reversion. The image simply does not show the sandwich as clearly as the one you replaced. This isn't about elevating one shop over another. It is about illustrating the subject as clearly as possible. I would not disagree with it in the article but the lead image should be the one of higher quality.Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the peripheral toppings should be showcased, I don't really think we should show an open cheesesteak either, as most of the time the sandwich is closed. That's why I didn't go with cheesesteak2, which could just get a sharpness filter like the Pat's image to make it more "detailed". The Pat's picture isn't high quality just because of a sharpness filter, if anything that makes it tacky, and as the lead picture is extremely misleading, since out of nearly all cheesesteaks I've eaten in my life, none of them looked like that (and I've lived in Philadelphia my entire life, and it's one of my favorite foods to be clear).--SexyKick 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was not clear, I don;t mean additional toppings. I just meant the cheese and meat. I do disagree that the sharpness does not make it superior. I think the sharpness and frame make it much better. The closed v open argument makes sense. However, an image you uploaded (I put it in the cheese section already) is an example of how the camera getting a better angle of the inside of the sandwich makes it a more descriptive image.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about this? I think it is Provolone (it could be white American?). It has an angle that I think is superior to the others. The clarity is good enough for me if it makes a compromise possible.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel too good about that one either. Cheese goes under the steak, unless there's extra cheese specifically requested on top. We don't want to perpetuate the "upside down Boston cheesesteak" (an actual thing that exists at a random Boston corner store deli called Alexander's, that picture looks just like it). We should keep with Cheesesteak3 for now.--SexyKick 01:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are now edit warring. And if you consider the first removal a revert (it did alter someone else's) then you are officially in violation of 3/rr. I am at 3 but have not crossed the line. I would prefer to simmer down and not think that way though.
I have reverted until you come up with another idea or seek further dispute resolution. Simply hitting revert over and over won't cut it. You have not sufficiently refuted the argument that the image you took is not as good as the one already in. You have instead jumped primarily on the which cheese is better argument. You can tell from the sources alone that is not a good argument since both are common (Cheeze Whiz is so common that a contrary article had to be taken with a single unscientific poll as "proof"). I don't care which cheese is shown. I don't care which shop gets a word in. I do care that your image is not good enough.
Instead of edit warring, you can take a better picture tomorrow or we can even open an RFC with multiple images up for discussion. Stop reverting since it is lame (I'm doing it too!). We can wait a couple days to come to the best solution.
And why was a second picture removed. It is common for multiple images to be in an article especially when it pairs with the text and is inline with the MoS. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Summer concurred with me...and since it's still the most accurate image we have, your opinion of it being "not good enough" is not shared, and is even mirrored with my opinion of the current picture. I don't know why the second picture was removed, but I agree we don't need more than one in the article since there is a link to the commons gallery.--SexyKick 06:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion was based on the cheese thing. I offered an image with white cheese. He actually kept the image when it was reverted but adjusted the caption. You then decided to make it about how the cheese is loaded. If your argument is how the cheese is loaded you need to look at the images you provided since they are similar. I don't know why you are moving the needed goals around. There has been sufficient reasoning given to you as to why your image was not good enough. I failed to say that it actually looks like a some junk in some smooshed bread (I believe it tastes good but am just saying what it looks like). That is just as good of a reason. It looks so poor that it detracts from the article. Instead of edit warring in your preferred picture (that you took and that contains marketing in the edit summary) you should take the opportunity to get a better image or open an RFC instead of edit warring. And if you do not understand that it is common to illustrate articles then you need to go look at some FAs. There was room to add in one of the images you actually took. For you to prefer not using it since it did not get top billing is something not een worth discussing. Go look at the MoS. So do you want to open an RfC or should I do it for you? Neither of us can revert anymore withou getting blocked so I assume you will be up for that option.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "just as much promotion" argument is, on the face of it, absurd. A photo with a brand name in the photo and in the file name (and the caption added with it) is clearly far more promotional than one that merely includes the name of the shop in the file description. (Adding the mutually beneficial feud mentioned in this article amplifies this concern.)
That one or the other looks "smooshed" is a bad argument. While I understand the desire for "good looking" images, most cheesesteaks are served rather rapidly. As a result, they're often served somewhat sloppily (we really should replace that photo at Big Mac to reflect what a real Big Mac looks like...).
