Talk:Sandwich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Internal Contradiction

In the initial definition at the top of the page, it is stated that a sandwich has one or more slice of bread. Later, in the section on open-faced sandwiches, it says that opened-faced sandwiches are not true sandwiches because they have only a single slice of bread. This contradiction must be righted. Discuss whether a single slice of bread is sufficient for a true sandwich. --Savant13 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you took a single slice of bread, put filling over one half of it then folded it over, you'd have a sandwich (though you could then argue that you've effectively turned once piece of bread into two). If you didn't fold it over, you'd just have some food on a piece of bread. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it wouldn't be a sandwich. "Open-faced sandwich" is an oxymoron.82.2.85.212 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

--- Sandwich is also a Unit of Measure used in the SAP computer application, though it is not defined within SAP as to what it converts to..

---

Someone ought to create a section for Dagwood Sandwiches. The article of this name links to the Sandwich article but there is no mention of them within the article.

Nabarry 00:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The third paragraph concerning the expanded definition of "sandwich" seems a might sketchy to me, especially since it claims that hamburgers are now called sandwiches in the United States except in most parts of that country and the rest of the English speaking world. This inference is from what is currently stated in paragraph 3. Could the original author perhaps refine this statement? I'd fix it myself but I thought I'd let the sandwich community discuss this before I take any rash action. First I'll fix myself a hamsandwichburger. Or a hamburger sandwich (in Baltimore that would be a hamberer sanrich).

JamesMadison 07:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thus hamburgers and "subs", for example, are called "sandwiches" in the United States, although not in the midwest, south or western states or most other English-speaking countries (since they are not made with slices of bread from a loaf).

This implies that the United States is solely comprised of the East Coast. It should be more neutral, reading something like, Thus hamburgers and "subs", for example, are called "sandwiches" on the East Coast of the United States, but not in the midwest, south or western states, or in most other English-speaking countries (since such "sandwiches" are not made with slices of bread from a loaf). Would someone please make this correction?

I've heard the term "hamburger sandwich", but it's not common. I suppose it could be used to differentiate it from a hamburger patty. The term "submarine sandwich" is not uncommon, although it seems that most people shorten it to "sub". "Hero sandwich" used to be common, but that has faded as the use of the term "sub" has become common. I think it is accurate to say that hamburgers and subs are types of sandwiches, but they aren't what people first have in mind when they use the word sandwich.--RLent 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From the usage I see it would be more accurate to say that a hamburger is classified as a sandwich. It's handy for doing things like counting the number of sandwiches sold by chain. I don't hear people say, "I want a hamburger sandwich." I do hear people say things like, "The store on the corner sold 1500 more sandwiches this month than last."--Gbleem 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that from a taxonomic POV, a hamburger is a type of sandwich. However, I have never heard of it being called a sandwich. I live in New York City, and have traveled up and down the eastern seaboard. Hamburgers have been called hamburgers, burgers, cheeseburgers, as well as the branded versions: Big Mac, Whopper, Quarter Pounder, [belly bombs], and so forth. [Do you want fries with that?] My mother is a Culinary Historian, and she never heard of a hamburger being called a sandwich either. I think that when someone refers to a sandwich, they mean something between two pieces of sliced bread, otherwise they will say burger or sub, or one of their variations. Becksguy 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

We need to track down a decent recipe for an Oyster Po'boy which is a hot sandwich. - Sparky This Oyster Loaf sandwich recipe is close -- needs more tabasco and less mayonaise. - Sparky 07:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Moved Hot dog to fillings section instead of sandwich type section. Cannot really see that this is a sandwich-type, but rather a sandwich content. If this is a generic sandwich type, which then should include other sausage "sandwiches" it can as easily be pointed out that there should be a "burger" sandwich type which would encompass all sandwiches in the burger bun, i.e. chicken burgers, fish burgers, and other types. Sfdan 17:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hot dog refers to the bread not the sausage in some parts of Europe. Rmhermen 22:47, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

The earl would have been unable to eat a sandwich having sustained an injury at the age of seventeen. most of his food beyond this point would have been soup. There is evidence to suggest that a law in France requiring land owners to feed their workers a mid-day meal may have brought about the invention. There is some conjecture as to where the Earl returned with rthis idea to his estates following a journey abroad

The bread is not "usually buttered" in the majority of sandwiches, so I'm getting rid of that, and appending that as a passing phrase at the end of one of the sentences. In fact, the only one I can think of is the Reuben (though obviously there're more). A light buttering while the bread is baked is understandable, but I feel the statement "usually buttered" implies more than that.

--65.42.214.30 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Consider adding the following items:

The majority of sandwiches in the United States are not buttered, but this is certainly not the case in the UK and Ireland. American sandwiches often have considerably more filling than thise from other parts of the world (compare a typical deli sandwich with English tea sandwiches). Also in the USA, cheese is often used as a condiment accompanying meats, wheras elsewhere it is frequently used as a filling in its own right.

