Talk:Bacon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Artificially cured

"The meat must then be left to hang for approximately 2 weeks until it is cured."

Where I work, the bacon is cured artificially, pressed and frozen, and ready for slicing within days. A lot of the smoke is also added artificially. -- Jim Regan 09:47 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that what you are producing is really bacon? Perhaps it's just a processed meat food... sort of like Cheez-whiz, but made from pigs, not cheese... ;) --Dante Alighieri 09:54 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Pig-whiz? Sound unpleasant :) -- Jim Regan

No, no, to be consistent you have to change the name a bit. I suggest Pyg-whiz... although that doesn't sound much more pleasant. :) --Dante Alighieri 19:19 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can you get pig-whiz in a can? --Nickj69 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

cheap bacon is cured by injecting brine. Most supermarket bacon in the UK is like this. When you fry it, it releases a lot of flrothy water. Proper bacon from a good butcher (or a supermarket's upmarket stuff) is cured. -- Tarquin 09:58 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The bacon is cooked in-house, in microwaves. It goes to fast food places &c, so yeah, it's cheap bacon. Though the back bacon isn't quite as mass produced. -- Jim Regan

BE spelling

The first major (non stub) contribution to this article was 14:27, 18 December 2002 by Mintguy which established BE spelling. Please do not change. Jooler 00:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

confused

i read the whole article (i think), and still don't know whether bacon in supermarkets is already cooked. i read that bacon is pig meat that's been cured and possibly smoked. curing is defined in the article as "preserving with salt". then out of the blue comes this sentence: "Mass produced bacon is held for curing for 6 to 24 hours before being cooked." then there's more talk about cooking. if bacon is cooked before the grocer, why does it look raw? like i said, i'm confused. is there some special meaning to "mass produced" with regard to bacon? Wbfl 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two types of bacon in the retail market, raw and fully cooked. Most retail bacon is raw, meaning it has been cured and partially cooked (heated to about 120-125°F). Fully cooked bacon is cooked to over 160°F, usually well above 200°F. Any bacon that is not explicitiy labeled as "FULLY COOKED" must be assumed to be raw and should be thoroughly cooked prior to serving. 13:49 11/29/06 (mke)

beef bacon andothe bacons

I have added the fact that bacon can be made from beef and turkey. I wold provide a link but they are all commercials for the product. --Hfarmer 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

show

I want to see non-"streaky bacon"

culture

Actually, it was Lisa Simpson, in a sensory deprivation tank, imagining herself in the body of her father, who imagined the sandwich with three kinds of bacon. --m4 18 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

tasty, raw-meat format

Okay, okay, "tasty" wasn't very NPOV. I still think "raw-meat format" is a nice turn of phrase, though.

This article makes me hungry.

moving the section from "back bacon (a term used in Canada, the US, Australia, Ireland and the UK) to a section called "Canadian bacon" (only US) is systemic bias

