Template talk:American cuisine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-global

This template includes several articles that are international in scope such as Halal, Jewish cuisine, Immigrant cuisine, and Christmas dishes. Adding them to the American cuisine template is very americentric, and if the template is added to the articles, will clutter them up without offering more context. Remember that e.g. Christmas dishes are found in about a hundred countries around the world, and it would look awful to have a hundred "X cuisine" cluttering up the articleSjö (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

It's an American cuisine template, so there's no need for it to represent a global perspective. Also, that template is for articles, not templates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see not including it in Halal and Immigrant cuisine (though the latter is quite obviously American-centered and from that perspective). The template never was added to Jewish cuisine. As for List of Christmas dishes, it's perfectly fine to have it in the American section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Even articles about American matters need to consider the global perspective. An article about "X in the U.S." that's written as if X is a purely American phenomenon would have a non-global perspective. This template has that when it includes articles with an international scope. When there are articles about e.g. American Christmas dishes or Halal food in the U.S. please do add them to the template, but when the American part of the article content is minimal it doesn't belong there. It's misleading to the readers, and it's insulting for non-americans to see international concepts appropriated as parts of the American culture. For what it's worth, few of the cuisine by country articles have templates, but none of those that I've found (Canada, Britain and Turkey) include ethnic food, festivals or even ingredients that are not specific for the country or typical for the cuisine. Sjö (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the template, then, but don't tag it with {{global}} as that applies only to articles. As for whether it's insulting or not to include something here, people need to not be insulted so easily. The only articles included here are either directly connected or have sections specifically talking about the American cuisine. But, as I said, if you are truly offended by something, discuss it here. Far be it from me to offend you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Template image

I've removed the image of a hamburger and fries that somebody added to the template, as it was appearing in hundreds of articles that have nothing to do with either hamburgers or fries. While I'm sure there are some Americans in certain isolated areas of the country who think that a hamburger and fries represents the national cuisine, nothing could be farther from the truth. Please do not add it back. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please don't just barge in and make demands. A hamburger and fries are the epitome of what people around the world think of when asked about American food. You can thank McDonald's for that. If you have a suggestion for a better representation of American food, please make it. Just post the links to the pics. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but we don't add images or edit articles based on what an editor personally believes. You are free to do research on American cuisine, and cite reliable authors in the relevant field for your opinions, and then to persuade others that your opinion is correct, but you are not free to impose your opinion sans sources on a template used on many different articles. Since you have the burden of proof, we default to no image until there is agreement. Please feel free to propose images for this template in this discussion. Please do not, however, continue to impose an image without it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all please remember bold, revert, and discuss. I restored the image, and we should leave it until a consensus is reached. I personally agree that a burger and fries pretty much are associated with American cuisine despite their origins outside of the United States. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't add content to Wikipedia based on what stereotype you personally believe is correct or not. We add content to Wikipedia based on the best, most relevant and authoritative sources in the field. Surely, you read that in this discussion before and after you added unsourced content into a template that appears on many articles. And, unsourced content may be removed at any time. The burden of proof is on the editor adding unsourced content, as I've already pointed out. Without sources, we default to no image. Is that clear, or do you refuse to recognize V and NOR? Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

According to experts on the history of cuisine in America, if we include an image, it should be of corn. Betty Fussell writes: "Several years ago, many people were trying to answer the question of whether there is such a thing as an American cuisine. As I looked for an answer, it was so apparent that corn was the common thread in everything American. You find in corn the glue of our ethnic diversity"[1] Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a template, not an article - it doesn't have content, it doesn't need to be cited and it doesn't need to be verified for anything. It is a collection of intra-wiki links to articles that have associated content and that is it. The policies you are citing are for articles, not templates. There are very few quintessentially American dishes, and burgers and fries are the one true American dish that it know globally. While corn, along with potatoes and tomatoes, is a product of the Americas, people do not associate corn with American cuisine per se.

Secondly, you need to step it back. You are engaging in an edit war and have violated the three revert rule. You are ignoring policy (WP:BRD, WP:3R and others), and as an established editor should know better. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken on each and every point. I'll address them in order:

• We don't normally use sources in templates because templates generally represent noncontroversial content that is already sourced, such as naming conventions for things already in articles, categories, etc. These conventions are most certainly considered "content", and such things do need to be cited if they are challenged. There is no requirement that the citation must appear in the template, although I've seen that happen several times. In this case, the image is part of the information content of the template intended for presentation on related articles. You don't get a "free pass" from verification just because it is a template; that suggestion is laughable. All of our content policies apply to templates, it's just that we rarely have to apply them because templates are supposed to represent already existing sourced content.
• Your assertion that this is a debate over links is also wrong. We are clearly debating the unsourced inclusion of an image in a template that allegedly best represents American cuisine. I've asked for a source that says that. None has been provided.
• Your statement that there "are very few quintessentially American dishes" is also wrong, as is your statement that "people do not associate corn with American cuisine". In fact, as every American child learns in school, corn is the one food that best represents our cuisine, and this is supported by every textbook and relevant scholar on the subject of American food history and cuisine. This is also easily sourced, as I have done above.[2][3][4] Beyond corn, "the most recognizable American regional cuisine" is Louisiana Creole cuisine and Cajun cuisine.[5] The choice to represent American cuisine with "burgers and fries" is not just absurd, it isn't supported.
• Your statement that "burgers and fries are the one true American dish" that is known around the world continues to be an unsourced opinion promoting a stereotype. We don't do that on Wikipedia, as you've been previously informed. We always deal with sources for such statements, and just because you are making such a statement by including an image in a template, doesn't give you an exemption from our content policies.
• Your accusation that I have violated the 3RR is clearly false as the edit history demonstrates. Please stick to facts.
• My removal of an image intended to push an unsourced POV is supported by policy, specifically V. To quote V, "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." I know you are convinced that "burgers and fries are the one true American dish", but you should be able to find a reliable source for such a statement. Until you do, using Wikipedia templates to push POV isn't allowed.

If I missed something, feel free to let me know. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, as long as hot dogs, hamburgers, spaghetti and meatballs are there, I'm happy. :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's about right, and that's what the United States Department of State basically says in their 2004 publication.[6] However, I don't think a single image is going to work in the heading as it displaces all the lead images. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to show American Cuisine from a global viewpoint in a single picture, indeed the hamburger is the choice to represent the American Cuisine. Ask a foreigner about American Cuisine and (s)he will come up with McDonald. Sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The data shows a steep drop in domestic consumption and production of meat, with growth in restaurants flat while non-hamburger franchises are on the rise. A 2009 poll in the U.S. also shows that, for various reasons, hamburgers are not seen as "more American" than apple pie, hot dogs, bbq, fried chicken, french fries or ice cream.[7] Why would we show any cuisine primarily from a "global viewpoint"? Should we write about Dutch cuisine from the perspective of Tahitians? What you are really talking about is image and influence, and I'm sure there are relevant topics for that discussion, but I'm not sure this is it. Sure, modern fast food has been an American export since 1969, but recent publications say it is now a global phenomenon. Following your logic, I should blame the Dutch for the faulty optics in my Chinese-made telescope. Americans didn't invent fast food (See Cross 2004: "Britain's fish and chips, Vienna's kartoflen, Mexican tacos, Japanese sushi and taco-yaki") but they did improve upon it. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to write about the Dutch cuisine from the perspective of Tahitians. Describing it out of a worldwide view is good enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, need I remind you, your way of describing it from a "worldwide view" was to link me to a citation to a subscription-only Belgian newspaper? Per WP:V, please provide the text you claim supports the image. You're writing about American cuisine from a Belgian perspective. How is that helpful? Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you see it different then I do, but I see a fully available article with a load and clear picture of a hamburger. No subscription at all.

And referring to WP:V: you are the one that wanted the change, so you come up with the sources. Sp, please provide the text you claim supports the removal of the image. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is subscription-only on my end. Per WP:PAYWALL, please cite the part that supports the inclusion of the image. Please read and understand WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source". We don't try and prove negatives. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice, when I linked the article it was still free, but by now it is indeed paywalled. But what you can see of the article is clear enough: a photo of a hamburger, the header Minder calorieën in Amerikaans voedsel (English: Fewer calories in American food) and an intro-sentence In de toekomst zullen in het Amerikaanse voedsel minder calorieën zitten. Dat zijn zestien Amerikaanse voedselproducenten overeengekomen. (English: In the future, American food will contain fewer calories. Sixteen American food producers have agreed on that.) It shows that that Belgian newspaper makes the connection between "American food" and hamburgers. The full content is not really interesting, as it is a translation of an American artikel. Food Makers Agree to Cut 1.5 Trillion Calories is in fact the same article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please summarize your argument for inclusion in 1-3 short sentences. As far as I can tell, you're arguing, "I think the image should be included because there is a stereotype of Americans eating fast food, and Wikipedia needs to promote stereotypes." That argument fails to address the issue with sourcing, nabox usage, image placement, and readability. IMO, you're basically presenting a non-argument because you have failed to address the numerous objections to the image. Instead, you've focused on the promotion of stereotypes, which isn't a criteria for inclusion or even the subject of this discussion. For this reason, any accounting of consensus should either discount your input as off topic and irrelevant or give it a very, very low score. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Facts

