Talk:Brunch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Join the brunch bunch: Don't wait for holiday to enjoy a big breakfast gathering.", Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal, April 14, 2004.

[edit] "The British version of brunch could be elevenses."

AIUI brunch and elevenses are two incomparable concepts, the only thing in common being the kind of time of day. Brunch is a full-blown meal, effectively combining breakfast and lunch (as an alternative to having two separate meals). OTOH, elevenses is a snack filling in a bit of the space between breakfast and lunch. So does it really make sense to call either version of the other? -- Smjg 17:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About "Brunch Culture and Marketing"

The "Brunch Culture and Marketing" section feels kinda POV, and is difficult to understand for anyone not familiar with American pancake culture. Still interesting though, so don't take it out! --Apoc2400 11:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Pancakes are a sweet (desert) in most English speaking cultures, with the notable exception of north America. I've lived in both the UK and Australia, and the only cafes or restaurants where I've seen pancakes served with breakfast / brunch / lunch / etc are those which have an American theme (the type which serve fast food snacks like burgers and "hot dogs"), or pancake outlets like Australia's Pancake Parlour (which also maintains an Americanesque theme). I realise Wikipedia is based in the USA, but I think this article is overly American in its perspective. I suggest the article either explicit clarifies that it is written from an American perspective, or else be re-written. Mark Micallef 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. It's clearly written from an American POV with no attempt at all to make it sensible or accessible to other English-speakers. Also, it has no wikilinks when I can see several that would make sense. It looks like either a copyvio or a direct (original research?) braindump from an editor. I've tagged for cleanup. -dmmaus 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just delete this section entirely? It's full of very specific claims that are not common knowledge, but not cited eiter. Actually, the claims seem pretty dubious to me. They beg for support, but none has been provided. Lack of citation is adequate grounds for deletion. Rohirok 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it was me. I was new here (didn't even have an account yet) and in a hurry when I authored this. The POV criticism of this is a good one. I am working on collecting the citations to fix this. It is also USA centric, which I can also fix. It was inspired by POV, but the facts evidencing the statements are freely available in form of restaurant reviews, menus, discussion board statements, blogs, and cultural commentary... the usual crazy variety of things that comprise Internet sources. Of course by linking to some raw factual information, e.g. a series of menus, this might blur the line on "original research" versus "outside sources." Thoughts on that? --Em dee aitch 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought your Brunch Marketing section was somewhat amusing, but I don't really think it belongs here. The point seems to be this: In American restuarants, food sold as brunch is more expensive than very similar or identical food sold without the bruch label. If you can document that claim, then it might be a mildly interesting and amusing piece of information for the article. Your elaborations are kinda entertaining (in my American opinion), but I don't think they are very informative, and apparently they are merely baffling to people in some parts of the world.

By the way, here's a funny thing about POV. Even if every single fact is documented and citationed, an article or a section can still be POV. It looks like your intent here is to say, "Ha ha, look how ridiculous brunch purveyors are," and filling in all those citations isn't going to change that. You could probably kill a lot of the POV by heavily editing the section. If you feel like doing so would kinda ruin the whole point of what you've written, that may be a clue that you've added TOO MUCH POV.

(pardon the mess?, this is the first time I've commented on a talk page) I was looking into cleaning up the marketing section a bit, I think I've perhaps axed a bit much, removing most of the flavor (heh) of the previous paragraphs, but perhaps this might be a good footing to expand back from.

1. REDIRECT[[<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>]]

[edit] History of brunch

Where did brunch come from? Some Catholic co-workers claim its because they cannot eat before church, so they started having an early lunch immediately after services. --24.249.108.133 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)