Talk:Big Mac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image

The Current image features a Big Mac that appears to have been stepped on. The top bun is concave and the lower second patty is not visible. If the previous image was to perfect I understand, but this picture seems to be deliberately uglified. Can't we get a nuetral Big Mac photo? --Murphoid 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think the photo here is an unrealistic representation of an actual Big Mac? Looks more like the idealised food photography that is used in the marketing material to me - an actual Big Mac is much flatter and soggier, and sort of greyish in colour. An actual Big Mac does not contain anything qute so green and fresh looking, either. Graham 23:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd love to see a real picture. If I ever get one of these horrible burgers again, I'll take a picture and put it on the Commons. Bungopolis 06:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have finally got around to taking a picture of a real Big Mac. (It was consumed after photography by my daughter as her contribution to Wikipedia!)--AYArktos 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good on yer - but shades of John Gummer? You brute!!!Graham 05:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Any objection to replacing the picture with an AMERICAN Big Mac? One that comes in the cardboard case. Reiver 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't. The basic sandwich looks the same, and I suspect that if it was shown in the box, the sandwich itself would be less visible. -- Hawaiian717 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• And what is wrong with an Australian Big Mac, this is an international encyclopaedia and some of us are very sensitive to any intimations of Imperialism :-) --A Y Arktos\^talk 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

while the original picture up was clearly a stylized one, the new image looks nothing like a big mac that hasn't been purposely made to look like that... is there a more realistic and less disgusting picture that someone who DOESN'T hate mcdonalds wants to put up? 1337wesm 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that 480 is 14% lower than 540?

The picture looks realistic enough to me, but a better looking photograph is certainly possible. I don't think a promotional photograph would be a good replacement though, not least for copyright reasons.--Eloil 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added a new picture of a Big Mac. It was purchased in Croatia, and it doesn't look like someone sat on it. I think it's a good solution for a realistic photograph that isn't terribly disgusting. 147.226.45.98 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i went through all of the various languages of wikipedia and found, as of today's date (07/26/09), the following pictures depict Big Macs:

• 
  US (Louisvile, Kentucky) Big Mac Combo (Apr/09)
• 
  Big Mac from Velika Gorica, Croatia. (Jul/08)
• 
  Japan. (Dec/07)
• 
  Japan 2. (Dec/07)
• 
  Japan 3. (Dec/07)
• 
  Big Mac from Tokyo, Japan. (Oct/06)
• 
  Big Mac from Canberra, Australia. (Aug/05)

Although I'm happy with the Croatian one. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Info box

I added a snazzy info box template that I'm working on for foods' nutrition information. You might not want to read it while eating a Big Mac, though... ;-) Miraculouschaos 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do the ingredients and quantities apply universally - the Big Mac is an international product. I know they are standardised, but by that much?--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this info is from McDonald's own site. It may be applicable only to the US market, though.Miraculouschaos 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As it turns out, I just checked McDonald's Australia website, and there are a few differences. The Big Mac has 80 calories less in Oz, for instance. Hmm, we'll have to figure out a way around that. Miraculouschaos 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The Australian info is at http://www.mcdonalds.com.au/PDFs/NutritionInformation.pdf I am sure McDonalds aroound the world has national sites. The Australian Big Mac claimes only 480 cals compared with the US. Sodium is for example 800 mg cf 1010 mg. Altogether a lesser burger obviously.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

International comparisons

Given the differences in size and composition between the Australian and US burgers, it might be interesting to produce a table of these differences. It would not contain the full details included in the info box but some key ones. For example:

Comparisons of the Big Mac standard nutritional values in different countries (% = % or recommended daily allowance)

Country	Serving size (weight)	Calories	Carbohydrate	Protein	Total fat	Dietary fiber	Sodium	Reference
Australia		480	36.2g	25.3g	24.9g		800mg	[1]
France		492	38.9g	26.2g	25.8g	4.2g	0.9g	[2]
Malaysia	209g	484	46g	26g	23g		730mg	[3]
India - West Zone (Chicken Maharaja Mac)	255g	573	54g	32g	26g			[4]
United States	219g	560	47g (16%)	25g (45%)	30g (47%)	3g (14%)	1010mg (42%)	[5]

--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some countries do not appear to have nutritional information readily available. To save research - I will note as I find. I will also note their local special hamburger.