• According to the American Meat Institute, the consumption of beef in the U.S. has been in decline since the 1970s, while chicken and turkey consumption has been on the increase. In 2007, per capita beef consumption was 65 pounds (33.2 was hamburger) while Americans consumed 86.5 pounds of chicken and 17.3 pounds of turkey per person.[8] According to 2012 data, beef consumption has dropped as much as 12% per capita since the 2007 numbers were released.[9]
• The average American directly consumes over 50 pounds of corn per year and more than 1450 pounds in total if you take into account the amount of corn fed to animals that are consumed per capita
• According to the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (2003), the early version of the hamburger originated in 15th century Europe, made its way to England in the 18th century, and then Colonial America. It is not a distinctly American phenomenon, but took off after the meat grinder allowed the preparation of ground beef in 1850. Sandwich-style preparation also made its way from England to the U.S. around the same time, but the first hamburger sandwhich wasn't known in the states until at least 1904. The first chains took off in the 1930s, after which it became a national phenomenon in the 1950s post-WWII era. However, today, the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture notes that the growth of hamburger outlets takes place outside the U.S., and "hamburgers are now a global food", no longer a uniquely American cuisine. More importantly, the encyclopedia notes that in the U.S. "hamburgers and fast food have been condemned almost from the beginning" and that "many Americans...consider the hamburger an unhealthy food".
• In its entry for the "United States", the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (2003) focuses on twelve types of cuisines unique to a culture, geographical region, and/or historical period unique to the country: African American Foodways, Cajun Cooking, California and the Far West, Ethnic Cuisines, Hawaii, The Middle Atlantic States, The Midwest, New England, Pennsylvania Dutch Food, Pioneer Food, The South, and The Southwest. In a discussion of all the different American foods in these twelve types, the word "hamburger" appears only once, in The Midwest section.
• Food historian Betty Fussell has made several statements on this topic about the fundamental importance of corn in the U.S. Regarding her work in The Story of Corn (1992), she said, "Several years ago, many people were trying to answer the question of whether there is such a thing as an American cuisine. As I looked for an answer, it was so apparent that corn was the common thread in everything American. You find in corn the glue of our ethnic diversity."[10] However, in her book, Raising Steaks: The Life and Times of American Beef (2008), she also said: ""Bred from both Spanish and British traditions, as well as from both Spanish and British cattle breeds, American beefsteak is more characteristic of our hybrid national identity than apple pie (which came from the English), popcorn (from the Native Americans), or the hamburger (German)...I didn't then realize that American beef had become as much an industrial by-product of corn as ethanol is."[11][12]
• Corn is mentioned in 11 of the 12 types of U.S. cuisines in the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (2003). These include: African American Foodways (maize, corn, cornmeal, corn bread, corn pudding), Cajun Cooking (corn, corn on the cob, corn bread), California and the Far West (table corn), Hawaii (creamed corn, Waimanalo corn), The Middle Atlantic States (cornmeal mush, cornmeal Welsh muffins), The Midwest (corn, cornmeal, corn belt, roasted corn, corn dogs), New England (corn, cornmeal, corn on the cob, cornbread), Pennsylvania Dutch Food (chicken corn soup, cornmeal), Pioneer Food (maize, corn on the cob, cornmeal mush, dried corn, hominy, samp, corn dodgers), The South (corn, corn pone and hominy grits, cornmeal porridge, skillet cornbread, hushpuppy), and The Southwest (corn tortillas, white corn, red corn, blue corn, yellow corn, green corn, tamales, corn husks, hominy, posole).
• "The United States did not invent fast food. From Britain's fish and chips to Vienna's kartoflen, from Mexican tacos to Japanese sushi and taco-yaki, fast food has existed for centuries. What McDonald's founder Ray Kroc did was to apply the principles of "Fordism" to fast food. He developed a procedure for every work action, specifying exact times for frying, grilling, and toasting, and he demanded absolutely consistent ingredients, dictating even the amount of water in French fries. As even critics admit, McDonald's lowered the cost and increased the speed, consistency, sanitation, and friendliness of eating fast. The export of U.S. fast food dates to 1967, when McDonald's opened a franchise in Canada on the U.S. drive-in model." (Cross 2004) Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason the image was included is because it is the first thing people think of when you ask them "What food do you think of when you think of American food?". A couple polls mentioned on the US Consulate site for Hong Kong and Macau point this out.[13] People in the States may eat more corn than anything else, but the perception around the world of the quintessential American food is either a hamburger or a hamburger and fries. Like I mentioned in my first post, you can blame McDonald's for that as they've been spreading this as the stereotypical American food for over 50 years. Also, your edit warring will not be tolerated, Veriditas. You have reverted for a third time, and this is your only warning. If you revert it again before a consensus is reached here, you will likely be blocked for ignoring policy (though not by me, since I'm involved in the discussion). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, please use sources more wisely and with greater care. The source you refer to comes from a primary source, a single 2002 poll conducted online by Harris Interactive.[14] Unlike the 19 Harris Studies archived at the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,[15] this poll does not seem to be a notable "study", but it did receive popular newspaper coverage on the topic of American patriotism.[16] The wording and word order of the poll question is clearly problematic. The question, "Which one of the following foods do you think of as more typically American than others?" was answered by 2000 people who were enrolled in a program to answer Harris Poll online surveys. They were given seven choices (eight if you count "other") and 18 percent answered "no one food is more typically American than others". This was not a random survey and it was not about food. It was a poll about "how people feel about being American". The way the question was worded and the way the list was presented would make the most diehard vegan breatharian choose "hamburger" as an American symbol, so this poll is basically worthless. More to the point, the poll says "three percent of all adults think that McDonald's is one of the top three symbols of the United States", so your claim about McDonald's is bogus. The kids content you cite, which is hosted by the US Consulate for Hong Kong and Macau, is sourced to the U.S. State Department. There's a great deal of other information also cited by the U.S. State Department in even more recent publications. For example,in 2004, they published this information about American cuisine in their journal, U.S. Society & Values. They write that the "United States is a rich and varied blend of races, religions, and ethnicities, and this diversity is reflected in our cuisine...we have never developed a national cuisine..." In any case, the 2002 poll you cite was replaced by a new poll in 2009 showing a significant drop in the percentage of Americans identifying hamburgers as "more typically American", going from 29% in 2002 to 23% in 2009. In fact, more than 50% polled identify non-hamburger foods as more American.[17] There is a clear downward trend for hamburgers here. More recent polls by Harris Interactive shows that 28% of Americans will eat "American food" while eating out, while 66% will choose non-American cuisine.[18] Clearly, the majority of Americans do not eat burgers when they eat outside the home. Another Harris study published in 2011 notes that "consumer opinion of non-burger restaurants is increasing while the brand equity of most burger joints remains flat". More than 25,000 consumers were surveyed.[19] So what is the bottom line, here? Updating your 2002 source to the most current 2009 figures,[20] we find that 23% of 2,984 adults polled online, chose "hamburgers/cheeseburgers" as a "more typically American" food. 23%! How can that possibly justify including this image here? Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does this template require a picture? Seriously. As it is commonly transcluded top right on associated articles, the box actually contains the first image that most people will see when they land on a page. Why would I want to see a picture of anything except that page's subject there? Placing a picture of a burger and fries there is confusing when it isn't directly related to the subject of that specific article (e.g. Louisiana Creole cuisine... a burger is the first image that appears... bizarre). If you feel you absolutely must have some graphic there something neutral but iconic (crossed knife and fork on a stars-and-stripes plate, for a tongue-in-cheek suggestion) would be a better idea. This isn't about whether "burger and fries" is the first thing may people think of when you say "American cuisine" to them, but whether such an image helps or hinders an article's readability. In the case of this template I think it definitely is a drawback. Pyrope 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This series template was created by User:Nihonjoe on October 1, 2011[21] after which time the user proceeded to add it to the top of all of the cuisine articles on December 12, 2011, during the start of the winter break, when very few users were active. These series of edits displaced upwards of 50 lead images highlighting unique American cuisine and replaced those lead images with a large image of french fries (from Belgium) and a hamburger (from Germany), adding it to ~56 articles.[22] There does not appear to have been any effort by Nihonjoe to coordinate with Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink about the addition of this template, nor does Wikipedia:Navigation templates support his usage. Food articles should have lead images related to the topic, followed by series (navbox templates) related to the parent cultural topic (Culture of California if we are discussing California cuisine, for example), with cuisine topics found in a footer template. Per the MOS on image use in the lead, images should be natural, appropriate representations of the topic and should be what our readers will expect to see and they should be "of least shock value". Can you imagine a food scholar visiting New American cuisine only to find a large image of a burger and fries? This is not just unprofessional and absurd, but as Pyrop observes up above, it detracts from the encyclopedia. Nihonjoe appears to be acting unilaterally in every aspect of this template, from its creation, to its choice of image, and finally, to his placement on 56 articles. At this point, he should take a very large step back and let disinterested editors deal with the problem he's created. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like I tried to sneak the template into all those articles; that's simply not the case. As for when it was done, some of us work in the real world where we don't get things like "winter breaks", so that had nothing to do with it, either. It was just when I found the time to do it. I saw that many other countries/cultures had similar templates, and I thought there were enough American foods to make a similar template. All of the other cuisine templates have a photo at the top of them, so I don't see why this one should be any different.

As there are several other cuisine templates in use all over, I saw no need to coordinate with the food and drink WikiProject on something already commonly in use. As I stated above, I'm fine with using another image if people think something else would be more appropriate, but so far the only thing that's been mentioned is mountains of corn. If people decide on corn (or pumpkin pie, turkey, cranberry sauce, or even cajun gumbo), I'm fine with that. As for acting unilaterally, you certainly did that by coming in here and trying to force your views onto the template, and then edit warring to continue forcing your POV.