Toppings... whatever. Every sandwich article I could think to check shows the sandwich closed (not "open face") as that is how they are eaten. A somewhat disheveled photo is more realistic. (Ever get one to go? They look like hell.)
As for the budding edit war, the process is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, discuss, undo revert...". While you are both in the wrong, the first misstep was returning the "new" image.
Of the images currently available, I !vote for the File:Cheesesteak3.jpg image. This is based on the cheese (as sourced, over opinion), the promotional aspects of File:PatsCheesesteak.jpg and a few trivialities. If a "better" photo is uploaded later, we can certainly discuss it at that time. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second the vote for File:Cheesesteak3.jpg--SexyKick 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done voting?--SexyKick 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not voting. a "!vote" is a "not-a-vote". As you two have had a bit of an edit war on this, I'm not touching it for a few days, to allow for cooling off and any additional comments. Failing any policy/guideline based discussion to the contrary, though, I'm switching the images back in a few days (unless anyone else takes action first, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this massive edit war that was sparked due to my revert. Just to put in my two cents, the current picture is not descriptive, in fact one can barely tell what type of sandwich this is. The meat and cheese is barely shown. Whiz and American are the primary choice not provolone. Some may argue that American is more popular than Whiz, however in Philly whiz is still considered primary. Regardless the Pat's photo is vastly more detailed and accurate of a Cheesesteak than the Larry's photo. Valoem talk 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: [8] This citation shows that Whiz is in fact the primary choice in Philly. Nowhere have I ever seen provolone as the main choice (not saying people don't request it). Also suggesting that only Geno and Pat's uses cheese whiz is completely false. Tony Luke's and Jim's have Whiz as their primary choice for customers. Steve's also offers it therefore the cheese argument does not hold. Secondly unlike Tomato pies vs pizza how cheese is put on a cheesesteak is not defined. Some places do put cheese last, although I am aware that most do not. Valoem talk 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "cheese is barely shown" but the "wrong" cheese is a concern? As for provolone being the "wrong" cheese, you provide GPTMC's flat statement that "Generally, the cheese of choice is Cheez Whiz, but American and provolone are also common choices." as an indication that Whiz Is The Way. The Inquy article cited, however, offers data specifically aimed at that flat claim (for the record, I rarely indulge but I choose American). To this you add that Peno's/Gat's, Tony Luke's and Jim's have Whiz "as their primary choices" (whatever that means, there are certainly shops that don't offer Whiz at all). Whatever. IMO, we need a photo that does not promote anyone, especially a side in the little tourist spat at 9th and Passyunk. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually responding to your claim "the most common cheese wins" by showing that based on that guideline American and Whiz are more common. Regardless, SexyKick's defense of the current image shows some bias as he took the image himself. I neutrally believe that the Pat's image is clear and better portrays a cheesesteak. I have not seen any solid defense of the current image and it seems that the consensus is in favor of Pat's image. I will do a bold restore if there are no issues while avoiding any promotion. Valoem talk 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does Pats picture better portray a cheesesteak if 90% of the cheesesteaks from other resturants, food carts, and elsewhere in the country look completely different???--SexyKick 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they look completely different? Do you have a citation providing this claim? Here is a list of cheesesteak images [9] each of them provide a better picture than the one on the article and look completely different. Valoem talk 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this picture to be the most accurate from the google results. You have to keep in mind that most sites are going to try to make this appear overly elegant and high class, when in reality the sandwhich looks most like the one pictured in the article. No one wants to profile a picture from some common cart or random Philadelphia pizza place, but I think this article should profile the common Philadelphia cheesesteak, not the tourist trap Philadelphia nonsense. I can assure you, most people in Philadelphia laugh at tourists who buy into that "wit whiz" lunacy.--SexyKick 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I didnt replace the Pat's image was because the logo is in fact image and therefore would be a promotion. I am personally a fan of Tony Luke's and Jim's, but I found this image File:Cheesesteak1.jpg to be much better so hopefully we agree. Valoem talk 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't agree, but I guess I'm going to need to take some more pictures since half of you demand an open faced picture and I regret that special order.--SexyKick 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying away from which is "right" and which is "wrong" in regards to cheese. The whole matter is wholly subjective, thus cannot be claimed by any means by anyone. It should only described as being a matter of opinion, as it is now in the article.
In regards to the matter of the picture, the image proposed by Valoem is much better in regards to composition over the second image. I think we should stay with the Pat's image and note what it is in the description of the image. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written in some spots.[edit]