If that's the case, canadian bacon should have its own article as it once did. As it stands, people who want to learn about canadian bacon have much trouble doing so, since you want to hide its name from existence. I suggest we just restore the canadian bacon article. It doesn't revert from the discussion of it here. --MateoP 00:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to have all the information about bacon as meat on one page, with different sections for the different forms, or (my second choice) different sections for each country. My concern about having different articles for Bacon, Canadian bacon, et ectera, is that some will be so short as to be no more than dictionary definitions. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian bacon should be the exception because it is truly confusing for people who live in the U.S., because it tastes and looks like ham, and we do not use the term bacon for anything other than streaky bacon. I think having 1 article for bacon would be fine if canadian bacon got its own section on the page, so that page who want to find this information easily could. That's my compromise. Note that user User:Jooler continues to revert, but is not participating in discussion on the talk pages. --MateoP 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For the Nth time. Canadian bacon is back bacon it tastes like back bacon ergo it tastes like bacon. It is not ham. Ham is a joint off the leg. Bacon comes from the back, middle rib or belly of a pig. American bacon is belly bacon or what is known as streaky bacon outside of the US. This article has a section which explains the different cuts of meat known as bacon and illustrates the differences, giving each section equal treatment. As part of that discussion it states quite clearly that back bacon is known as Canadian bacon in the US. It also states quite clearly that back bacon is a lean cut of meat and has little fat. Back bacon is by far the most common sort of bacon consumed in Britain, Australia, and Ireland etc.. and is virtually synonymous with "bacon" in those countries (and indeed Canada). You moved the description of back bacon out of that section and created a new section entirely out of context under the heading Canadian bacon, as if it was something else entirely different and something more akin to ham, which it isn't . Again I repeat back bacon is NOT ham it does not a cut off the leg. It is a lean cut of meat from the back of a pig that in most of the world is simply known as bacon. The aberration is American bacon. Jooler 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why Canadian bacon needs its own article. The word bacon has too many different usages that it becomes difficult for people to find what they are looking for. Canadian bacon might not be ham, but it looks exactly like ham and takes more like ham than "streaky bacon". In fact most americans think it is ham, just given a different name to sound exotic. A person wanting to learn about canadian bacon will have a tought time doing so as it currently stands. If we bring back the canadian bacon article, perhaps improving it some to let people know about what it is, then this will eliminate all problems. This will not change the bacon article in any way.

WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE COMPROMISE? Please address my concerns in your answer (My concern is that people who do not know of the distinctions will have a tough time learning about canadian bacon). --MateoP 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian bacon already has it's own article, it is this one where it is discussed under back bacon and throughout much of the rest of the article because that what most of the rest of the world means by bacon. For most people outside of the US is just plain old bacon without any additional qualification. Do you think Americans are so stupid, that if the click on a link to Canadian bacon and are taken to bacon they will be utterly confused that they won't be able to figure out what has happened do you? Do you think I am confused when I end up reading about gasoline when I was looking for petrol, or found sidewalk when I was looking for pavement or found eggplant when I am looking for aubergine or found diaper when I was looking for nappy or a thousands other things?? You want to compromise between something right and something wrong. So what do we get, something half right? How sensible is that? Just drop it will you. And stop shouting. Jooler 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since most americans think canadian bacon is ham, they will be confused when they are taken to the bacon article and have to read the entire thing to learn about canadian bacon (even then, it's poorly explained). However if canadian bacon had its own article, it would hurt people in the rest of the world in no way. They would still type in "bacon" and be taken here. They wouldn't be familiar with the canadian bacon term and so would not be bothered by it at all. However people who think canadian bacon is ham (which most americans do), they type in canadian bacon and are taken to an article that is utterly confusing to them. To make matters worse, the information about canadian bacon is hidden in this article. You've still yet to address my concern in any substantial way, whereas I have answered your concern. --MateoP 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In thinking about this question I compared it with sausage. For example, Italian sausage (which contains different things than say, German sausage, but has the same production process) has its own article. But, no one bothered to write much of anything about it. So, the question must be posed - what can be said about canadian bacon that needs an entire article? True it is from the back rather than the belly, but is that it? Are the production and curing methods any different than streaky bacon? If an encyclopedic article can be written about it, and someone is actually GOING to write it, not just make a stub, then I say go for it. But if the only point is to disambiguate it from other bacon varieties, then it belongs here. Aguerriero 04:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian bacon should be a section within the bacon article and the canadian bacon should redirect there. Garydh 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most hilarious debate I've seen yet on Wikipedia. People this worked up over bacon....