As for the placement of the template, it's fine to place it below any images at the top of the articles it's in, or even place it in the See also section in order to keep it in a more appropriate location. It may even be good to do that with all the cuisine templates so they don't interfere with the standard flow of the articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I don't think you tried to sneak the templates in. It's just that Wikipedia has a large student demographic, and you added them during a fairly inactive time, often referred to as "winter break". Other templates certainly exist, but we're talking about this one. The fact of the matter is, we already had a template footer in use, {{Cuisine of the United States}}, which you were perfectly aware of when you created this one to promote hamburgers and fries.[23] You say you are fine with using another image, conveniently sidestepping the fact that two editors have told you that the use of the current image is problematic. Your first response to my concerns was that "a hamburger and fries are the epitome of what people around the world think of when asked about American food". Regardless of whether that is true or not, we don't edit articles based on popular perception, polls, or opinion. We edit articles based on the most authoritative, relevant, and current sources we can find. Yes, a hamburger and fries were, aside from the hot dog, one of the quintessential post-WWII American foods between 1950-1970. However, a lot has changed in American cuisine since that time, and hamburgers have been on a steep decline for 40 years. The fact of the matter is, the American cuisine articles are not best represented by this image, and two editors have explained to you that it is confusing, inappropriate, and hinders readability. I removed the image due to these concerns, and asked you to provide a source supporting it. You found a 2002 poll about American patriotism, not about food. That's just not good enough. Further, you have said that by removing the image I am "forcing" my POV. I am curious, how does one force a POV by removing a POV? Do you even understand what you are saying? By removing the image, I am defaulting to V; challenged, poorly sourced and unsourced content may be removed at any time. This is not a POV, it is best practice. Now, please address these concerns. I will summarize them for you again: 1) Why did you add a header when the articles already had the appropriate, unobtrusive footer? 2) Which reliable source(s) support the inclusion of this image? (Reliable means it should attempt to be authoritative, relevant, and current. It cannot be about a different topic, such as "American patriotism". It must be about American cuisine, preferably from the POV of a food historian/scholar.) 3) Why can't we default to no image? In other words, why do we have to have an image? Do most series navboxes have images? I suspect that they don't. 4) What is the purpose of this template? If it is a series navbox, it should not distract from readability, but enhance it. Does it do this? 5) Per image use policies, we should choose the best image for the topic. If we are talking about the culture of the United States, we wouldn't lead the article with an image of the famous "beer can house". We would find something special and unique that best represents the topic, such as a painting or even a famous Jazz musician, since Jazz music is considered by cultural historians to be one of the most original contributions to American culture. In the same way, we would want a culinary image that conveyed the same idea about American food. To remind you, Nihonjoe, the editor adding content has the burden of proof. So far, you have not met this burden, and in fact, two editors have told you that the image should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1. An infobox is not a header, so your question is based on a false assumption. Also, it's not uncommon to have similar infoboxes and footers in an article. I've already explained why I created it, or did you not bother to read that part?
2. I'm not familiar with any other cuisine template which includes references for the image included at the top. If there is one, please point it out.
3. I've never said we can't default to no image. I did point out that every single other cuisine template includes an image at the top, and since I based the creation of this template off those other templates, it only stands to reason that it include an image. And, just in case you didn't catch it, every single cuisine template has an image at the top of it. Not just some, or many, or even most; Every. Single. One.
4. The template has the same purpose as every other cuisine template: to provide easy navigation to topical articles (in this case, American cuisine, as evidence by the title of the template, as well as the content of the template). I agree it shouldn't distract from readability, which is why I suggested that perhaps the best place for this kind of template is in the See also section. What are your thoughts on that?
5. What, exactly, is a "beer can house"? And how, exactly, does that have anything to do with this particular topic? Please stick to the topic rather than wandering into random discussions of other unrelated topics. Hamburgers and fries are certainly American cuisine. Regardless of the genealogy of those items, America is considered a "melting pot" of cultures, so it's only appropriate that many of its foods are derived from those of other countries. It's certainly not inappropriate to have an image depicting them as an example of a well-known and stereotypical American cuisine item. Your assertions otherwise are just plain off the mark. However, as I've now stated multiple times, I'm open to better suggestions. The image has been in the template since it was created, so it's not like I just went and snuck it in there one day, "adding" it while you were off looking at something else. As for two whole editors expressing their opinions"should be removed", your opinions have no more individual weight than mine, and there is at least one other editor who disagrees with you (no matter how you're trying to besmirch his opinion (a.k.a. "beliefs") below), so it appears we need continue working toward consensus on another image which won't damage your delicate sensibilities. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe has pretty much laid out my beliefs on the subject. I agree with his points.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your "beliefs" are on this subject, nor should they have anything to do with this discussion, since we edit based on evidence not beliefs, but since you raised the issue, I'm curious about your beliefs. As a foodservice professional with almost three decades on the job in the hamburger industry, I'm sure you have extensive knowledge and experience, which explains your singular focus on Burger King, Burger King products, and Burger King legal issues, and your successful efforts at improving those topics. Putting aside any strong beliefs you might have about hamburgers based on your work history, could you explain, in your own words, why we should have an image of a burger and fries in the infobox? I asked Nihonjoe this question, and the best he could do was point me to a poll about "pride in America".[24][25] (2009 updated version) I'm hoping that a man of your experience has access to better data, preferably focused on food service. I know such sources are out there because I spent quite a lot of time researching the history of the burrito, but I would like to get an answer from the proverbial horse's mouth. I mean, does anyone know more about hamburgers than you on Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please can the attitude, Viriditas? You're actively attacking anyone who disagrees with you rather than trying to work out a compromise and consensus. Instead of resorting to thinly-veiled snide remarks, how about you work with the rest of us to come up with an image which will be acceptable? You apparently hate hamburgers and everything the represent (though perhaps I've misinterpreted your vitriolic remarks toward them here), so that apparently won't work. Other than corn, do you have any other valid suggestions for an image to use? Do you have links to images on Commons we might use here? As I stated above, I'm not married to the idea of using the current image; I just strongly objected to how you tried to ram your way down our throats. Let's sit down and discuss things like civilized people, shall we? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please strike your above comments. There isn't a single attack from me on this page, and I was asking an expert on hamburgers for his informed opinion about data supporting the popularity of hamburgers which is usually found in industry trade journals that he might have access to at work or at home. I know this because I've engaged in food research in the past, as I noted above. On the other hand, you have attacked me multiple times throughout this discussion. Please start assuming good faith in your interactions with fellow colleagues. Finally, please stop trying to shift the burden. You added the image, therefore you have to support it. I removed it as unsupported. Since you maintain that the infobox must have an image, why is it that I have to find one? I'm really not following that line of reasoning. Sure, I could find dozens of images, but that's not the point. The point is, you want to keep the current image, and that's the problem. If you weren't married to the idea of using the current image, then why have you reverted my attempt to remove it? Your words don't exactly match up with your actions. You keep saying you want to discuss this, but all you keep doing is moving the goalposts and shifting the burden. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if the current image is the one kept. I simply objected to your ham-handed method of removing it, then declaring here that your way was the correct way and no one better add it back. Exactly how does that show your assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor here? Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD, as already stated. We're on the "D" part of that now, trying to work out something you'll find acceptable. I'm not moving or shifting anything. Let's discuss. Toss out a few ideas for images to use. That's what we're here for. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a whole category of images we can potentially use. Maybe tehre will be something in there which you like. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose any images for addition here on this page, as I have repeatedly said. I would like to discuss something with you, however. Previously, I asked you for a source supporting the current image. You pointed me to a 2002 poll about "pride in America" (not about food) which found that 29% chose hamburgers as "more typically American than others" while 18% said "no one food is more typically American than others".[26] However, that very same poll was repeated in 2009, and the results show new numbers. Now, the poll says 23% "say they think a hamburger/cheeseburger is a food that is more typically American over others" but 24% say that no one food is more typically American than any others.[27] Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You could give the same poll twice within a shorter period of time and get wildly different results. Dropping from 29% to 24% is not significant. There's no reason to spend my time hunting down polls or articles or whatever else just to support an image in this template, an image which is not inappropriate given the topic. You don't like the image; fine, that's your opinion, and we can try to find a replacement. There's no reason to argue interminably about this particular image as you obviously aren't going to change your mind and I don't give a damn about the polls you keep bringing up. The image doesn't need a source as it is unequivocally American cuisine. However, as I've stated many times, I'm not married to the image. How about we move on to something more productive than trying to source an image in a template used in about 60 articles, eh? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I want to address that. They polled an additional 1000 people and they polled during the heart of the recession. The meat industry attributes a decline in consumption to the recession, higher ethanol production costs (corn again), availability (more exports) and government policy (health and environmental issues). As of late 2011, the industry has embraced the domestic decline and has focused on exports. I think this is the reason for the observed decline in the numbers, and I think it is significant. Further, more people say "no one food is more typically American than any others", which means the image doesn't reflect the evidence. What I believe is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So you want to base everything you've said here on a poll of 1000 people? Out of nearly 300 million people? That's not even a validly large sample size to make any kind of determination like that. Regardless, though, I don't care what the polls say as they are irrelevant. You asked for something showing hamburgers were considered sterotypical, so I pointed you to one I found after about 1 minute of searching. I don't have the time to spend searching that you apparently have to dig up all those references you mention above. I don't care enough about this to spend that much time on it (you've already wasted enough time of mine as it is, and I'm tired of dealing with you). I've posted some images below. Go look at them. Find one you like. We'll stick it in. Don't see one you like? Go find one and post it here and we'll stick it in. So far, all you've done is spout of all kinds of crap without trying to actually fix the problem. WP:SOFIXIT by trying to move things forward instead of bogging them down in inane arguments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 2002 poll source you provided was superseded by a newer poll in 2009 which showed a different result. You are the one who believes a navbox requires an image, while I do not. Your basis for this argument is "other templates use images so this one should as well". That's a very poor argument, much like your source. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To me this conflict seems to be a POV-case combined with a culture-clash. On one hand we have the American, who gives no trace of having been abroad, with a strong USA-centered view about American Cuisine. On the other hand, we have the American-temporary-expat, holding a more global view on American Cuisine. And we all witnessed that clash.

As a Dutchman, living in Ireland, I feel compelled to support Nihonjoe is his view about American Cuisine. I know there is in fact no American Cuisine at all, but that it is an umbrella-term for an amazingly big number of cuisines, organized more or less along regional and/or enthnical lines with some crossovers to make it difficult. But for me, the main symbol of American Cuisine is the hamburger supplied by McDonalds. That was the case back in The Netherlands, but also here in Ireland. So adding a picture of a burger to the template represents a worldwide view on American Cuisine. And that is backed up by 23% of the participants in the Harris Interactive survey, Nihonjoe's Japanese experiences and my own Dutch and Irish experiences. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. The survey says 23% "say they think a hamburger/cheeseburger is a food that is more typically American over others" but 24% say that "no one food is more typically American than any others".[28] Nice try at the anti-American invective, however. Clearly, you believe that American cuisine is best represented by a hamburger and fries. Now, instead of presenting personal, xenophobic anecdotes and misreading the conclusion of a non-notable poll, how about providing evidence? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstandings: I do NOT, I repeat NOT accept any personal attacks. For the three you have issued by now (two here and one further down) I have issued you a very friendly level 2-warning. Go on with PAs, and you will see the consequences.

Secondly, you are removing the picture and were editwarring about it (in stark contrast with what you say on your userpage). Why don't you come up with proof that the international view on American food is something else then the hanburger? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ow, by the way: Belgian newspaper on American food, Google Images on "American Food". Have fun. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just queried the Dutch Wikipedia community on Chatzilla about what comes in mind when they think about "American Cuisine". In short, the first 7 answers were: Does dat exist? (1x), American Pie (1x) and hamburger (5x). Unusable for the article, but it gives a hint.. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's wonderful, but on Wikipedia, we go from reliable sources. Not outdated sources nor subscription-only Belgian newspapers that we can't verify, but reliable sources we can see for ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Night, you realize that those google results are strongly dependent on where you search from, right? I'm searching from America, and I get more hot dogs and pies than I do hamburgers. There was also a pile of cookies, and I think I saw a sandwich. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Errr, no. I did not think about the curiosity of Google. But searching through google.ie I got mostly hamburgers. Just with my fun-query at chatzilla, it is not proof, but just a hint how the outside world looks at American Cuisine. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential replacement images

commons:Category:Cuisine of the United States is a good place to start to find potential replacements for the image in this template. Please post links to potential images here so we can discuss them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you should post links to potential images, as the current image isn't supported by the data. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who wants the image replaced so you need to do at least something other than posting tl;dr walls of text to try and prove how smart you are and how much time you have to waste on something as unimportant as this. Regardless, I've posted a few images below to perhaps get things started. If you don't like any of them, then go find some others you do like and post them here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Except, I've never tried to replace the image; I've only tried to remove it. Do you find that confusing? Does removal equate to replacement for you? You've actually said that several times, so I don't know how to respond to that. I don't believe navboxes require images, but you do. Is this making sense or should I rephrase it? If you believe the navbox requires an image, you are free to find one, however, at least two editors have informed you that it does not. And, please, do not keep repeating "but other navboxes use images" as that has no weight whatsoever. I asked you for a source that you claim took you one minute to find. I then showed you that your source was outdated and the conclusions were no longer valid due to a newer source. Now, you can either provide another source and keep the image in or you can remove it. I don't get the part where I'm supposed to add an image, because I never said I wanted to add an image. I did, however, say that if one were to add an image, an image of corn or regional cuisine dishes like Creole or Cajun cuisine might work. But there's a big difference between saying what might work and what I would like to do. My personal preference is to reserve navboxes for navigation. What a crazy idea, eh? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the image is simply replacing it with nothing, so please stop arguing semantics. The only confusion is with you purposely misinterpreting the comments of others. My argument is not "other navboxes use images", so (again) stop putting words into my mouth. What I did state is that every (as in "all of them", in case you try to misinterpret that, too) cuisine template (not talking about any of the other templates on the site) have one image each. You asked why an image was in the template in the first place, and that's why. The whole point of the image is to give an introduction or example of whichever cuisine the template represents. It's not meant to be the end-all be-all of that particular cuisine, but simply an example. Since we're talking about food, it's certainly appropriate (and even helpful) to have an example image of that particular cuisine. Navigation is not impeded in any way by having an image, so that argument is moot and pointless as well. If you want to count votes, it seems that things are pretty well split on the issue right now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. We have "example" images in the cuisine articles. Why would we need one in the navbox? The navbox is for navigating related articles, and we already had that in place by way of the {{Cuisine of the United States}} footer. So, you duplicated the navigation structure already in place, made it more complex, doubled up the images in the lead, confused the topic with images unrepresentative of the topic under discussion, and reduced the readability. That's the kind of thing I might expect when Homer Simpson tries to design a car, but it isn't something I expect from an experienced user. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you please stop with the thinly-veiled attacks? Calling me stupid (in so many words) is not an acceptable way to deal with things here. Perhaps a larger discussion ought to be held over whether any of the cuisine templates are necessary, and how to combine the footer templates and "part of a series on" templates into one set so things are consistent. As for the image, yes, the linked articles have images, but you can't see them from the navbox. So it's irrelevant whether they have images or not. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Note: Images are presented at a width of 175px as that is the width used in the current template. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Chicken

1. 
2. 