This article doesn't flow properly. The most glaring example is the sudden insert of "Pat's and Geno's Steaks have a highly publicized rivalry. They are located across the street from each other on 9th Street and Passyunk Avenue in South Philadelphia." Geno's hasn't even been mentioned yet so the reader would be saying "Who is Geno?!" Just because it may be a fact, doesn't mean it belongs in an article and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean it can just be inserted anywhere. Articles should flow in an orderly fashion, not jump around with trivial facts inserted here and there. Trivial information doesn't always belong in an encyclopedia either. For these reasons, I am removing the sentence. Feel free to write a section on variations of the sandwiches and competition between restaurants. That would be better suited. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the random sentence removed the first mention of Geno's is even more jarring. Geno's probably should be mentioned here, especially considering its location and rivalry with Pat's - even if it's just touristy legend. I suggest someone familiar with the situation, preferably a Philly native, make mention of Geno's somewhere in the article, and put the rivalry/fame/tourist attraction thing in perspective.--ChasFink (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, per WP:ASTONISH. I can work on this clarification over the next few days (also, though IMO where you're from shouldn't matter, my family is from Kensington). But keep in mind, this is an article on the cheesesteak, not on the establishments or their rivalry. The articles on the establishments, Geno's Steaks and Pat's King of Steaks, are a more appropriate venue for expanding this topic. I'm planning on writing a few sentences, tops. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite[edit]