I saw no reference to a "sandwich cookie" such as the ever-popular (POV right) Oreo. This may also be an "Americanism" but throughout the military we often used the term "a soup sandwich" to describe an individual who was, for the most part, unproductive or of little value to the effort. Granted this is a discussion of the edible food-between-the-bread, but it adds to the sandwich concept with an interesting visual. Also under the list od sandwiches I saw no reference to the "grinder" which may have fallen into obsolescence or is only a regional term for a "sub" "hero" or "po' boy". A friend from New Hampshire used it back in the 80's. Greenbomb101 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go as far as to suggest that the vast majority of sandwiches in the UK are buttered on both slices. In fact all commercially made sandwiches are. Any sandwich vendor that attempted to sell unbuttered sandwiches wouldn't last very long at all. Some sandwich shops attempt to substitute margarine for butter, but usually become known for being the source of cheap, second rate sandwiches and are avoided by anyone with a choice. So the need to mention majority of buttered/un-buttered will present this article with a bias that can simply be avoided by being location specific. 81.102.245.79 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the Following

Many sandwich producers are known for their criminal obsession of putting condiments and other, less than solid, ingredients in their sandwiches, like mayonnaise, ketchup or mustard . This turns the (usually pleasant) experience of eating a sandwich into a messy torture that the Inquisition would be more than proud of. Sliced tomato also fits in this category of ingredients that should be prohibited by international law from inclusion into a sandwich, however some disagree that in this case the offender should be viewed with some sympathy as tomato slices are easily discarded from the sandwich before eating, where condiments and sauces are not.

Great writing, but too POV. Sorry, MosheZadka 10:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's right out of Uncyclopedia, but it's on topic. BioTube 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry

There are some compounds in Organometallic Chemistry called "Sandwich compounds". They are referred to this way because the metal atom is sandwiched between two ligands.

For example, ferrocene:

Cp | Fe | Cp

Should this be included?

Perhaps the page should include some mention of the word "sandwich" commonly being used to describe any situation comprised of one thing placed between two like things in common American parlance (and perhaps elsewhere?) Placing one of X between two of Y seems to be pretty regularly described as an "X Sandwich." This attests to the prominence of the sandwich "meme."

Sandwiches Gambling Buddies

As we all know the Sandwich is named after The Earl of Sandwich, however there is no mention of the friends he gambled with, Lord Twiglet and the Duke of Hula Hoop. Sorry I couldn't resist Y control 10:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

Why on earth do we need sources about sandwiches? this is ridiculous. frecklefaerie 31 May 2006 16:41 (UTC)

don't you mean sauces?--Gecks 09:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect..

I believe the redirect from Sarnie to Sandwich is incorrect. (To us Brits atleast) a Sarnie is not a sandwich, but it is precisely a toasted sandwich. A Sani would be the sandwich (as in bog standard bread) where as a Sarnie would be toasted bread with the sandwich contents (but are usually more defined, like a Bacon sarnie, etc)

Some comments please. --Dom0803 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not my understanding of the British usage... I'd say (and hear) 'sarnie' to mean a sandwich in general. Perhaps the toasted usage is regional? If we can find out what the distinction is we could put a note on a disambiguation page. (Edited to add: I like your taste in guitar musics!)Jim whitson 09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

haha, thanks very much Jim. I'd like to agree with you but your userpage is lacking. I think that the Sarnie/Sani difference i explained a while back is a national thing to the UK. I know my belief in it is the same as my friend in London, where as I live in Belfast. Perhaps some sort of survey is in order.. possible? --Dom0803 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting! Is there a difference in pronounciation? I'd pronounce both "sani" and "sarnie" the same, so perhaps that's the source of the confusion. Jim whitson 14:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a rather prominent difference in the way I pronounce it, but that's likely just the Northern Irish accent (in all its ugliness). I would imagine in the English accent the difference is miniscule, especially in London when R's aren't as prominent sounding as the rest of the UK's accents. Especially in 1-2 syllable words.

I would say it like "sah-nee[sani] and sour-nee[sarnie]" --Dom0803 13:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect IS correct - I have never heard 'sarnie' used to refer to a toasted sandwich (in my 40+ years around the UK) - those are 'toasties' not sarnies. I would expect a 'sarnie' to be something between two pieces of untoasted bread. DrVon2 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DrVon2 although admittedly I'm from the south of England and usage may differ up north Tomgreeny 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And 'sarnie' is standard Scouse for a normal sandwich, and would be understood to be non-toasted throughout Northern England. Evidently Irish usage differs, and has not spread to Liverpool. Dbfirs 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation for cutlery