Corn

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

Creole

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

Hot dogs

1. 
2. 

Pies

1. 
2. 
3. 

Turkey

1. 
2. 
3. 

Lard & Junkfood

1. 
2. 

Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Troll much? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

At least he is posting suggestions (even if they are partially in jest). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Native American

1. 
2. 

Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

1. 

The cut out version, background can be changed on request. Just a suggestion for a neutral image for the template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest a picture of a baconcheeseburger, fries and a wax paper softdrink cup with a straw sticking out of it, plus a slice of Apple Pie. ("nothing's as American as apple pie" or so the saying goes). Hamburger and Fries are the stereotypical American food. And the McDonalds trio is a hamburger, fries and a Coke, also the stereotypical meal inside America (even if it comes from White Castle or Burger King).

The problem with fried chicken is that it could be considered racist (remember the brouhaha over the fried chicken comments with Tiger Woods?) and is only emblematic of "Southern" style American cooking.

The problem with Pizza is that it comes from Italy and is also emblematic of Italy, even though it is a stereotypical American university student food.

The Chinese Takeout Box is stereotypically featured in American detective and police fiction, but it still screams "Chinese", even if it is actually Chinese-American.

The problem with Steak and Potatoes is that it is also emblematic of British and French food.

The problem with Twinkies is that it is a particular company's product.

70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true, but your comment reveals quite a bit about yourself. Only 25% of Americans eat fast food regularly, and by regularly I mean twice a week. It's not a "stereotypical" American food, but it was popular during the post-WWII period from 1950-1970; the United States is 236 years old and for more than two centuries, corn has been the fundamental American cuisine, and can be found in almost every iconic dish; you wouldn't have fast food hamburgers and french fries without corn-fed beef: "93 percent of the tissue that comprised the hamburger meat was derived from corn...[also] chicken sandwiches, and even French fries get a good slathering of the fat that makes them so tasty from being fried in corn oil."[29] There is no "problem" with fried chicken, and to say that it reflects Southern style American cuisine alone is not supported. Fried chicken is eaten throughout every state and by every culture and race. And, according to the National Restaurant Association, there are more pizzerias in the U.S. than places to buy hamburgers.[30] Evidently you aren't aware of the fact that in the U.S. pizza became more popular than hamburgers in the 1980s. The "Chinese Takeout Box" is featured prominently throughout the country, in virtually every major city, and has little connection to the detective and police fiction of old. When I see a "Chinese-style" takeout box, I don't think Chinese, I think "what kind of food could be in there". Evidently you aren't aware that they are used for every type of cuisine so it most certainly does not "scream Chinese"; you are way, way off on that one. Many different restaurants, of every stripe, offer Chinese-style to-go boxes. Several sources have argued that steak and potatoes are a popular American dish, but the country has become more ethnically diverse since the time that they were first introduced and tastes have changed quite dramatically. You might have a point if this was 1955, and maybe it still is where you live, but the rest of the country has moved on to new American cuisine which is wider in scope, broader in taste, inventive, interesting, diverse, and most of all, fun. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what "stereotype" means? Your response suggests that you do not. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is, we don't add content to Wikipedia based on stereotypes, so why are we discussing them? Please address this question. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you started editwarring over it Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you started this. The question here has been all along that what does the common person associate most with American cuisine. Not what history tells us, not what scholarly works tells us but what does the common person most associate with American Cuisine. Burgers and fries is what most people think of when they think of American food. One person even linked to a poll, but you poo pooed it because it was contrary to your argument. It was a poll of people outside of the US and they agreed with what we are saying here. According to WP:PSTS it is allowable as a primary source, despite your opinion on the matter.

What we can do is make the image variable by adding this little piece of code to the template -

[[file:{{{image|Crownburger2.jpg}}}
       |frameless|{{{size|}}}
       {{#ifeq:{{{thumb|null}}}|yes| {{!}}thumb }}
       {{#ifeq:{{{center|null}}}|yes| {{!}}center }}
       {{#if:{{{text|}}}|{{!}}{{{text|}}}}}
       |alt={{{alt|Burger and fries, one of many types of dishes common to the United States}}}]]

That particular line of code would let editors add an appropriate image for the particular article while maintaining the template.

Despite your arguments, the majority of posters here agree that the image is appropriate. You have lost the argument, so drop it already. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such majority in this discussion, Jeremy, so please refrain from misrepresenting it. Your entire contribution to this discussion consisted of "me too", which isn't a form of discussion on Wikipedia, and should be avoided. The 2002 poll results you refer to were superseded by newer 2009 poll data by the same survey company showing that popular opinion does not favor one food as more American, invalidating the older poll results you cite. Part of the reliable source criteria is citing current sources, not older, outdated sources which promote your POV. So you've not only misrepesnted this discussion, you've also misrepresented the sources as well as the requirements for using them. I should file a report on the RS noticeboard showing this incident. More than three editors have argued that the image should be removed, and I maintain that the poor source offered to justify its existence doesn't support it. Therefore, I have every right to remove it. As a professional in the food service and hamburger industry, perhaps you could help by providing citations to food service trade journals that support the inclusion of your favored image of a hamburger. That would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There's not a majority on either side of the opinions here; it's quite evenly split at the moment. Your insistence on having sources for the image is pointless and not supported by policy. If one image is deemed not acceptable, we can just use another which has the support. Adding sources to the template will only clutter things and make the template appear odd. The template shouldn't contain anything not supported by the articles to which it links. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no majority for inclusion. The person adding content has the WP:BURDEN. And, since your image failed verification (the 2002 poll conclusion was superseded by a newer 2009 poll which contradicted it), you failed the burden. As a result, the image gets removed. We've discussed this already. We don't have to use any image, and you need to start showing you understand this. Also, having sources for all content is supported by policy, and I'm very sad to hear from someone who is an administrator, that you disagree with our fundamental policies about verifiability and sourcing. All content that is challenged requires verification. That you dispute this fundamental law tells me we have a problem. You can't just add any image to any template, or any content to any template because you believe that the verifiability exception applies to template namespace. If that was true, I could add an image of a cat to a dog series template and a dog to the cat series template. But I can't, because anyone can verify what a cat or a dog looks like, and we have external sources to help us. The same is true of the hamburger and fries image. And the source that you cited to support it is classified as unreliable because it is no longer current. Newer sources show the image isn't supported per your rationale. Would it help if we got User:ThatPeskyCommoner involved? I hear she can help improve dialogue in these types of situations. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no majority either way. Images don't need to be verified as you can see exactly what they are. You don't seem to understand that. A difference of 5% is not significant and tells you nothing other than that the extremely small sample size of the poll happened to find people who didn't think a hamburger was any more an American food than a few others or nothing at all. A 5% difference is statistically insignificant.

You keep saying I added the image to the template, implying it wasn't in the template originally (which it was). It was there from the very moment the template was created. Then you go on to imply that I'm stating that any image can be added to any template, even an image which has absolutely no relation to the template in question. I have never said anything of the sort. You're acting as if a hamburger is not a ubiquitous American food, when you can easily get a hamburger in any town anywhere in the entire country (unless there's an all-vegan or all-vegetarian town somewhere, and even there you could likely get a Boca Burger or some other non-meat burger). The hamburger image is very related to this particular template, so your talk of cats and dogs makes absolutely no sense. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the image depicts a hamburger and fries (speaking of the image currently in use). It doesn't need any verification as it's an obvious fact.

You're welcome to invite anyone you wish to participate in this discussion, as long as you don't go trying to influence them to support you. Anyone involved in the discussion should be able to make up his/her own mind on the topic at hand. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've avoided addressing the problem with your image once again. This seems to be a massive ownership problem. In other words, since you created the template and added the image, you have appointed yourself as the owner and should have the final say on whether an image is used or not, and what kind of image is used. The fact of the matter is, all challenged material must go through the verification process. Yes, I can see the image is of a burger and fries, however, your reason for adding it was "a hamburger and fries are the epitome of what people around the world think of when asked about American food" and then you cited a 2002 poll for that statement, a poll that was updated in 2009 and contradicted your statement. We've been over this, but you keep claiming it is true even when the updated source says its not. The question isn't whether the image depicts a hamburger and fries, it's whether it best represents American cuisine, which as the 2009 poll shows, it most certainly does not. So, your source failed verification, you failed the burden, and now the image should be removed. However, since you are so wrapped up in ownership issues, you have now claimed that 1) you don't have to provide sources for challenged material, and 2) navigation templates must have images. I think it is safe to say that both 1 and 2 are false, and you have no good argument for retaining the image. Navigation templates are for pointing users to related articles; they are not for decorative images that confuse the reader. Is there a single good reason I should not remove the image now, other than the fact that you have declared yourself the "owner" of this template? Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So because I disagree with you I'm declaring myself owner of this template? I don't follow your logic. I stated at least once above that if a solid consensus (not just you and a couple other editors) determine that none of the cuisine templates should have an image in them, I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with it if consensus determines some other image should be used instead of a hamburger and fries. The image is meant to be representative of American food; this doesn't mean it's the only American food out there, but that it is representing American food. As for your bizarre interpretation of WP:V, I'm not sure what to say. You seem very sure of yourself, but I can tell you that images do not need any verification as there is no way to "cite" an image. Your claim is not supported by practice or by policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You declared yourself the owner of this template when you accused me of barging in and making demands on your template in the very first reply you made to my concerns, which you completely dismissed out of hand as the aforementioned owner. As for verification, you seem to be confusing the act of placing a citation on a template for an image (which we don't do) with the standard burden that every editor must face when material they add is challenged. Such material may often comprise an image. Your rationale for adding this image was challenged and your source failed the burden. What part of this is still confusing you? You don't get an exemption from V or any other policy simply because you added an image to a template. All material is subject to verification, and yours failed. As an administrator, you should be the first person in line upholding this policy. Instead, you persist in compulsively ignoring the burden, and telling me "we don't cite an image", indicating your failure to understand that we cite the rationale for adding the image, not the image itself. This has been explained to you over and over again, but you still don't get it. Your rationale failed the burden, so we remove the image. If you can't uphold basic policies, you have no business being an admin. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The template is "American cuisine". A hamburger and fries are American cuisine (even if they originated somewhere else). End of argument. There is no need to cite blatantly obvious facts. It's perfectly acceptable to include a picture of a well-known American cuisine item in the template. As you've shown, there are some extremely-limited-opinion-pool polls which disagree on whether it is the most well known or considered the most American food (or however they word it), so perhaps it's not the best image for use here (if an image should even be used at all, which is your contention). This is not a policy issue, however, but a style or preference issue which needs to be sorted out by consensus, so I suggest taking things down the RFC at the bottom of this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts is not an acceptable response. I began this thread by framing this as both a style issue and a content problem and I removed the image. You then restored the image with your rationale, and asked to discuss it. We did, and I showed your rationale was untrue, both in terms of style and content. You've admitted this is true above, yet you refuse to allow the image to be removed because you created the template and added the image, and won't allow anyone else to change it. You failed the burden in terms of style and content, yet we're still talking about this? What exactly is left to discuss? You have already admitted that the image doesn't belong. The image should be removed and the discussion should be closed. But, no. Even though you admit the image should be removed, even though you failed the burden to defend it, and even though we discussed it, the discussion must continue—until you get your desired outcome. That's called moving the goalposts, and it's unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Several people other than myself have edited this template, and I'm not claiming ownership over it or demanding that no one else edit it. My objection to your edit was how you did it. I've stated both of these things multiple times. You claim the discussion has a clear consensus when it does not. You've claimed my rationale was untrue, but it was not. Yes, a new poll may have come out which showed a statistically insignificant change in people's opinions, but that doesn't make my rationale untrue; perhaps a bit dated, but certainly not untrue. There is no burden of proof with style, and there has never been any such thing. I'm fine with whatever consensus is determined to be, but there is no consensus currently. It's split pretty much right down the middle, and that's not a consensus. That's why I started the RFC: to bring more people in to get a solid consensus. Rather than continue to to attack my integrity, motives, and whatever else you decide to hate about me, how about just participating in the RFC below? It's the best way to bring an end to this discussion. As I stated already, this is taking far too much time, which is what I suspect you want to hear as that seems to be your modus operandi when it comes to these types of discussion: wear people out until they give up in disgust. That's not going to happen here, so please focus on the RFC instead of continuing to post up here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You've claimed ownership from the first response ("don't just barge in and make demands") referring to my reason for removing the image as a "demand" (which makes no sense at all), a reason I left on the talk page at the beginning of this thread, per best practice regarding the removal of material and noting it on the talk page. So, your objection to "how" I did it, is now shown to be completely baseless, like all of your other objections. For example, when you count actual arguments on the page, there is a clear consensus for removal, and I can prove it, so you're mistaken. Second of all, you've demonstrated that you don't have the slightest clue as to how we evaluate sources for reliability. When you say "perhaps a bit dated, but certainly not untrue", you reveal that you don't understand the notion of currency, which makes your source unreliable, and your argument completely untenable. Third of all, the style guidelines regarding navboxes do not lend any credence to your argument that we must use an image, so yes, you failed the "burden" on style, and of course, contrary to what you say, there is such a thing, it's called supporting your claims with evidence, a concept you evidently find completely foreign and confusing. Fourth, in every response you've made, in every comment and reply, you've moved the goalposts time and again, over and over, so forth and so on. The irony, of course, is that you are accusing me of taking up much of your time when in fact, it is you who is deliberately wasting my time, telling me you want to keep discussing this subject after the discussion concluded and consensus was already reached. As the creator of this template, as the editor who added the image in question, and as the user who keeps reverting my removal of the image based on a burden he can't meet and on a rationale that doesn't exist, yes, I question your integrity and your motives. I am not participating in any RfC, and I am not participating in any more discussions with you, because this discussion is over and you failed to support your side of it. I will not keep discussing this with you until you finally accept your favored conclusion. I knew from your very first reply to this initial thread that you were going to go this route, and your strategy was clear from the beginning. The old delay and deny until you wear the other party out and they give up tactic. You never had any interest in discussing this topic because you never had any intention of accepting an outcome that didn't allow for this image. I knew this from the moment you clicked reply and responded to my first comment explaining why I removed the image. You probably think you've pulled a fast one on others here, but to me you are as transparent as water on a still day. I'm done here. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I offer a compromise and you throw it out. What is wrong with making it so you can pu appropriate image in the article while having a default image. That is a solution that has been brought up in other templates to work around these issues. Compromise is what we do when we discuss thing, we seek a common place that can work for all parties involved. Each party gets something they want and losses something else in exchange. I don't think this discussion is going any where so lets just leave it the way it is as policy dictates. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing more American than a Filet-O-Fish... yum! Can't wait until Friday!!!!!!– Lionel ^(talk) 04:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a collage picture like this one from the WWII article, with a picture of a hamburger and fries, apple pie, fried chicken, and an obese person eating a heavily loaded hot dog. No, I'm not kidding. Part of the US's image (especially where I live) is overweight people eating high calorie, meat-based food. Some pulled-pork or barbecue would also be appropriate. By the way, in Japan a corn dog is called "American dog". Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anna's sense