Are cheese steaks copywrited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.145.151 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright generally applies to literary and artistic material. For example, you cannot record a song someone else owns the copyright to without paying them royalties. The same would apply to copying movies, publishing books, reprinting photographs, etc. There is nothing to copyright about grilling chopped meat with some cheese and serving it on a roll. Various shops have likely trademarked their names, but that's a different issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a vegan cheesesteak[edit]

Cheesesteak

ingredients include: cheese, steak (meat).

Vegan cheesesteak includes neither cheese nor meat, therefore it is not a cheesesteak. Please delete the vegan cheesesteak entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.196.11 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does not have beef or cheese. Therefore, no one calls it a "cheesesteak". Instead, it is a vegan take on a cheesesteak. Independent reliable sources call it a "vegan cheesesteak". - SummerPhDv2.0 16:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not contain meat and cheese it is not a cheesesteak. 'vegan cheesesteak' should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.196.11 (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited is philly.com, publishers of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News. This is clearly a reliable source. The source says, "There are countless places in Philly where you can get a vegan version of the cheesesteak..." It is verifiable.
Additionally, you did not object to the inclusion of "chicken cheesesteak" which also lacks "steak". We also have a "pizza steak" which, lacking a crust, is not a pizza. Finally, "cheesesteaks" are often made without cheese. Heresies all around, but verifiable.
As the material is well sourced and you have not put forth a valid policy or guideline to support its removal, you will need to establish a consensus before removing it. Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After very brief discussion, you have begun simply removing the information without explanation, even after a WP:3RR warning.
The information on the "vegan cheesesteak" is very well sourced. Merely stating the it does not qualify as a cheesesteak -- presumably this your opinion -- does not allow you to decide the information should not be here. To have the information removed from the article, you will need to establish a consensus to do so.
As an alternative, if you can find reliable sources objecting to the use of the name or suggesting that others object to the name, we can certainly add that to the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a sandwich contains neither cheese nor steak it can't be a cheesesteak. Prove that statement wrong. A vegan version of a cheesesteak is not a cheesesteak, it is a sandwich. This is likea white woman deciding she is black. Deciding to call a vegan sandwich a cheeseteak doesn't make it one. It either is or isn't. A cheesesteak without meat or cheese is a sandwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.196.11 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other well sourced travesties: Guinea pigs, Grape-Nuts, hot dogs,, hamburgers, French fries, the non-pizza "pizza steak" and the clearly non-steak "chicken cheesesteak". Incidentally, a steak is a single cut of beef. Chop up a steak and you no longer have a "steak". Note the spelling of "Cheez Whiz". It isn't cheese. So a cheesesteak with Whiz is neither "cheese" nor "steak".
I get it, you want to protect the sanctity of a sandwich name from the sacrilege of common English usage. It's a noble calling. Unfortunately, so long as independent reliable sources disagree with you, Wikipedia will disagree with you. Perhaps you should pursue a retraction from Interstate General Media.
Good luck with your quest. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our IP cheesesteak crusader is back, protecting the sanctity of the word "cheesesteak". No new reasoning, other than "Nuh-uh", "because I said so" and the ever-so-enlightening "eat shit". New discussion is always an option. Edit warring is not. Any discussion or do we need page protection? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really giggled when I saw this on the talk page. As you are the only one asserting that this fiction exists, I think the "consensus" is against the idea that there is such thing as a cheesesteak that lacks both cheese and steak. I also think it's hilarious that after your exchange with that other editor almost a year ago, you're STILL here waiting to revert anyone else who attempts to clear such rubbish off WP. That's some dedication! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.183.1 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, you think I'm the same person as the other "crusader" you saw off earlier! That's even funnier! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.183.1 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funnier still: Some anonymous guy on the Internet insisting he's right and Philadelphia Inquirer is wrong and thinking he can guess what I had for lunch based on my trusting the newspaper over him.
On Wikipedia, article content is based on independent reliable sources. The Philadelphia Inquirer is a reliable source. Vice is not.
On Wikipedia, your guesses as to whether or not I love meat lovers' pizza far more than I should is completely irrelevant.
On Wikipedia, if you boldly make a change and another editor reverts you, it is time to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Edit warring is not acceptable. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Siding with Summer on this one.--SexyKick 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected the article. Let's all move along now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheesesteak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