Has anyone got a citation for the bit about it being good manners to eat sandwiches with cutlery in some countries? I've never heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm just too parochial... Any takers, or shall I delete that bit? Jim whitson 09:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Queen eats sandwiches with her fingers. If the Queen does it, I guess that proves it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.146.11 (talk) 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Basic definition

Should we give a more basic definition before the expanded one with the condiments and oil on the bread? A sandwich is a food comprised of meat or other filling between two pieces of firm food usually bread. --Gbleem 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just remembered why I went to this article. Bob Evans has commercials for "knife and fork sandwiches" which I remember always being called open face sandwiches. --Gbleem 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a half a sandwich? Or if a sandwich is cut in half is it two sandwiches? Or if I have a sandwich consisting of 2 slices of bread and it gets cut into four pieces do I get four sandwiches? I agree you get a half eaten sandwich. I also am inclined to believe there is no such thing as a half a sandwich! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.157.29 (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Two hand Earl.

"Nowadays some types of sandwiches are too unwieldy to be held in one hand, thus defeating Lord Sandwich's original purpose"

If the purpose was to not get cards sticky then eating a sandwich with two hands would fit his purpose. If the purpose was to eat with only one hand then many foods would do. --Gbleem 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the UK, particularly in the north of England they are known, informally, as 'butties' or 'sarnies'." What is they? All sandwiches or just some types? --Gbleem 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All types of sandwiches, although the phrase "Chip Buttie" i.e. a sandwich containing chips (fries to Americans) is particularly popular. Tomgreeny 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is rare for a common sandwich in the UK to be called a Butty however. This of course excludes chip butties.--Spacerat3004 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Soggy Sandwich

Wow! Never thought I would find this much info. on a sandwich. I find it very interesting. I could not find any information or discussions about soggy sandwiches. Over the years my husband has dropped so many small hints about his sandwiches, the only thing he gets now is meat, mayo and a roll. The other day he brought his lunch home and his sandwich was still in it. IT WAS SAD!!! SOGGY, Just like he has been trying to politely tell me for years. I don't know what is causing this. My husband works very hard and provides everything his family needs. I think he deserves a sandwich that is not soggy. Any suggestions? thank you, Mom cardoza

Hehe, OK - put lettuce next to the bread. Also, avoid soggy items such as mozarella kept in brine, overly juicy tomatoes, etc. Use bread that's quite stodgy, wholemeal or brown are usually better. Can't think of anything else! Lottiotta 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Be generous with the margarine or butter - it serves as a kind of water-proofing! Good luck!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.151.242 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove List of Fillings

I would like to propose that we delete the list of fillings. It adds nothing to the article and could very easily get out of hand. Graemec2 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. By definition, you could put any foodstuff between two breadlike objects and call it a sandwich. —Nate Scheffey 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A sandwich is NOT

"A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," wrote Worcester Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke. http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/11/06/daily62.html?surround=lfn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namangwari (talk • contribs)

That's a legal definition determined by a U.S. municipal judge. Legal definitions aren't necessarily relevant here. In any case nobody mentions those items in the article so who cares? ...though it is odd that "wraps" are considered sandwiches. CGameProgrammer 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there was a ruling is certainly worth mentioning. 82.171.188.144 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be (semi) protected? It's getting a lot of vandalism; the last 2 times I've looked at this article I've had to remove vandalism Tomgreeny 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. CGameProgrammer 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of pre-Montagu history

IP address 70.251.65.94 deleted the entire discussion of the sandwich before Montagu. There are many references and reasons to include this history in this article. I am restoring the information. Williamroy3 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

tsk tsk... it's always bloody 70.251.65.94

Vandalism?

The article, before I last edited it, contained obviously fraudulent listings of "sandwich fillers" under the section of origins. Said farudulent list items contained stuff like "Hair", "Mold", "Salt and Sadness", "Mustard and Mustard" and so on. I'm not sure if "Mustard and Custard" is a fake list entry as well, but I for some reason suspect it. I also seem to recall there being a list containing links to actual sandwich-related articles on Wikipedia last time I checked this article, which has now apparently been replaced with the current list of silliness. What happened to the real list of sandwiches? Was it removed by consensus or did some vandal erase it without the rest of the editors noticing? 83.233.169.101 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am the same user who made the above post (I'm behind a dynamic IP). Since the list of "sandwich fillings" contained in the article appears to originally have been added by a vandal (see article's revision history), I took the liberty to restore the earliest, pre-vandalized version of the page. If this was an incorrect decision, I sincerely apologize. "Be bold", and all that. 83.233.181.148 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New edit Feb 08

I started with limited intentions, to move a bit about cheese sandwiches that someone added to welsh rarebit, where it certainly doesn't belong. Not being busy today I've gone through the entire article: rearranged text, reconsidered the pictures, edited the list of variations (where I took off the irrelevance warning, as the list now refers only to genuine sandwich articles on Wikipedia, so I guess it's good enough now). I even made a cheese sandwich and photographed it because I couldn't find anything like the type of sandwich usually eaten in the UK. Hope I haven't trodden on toes, this is the first time I've done this. ProfDEH (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"cibus Hilleli": I detect a hoax