Third opinion

I'm not overly convinced at this point that Canadian bacon needs a separate article. Bacon has multiple usages, but because the meanings are so confused, I think it would be better to have them all in one article for clarity. For example, I'm from ireland and I would class rashers/bacon/ham/gammon/pork as different from each other, but there seems to be no explaination on why some of these redirect here and others don't (which I guess is the same for people searching for Canadian Bacon) What I do think is that the article really needs first is some sources, it currently reads quite disjointedly, not quite to the level of OR, but close. Once all the variants have been listed, I would suggest to break down the article as follows:

Mini disambig at the top like: "Types of bacon":

Type A, aka B (in the US), C (in the UK), d, E, F
type B aka A in Canada, C, D, etc..

and then have each of those items go to a different section, which would almost be separate articles "Type A, known as B, and D is a cut from X part of the pig"

That, I believe, would reduce the confusion, as it would be clear from the list at the top what item you searched for, but would also reduce duplication by keeping the variants in one article. If CA bacon was spit, it woudl have to either duplicate the information on ham and bacon, or become a disambig page where "If you are in US, see [ham], else see [bacon]. Regards, MartinRe 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To talk to myself again, that would imply that Canadian bacon would get its own section - sort of - but would share it with any other type of bacon that was defined as the same, even if it was called something different. MartinRe 00:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We also have pork, which is not too long. Maybe all the content here could be merged into sections there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is only of mediocre length, so I do not believe there is sufficient need to make it any smaller by removing some of its content and putting it elsewhere. Black-Velvet 11:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MartinRe. "Canadian Bacon" should stay in this article, but the article should be reformatted to make it easier for US readers redirected here from "canadian bacon" to find the part of the article they are looking for. --Fagles 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MartinRe's comments. It definitely doesn't make much sense to have an entire article on "Canadian bacon" when that is a local variant of a name for a particular type of bacon. In short, everything on bacon should be in this article, and it should be organized by functionality, i.e. the sections are defined by the cuts of meat, not by the names they have in different parts of the world. FWIW, I came here because of the RfC. --Deville (Talk) 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, came here because of the RfC. I also concur with MartinRe and the others above. Bacon shouldn't be confusing, it should be delicious. A mini-disambig at the top of the page serves all POVs well. OscarTheCat 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cooking with bacon and NPOV

The "Cooking with bacon" section reads like marketing material from some pig farming association. "Health-conscious diners can simply pour away the surplus melted fat, and/or mop it off rashers with paper towels." ?? "A rasher or two of bacon..", etc, etc. I suggest that it be changed to a bullet-list of things that bacon is used for. --casual observer 18 April 2006

I have attempted to clean up the article a bit with NPOV in mind, I'm sure there's still things that could be fixed, I didn't read too deep myself.
Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you. Wizardry Dragon 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

...

Mein Gott, this page is repugnant. Who vandalized it THIS time? 72.228.255.171 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

History

== History ==
Bacon is amazing in its uses.  Abraham Lincoln ate bacon while he read the Gettysburg
Address.  Patton slapped Mussolini in the face with a piece of bacon when he said "You suck."  
In short, bacon is amazing, and worth more than your life.

Added yesterday (17 April 2006 23:52) (reference). I doubt it is true... --Oden 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's a blatant vandalism... it's pretty damn funny! Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)} 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rasher

I wonder if the use of the word rasher rather than slice is appropriate, since it is not used outside of the UK. --Oden 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Its also used in South Africa, and probably australia, new zealand, hong kong, and a large number of others - but one could also argue that "slice" is the more generic term. But its also sanitised and less meaningul IMHO, for the same reason. -- Anon 18 April 2006

Wikify

Portions of this article sound like a advertisment for different uses for the product. It would be nice with a global perspective (or is bacon consumed exclusively in countries with english as a primary language?). More criticism in the other parts of the talk page. --Oden 10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole of europe is full of bacon like products, some links and/or descriptions would be nice. A list of countries that consume/produce bacon i could be interesting -- Anon 18 April 2006

If you do add more links, please be mindful that Wikipedia is not del.icio.us. In other words, do not turn this article into a listing of links to all things bacon. Thanks! --Dragon695 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Bacon

The article notes that " "Canadian" bacon sold in the United States is plain lean back bacon.". Personally, when I've ordered Canadian bacon in restaurants in the USA, what I've been served looks more like a large salami, with processed meat, and an artificial skin. If they do indeed call back bacon "Canadian bacon", why do they do it. It's not that common in Canada, compared to most other English speaking countries ... it's always a bit of a hunt to find back bacon in Canada, compare to how easily it is found in other English-speaking countries. Nfitz 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bringing Home the Bacon"

Is there any verifiable proof that this is the origin, rather than random forum postings on the internet? I have not been able to find any reliable source to confirm this origin and it smacks of being a folk-origin, rather than a true and verifiable one.