Anna's sense

I didn't read much of the above because I end up saying "good point, oh, and good point" and don't know what to think. But here's my two cents: I lean toward no image at all after having looked at this and others listed here.

• If the food is super emblematic or typical, then maybe, but the reasons to avoid an image in the first place seem stronger.
• I'm on the other side of the planet, and when the folks here see the template, they will think, ok, so that sums up American food. One image can't do that.
• No other template has come up with a satisfactory image. Some have artsy, off centre images that look wrong. Some have nifty fonts that look like some awful magazine cover. And Argentina, well that image looks like a carcass that a lion just finished with.
• The fact that there is already a colour theme in these templates is dazzling enough. More fancy fonts or images detracts and distracts from the article.
• The biggie: An image immediately forces the brain to connect the image with the article topic. That's a good reason to avoid the image. Check whatlinkshere. Cuisine of Kentucky, New Mexican cuisine, Cuisine of North Dakota all have a hamburger and fries in your face when you land on the page. Zap the image! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Anna's excellent comments, but would add one further thing. If we do put an image, I would suggest a Thanksgiving spread. Hamburgers and French fries are indeed iconic, but they are only one item; Thanksgiving is extremely American, and might symbolize food generally rather than one single food. How about File:Thanksgiving 1918.jpg? Neutrality^talk 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe Native Americans would find that image a bit politically incorrect, and having a slightly cannibalesque tone, with the rest seeing it as Caucasioid to the nines. :) Oh, no. I started laughing hysterically while writing this post and cannot stop. Not sure if I should click save. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The templates that really need fixing are {{Argentine cuisine}}, {{British cuisine}}, {{Chinese cuisine}}, and {{Indian cuisine}}. That garish, redundant text obscuring the image is hideous.

I don't think a holiday scene, like Thanksgiving or Oktoberfest or whatever, is appropriate because it confuses a holiday with the cuisine. And it clutters the image by including people, table settings, and the food, when all that's needed is a simple iconic image. The lead image of Motorcycle is a Triumph Tiger T110 because that's the iconic, ur-motorcycle in the minds of many people. But not all people; one could replace that with about six or seven other bikes as the one true motorcycle in somebody's opinion, for example the Honda Super Cub, or Harley-Davidson FL. Not only could one substitute some other image, but one should do so, every few months.

You will never find one image that is perfectly representative of a broad subject and makes everyone happy, and stuffing 20 things into a thumbnail is a mess, so just rotate them a few times a year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something like the random image feature employed by multiple portals could be used. This would allow a set of images to be determined for the template, and it would randomly load one of them each time the template was called. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is, navigation templates don't require an image, so there's no good reason to add one. We're not talking about the use of lead image, we're talking about the use of decorative images in series navigation templates, which is not just unnecessary, it's distracting. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've removed images from all of the cuisine series navigation templates I could find with the edit summary "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. Image removed per WP:NAV, WP:NAVBOX, WP:LAYIM, WP:IRELEV, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead". I recommend removing this one as well. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally support the removal of such images. They are certainly controversial, and as they are not necessary, should require complete support to remain and consensus on image choice if they do. I hope the American hamburger one can be removed soon because it looks really strange being right at the top of Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think this template needs an image, and I don't find the justifications given for the hamburger image convincing at all. Just because the fast food hamburger may be iconic to some abroad is poor grounds for inclusion, absent strong sourcing that shows that a burger and fries are somehow representative of American cuisine. We're encyclopedists (of a sort), and we don't need to cater to stereotypes or the opinions of morons. Think about this in a different way: would a template on German culture showing Lederhosen, beer and pretzels be acceptable, because that's an image that many (uneducated) Americans have? How about pictures of Nazis? Or how about a template on Native American culture using the Cleveland Indians logo? Shouldn't a major part of the task of Wikipedia be enlightenment rather than cliche, that is, challenging the stereotypes of the uninformed rather than trying to conform to them? Sindinero (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. The template certainly does not need an image, and definitely not a hamburger. (I'm amazed no one suggested cupcakes or donuts, by the way). Unless we can tastefully a wide range of food (and I don't think that would work in a template), we should have no image. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one problem with the claim navigation boxes do not need images, this isn't a navbox. This is a side bar template which is a variation on a Information box. Just saying. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly saying things which are clearly untrue in every reply. This template is called a series box which is a type of navigational template. See WP:CLN and WP:SERIES for further information. Viriditas (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is for the removal of the current navbox image and no replacement. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image. I see a consensus that the image is problematic. Horologium (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, you know very well that that consensus is not there. And you know also that the discussion is still going on. Your request is at least premature if not plain misleading. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth or try to speak for me ever again. I know very well, from examing the arguments on this talk page, that there is consensus to remove the image, and all the arguments in favor of keeping it have either vanished or disappeared in the face of reliable sources, image and navbox usage guidelines, and common sense. What was your argument for keeping it? That's right, you don't have one other than "we should promote stereotypes in an encyclopedia". Am I supposed to take you seriously? You haven't addressed a single objection here other than to say "I like it". Navboxes are for navigation, not for decoration. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Images in regional cuisine food templates: inclusion vs. exclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC and particularly the poll result in consensus that cuisine navbox templates such as this one should not contain images. The principal arguments for this outcome were that the images are purely decorative, do not aid in understanding the article in which they are placed, and that the choice of image is arbitrary, incites unnecessary controversy and/or risks stereotyping the subject matter.  Sandstein  13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

---

It's been discussed above ad naseum. I'm not sure if this is the right place, but maybe we could just summarize the main points to encourage more editors to weigh in. Then we can get some sort of agreement, or maybe a clever new idea, and can all be happy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've changed this section into an RFC in order to hopefully bring more people into this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For exclusion, in a nutshell

• Navigation templates are not decorative, so shouldn't have images in them.
• Other navigation templates don't have images, so these shouldn't either.
• The images chosen don't represent every type of cuisine listed in each template.

For inclusion, in a nutshell

• The image is intended to be representative of the cuisine in the template. The images don't need to represent every type of cuisine listed in each template.
• There are no valid policy-based reasons to exclude the images. This is entirely a style issue.
• It's unclear whether there are actually no other templates which have images.

Guidelines for the discussion

Please place discussion in the section directly below this. All editors (including unregistered or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment.

• Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
• RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
• Mediate where possible—identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page.
• Try to keep your comments as concise as possible. Walls of text encourage people to leave the discussion rather than participate, and that defeats the point of having an RFC.

RFC discussion

• I'll start! I'll be addressing point three of the against argument first. The image used in these templates is designed to be emblematic of the cuisine the article is part of, it is not designed to represent the particular subject in the article the topic it is part of. Regarding the comment that images aren't used in navigation box templates, look at these:

{{Grape production}}

Those are just four of thousands of navigation boxes that feature images in them. If images aren't allowed, why is there an image field in the infobox master template? Basically points one and two of the against argument are false.