Cibus Hilleli from Wikipedia is mirrored around the Internet and quoted with innocence by those who do not stop to wonder how much of Publius Terentius Varro (died ca 35 BCE) is actually quoted in Nonnus' elaborate early fifth-century epic Dionisiaca, least of all how a delicatessen description of a sandwich— "either of cheese or of meat"— might properly fit into epic structure eh. The approximate dates of Hillel the Elder are late first century BCE-early first century CE: he was writing after Varro was dead. The first insertion: "Indeed a form of sandwich is attributed to the ancient Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, who is said to have put meat from the Paschal lamb and bitter herbs between two matzos during Passover. " was entered by User:Paul Barlow, at 07:42, 9 April 2006 (not sourced, btw). Then, at 12:39, 26 April 2007 User:138.251.18.44 (not edited since) inserted "Romans referred to the meal as a "cibus Hilleli," or Hillel's Snack. <ref>And so we find in a fragment of Varro, preserved by Nonnius, that "cibus Hilleli est illa caesna quo panis sive caseum sive carnem sepit buturoque saepe operitur."</ref>" And it wasn't noticed by anyone. Double check me, to be sure I haven't durova-ed this, but I say this is a very successful Wikipedia hoax. What a load of junk in the edit history of the unprotected page: what a dull hour for me....--Wetman (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I should make it even more clear that Paul Barlow's edit was simply the springboard upon which an apparent hoax was constructed: see thr Passover seder section Hillel the Elder#Sandwich. --Wetman (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, acting upon the hunch that this had the style of a Classics graduate student prank, and without abusing any individual's confidentiality, I got my tech support to enter a Whois? query for the IP 138.251.18.44, which reveals through the RIPE.net database, that the source of the edit...

... was a computer at St. Andrews University, Fife, Scotland! --Wetman (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a hoax. I have removed it. Jon513 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My original edit was reproduced from the Hillel the Elder article. The origin of the story is fully documented there. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, Paul's edit about Hillel and the "seder wrap" is perfectly legit. Only the cibus Hilleli bit, with the spurious reference to "Varro, preserved by Nonnius", was a hoax. Now, the question is, should Cibus Hilleli be covered in a brief article mentioning this hoax, since it's copied all over the Internet from Wikipedia? Doesn't that situation make it notable, and isn't a brief article (which will also be mirrored) the best way to set the record straight?--Wetman (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have worked this information into a carefully-reasoned footnote, not to interrupt the article, but to correct the record in Wikipedia's many mirror sites.--Wetman (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the note per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Vandalism should be reverted as soon as possible, and certainly not mentioned in the article after being detected. It is unfortunate that the hoax was copied to the mirror, but a note is not warranted because the hoax was never notable, nor reported in reliable sources. Superm401 - Talk 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The text of the removed footnore, for easy future reference:

A former insertion here, to the effect that "Romans referred to the meal as a "cibus Hilleli," or Hillel's Snack" with the note "And so we find in a fragment of Varro, preserved by Nonnius, that "cibus Hilleli est illa caesna quo panis sive caseum sive carnem sepit buturoque saepe operitur" was a hoax perpetrated from a computer at St. Andrews University, Fife, Scotland. It has been innocently quoted around the Internet by those who do not stop to wonder how much of Publius Terentius Varro (died ca 35 BCE) is actually quoted in Nonnus' elaborate early fifth-century epic Dionisiaca, nor how a delicatessen description of a sandwich— "either of cheese or of meat"— might properly fit into Nonnus' epic structure. The approximate dates of Hillel the Elder are late first century BCE to early first century CE: he was writing after Varro was dead, so a Varro quote of Hillel is an anachronism.

Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Hillel's invention was not a sandwich by the article's definition. A burrito, perhaps? Dbfirs 08:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian sandwiches.

There is a lack of info on Australian sandwiches, specifically the 'Jaffle'. Which is made over an open fire with a 'Jaffle Iron'. In my opinion, the 'Jaffle' is the greatest sandwich of all. Variations of the 'Jaffle' have been made in other countries, such as the Indonesian 'Japple', typically found in the Indonesian archipelago, centralized around Bali (a popular tourist destination for Australians). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.13.210 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Say goodbye to "Other terms for sandwich"

I'm removing the entire section "Other terms for sandwich", since it violates WP:FLAG and WP:NOTDIC. If you really miss it, make a good case here for adding it back. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillel sandwhich a "wrap"