Country	Reference	Local special hamburger name
Guatemala	http://www.mcdonalds.com.gt/	Quesoburguesa
India North Zone	http://mcdonalds.net.in/mcd/corp/index.htm - broken links to "Our food"

--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mega Mac

Has been availible in Ireland for far longer than stated... where i work has sold it since it opened in 2005 and i have seen it at least in 2004 in a different maccy d'sOwwmykneecap 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1010mg

Isn't 1000 miligrams the same as one gram? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.235.1.34 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Yes but 1010 mg is not the same as 1 gram other than approximately--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. I now used 1.01g. More accurate. 67.188.172.165 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

but not probably an appropriate unit for the quantity - why didn't you leave it alone? You will see from the source that sodium is not measured in grams in this case (or usually for food) but mg.--Golden Wattle ^talk 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the table of nutritional values, it says "Salt" in the table and some of the values there do indeed appear to be for sodium chloride, but some are just for sodium - 2200mg sodium chloride isn't the same as 2200mg sodium. The table fails in that the values can't actually be compared across countries 130.88.150.39 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to decide if we're going to use Sodium or Salt in the grid. As the total mass of salt is 2.5 time its sodium content we need to be specific as to what we're representing. Most of the values are set as the Salt content not sodium. We need to be consistant and retain the phrasing Salt unless we change the values to the sodium amount otherwise it's misleading. Sodium Chloride is the chemical name for salt (not just sodium) but when dealing with food I think it's correct to use "Salt" instead. Danno81 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of nutritional information - liberal bias?

An editor from an IP address 209.94.161.136 (talk · contribs) removed the nutritional information from several hamburger articles with the edit summary: Deleted nutrition information, which shows a liberal bias. I don't think the edits are in line with wikipedia policies. If the editor thinks that the inclusion of verifiable information which has been reliably sourced does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, he needs to explore this on the discussion pages and explore how to resolve the issue.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be re-added. I think it's been removed because it puts a bad light on the food when people see what they contain. I assume this was done under the instruction of McDonalds? It wasn't discussed here and it was a major change. The information is still fact, and I belive it's important fact. Danno81 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the information as it's relavent. If anyone has a good reason to remove it please discuss it here. Otherwise I will simply add it again. This is factual information and there are different types of big mac so this is a good comparison table with useful factual information. Please check and confirm the values in the table, however don't remove it completely without a discussion and a valid reason to do this. Danno81 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

liberal bias lol, raw facts don't have a bias TrevorLSciAct (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but the decision of whether or not to include certain facts can indicate bias.Bishop^ (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Dietary Laws

As far as I know, the dietary laws which prohibit the eating of beef are not part of Islam.

Is there Bacon in the big mac? or some other pork? Otherwise it would not make sense that it would be offlimit to muslims. Jews don't eat pork either (many). - Abscissa 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is not the Big Mac itself but the grill used for cooking meat may (or more likely will) be used to cook bacon as well. Also, McRib or any other burger using pork patties may use the same grill. --Revth 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty ignorant that people would get offended that their meat is halal, would these same ignoramii complain if it was kosher? If you don't believe in a religion it's "magic" doesn't effect you. 64.228.0.141 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy values

The energy values should be kilocalories, not calories--Darin-0 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but there is some confusion, the US McDonalds says it's calories, Germany says it's kcal (which is correct). Also, some of the facts have changed. For instance, Germany's Big Mac is now with 495 kcalories (instead of 503). Grinder0-0 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong amount of calories

Nutrition Facts Serving Size 1 sandwich (215.0 g)

Amount Per Serving Calories 576Calories from Fat 292 % Daily Value* Total Fat 32.5g50% Saturated Fat 12.0g60% Polyunsaturated Fat 2.8g Monounsaturated Fat 14.1g Cholesterol 103mg34% Sodium 742mg31% Total Carbohydrates 38.7g13% Protein 31.8g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipping The Knot (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ingredients

I've changed the page so that it does not use the ad song to give the ingredients for the Big Mac, as this is obviously inappropriate in several ways. It is not neutral, as it is using McDonalds-provided material in place of Wikipedia-provided material, and it does not meet WP:FU requirements, as it is either trademarked and/or copyrighted, and thus can not be used unless it is irreplaceable, etc. Thus, it can only be used when used specifically to discuss that song, not to discuss the actual ingredients of a Big Mac. 76.100.162.31 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's never been acknowledged by anybody that special sauce was thousand island dressing and it doesn't even taste the same anyway. I thought this article was supposed to be based on facts and not guesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.244.21 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was recently added and it was unsourced so now it is deleted. MrMurph101 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not Thousand Island, but the ingredients are listed on the container to the Big Mac Sauce tubes if anyone cares64.140.0.3 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Extended Nutrition Values

  Grade = B-

carb 13	pro 63	fat 50

Merge proposal (Special sauce to Big Mac)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was Merge due to apathy

Honest truth, does an ingredient need its own page? The special sauce is directly related to the Big Mac and doesn't need its own page. Where else does it fit in with McDonald's products?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I dunno, I think it should be separate... I actually looked up special sauce to know what it was not I don't wanna have to look through the Big Mac page to find the info on the special sauce. Seems like everything has its own separate page on wiki. Which in my opinion is a good thing, if the space is there, use it!!! But thats just my opinion, I'm sure you'll fight for yours i honestly don't care anymore and I'm over it as of.......now. Robkehr 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks and no real opinions against the merger. I am doing it - Jeremy (Jerem43 23:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't it normally considered good form to provide notice of the proposed merger at the other article too? PubliusFL 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you did put a merger tag on the other article. I mostly watched its talk page. Sorry! PubliusFL 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

US values only!!!