I think we should keep the image, I like the burger one myself personally and not because I work in the fast food field as some have suggested. The reason is because it is what first comes to mind when you think American food. I know that there have been claims that corn is at the root of American cuisine, but it is not. It is at the root of Native American culture. Yes it does play an important part in our economy, but so does wheat and other grains. It does play important parts of summertime culture. Polls have shown that those outside of the country associate burgers with American cuisine, so I say keep that one. My second thing would be to go with a mosaic image. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy. :) Long time (2009 dog meat fiasco). The navboxes you point out are very different. Those appear at the bottom. Those aren't about a diverse cuisine. Compare the appearance of Framingham High School to New Mexican cuisine. The latter sure is a mismatch between the title and the image. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm for striking the image, for the reasons I've written above. There's no need to promote stereotypes here. Also, although this could be a good faith mistake, the "nutshell" of reasons given against the image at the top of this RfC appears to me like a squadron of strawmen: I don't think they're accurate reflections of the objections given at all. Sindinero (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit them, if you wish. I was trying to be concise and clear so people wouldn't be turned away by some monstrous wall of text (like the discussion above this section). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me that it has an image. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's not of a windmill or wooden shoes, or of a featureless potato hash. Sindinero (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See further up for my suggestion for an image. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this sidebar, I do not see any problem in adding an image to the template under discussion. Sidebars have more often an image. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not opposed to an image per se, but strongly to this one, for all the reasons above. Sindinero (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Having skimmed way way through walls of text, including multiparagraph screeds by Viriditas (who admonished someone to keep a reply down to a few sentences, no less), here is my opinion:

Keep the image as templates of this sort obviously have them, and have had them for years. Second, keep the hamburger and fries. My second choice for a foodstuff wasn't mentioned: pizza. The Italians may have invented it, but we Americans buy them frozen, refrigerated or fresh. We order them by take out or delivery, in restaurants or consume them at home. McDonalds certainly has popularized the hamburger worldwide though as an American foodstuff, so the original image is appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• No decoration: This is no-brainer. Let's take the 3 pro-con points in order: "Navigation templates are not decorative, so shouldn't have images in them." Precisely. They're navigation aids. The photos are not a navigation aid or even and "aid to a navigation aid being more navigatory", as it were, ergo they are just visual "noise". WP is not your blog or MySpace page. "Other navigation templates don't have images, so these shouldn't either." There's are reasons for this, including WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:ENC, WP:NOT and especially MOS:ICONS, but this is the weakest argument, as it can be cast as a form of WP:OTHERCRAP. "The images chosen don't represent every type of cuisine listed in each template." More to the point, if you already know enough about a cuisine to instantly recognize its dishes in at-a-glance tiny icon form, you're probably an encyclopedia writer on this topic, not a reader. Our readers are coming looking for information, not already possessing it. See WP:ATT, WP:DAB, etc., for similar reasoning: We do not title articles things like "Jane Smith (Vancouver musician born 1979)" because that presumes the reader already has all kinds of detailed information they're more likely to be looking for than possessing.

  The pro arguments are even weaker: "The image is intended to be representative of the cuisine in the template." The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. See also WP:DGAF. "The images don't need to represent every type of cuisine listed in each template." Straw man and red herring. Despite the poor phrasing the pro section, no one in the actual signed comments has ever suggested that, e.g., a navbox mentioning 30 different types of regional food would have to have 30 pictures in it and take up 7 pages. The idea has nothing to do with whether festooning navboxes with purely decorative images is encyclopedically useful or just satisfies someone's urge to prettify for their own personal aesthetic reasons. I think the original point was probably that, say, a picture of a taco on an article about Mexican food isn't helpful, because most Mexican food isn't tacos, so the picture does not help identify the nature of the food "type" being documented in the template, except to people already intimately familiar with the cuisine "family". "There are no valid policy-based reasons to exclude the images. This is entirely a style issue." I've already cited them (and see WP:POLICY and WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE for why this was a pointless argument to make; it's not important whether MOS:ICONS has a {{Policy}} on it or not. It's a stable site-wide guideline, and a wide range of style matters are subject to MOS. Try getting a GA or FA while having all kinds of MOS problems. "It's unclear whether there are actually no other templates which have images." Straw man again. No one said there were exactly zero other templates. The overwhelming pattern arrived at by consensus is that navboxes do not have icons, per MOS:ICONS, etc. The existence of an another template that hasn't been fixed yet does not magically disprove the general rule. See also WP:OTHERCRAP again; same argument from the different direction, but without the other factors bolstering it up. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I Prefer horizontal template:Cuisine of the United States

If you couch this issue in terms of whether you think "Burgers and fries" is the quintessential food people are bound to say it is, and I would have to agree.

But, before answering this question, people need to actually go out and check out the articles where the template is actually used, and may then realize it doesn't work so well.

To illustrate the problem that user:Pyrope points out, you go to the Hawaiian cuisine page, and wonder why the first photo you see for Hawaiian food has got to be burgers and fries. So eventually some editor will push this template down and down, until it sits inanely at the bottom like on the American Chinese cuisine page. This is probably a general issue with all navbar type templates that want to take up prime real estate on the right, and they really need to seek to keep their footprint small (My own experience is that it forces you to move your images to the left, which you have to rescale a number of times till it's tiny, in order to accomodate these right sidebars).

My sense is that this template with the set burger logo only works on pages that are very broadly American cuisine, on an abstruse topic like "History of American cuisine", "Etymology of American cuisine", etc., that itself doesn't evoke any particular concrete pictorial images. (Kind of like the Pashtun template situation.) In other pages, I feel it ought to be replaced by the less obtrusive, horizontal and collapsed template:Cuisine of the United States (Talk). Though this is not my final say. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox hybrid compromise

Now I don't think this template could be described as an infobox since it doesn't display specific information regarding the topic of the article, and doesn't display an image most pertinent to the article. However I believe Jeremy (18:11, 20 May 2012) above already pointed out that by modifying the template using the code he suggests, the template can be made to show image=corndog.jpg alt="corndog a favorite American treat" or whatever else. Probably the caption should be editable too. (It's funny I was going to mention exactly what Cla68 mentioned, that the Japanese calle corn dogs the "American dog".). This way the template could show burgers temporarily as default, almost like a page under construction, with the understanding that it will eventually be replaced by a more pertinent photo. Maybe it should still have the option or switch for using no images. Or can you just specify something like a null .jpg file to achieve the same thing? Anyways, that's my piece of mind, upon jumping in. I may not be back though. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (modified after 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

Actually the alt comment is variable, there is no caption in the template. But that would simply would require the following:

|caption={{{caption|A hamburger and fries, one common American dish}}}

Add this in and a caption would be configured as well.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the effect on the loading time of the template? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Loading time is negligible, this code is taken from the Burger King infobox and McDonald's infobox templates and there hasn't been any issue with the template since it was altered a couple of years ago. (There is some irony in that isn't there?)--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Example of variable image

I created a sandbox for the template and modified the template to allow for variable images.

Default	Hawaiian cuisine	American Chinese cuisine

This is the code of the three templates:

• {{American cuisine}}
• {{American cuisine|text=An example of Hawiian cuisine|image=Bali Hai seared ahi.jpg|alt=Seared ahi and wasabi beurre blanc sauce}}
• {{American cuisine|text=An example of American Chinese cuisine|image=Kung Pao chicken (western version) -2.jpg|alt=Kung Pao chicken}}

This is rather rushed and is only set up to show what we can do with the template. I am trying to set up the |outertitle= field to be a variable so the article's name would appear above the template. Right now it will pull the page name of the article, that is why it says American cuisine in the example. If you go to the actual American Chinese cuisine page you will see what I mean. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I made the template so that it takes the name of the article and automatically adds it to the template. I might also be able to make it so that you can have a set of stock images as individual defaults and an contributor could chose one of the stock images.

• {{American cuisine/Sandbox}}/{{American cuisine/Sandbox|image=1}} would have the burger
• {{American cuisine/Sandbox|image=2}} could be a second image, maybe a southern American cuisine image
• {{American cuisine/Sandbox|image=3}} could be a historical related image
• {{American cuisine/Sandbox|image=4}} A fourth one, etc
• {{American cuisine/Sandbox|image=user|user=file:example.jpg}} Would be the format for a user defined image

This would work like {{framework}}, which has these field already established. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea as it would allow a more relevant image to be specified for a particular page, if necessary. It could even incorporate an image which may already be at the top of a particular page, thereby streamlining by incorporating the image into the template. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Have any good reasons been given for keeping the burger and fries other than the claim that we should be pandering to stereotypes? I appreciate the work going into making the template variable and flexible, but if the b&f is still an image that will be widely used, I'm still as strongly opposed to it as before. It's not really representative, and potentially insulting. Sindinero (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm still in favor of no image. And if there's nothing as American as apple pie, as the saying goes, why isn't it an apple pie? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the image, that is why it is still there. As it stands now there is no real consensus to eliminate or change it as the default image. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's still there because one person likes it? Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is there because I created the sandbox template and I like it- so yes, it is there because one person liked it. Additionally there is no firm consensus whether we should be keeping, changing or retaining the image, as it stands now, so the status quo remains the current image. Also read my first post, it was a quickie set up to show what is possible. If we decide to keep the default, it will stay. If we decided to change it, it will be changed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Many people have spoken against this image on this talk page, probably more than are for keeping it. Just because the support for removal is not unanimous does not mean we need to uphold the status quo and keep an image for which no good reasons have been given except for the mistaken idea that wikipedia's purpose is to conform to stereotypes and the new (and novel) justification that User:Jerem43 likes it. Unless good reasons can be given for using this image, it should go. Sindinero (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment about me liking the image was made is in reference to the template sandbox, not the RFC discussion. I liked it so I used it in the sandbox. The rest is me saying that "if" to the RFC. All else is you putting words in my mouth. This section is in regards to the proposal I made about modifying the template to allow people to substitute images. Keep the image discussion up above please. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case I can back up Jeremy about the burger picture. It is after all the image of American Cuisine abroad, thanks to McD and BK. And because enwp is a bit wider than only the USA, that outside view is certainly realistic for inclusion. Removing the burger picture means "censorship" (a bit of a big word, I know) and a USA-centered POV. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, if the purpose of wikipedia were to back up the stereotypes of the uninformed, there would be no need for wikipedia at all. The image of German culture abroad, for example, may include a number of things totally unsuitable for use as a representative image. Or, sticking closer to the current topic, a navbox on American beers would hardly want an image of Budweiser or MGD as the main image; this is what the uninformed think about American beers, but is totally unrepresentative of contemporary American brewing. Stereotypes and least common denominators make for very poor points of orientation on wikipedia. Removing a poorly chosen image is no more censorious than editing out any other piece of misconceived, unsourced content. Sindinero (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly ignoring this fact is plain POV. I can't find the article so quickly, but some time a go a plane stopped at Shannon Airport for a planned refueling stop and unplanned maintenance. So the cargo of soldiers was stranded on the airport while the restaurants had closed. But on request of the soldiers, not the restaurant staff was ordered back in, but the staff of the local McDonald's was ordered back in to feed the soldiers... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish Independent Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with POV, and anecdotal evidence like this doesn't really support your case. There are simply no good grounds for making stereotypes the measure of what we include on wikipedia. Would leprechauns and guinness make for suitable images for a navbox on Irish culture? How about baguettes and berets for one on French culture? This is an encyclopedia, not National Lampoon's [insert country here] Vacation. How is this not obvious? Sindinero (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Storytelling and "The Black Stuff" are still very common here in Ireland. Tradition and holy places are still respected here. And cheese and windmills are still iconic and (in the right places) part of everyday life in The Netherlands. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• While the burgers-and-fries image lends instant recognizability and a sense of uniformity to the template, it seems less representative of American cuisine per se than American corporate cuisine (or perhaps global corporate cuisine). I think it might be better to forego any image rather than risk appearing to promote on Wikipedia what multibillion-dollar interests already pay good money to promote everywhere else. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's no more promotional than any other image used on the site. It shows a generic burger and fries. There are no company logos in the image that I can see, so it's not promotional at all. And the "corporate" argument is simply semantics. This image is not corporate in the least. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    I didn't say the image was promotional; I said it risked appearing promotional. And I didn't say the image was corporate or that the particular burger and fries it depicts are corporate; I said it's representative of corporate cuisine. In that it depicts two menu items widely advertised and sold worldwide by various corporations (U.S.-based and otherwise), I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning in your rebuttal. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Sorry you're having difficulty following my train of thought. I'll try it again: The same can be said for just about any food item: some corporation somewhere likely sells it (and in many cases, many corporations do), so the argument of "it's corporate cuisine" doesn't really hold water since almost any food item is both sold in restaurants and made by people in their homes. If we were wanting to show some signature dish of a famous restaurant, I could understand your concern, but that's not the case here. As I wrote above, it's a generic burger and fries, which you can get at restaurants and backyard barbecues across the entire country. There's no risk of it appearing promotional. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