There is no source for the Hillel sandwich being a wrap, nor do I understand how this could be the case, given that matzo is basically a cracker and thus completely unwrappable. Superm401 - Talk 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw at Hillel the Elder#Sandwich that matzo was allegedly soft in Hillel's time, but there's no source for that either. Superm401 - Talk 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Matzah was indeed soft in the times of the Holy Temples in Jerusalem. Mishnayot and the Gemara that discuss sacrifical offerings speak of the kemitzah (sacrificial portion) that the kohen took by folding the unleavened korban mincha and grasping with his palm. This was true of those minchot from which a kemitzah was taken after baking, as all korbanot were non-chametz (unleavened). A source example is Maimonidies Ma'aseh Korbanot chapter 13 rule 10, at which he states, "it was folded in two (into double thickness) and then into four (quadruple thickness, i.e. doubly folded over) and then broken. This act is called petitah and is mentioned in Leviticus 2:6. Matzah may be thick and soft, so long as it is not chometz, and folding it will not automatically break it -- athough additional strictures have been put in place for modern application (The Korban Mincha CIS Publications 1987, page 31). The Gemara in Bavli Betzah 22b states this explicitely, with Rashi commenting that the lechem haponim were a handbredth in thickness, despite being unleavened. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how there can be any doubt about this, since the verb לכרוך means "to wrap". What else could it possibly mean? Soft wrappable matzah is still baked today, and is available from http://softmatza.com, but you have to freeze it or it will go stale before you can eat it. The advantage of the cracker form is that it can be baked well in advance of Pesach and shipped around the globe. -- Zsero (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Leavened vs. Unleavened?

While the Globe establishes a minority opinion, the Merriam-Websters Dictionary established that leavened bread is not a necessity. A dispute of sources therefor esatblishes that sandwiches are of either leavened or unleavened bread. Since this can more easily be written by just stating "bread," the article should not assert leaven as a prerequisite for sanwich construction. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Globe article gives the legal definition of a sandwich, as determined by at least one court of law. I also fail to see why a more inclusive source trumps a more exclusive one. -- Zsero (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To define a sandwich as needing leavened bread based on a single article in which a single chef is quoted as making an off-the-cuff statement that may or may not even substantiate your claim is highly irregular and quite ill-thought out. In the context of discussing whether or not a Mexican burrito fulfills the banned sandwich clause of a particular mall, the chef remarked that sandwiches require leavened bread. That is his personal opinion. According to Jewish law, however, a burrito wrap is leavened. The objectivity of your claim is thus already lost. And common sense would state that when two objective sources conflict, the less exclusionary of the two should be used. How can one source limit the excess of another source when neither really has any seniority over the other? Consensus has just changed by my entrance into this discussion, and I can see no evidence of a discussion on the talk page, other than the one I just started. And please quit making references to "courts of law" -- they hold no holier than an established source like Webster's Dictionary. As it stands, the article should really state, "leavened or unleavened bread, depending on which source one considers." Perhaps even more precise would be, "according to one chef used as an expert witness in said court case, it may even exclude unleavened." Isn't it just easier to just write "bread"? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish law says a tortilla is leavened? I wasn't aware that the Shulchan Aruch had a section on the meanings of English words. Nor do I recall anything there that would make a wheat tortilla necessarily chametz, even if we were to take that term's definition as exactly corresponding to that of "leavened". If making them for Passover one would have to take extra care with them, but even without care they'd be quite likely not to be chametz.

Well, corn tortilla is not because according to Jewish law, only the five species of grain (wheat, barley, oats, spelt and rye) can become leaven. Wheat tortilla may or may not but would likely always be. If the utensils and tools used to make the tortilla are not cleaned from past runs, the future runs will be chametz -- so, yes, tortilla would under most circumstances be chametz. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, a tortilla never "becomes leaven". As for chametz, I don't think you can substantiate a definitive statement that a wheat tortilla would be chametz. If baked for Passover care would have to be taken with it, but there's nothing inherently chametz about its preparation. Even if the tools are not cleaned, the tortilla might contain tiny amounts of chametz, but it would not necessarily be chametz.

In any case, none of this is relevant to the current topic, which is about whether bread is leavened, not whether it's chametz. And whether chametz or matzah, a tortilla is never leavened. -- Zsero (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertions are bereft of both merit and consideration. Your definition of leaven is clearly not an objective definition. While Judaism's definition is neither objective, this article, as all, must follow NPOV, and must take all substantial, non-fringe views into account. A tortilla most certainly may "become leaven" according to Jewish law. If tortilla dough is made with wheat flour and water and is allowed to sit idly for 18 minutes prior to baking, it would constitute leaven according to Jewish law. A single point you made is true -- nothing inherant in a tortilla makes it chametz -- but that is what is irrelevant in this conversation. The point was that the quoted chef was making a statement in reference to burrito flatbread, stating that "unleavened bread" is not fit for a sandwich. His completely subjective statement was an existential assertion about the court case at hand, not a universal generalization about sandwiches the world over and from the beginning of time onward. And our discussion is not about whether or not bread is leavened -- it is about whether the requisite bread of a sandwich must be leavened bread or whether it could be unleavened bread. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DRosenbach, please look up the definitions of the noun "leaven" and the adjective "leavened" in any English dictionary. "Leaven" does not mean chametz; the closest Hebrew word is se'or. (But they're not identical; se'or is a particular kind of leaven. Baking powder is leaven, but it isn't se'or, and can in fact be kosher for Passover.) And "leavened" means that leaven has been added to the dough. No matter how long you leave dough out, it is not leavened if no leaven has been added.