The whole page seems to be geared towards describing the US sandwich only. Can we please edit this to show ranges they cover globally? eg, not just saying it weighs 45g per pattie, but I believe we should say between 30g and 60g (these are not the true values for the patties, just trying to give an example) Danno81 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mini Mac

It was discontinued in Australia about five years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.123.173 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Invention

This article is flat wrong. It was invented near Pittsburgh. http://mcdonaldspghtristate.com/userfiles/big_mac_history.htm

I don't know where this other nonsense came from, but it is nonsense. 69.248.244.16 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a contributor that swears that his father worked with the woman in the story and that it was all true. I believe that he was the one that put that in. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Original Research is not sufficient on wikipedia. I've run into this myself a few times when editing articles about events I've been involved in. Bishop^ (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The McDonald's corporate website confirms this on their corporate history page. Updated the page with appropriate reference.Bishop^ (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo

While I applaud the realistic Big Mac photo, I have to say that it is no longer current. Big Macs in Australia now come in cardboard clamshell packaging, no wrapped up like a hamburger. The clamshell packaging would not cause the level of smooshiness you see on the photo used today, although it may result in the contents of the burger being shaken loose because it is no longer tightly wrapped. In which case as photo journalists you have to decide whether or not straightening up the Big Mac before photographing it compromises your photographic integrity or not. JayKeaton (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the big mac pic now is much better than before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.235.119 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the number of big mac that are solden in 2007

please tell me how many big mac were solden in 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.43.220 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

picture

why cant we use this http://www.corrupt.org/articles/big_mac/bigmac.jpg as the main picture? 80.44.254.170 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

monster mac

is that real? 80.44.254.170 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Salt or Sodium in the comparison grid

We need to decide if we're going to use Sodium or Salt in the grid. As the total mass of salt is 2.5 times its sodium content we need to be specific as to what we're representing. Most of the values are of the Salt content not sodium. We need to be consistant and retain the phrasing Salt unless we change the values to the sodium amount otherwise it's misleading. Sodium Chloride is the chemical name for salt (not just the word sodium as that is different altogether) but when dealing with food I think it's correct to use "Salt" instead. Danno81 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, sodium is always used in nutriotional values. I've never seen salt used Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see both depending on the product. A lot of items use sodium and alot also use salt. The values in the grid are mostly salt values rather than sodium. If the column was again changed to sodium then the values would need to be adjusted to match.Danno81 (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked on the McDonnalds website and they use Salt as their value and not sodium. The site is a little difficult to navigate but if you look here http://www.mcdonaldsmenu.info/nutrition/ourmenu.jsp and click the key symbol on the list on the right you can see their symbol for salt. If you then look at the list of nutritional values you can see they state the content in grams of salt and not sodium. Danno81 (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the European site, with European data. The US site (http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal/nutrition_facts.html) uses sodium, as per FDA labeling requirements. There is no set standard for the EU (according to the GDA FAQ at the link you provided), so they came up with a proprietary list, and used salt, rather than the more precise sodium level. Most sodium intake is from salt, but other compounds include sodium as well; it's not clear if the sodium they provide is included in the "salt" level on the McDonald's chart. FWIW, the Canadian and Australian sites also use sodium values. Horologium (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... tough one. If the official values are shown as either depending on country or region then we might have to find a way to express both, maybe 2 columns, one for Salt and one for Sodium, or have one in italics and one standard or something to distinguish between them? Danno81 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no request for protection?

I discovered this article today, and looking through the edit history, it is obvious that this article was bombarded by IP vandals over the last month, yet it has never been protected. The insane level of vandalism that occurred during the second week of October would have made this a cinch for semi-protection. Did any of the people watching this page go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for protection? This article is still not entirely fixed from all of the vandalism (I found some from 9 October, and another editor just fixed some more). Don't hesitate to ask an admin to protect the page (or block a persistent vandal) if a page gets attacked. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Error on page

This used to be correct but the page is now in error. The actual inventor of the Big Mac was Jim Delligati.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_523320.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.77 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error: Big Mac Inventor, Source included!!!!

{{editsemiprotected}} The Big Mac was invented in Uniontown, Pa. in 1967 by Jim Delligatti, one of Ray Kroc's earliest franchisees. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/mcd_history_pg1/mcd_history_pg3.html Notpda1 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Notpda1

Corrected! Thanks for the information! --DA Skunk - (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Big Mac/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There are incongruent claims on this page in regards to the number of calories in the Bigmac (USA). The sidebar states 540 kcal, while the "Nutritional Value's" section says it's 650 kcal. Which is it?

Last edited at 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)