slices?[edit]

This article states: "Slices of cheese are then placed over the meat..." Obviously if cheese wiz is being used, there'll be no cheese slices involved, so should just read "Cheese is placed over the meat..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.160 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues #1: image[edit]

We have, IMO, two problems here: the image and sources. First up, the image.

After a recent flip-flop, we've had three images essentially proposed here: "Pat's", "Foil", and "California"

From a while back, we also have: "#1", "#2", and "#3"

Without digging, IIRC, "Pat's" was here for quite some time. The last time this was actually discussed was 9 years ago, so we're probably due.

I start with the assumption that street cheesesteaks in Philly are cannon. Yes, you can get a "Genuine Famous Original Philadelphia Cheese Steak" in Boise, Cherry Hill or from Wendy's or Subway, but each is an interpretation of the Philadelphia commodity.

IMO, #1, #2 and #3 are all fairly terrible. They are reasonably authentic, but aren't great photos and generally don't show much of what a cheesesteak is.

Foil is a good photo and has no promotional aspects to it. However, I have no idea what that cheese is. Further, as a general rule, I've found the cheese (with the possible exception of Whiz) is usually placed on top of the cooking beef, the roll is added and the whole thing flipped. This generally leaves the cheese under the meat.

California is odd in a lot of ways. The photo I've labelled "Califor.nia" is also odd. I don't know when it showed up in the article and can't be bothered to look. I'm not sure what that roll is, the meat seems rather chunky and I don't know that I've ever encountered one of those baskets outside of a suburban hoagie shop. Outside of a basic plate at the Melrose, every cheesesteak I've had in the city has been on paper, foil or both. Hots and/or sweets are fairly common additions, but probably not on the majority sold.

Pat's certainly loses points in my book for being on the branded paper. Occasionally we get edits here inspired by partisan nonsense, but what can you do? I'm sure someone will say Whiz isn't "traditional" or whatever, and it certainly isn't available everywhere. All of that said, it is a canonical cheesesteak (to the extent that there is such a thing) and it's a good photo.

If anyone has a photo that they feel is better than any of these, feel free to add to the discussion. (A better photo, IMO, would omit the brand name and have American or Provolone. Or Dukakis holding one with Swiss in a tank, of course.)

Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in over a month, no one cared enough to comment, but someone went ahead and made a change that matched my opinion. I hereby declare myself a majority of one and approve the change until a better photo (or more discussion) comes along. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "this?" Standard insulation foil which the high quality cheesesteak places use, Amoroso roll, only the standard base toppings/nothing extra, sourced from the second oldest cheesesteak joint in Philadelphia, likely American cheese.--SexyKick 02:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it for deletion, as it is the work of a Philadelphia Inquirer photographer and they do not appear to have given us permission to use it. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #2: Sources[edit]

We have a few sources that are, IMO, less-than ideal.