As for chametz, it is not true that leaving dough idle for 18 minutes automatically makes it chametz; that is enough to make us concerned that it might have become chametz, but whether it has or hasn't is a matter of the biological process of fermentation and consequent rising. Halacha considers that under the right conditions (e.g. that it's not too hot), chimutz cannot happen in less than 18 minutes, and can't happen at all if the dough is being worked, so to avoid any possibility of chametz we make sure the dough is not left idle for that long, and also that nothing in the environment raises the temperature above normal. And if these conditions are not met, we don't eat the result on Pesach, just in case it became chametz, i.e. began rising. But it is not true to state objectively that it is chametz. -- Zsero (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The following online dictionaries make no differentiation: TheFreeDictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, YourDictionary.com, WordReference.com, Accurate&ReliableDictionary.com, ReversoDictionary.com and even another article (At the DailyCollegian.com) about the same court case makes no reference to 'leaven' when quoting the USDA requirements for a sandwich. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This "leavened" definition has been in place for some time, which ordinarily implies consensus. I'm not opposed to discussing a change, but please let's leave the existing definition alone until we've had a chance to discuss it, or look into it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So what is your position? I don't see how a sandwich can be so narrowly defined based on a single, off-the-cuff quote from one chef that is being taken out of context. His definition of leaven is subjective -- he was evidently referring to flatbread wrap as unleavened bread, attempting to, in the context of the court case, exclude a flatbread-wrapped burrito from the category of "sandwiches." But his opinion is contested by at least the Jewish law relating to chometz on Passover, if not also by a few, some or many others -- the point is that his statement is far from objective or free from dispute. Then, his comments were not necessarily made to counter that leavened bread must be used insomuch as he was saying what he said to exclude burritos from possessing "sandwichhood." In addition to these two fundamental flaws, he is only an individual -- and far from notable, reknowned, famous, exceptional or otherwise excessively qualified to render such an overriding ruling in the face of numerous dictionary entries as indicated above. When we search for fundamental definitions of words and concepts, do we look to media interviews, or do we look in texts and peer reviewed articles, in which word choice is deliberately determined after hours of thought and speculation into denotation, connotation and sincere worry over misinterpretation? The latter. And even if this third problem wasn't damning enough, and he was a super-duper-master of the whatever he would need to be to be able to say something like this and all of his followers would bow before him and he said this with meaning and thoughtful intent, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one other source which would substantiate his requirement of leavened bread in a sandwich. The four or so sources I included above all indicate that there is no stipulation as to the type of bread to be used in a sandwich. Please state a defensible counterargument other than "this has been what we agreed upon for so long." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a position other than to clarify that the existing definition is the de facto consensus based on its long standing, and therefore should not be changed without discussion. The origin of the "leavened" phrase seems to be about two years ago, but I didn't go back further much than that. It has been occasionally removed and quickly replaced by various editors, so I'd like to let some editors have some say in this. I'm not disagreeing with your arguments -- nor am I agreeing -- I just don't seem to share your sense of urgency. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Wow. Just... wow.

So, since no sources say unleavened bread is necessary for a sandwich, I'd propose the following construction: "A sandwich is made with bread.(cite which doesn't mention leavening) Certain authorities have maintained that leavened bread is a necessary component.(cite which does mention leavening)"

How's that sound? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit taken aback by the sudden need to change a definition that has been in place for nearly two years. As I've stated above, I'd like some input from other editors who have been involved with this article. Personally, I'm reluctant to change the definition because "leavened" works well to exclude things that aren't generally considered sandwiches, but I'm open to other opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DRosenbach, what do you feel is being excluded by the "leavened" definition that you think most people would view as a sandwich? You answer may help clarify the need to change the definition. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Matzah, as first used by Hillel the Elder in a sandwich and commemorated to this day during the Passover Seder, is unleavened bread. The perfunctory placement (or retention, as it seems to be) of the needless modifier "leavened" essentially rejects Hillel's matzah sandwich as the first documented sandwich. And Jclemens, I never asserted that the article should state 'unleavened'; it is merely the inclusion of the word 'leavened' that is excluding unleavened bread. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to that origin story immediately after the lead, although perhaps it could be expanded. As for the matzah "sandwich" in present day, I don't think most people consider that to be a sandwich in the general sense, as matzah is not commonly thought of as bread. Here is a discussion contemporaneous with the court decision referenced for the "leavened" claim. It touched upon this very issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are inadmissible -- I can write one tomorrow that states the opposing view. And it's clear that we are not applying either of the opinions stated as evidence in the court case -- that of the USDA or the chef -- because we are not excluding fish and PB&J sandwiches, both of which are excluded by both of the views. We are also not applying the chef's view that sandwiches must be, should be or likely are served cold -- steak sandwiches and hot pastrami sandwiches are no less sandwiches because their contents are off the grill. The chef's testimony is actually not a good example of what a sandwich is. His assertions are too far from the norm, and his views are reactionary and quite irrelevant to mainstream sandwich-makers and -eaters. How can we limit sandwiches to leaven?