Also, is it even worth mentioning that 2 Live Crew happened to have used this phrase? It seems to me that the phrase is wide-spread enough that it's not really worth citing a single source. If a single source is merited, I believe that an example could be found that a broader audience might be able to identify with rather than an album that is remembered, if remembered at all, almost soley on the basis of the contraversy regarding it's status as "obscenity" rather than its artistic merit.

Claffert 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly from the Morris Dictionary of Word and PhraseOrigins, Harper and Row, Second Edition:

As so often happens, there are two theories of the origin of this phrase. The first is that it refers o the fact that the winner of the greased pig contest at country fairs traditionally keeps the pig and thus brings home the bacon. Am earlier story goes that all the way back to A. D. 1111 and the town of Dunmow in England. A noblewoman, wishing to encourage marital happiness, decreed that "any person from any part of England going to Dunmow and humbly kneeling on two stone at the church door may claim a gammon (side) of bacon, if he can swear that for twelve months and a day he has never had a household brawl or wished himself unmarried." So the 'Dunmow flitch', as the side of bacon was called, became a symbol of domestic felicity and a man bringing home the bacon would be a rare and happy fellow. Let cynics male what they will of the record that in a period of five centuries (1244 - 1772) there were only eight claimants of the prize. (see also http://www.dunmowflitchtrials.co.uk/history.htm)

"Bringing Home The Bacon" References

"The phrase remains in common usage in popular media (see, for example, the 2 Live Crew song "2 Live Blues" from the As Nasty As They Wanna Be album)."
1. This is the most noteworthy use of the phrase in the entire body of human literature?
2. 2 Live Crew is popular media? --72.225.33.47 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there're people who rank 2 Live Crew alongside Chaucer and Shakespeare. However, I'm not one of them, and I'm not entirely convinced it should be there either.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e)

18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I listed this article at WP:RFP since it suffers from near-daily vandalism from mostly anonymous IP addresses or newly created accounts. OscarTheCat3 21:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-requesting semi-protection. Since the semi was lifted, we're back to same old same old. Geez, lots of people love bacon, we get it already, now stop vandalizing the article and make some useful contributions, dear anonymous users. OscarTheCat3 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacon = Tasty

I hereby move that bacon be declared tasty. All in favor? Goaty 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tidy-up

Just had a bit of a hack. I think it works. (and yes, back bacon is a cut - my opps). Snori 16:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"The defining element is the cut"?

I'd like to trim the first intro section, one problem being the issue of "the defining element is the cut". As I understand it this means any sliced meat is bacon, and a filch or gammon joint isn't - maybe, but I Don't Think So. Anyone with good knowledge like to help out? Snori 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bringing Home the Bacon (again)

I've removed this section. See World Wide Words. I tried to rewrite it with this different etymology, but it then didn't seem like somnething worth covering in Wikipedia. One for Wiktionary, I think. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

May I suggest that the first existing image be modified to include a "before/after"? Currently there is no image of cooked bacon, which is how the dish is generally eaten... -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex with Bacon

Is this entry appropriate in this artical? I'd be bothered if my kids came here to find out about a cooking ingredient and learnt all about "wolf bagging". Surely there must be a better place in wikipedia for this information? Slothie 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It was almost certainly vandalism. --Eyrian 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/c/Talk%7EBacon_Archive_1_96f6.html"

Category: Talk archives