      • No one is having any "difficulty" following your train of thought; the problem is that you have failed to address the massive number of rebuttals to your arguments for inclusion—all of which have been refuted for the last month. No matter how many times you reboot or restart this discussion, the consensus is for no inclusion of an image at this time. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

        • I have only failed to address your arguments for inclusion because you refuse to accept anything I bring up. None of them have been refuted, just disagreed with. This is a battle of opinions and your opinion is different than mine. That's perfectly fine, and I've stated repeatedly that I'm fine if the consensus turns out to be no image, keeping the one that's there, replacing it with another image, or even rotating or making the image specific to the article in question. I really don't care one way or the other (or the other, or the other, or the other). I do object to how rudely you've treated everyone who disagrees with you. That's been the only real problem I've had here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Poll

The RfC appears to have gotten rather large and has veered in several tangents. I would like to call a poll to see what consensus we are leaning towards for the template while centralizing and distilling the viewpoints. From the RfC discussion above this is what I see we are heading towards, three possible outcomes regarding image usage in this template:

1. Keep the current image
2. No image
3. Different image

As it stands now I have installed the variable image function discussed above, but have not added any built-in secondary images. Please place your opinion under the appropriate section with a Support and don't forget to sign your posts! Please keep the comments to a minimum. Thanks! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep

• Include an image and keep a changeable default image. The default image should be burger and fries. Some navigational boxes have images, and even if none have before, this one looks good with an image. I like the proposal of building in functionality to change the image if anyone has a reason to do so, and do not think that a loss of navigational box branding or clarify will be lost if the picture changes as people navigate it to different articles. But I do think there should be a default picture for those cases when no one has opted to change the picture, and the burger and fries is contemporary America's most widely recognized culinary gift to the world and is therefore a suitable choice for pictorial representation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - My opinion has been stated throughout the conversation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A good compromise for a controversy that mostly exists within Wikipedia, while defaulting to an image that is nearly free of controversy outside the Wikipedia editorial battleground. If this option is chosen, it does depend on all editors respecting consensus and not tracking down every instance and changing the default. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There's some serious stereotype threat here. A hamburger is the stereotypical American cuisine. It is neither the most produced, eaten nor iconic. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No image

• First choice. Any illustration here should be primarily decorative, and the benefits that would confer upon the template aren't worth the contention involved in choosing one. My distant second choice would be to change or rotate the image. Selecting the current image as the template's only illustration could be seen as accepting, if not advocating, the sort of lowest-common-denominator cuisine hawked relentlessly—and successfully—by multibillion-dollar global corporate concerns (see my comments above). In addition, it fuels an unfortunate stereotype of American cuisine, which is actually rather diverse and interesting, as being epitomized by fast food. For those reasons, I think the current image arguably violates the spirit of WP:PROMOTION, by appearing to promote two food items that several corporate concerns already spend vast sums to promote, and WP:UNDUE, by drawing disproportionate attention to them via an image recurring in multiple articles. (Procedural note: I have grave doubts that this poll will help to determine consensus. I suggest it the RfC run for a full 30 days, after which an uninvolved party should close it and make an assessment.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image! The images are controversial, undue, and offensive to different cultures within the nation. They also conflict with the titles of many articles. No good arguments have been made for inclusion. Many have been made for exclusion. By default, these images should not be in the templates. And comparing these templates to bottom ones doesn't make sense because these place a large image top right where images always go in connection with article titles. No image unless consensus for inclusion, which should be discussed at the talk page for each template. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And see "For inclusion, in a nutshell" above. That summary shows no argument for inclusion. Arguments that came after were only "well, bottom templates have them." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• MOS:ICONS has several principles against this: It's pure decoration, it does not aid encyclopedic understanding (may even be confusing - Canadians do not think of burgers as "American" food, while British think of chips/fries as their own), and it sets off political editwarring. Viriditas, below, is being unnecessarily combative and should not have tried to close the poll early, but is correct that there is not only no consensus for this image in particular, but no consensus to add any image to this or similar templates. The fact that some less controversial templates of this sort have images is simply an example of WP:OTHERCRAP (and, yes, this is a deletion discussion, of an image from a page rather than of a whole page). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image, if you want my honest preference. Vertical navboxes themselves are a bugbear AFAIC, so smaller the footprint they occupy on the RHS of the page, the better. Nothing against this burger & fries picture per se. If forced to choose one among many by default, it would be fine. Looks like a diner or at-home shot, so it seems inocuous (from a "promoting fast food industry" standpoint I mean). If there is motion to globally supersede this template with the horizontal and collapsible version ({{Cusine of the United States}}) that would be great, and in that case I wouldn't be dead set against a small burger & fries shot being featured on it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image. Others have said it best. If we must have an image, a Thanksgiving feast is probably best, rather than any single dish. But really, any image would fail to capture all of the broad range of American food. Rotating is probably the worst of all options; any encyclopedia is not a billboard. Neutrality^talk 01:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image, seconding all the reasons that have been (repeatedly) given in discussion above. An encyclopedia should not be a collection of stereotypes, nor should it tailor its coverage and depiction of subjects to the stereotypes of those who know nothing about a given topic. Sindinero (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image. I had originally removed the image as an uninvolved admin (responding to an edit request--the template was fully protected at the time), based on what appeared (at the time) to be a consensus that the image that was in place was not appropriate, based on the strength of the arguments presented. I self-reverted after some consideration (and a complaint from one of the involved editors), but I haven't seen anything that changes my initial impression. In fact, the very thorough rationales from Anna Frodesiak and (particularly) SMcCandlish reinforce my original decision, and I will surrender my uninvolved status to state that I too oppose an image, and particularly that image. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image, in this case, the purpose of images in the encyclopedia is to help to illustrate the subject of the article - AND THAT IS IT. There is no other accepted rational for including an image. However, it seems to be widely acknowledged that images within NavBoxes do not do this. In fact, the NavBox isn't truly even part of the article itself. An image of burgers and fries, specifically, does nothing to illustrate the subject of any pages other than Hamburger and French Fries. However, I can see a far better argument being made for the illustrative purpose of, say, the Coca-Cola logo in that NavBox. On the gripping hand, I would not be against a general ban on NavBox images.ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image Hard to find a new reason different from the good ones above. I don't think we should have images in Navboxes at all. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• First choice No image with the ability to add an image on an article by article basis. Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image. A purely decorative image is not worth all the acrimony. (If the image depicts "everyone's idea of" American cuisine, it cannot have a purpose other than decoration, as it's not informing anyone of anything. If it doesn't depict everyone's—or nearly everyone's—idea of American cuisine, it cannot be representative. And as far as I'm concerned, the same applies to images in the other national-cuisine templates.) Deor (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I like images in Navboxes, but I'd prefer no image to the one of hamburger and French fries, which isn't representative of American cuisine. My first choice would be to have a different image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• No image. This is the best solution, but if we must have any image, then please don't use one of a hamburger and French fries.. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Change image

If you support a different image, please link to that image, do not set it to display here. If this choice is the consensus view, we can hold another poll to decide on the new image.

• Support Would prefer a conditional image, fitting with the context in which the template is used. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support having a changeable image which allows an appropriate image (or no image if there is none available) to be set in each article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice Images of Corn, (Turkey or Apple Pie), or [[Chicken] are the most produced, iconic, or consumed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Some suggestions are File:Pumpkin Pie.jpg (the orange fits in nicely with the orange infobox -- I tried it on preview and it looks good), File:Motherhood and apple pie.jpg, or File:CookedCornOnTheCob.JPG. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Poll discussion

I have moved the discussion about this poll here.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now, previous discussions have already established that there is no consensus for the addition of any image to this template and all images should be immediately removed from this template. You cannot continue to restart and reboot this discussion and hope for a different result merely because everyone has already moved on to bigger and better things. The discussion on this page shows an overwhelming consensus against inclusion of an image. Each and every argument you and the owner of this template have put forward for keeping this image has been refuted. When you have been informed of this fact, you and the owner of this template move the goalposts and respond with "but we must have an image". No, we need not have an image, and there is absolutely no consensus for an image nor is there any rational justification for one. Therefore, I am removing the image at this time. The burden of proof rests solely on the editor adding an image, not removing it. You have not only failed to prove your case for adding it, you have, in fact, proven that you have no case. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop referring to me as the "owner" of the template. I created it, but I do not own it, and your repeated attacks in this vein are getting tiresome. Please refrain from such attacks and falsehoods in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image again. There is no consensus for any image in this template. Repeatedly adding against consensus demonstrates your ownership issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally support this. I will also remove the image if restored. This poll, and all discussions on this matter have resulted in clear rejection of the image, with strong arguments. There still remains no good arguments for inclusion. Restoring the image must be seen as going against the will of the community. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Could we please wait the thirty days? It is common courtesy before taking action. While the no image opinion is of a higher portion now, the two viewpoints supporting the inclusion of an image are not much further behind. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was started on 22 May, so we go 30 days (or so) from that date, not 30 days from your poll to gauge the consensus of the RfC. So we wait until 22 June, two days from today. Repeatedly rebooting this discussion over and over again is disruptive. I should like to point out that requests to extend a discussion only apply when there is a discussion underway. There is no active discussion here, therefore, there is no reason to extend it. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is your private opinion, mr. Viriditas. I have reverted your POV-closure. I want the poll to go on. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While it seems fairly clear which way consensus is leaning, we're not quite in WP:SNOW territory. Let's let it run for 30 days, and let's all of us bite our tongues while we're at it. The wiki won't fall into ruin if we (1) exercise a little patience and (2) try to be kind. Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion has already run for almost a month, and it's been rebooted three times with consensus against inclusion of the image in all three discussions. The owner of the template has failed to heed the burden that applies to all disputed additions per V. No valid arguments for inclusion have ever been offered during that time. As a result, we default to no inclusion until the time comes that there is support for adding an image. The burden is always on the editor or editors adding content, not removing it, and the burden has never been met. Instead, we have a group of editors, one with an admitted COI connecting him to the fast food industry, continuing to move the goalposts by restarting the discussion over and over again. That's not acceptable behavior and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop being a jerk, Viriditas. I have never claimed ownership of this template, and I never will. Your constant harassment on this point is extremely tiresome and merely shows the world that you are the aggressor here. What needs to stop is your constant belittling of anyone who disagrees with you. I have never seen any discussion in which you participate where you have been anything but a bully and a complete jerk to anyone who disagrees with you. I would hope you would be able to step back and see this, but I've given up any hope you'll ever be anything other than a bully on this site. Even if you're position ends up being the consensus, you shouldn't go around rubbing it in others' faces. Please grow up and start engaging in polite debates rather than continuing as you have been. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, could you please summarize the current state of consensus in your own words? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have noticed that you disagree with the second point. POV-pushing, editwarring and personal attacks are not examples of being kind to each other or to teh encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between being kind and helping people and being naive and letting people take advantage of others. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this world who take advantage of the kindness of others. Viriditas (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but sometimes other people screw up that taking advantage, as you should have noticed. And some people keep themselves blind for opinions that differ from theirs... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be sensible and gracious to self-remove the image. Hanging on till the last second hoping for a Hail Mary is not the way I would handle things. Actually, shooting for a poll after no good arguments could be found isn't my style either.