And in regards to the matzoh sandwich, the maztoh of today is thin and brittle, but the matzah of Hillel the Elder was thick, soft and pliable yet still unleavened (see discussion above for sources). This point alone justifies the removal of the term 'leavened'. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I offered the blog link as an informal reference for your use and for other editors joining this discussion. I didn't intend to add it to the article. As for what the chef said, I'm not seeing in the reference any of the things you claim. I really don't see how the use of the word "leavened" in any way prevents the inclusion of the Hillel origin story in the article (which, as previously noted, is already there). Please can you just let this alone for a few days to allow other editors to express an opinion? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to get your wish anyway — DRosenbach is going to leave it alone for a few days, as will I, because of Rosh Hashana. Depending on DRosenbach's time zone, s/he may already be offline. :-) -- Zsero (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reiteration

My point is that Hillel the Elder placed his Paschal lamb, together with some maror, whether that be a bitter herb in the form of horseradish or romaine lettuce, between two slices of what was then soft, pliable matzoh. What we do now is irrelevant. Because matzoh is unleavened (and this includes Hillel's soft, pliable matzoh), a statement in the article declaring that sandwiches are made from leavened bread is false and misleading. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandwiches are made from leavened bread. You are arguing about what sandwiches (or proto-sandwiches) were made from. Again, please let other editors with experience on this article add to the discussion. Reiterating your point is not helpful at this stage. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Put a different way, Hillel's wrap was definitely not a sandwich under the definition adopted by the Boston judge. But it still belongs in the article because it's a famous precursor to the modern sandwich.

However, we may want to reconsider whether the decision of one judge in one city in the world is enough to determine the definition for all English-speakers everywhere. Maybe the lede should have a more inclusive definition and then put the Boston legal definition in a subsection? Something to consider.

Oh, and DRosenbach, Hillel did not put the meat and vegetables between two slices of matzah, he wrapped it in one piece of matzah. That's what the verb כרך means. So even if we omit "leavened" from the lede, the definition still excludes Hillel. -- Zsero (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. How would you call a sandwich made from unleavened bread (it may actually contain leavening agents but is marketed as unleavened, so assume it is) ? Un-sandwich? NVO (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The decision of this judge is being given extreme precedence in violation of WP:UNDUE. I have cited four or more dictionary definitions for 'sandwich' that contain no reference to the leavened status of the bread used and the article currently stands with what amounts to a "viewpoint...held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" that, while backed up with a single source, "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (quotes taken from Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. Hillel needn't be mentioned in this debate. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how undue the weight can be when it is a legally binding decision within one jurisdiction, and has at least advisory weight in any court in any common-law jurisdiction anywhere in the world. Surely that trumps dictionaries. If you can cite an authority of equal weight, e.g. state or national regulations anywhere in the English-speaking world that give a legal definition of "sandwich" for their jurisdiction, then we can talk. -- Zsero (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does the court decision say anything about leaven? According to the article that is being used as the sole support for this ridiculous claim makes no mention of leaven in the judge's decision. What is does say was how the determination hinged on a distinction that exists between classical sandwiches and wraps: "the difference comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla: "A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," he wrote." Nowhere in relation to the judge or the court case is the leavened status of the bread mentioned. The leavened status is merely alluded to by Chef Schlesinger. How does this constitute a "legally binding decision within one jurisdiction"? The judge may or may not have taken that point into account, and if he did, it doesn't seem to have contributed that greatly to his decision, or the article would have quoted it in his name and not as an "expanation" from the chef. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, we can resolve that aspect of the discussion by getting a copy of the decision. I'm going to try to do that, and then continue once we know what it actually says. It will be a better source for the article anyway. -- Zsero (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So this has been consensus of the ignorant. How intellectually honest! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

Okay, so, here's your fourth opinion. I'd be in support of removing the word "leavened" from the opening sentence. I'm going to set aside the Hillel sandwich for now; that's something that could be based on a strange or awkward translation. Other unleavened breads like naan and original foccacia could be used to make sandwiches of a sort. Dictionaries define sandwich as being made with just bread, not leavened specifically. Being that specific is inherently limiting, and somewhat excessive.