Independent reliable sources are the standard. For the subject, that's generally going to be newspapers and magazines, along with respected foodie press and local history books, unless BMJ and Penn Press somehow find themselves with nothing to run because of the pandemic. (Oxford University Press, however, found time for the subject.)

Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation is promotional and should be used with caution. For a general definition, it's fine.

Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run paper. It's not ideal, but the claim that cheesesteaks pop up at high-end restaurants is hardly controversial.

Philly's Famous Cheesesteaks, Dalessandro's, Geno's, Sonny's, etc. are all individual shops. They all no doubt have opinions and interests in saying what a cheesesteak is/"should be". They have their own histories, competitors, etc. Each introduces it's own variations. None of them are telling us anything about the generic item, which this article is about. That McDonald's has something called a "Big Mac" doesn't make that a common variety of cheeseburger and "special sauce" a common topping.

If a "fact" about cheesesteaks only shows up at JimmyJoeBob's Cheesesteak Hut, it isn't a meaningful fact about cheesesteaks.

Thoughts before I start cutting some of this out? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, over a month, no comments, majority of one, blah, blah, blah. I hereby grant myself the power to ditch the individual shops as sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I assume you have seen a chicken cheesesteak, pizza steak, mushroom cheesesteak on a menu these are the basic menu items, these variation are notable enough to have individual articles. Valoem talk contrib 03:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To include them here, you will need to cite coverage in independent reliable sources. To create individual articles, you will need to cite substantial coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to build a reasonably detailed article about the variations. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a reasonable standard to hold these menu variations to. The chicken steak or pizza steak etc, won't only show up on JimmyJoeBob's menu, but on JimmyJoJo's, JoeyBobby's, and BobbyJoeJimboree's as well. They're common. Something so common is often unwritten of, which is a problem for WP's sourcing needs. It would be undue to source one private business's menu, and it would be unsightly to cite 5 instead of 1, as well as undue to cite 5 instead of 50. I think the common variations should stay up with tags that better sources are needed. I don't imagine they're notable enough to have articles, or even redirects to here, because while they're likely and obvious search engine terms, they're unlikely to be wikilinks in another article, but there should be anchor space here for these limited JesseRafe (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you feel we should include "common" variations without proper sourcing, but with tags asking for sources you don't think exist because you feel things that are common don't show up in sources.
I'm not seeing an inclusion standard there; I'm seeing an indiscriminate list. Picking the closest pizza shop I could think of to Pat's/Geno's, I got J&J's. They list 11 varieties of cheesesteak, (not counting the size variations). Looking at a place I ran into in Cherry Hill one day (which I cannot recommend), they list a dozen more (including the "turkey cheddar melt cheese steak"(?) and the "Chicken Philly Steak" with grilled onions, mushrooms, green peppers and provolone topped with mayo, lettuce and tomato. (Their "Philly Cheese Steak" also includes grilled onions, mushrooms, green peppers and provolone topped with mayo, lettuce and tomato.) These are all variations. They are not discussed in independent reliable sources not because they are "common", but because they are trivial individual shop's variations. It that Cherry Hill mess the same chicken cheesesteak you'll find elsewhere? Yes, I know where a "chicken cheesesteak" in Norristown will get you something very similar. Is it a "variation" that belongs here? I don't think so -- I have a far more basic "chicken cheesesteak" in my mind. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we source Cherry Hill or Norristown? Why not Tokyo or Mogadishu, too? Or, I don't know, Philadelphia? I see thousands of hits for chicken cheesesteaks, many of which have slight variations, but so do "cheesesteaks" or "peanut butter and jelly", so do these sandwiches not exist since there's one single way of making them? I didn't know J&J's was a real place, thought you made it up as a silly name, but I don't think the standard should be pizzerias or random places in New Jersey or random suburbs you've been to. I think the simple and actual existence of Chicken Cheesesteaks needs to be explained. Chicken meat is almost never called "steak". But when served in a long roll with melted cheese after heated on a flattop grill it is called "steak" because it's modeled on the cheesesteak, and the option of onions or peppers or toppings with lettuce or mayo are just options, not what makes it a steak. Any of the established recipe websites or tied-in to food TV shows, or even a chain like Tony Luke's, would be a good source, rather than Jimmy & Joey's pizzeria. JesseRafe (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would not cite places in Cherry Hill, Norristown, Tokyo, Mogadishu or 1177 S. 9th St. (less than a block from Pat's and Geno's) for one reason: they are primary sources. It has nothing to do with where they are or some kind of territorial claim Philly has on a sandwich.
Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what you "know". Wikipedia says what makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich based on what independent reliable sources say, not what a resident of Boston is sure of. (Julia Davis Chandler is credited with publishing the first recipe for a PB&J sandwich.) Wikipedia says what makes a cheesesteak based on what independent reliable sources say, not what a resident of Philadelphia is sure of.
Wikipedia also reports what independent reliable sources say about variations of the PB&J: the fluffernutter, Fool's Gold Loaf, Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich, etc. I cannot imagine that chicken cheesesteaks escape discussion in independent reliable sources because they are "common" when we have such a well-sourced article on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
If you would like to ignore WP:V -- one of the pillars of this project -- to add what you "know" or what your synthesis of primary of sources says, you've got a long row to hoe. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop gaslighting and strawmanning and learn how to disagree in good faith. I'm the one who proposed adding secondary sources and you're acting like I'm saying add the restaurants. All of those fluffernutters etc are not PB&Js -- that's my point. Those are other sandwiches, hence them having other names, albeit variations *on* the PB&J which is not variations *within* the concept of that sandwich. They're not even PB&J variations, but just peanut butter and something else sandwiches. Your argument is that sometimes a chicken cheesesteak has mayonnaise and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no specific makeup of one, so we can't say that it even exists. My analogy was sometimes a PB&J has grape jelly and sometimes strawberry, but that doesn't make them different sandwiches. Just because there is variation *within* an item, doesn't mean there's not a concept of the item and variations *on* the item are not pertinent. You actually made my point, because a fluffernutter is not called a "marshmallow PB&J", but has its own name whereas grilled chicken meat (which is not called "steak" in most varieties of English) is called a "chicken cheesesteak" when prepared thusly. If you like to pretend to have a PhD to bolster your pompous attitude, you should be able to understand the concept of Familienähnlichkeit and prototype theory, and realize that you need to stick to policy-based discussion, where I specifically said we should NOT include the restaurants' menus, and now you're arguing that that's my proposal. You're the only one bringing up individual locations and you're consistently acting in bad faith. Who gives a fuck about Pat's or Geno's? That's the second time you've brought them up, why? Because you think that they're the only people who make cheesesteaks? No, we don't need to include Pat's as a source or proximity to Pat's as any relevant criterion, so quit trying to shoehorn those places in. Please check your tone and hoe your own fucking row. JesseRafe (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While claiming I am using strawmen and gaslighting, please do not present a parody of my opinion and point out that a claim I did not make is crazy.
No, I did not argue that "sometimes a chicken cheesesteak has mayonnaise and sometimes it doesn't, so there's no specific makeup of one, so we can't say that it even exists." I am saying we need independent reliable sources -- not individual shops -- saying what each variation is to say anything about it. That's verifiability. For these variations to be "notable enough to have individual articles", as Valoem believes, we would need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. That's notability.
If you would like to say I am not engaging in "policy-based discussion", sandwiching it between claims that I "like to pretend to have a PhD to bolster (my) pompous attitude" and demands that I "check (my) tone and hoe (my) own fucking row."
The sources I removed were individual shops.[10] As Valoem has restored the primary sources and you, JesseRafe are arguing they should "stay up with tags that better sources are needed". I left them up for discussion without the sources saying we need sources. Arguing to leave them up with tags for better sources seems to imply the primary sources should be there until someone decides to look for something.
Here's my opinion in a nutshell: 1) Yes, variations exist. Lots of things exist, but most things are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia generally decides by the existence of discussion in independent reliable sources. 2) Individual shops anywhere (currently, we're citing one in Clearwater Florida) tell us nothing meaningful to this discussion. Those meaningless sources should not remain. 3) Disputed material without sources or based on subjectively selected primary sources should not be in the article. (Side point: I would be fairly stunned if "The Heater" is notable enough to have an individual article. Ditto the rest. Certainly looking for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for those proposed articles would also be a good way to find independent reliable sources to settle this dispute. Have at it.) - SummerPhDv2.0 05:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summer is obviously not arguing in good faith. This is sad, since he/she has apparently been hovering over this cheese steak article for more than 5 years. Really? 73.6.96.168 (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheesesteak&oldid=1217941185"