"...not much further behind...": If a sudden string of keeps were to land, that would still only qualify as a group of ILIKEITs, and wouldn't supersede the strong arguments against. Plus, that sudden string is very, very unlikely.

I urge you, respectfully, to voluntarily remove the image. It's really inevitable and time to "Drop the tennis racket, and back slowly away from the seagull." or whatever the expression is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Viriditas: I agree with you that the 30 days should be counted from the beginning of the RfC, not the poll. @ Anna Frodesiak: I agree with you that it would be sensible and gracious. However, those concepts are subjective, and I don't think a matter of three more days is worth fighting over. @ everyone: This RfC most certainly should be closed by an uninvolved party. Rivertorch (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not so bad waiting a while longer. It's pretty clear what will happen in the end. I tried to fake everyone out with "...I will also remove the image if restored...". Nobody bought it. :) I tried "...urge you, respectfully,..." - no takers. Remind me never to play poker with you lot. :) Oh well, all's well that will end well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the 30 days is meant to be from the beginning of the Rfc. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling the question

Can we agree that there is dramatically more support for "no image," than any of the other alternatives, and dispense with this poll, and discuss how to implement the change? Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now the consensus is nine for no image and seven for an image. I question that being a clear consensus. The problem, and it is my fault for improperly wording the poll, is that there are two major thoughts – having an image and not having an image. The problem is that it appears there is an overriding consensus to have no image when in fact that is not the case because the having an image camp is split into two camps. Additionally several people who have posted in the No image section have stated that they would prefer a different image to the current one, so that throws the whole thing off.

I should have formatted the poll into a Support an image and Have no image groups and waited for a consensus on those two options. If the support an image camp was the consensus opinion, we should have set up a separate discussion regarding what image we should use. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are bad at counting. At the very least it's clear that there is consensus that the current image is not acceptable. Please admit this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The is a difference between no image and not this image, Hypocrite. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But both of them agree that the current image is not acceptable, which is what is quite clear at this point. There is strong agreement that the current image must go. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is true. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Calm down everyone. Just relax for a second and realize that this is Wikipedia. Please give each other reasonable doubt. If I can help either of you come to a common consensus, I will. My talk page is open.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right that calming down would be an excellent idea, and thanks for your offer to help. Whether consensus has resulted from the RfC—and, if so, what that consensus is—will need to be determined by the uninvolved party who closes the RfC in a day or two. If we could all just be a little patient, it would be best. It's hard to imagine anything constructive will result from further discussion here at this point. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While I like the image, if the choice is to change it I can live with that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure

The RfC bot has been by and worked its magic. I have requested formal closure of the RfC here. Rivertorch (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI: There seems to be a hold up as the outcome of the poll etc. is being disputed by Jeremy at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I urge proponents of the image to exercise good sportsmanship and remove the image. It's time to move on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am late at finding this debate, but frankly I don't know where else to speak my words; that is, if it's not too late. Frankly, all this makes my head spin with confusion and loss. There appears to be way too much personal rhetoric, unfortunately, so that a late comer like myself is just overwhelmed and doesn't even know where to interject. Anyway, I don't understand why it is assumed by most of you, that if there is indeed a picture to be posted, then it has to be one that is of one, specific image and of one specific food item. If I asked myself what comes to mind as the iconic representation of "American cuisine," then it would simply be a Thanksgiving dinner. I think most of the world recognizes this too, and even if they don't, then they obviously should. Thanksgiving is the cultural myth that our nation was founded upon. It's what you learned as an American from your earliest days in school as a child, as well as at the dinner table. Thanksgiving dinner is probably more significant than a Fourth of July barbecue, because it represents the most formative image in our minds about the birth of our nation, before it even became just that. But, it's not just the picture of a roasted turkey, as much as it is the entire gathering people and a cornucopia of foods that go with it. It's the one day that ALL Americans come together, no matter their point of view or life-stye, and share a meal. If we don't comprehend that, then I think we are missing out on something quite significant. In fact, maybe we miss the point entirely. I don't know how any of you could say that this is not "American." Given the turmoil you all have given each other, I don't assume this is going to solve the issue; but, that's about as much my own opinion about it all. Ironically, the Fourth of July is all but three days away, but I urge all of you to think of Thanksgiving. Ultimately, I am more interested in the the actual quality and content of the article, than I am about an image.Ca.papavero (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2012 (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.

Name change?

There is one thing absolutely clear now: there is no "American cuisine". The term is a bit misleading. Could it be a good idea to change the name of the template in "Cuisine in the USA" or something like that? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because this is the naming convention the food project decided to go with during standardization a few years back. I disputed it at the time, arguing somewhat along your lines in the case of "Cuisine of Hawaii". So, while I'm in agreement with your proposal, you would have to bring it up at the project level because they chose to remove all instances of Cuisine of X. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In dealing with the naming conventions for national cuisines there is a caveat dealing with this issue - Cuisine of the United States was the preferred version because of the complexities of American cuisine, as NotBW has commented on. Another editor, unaware of the caveat, made the change to American cuisine. The full guideline is here. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The complexities are the same for Hawaiian cuisine and it should be moved back to Cuisine of Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've gone ahead and boldly moved American cuisine back to Cuisine of the United States, and I've invited User:Neelix to comment. Frankly, his page moves aren't supported. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please move this discussion to the appropriate page. The Cuisine of the United States move is appropriate, any other changes should be discussed on those pages. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The original footer template is named {{Cuisine of the United States}}. It's a bad idea to propose changing a sidebar navbox template to a similar name. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It was over a year ago that I made these moves and I have since been alerted to our naming conventions for country-specific topics, which are unequivocally against article titles that use a demonym when referring to the corresponding country rather than the corresponding people group. Our guidelines take greater precedence than project decisions; feel free to move all of the country-specific cuisine articles back to a "Cuisine of Country" format. It is only the people-group-specific cuisine articles that should retain the "Demonym cuisine" format. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Guidelines were never meant to be strictly interpreted in a literal manner. They were meant to augment good decisions. Hawaii, a former country and home to Native Hawaiians, is currently named "Hawaiian cuisine", because you Neelix, moved it to that name in February 2011, with the rationale, "To be consistent with other regional cuisine articles; there is no reason to make this article's title an exception". Not only was there a reason, but it had been clearly explained in the talk archives since 2009, which you ignored. The current article is not about Hawaiian cuisine, it is about the cuisine of Hawaii. Modern cuisine of Hawaii is called Hawaii regional cuisine, not Hawaiian cuisine, and Hawaiian cuisine is actually the country-specific topic of Cuisine of Ancient Hawaii. The Cuisine of Hawaii refers to the cuisine of many different countries and people. The Cuisine of Hawaii does not specifically refer to the cuisine of Hawaiian people. Contrary to what you claim, guidelines never take greater precedence than project decisions. What you are doing is standardizing article names without any regard or concern for the good reasons behind the titles. In other words, you are using the guidelines in a way they were never intended. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Hawaiian cuisine move was and is correct. Hawaii is a relatively small region of the United States no different than Puerto Rico or the Virgin islands. Yes there is a native cuisine and a modern cuisine, but the naming structure is proper. Sub-articles would be Native or Aboriginal Hawaiian cuisine, Modern Hawaiian cuisine and History of Hawaiian cuisine. American Cuisine versus Cuisine of the United States is a different beast entirely. Because it is a country of 300 million people from various ethnic backgrounds in an area more than 4.5 million square miles makes it hard to define one specific cuisine that is American. What we have with the cuisine in the United States is a bunch of regional and hybrid cuisines that comprise a total set of cuisines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the move was entirely incorrect and introduced ambiguity. Hawaii is a region of Oceania, not the United States, and food scholars classify its cuisine as part of Oceania. Modern elements have added Asian and American influences (cuisine of Hawaii), and chefs have taken this local style to another level with Hawaii (not Hawaiian) regional cuisine. Your argument for renaming American cuisine is identical to the argument for renaming Hawaiian cuisine, so it is not different as you claim. The cuisine of Hawaii is defined by a little less than 20 different ethnic cuisines. It sounds like you've never even read the article. Arguments from ignorance are not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Every cuisine is an amalgam of multiple forces that shaped the region. The American cuisine vs Cuisine of the United States example you cite is a macguffin designed to lead this argument astray. You cannot compare a country of 300 million people with an area 4.5 million square miles that shares a name with two continents with an archipelago that is smaller than some of the mainland cities of that country. What you should be doing is using a similar argument, say Caribbean cuisine versus Hawaiian cuisine. Both are archipelagos, both have multiple ethnic groups with influences from natives and multiple continents, yet Hawaii is different? The answer is no. The reason we have Cuisine of the United States is the same reason we have Cuisine of the Dominican Republic and Cuisine of Dominica, because the terminology is muddled. Both groups call themselves Dominican, so to avoid confusion they are called Cuisine of Xxx. American Cuisine can possibly refer to cuisine of the American continents, cuisine of the two dozen countries on those continents, cuisine of the aboriginal peoples or the food ate by Amerigo Vespuci (sarcasm alert). We also use the term "Cuisine of Xxx" when there is no appropriate adjective term for the region. That is why we have cuisine of New York City, because there is no adjective term for people who reside in New York City that will also be confused with people who live in the State of New York. Hawaiian cuisine has no ambiguity, it refers to the cuisine of the Hawaiian archipelago and and the people that reside there, and not just the aboriginals. It also can refer to food served elsewhere in the world that has it its origins in Hawaii. The cuisine naming guidelines were set up with the help of a contributor who has a PhD in culinary history, and frankly he carries more weight than you in this matter. Unfortunately, he is no longer with the project because he tired of contributors who would not accept fact over their own personal opinions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your wall of text is unhelpful. "New York" is not an ethnicity nor is it used to refer to an ethnicity. Per WP:PRECISION, we use "Cuisine of Hawaii" to avoid the ambiguity of referring to Hawaiian people, who use the term Hawaiian, not residents of Hawaii. This has already been explained to you and the only thing you can counter with is ICANTHEARYOU. This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal opinion, but is solely based on the sources, culinary sources you refuse to read or even acknowledge. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New image

Well, let's get started. I can't think of an appropriate one. Maybe a composite? Maybe none? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'd favor no image per the comments of Deor and others in the RfC section above. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer an image, there were several comments in the "no image" section that stated there is a preference for the image - just not the one that was there. Combined with the pro-image group I think there would be a consensus for some sort of image, just not the burger and fries. I, for, one would prefer an image.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• please, no image, we don't need to go through this again. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact I champion a totally different approach: break this template up. Rebuild it to an umbrella-template, linking to more "specialized" templates about (amongst other subjects) the different regional and ethnic cuisines. Those templates can dig deeper into matter and can far more easy identify a picture fitting for it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)