By the way, a "second 3O" isn't usually given like this; the next step is WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another 3OR? I was under the impression, from the discussion in the section above, that someone was attempting to get the actual text of the court decision. The interpretation of the article from which "leavened" reference was taken seemed to be getting increasingly distorted. I realise that the "leavened" definition is limiting, that's why I am reluctant, although willing, to change it. It short-circuits any additions of wraps, rolls, tacos, burritos, and things which are functionally the same as a sandwich but would not be commonly considered a sandwich. Whatever the new definition is, I don't think it should be so broad as to include the modern "matza sandwich" that seems to be the driving force behind the suggestion to change. I have no problem with the Hillel origin story, which is already included. Incidentally, naan is leavened, as is most focaccia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the naan article, "unleavened dough (similar to that used for roti) is also used." I see what you're saying about making the definition too broad, but if it's just the addition or removal of one word, I don't really think it's too big of a deal. In other words, the removal of "leavened" results in other sandwiches becoming more valid, and just because Matzah sandwiches fit into that criteria as well doesn't mean we shouldn't not remove it. Did that make sense? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The naan I'm familiar with is leavened and wouldn't be considered naan if it wasn't, but that's a side-issue. As it stands we have a definition that includes what most people think of as sandwiches, and excludes what most people would agree aren't sandwiches. Being "leavened" is one of the most functional points of that definition, and we have a reference for its use. We have an editor who is arguing for the removal of that specific point and states the desire to include something ("matza sandwich") that I believe most people would agree is not a sandwich (but is currently excluded by that very same point). Without the "leavened" point, what would be the argument for removing the "matza sandwich", other than "it's not a sandwich"? Just trying to show why I am resisting removing that specific point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait. Is this solely over the use of the word "leavened," or does it also include the first sentence in the History section about Hillel? Seems you wouldn't allow having both in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no editor attempting to short-circuit this article with the intent to include matzo. I have entirely left that behind -- I am no longer interested in matzo. My initial issue with this article was when I noted the first sentence limiting sandwiches to such a narrow scope. The article being used to support the speculation that sandwiches require leavened bread indeed does not support it, and the search for a source that will may take 12 years. Even if it takes only 12 more days, the word leavened should be removed, as there is absolutely zero support for its presence besides original research to the end that the judge took those words into account when he states his ruling. We can discuss Hillel's sandwich or unsandwich next, and I look forward to it. Incidentally, any issue with a matzo sandwich would revolve around the one slice & wrap/two slice & overlay dispute. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and removed "leavened" and added Britannica online as a reference. Asher196 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion(s) on this page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I did read the discussion. I thought Britannica was a pretty good source, which says any bread is acceptable. I have to apologize, this dispute was larger than I initially saw. Asher196 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How about moving this along and taking a poll? Asher196 (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolution?

I have now obtained Judge Locke's decision, and it does not contain the string "leaven" at all. The relevant paragraph is this:

Given that the term “sandwiches” is not ambiguous and the Lease does not provide a definition of it, this court applies the ordinary meaning of the word.[3] The New Webster Third International Dictionary describes a “sandwich” as “two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them.” Merriam-Webster, 2002. Under this definition and as dictated by common sense, this court finds that the term “sandwich” is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans.

[3] The parties have submitted numerous dictionary definitions for the term “sandwich,” as well as expert affidavits.

Accordingly, I now support removing "leavened" from the definition, while retaining the requirement for two layers of bread. Thus the korech which is now commonly used, i.e. lettuce sandwiched between two pieces of matzah, is indeed a sandwich, and White City would have been barred from opening a korech store in competition to Panera (I don't think this would be included in "Jewish delicatessen", which was originally specifically allowed by the contract ). However Hillel's original korech, which was a wrap, remains excluded from the definition, and White City would have been allowed to open a Hillel restaurant (even if "Near-Eastern" food had not been explicitly allowed). Can we get agreement on this? -- Zsero (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Although the reference article states that the chef, as expert witness, included the "leavened" criterion in the definition, if the judge doesn't mention it then I have to agree that we should remove it. As for the korech, I don't believe most people would consider this a sandwich any more than they would consider a piece of cheese between two Ritz crackers a sandwich. However, without the "leavened" criterion, that's just a personal opinion, so take it as such. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank all parties involved -- even Delicious carbuncle, with whom, at times, it might have appeared that I was in a vicious fight. In fact, I'd like to extend a word of merit to him for maintaining a cool head in almost all instances, and apologize for when I acted in such a manner that was similarly contrary to norms of civility here in Wikipedia. Let us consider this discussion closed. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I never felt that we were in a fight, let alone a vicious one. Thanks for your kind words, though. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2