Jump to content

Talk:Bacon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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":
  1. Type A, aka B (in the US), C (in the UK), d, E, F
  2. 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.
Information icon Hello, I'm OscarTheCat3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 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)

Bacon recipe

I think there should be some info on how to cook bacon in new ways. Everyone always just puts it in a frying pan, but it's actually much easier to do it in the oven. You take a pyrex baking dish and lie the bacon out on it (so they are not touching or they will stick together--not a big deal if you don't care though). Then you bake it at 400 degrees for 10 to 15 minutes and it's done. Some people recommend using foil. You don't have to turn the slices over at all; they cook evenly and with no danger of burning yourself with splattering grease! 24.4.36.3 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Phyllis

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. You might want to go to recipesource.com, they inherited the old usenet recipe archive.[1] Bazzargh (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a recipe book but how something is cooked in each area of the world IS important to a page on food.

Still, it's like adding a recipe. When we say that Wikipedia is not a recipe book, we mean that we should not put any recipes. We only want information on the food. Recipes are not useful information. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon is treated for trichinosis

Says this page but how? When? With what? What do you do if you have bacon that is not "treated"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.97.70 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ..

Why the vandalism?

To all the anonymous trolls: Why this article? Of all millions of articles here on Wikipedia, why Bacon? Spryde 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's vegans?Scott fakename 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a wierd bacon meme on the internet. I don't know why, but that is the reason for all the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.70.78 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if all the billions of recent [citation needed] additions are vandalism as well. I'm not yet brave enough to simply remove most of them, but I'm very tempted. Pipatron (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a 'weird bacon meme'? What about including something about vegetarians frequently saying that the one thing they miss about eating meat is the smell of bacon? 86.139.69.53 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

American bias

Peameal bacon is never referred to in Canada as "Canadian bacon", nor do we consider "streaky bacon" the dominant type. Please do not deny Canadian culture by lumping us with American standards under the misleading grouping of "North America".

Nevertheless, having grown up in Detroit I wish "Canadian bacon", or whatever you'd prefer to call it, had it's own article. It's delicious, and sadly nearly impossible to get my side of the river anymore. What they sell as C. bacon in our groceries and restaurants now is simply cooked ham :( 69.212.46.21 15:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

UK bias

This article is written from a UK perspective. Let's get some number on bacon production and consumption. I venture to guess that the amount of American style bacon consumed far outweighs all other types put together. Thus it is the predominant, most popular type of bacon in the world. And yet this article would have readers believe that back bacon is the most representative type. The sentence in the cooking section "The classic use of bacon is of being fried for the full English breakfast or similar dishes," shows a clear bias. The majority of the people who read Wikipedia probably have no clue what a "full English breakfast" is. It is certainly not the most representative or typical use of bacon. I fully understand that the English have an inflated view of their contribution to civilization. However, such delusions have no place here. I suggest that the UK bias should be removed and that market data regarding sales and consumption by type of bacon/country be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.61.2 (talk • contribs).

Well, someones got a burr up their ass about the UK haven't they? If you have figures to prove your standpoint, then give them, but don't "venture to guess" your own viewpoint and dismiss others with a whine about there being "no market data" on the page.
As for the "Full English Breakfast", this is served in hotels all over the world (including all of the hotels and many of the diners I have been to in the USA) so I would be surprised if a majority of the people who read Wikipedia probably have no clue what a "full English breakfast" is as you state. Perhaps it is just you. It is perhaps fair to say that it is not the most representative use of bacon - I would "venture to guess" that most bacon is consumed in sandwiches or cheese and bacon burgers.
It is a shame that you don't have a sufficiently inflated opinion of the value of your own comments to bother to sign your comments... Slothie 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
U.S Bacon sales: $2.2 billion [2]. U.K Sales (extrapolated from three-month figure[3]): $1.6 billion.
I've removed the statement of a full English breakfast being the "classic" use of bacon; that's totally subjective and impossible to verify. --Eyrian 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put it back in, but without the "classic" wording. Hopefully the new sentence reads more NPOV than the old one. OscarTheCat3 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Slothie, you're full of shit. I made the comments above. Identify ONE hotel in the US that has a "Full English Breakfast" on its menu. Also, I travel extensively around the world for business and the ONLY place I've ever seen "Full English Breakfast" is in. . .England. Maybe there's a few establishments in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that offer such a conceit and a few UK hotels chains that may offer it outside of the UK. Of course in the rest of the UK it's called a "Full Scottish" or "Full Welsh" or "Ulster Fry." I've changed "Full English" to "Full Irish." Why? Why not? The English use of bacon at breakfast is no more representative than the Irish use is it? Or, we could take it out altogether as there are numerable national cusines that use bacon and if we can't cite any one as representative then we shouldn't cite any. --12.37.61.2 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)An Dliodoir

Here you go: http://www.bedandbreakfast.com/california-muir-beach-pelican-inn.html Manys 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the facts, there is no excuse for being uncivil like this. --Macrakis 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that English nationalism prevails over objectivity and that "Full English Breakfast" has been reinserted. Again, I suggest we change it to "Full Irish Breakfast" or, to be fair, list every type of breakfast of which bacon is a component part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.61.2 (talk • contribs).

  • No, WP:NPOV prevails over Irish nationalism. I changed the sentence to just "bacon and eggs" BEFORE you changed it back to "Full Irish". Here's the diff. If you'd like a litany of breakfast-type dishes containing bacon and eggs, please see Bacon and eggs...they're listed there. Wikilink to that article is already in the Bacon article. Oh, if you're curious about my nationality, read my userpage. Finally, please note that future nationalistic edits to that sentence will be treated by me as vandalism. Cheers! OscarTheCat3 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OscarTheCat3, please see above where I originally suggested it be made neutral. My insistance that it be "Full Irish" was in response to Slothie's reversion to "Full English" after another user took "Full English" out. Thus, someone other than me took "Full English" out and Slothie came back and reinserted it. Then and only then did I change it to "Full Irish." I agree that not citing any national dish is the best course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.61.2 (talk • contribs).

Ok, who reinserted "Full English" today? Sorry, I wasn't aware of the page history function before. I assumed Slothie had made the revert, my apologies. That said, someone did it again. I took it out but did not add anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.61.2 (talk • contribs).

You removed a reference to bacon and eggs. This is not a link specific to the Full English Breakfast. --Eyrian 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, you may want to make sure you are always viewing the current version of the page by employing the "reload" function of your browser. Full English was not put back in; if you're still seeing it, you may be looking at a cached version of the page. And, please sign your posts!! OscarTheCat3 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was just taking out "Full English." I will make sure to reload before making any judgments/edits. 12.37.61.2 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This has GOT to be one of THE most retarded arguments in the world...it's fucking bacon okay people? And so goddam what if it says full English Breakfast? You are probably one of those jackass secularist politically correct idiots and honestly should go drown yourself. Or get clogged arteries from too much bacon.

Who really gives a flying shit? It's BACON. It's GOOD. EVERYONE LIKES BACON. Can't we all just shut the fuck up and go fry some now for goddsake??? Jeez. 71.239.9.54 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, whatever the bias, this article is not very informative; it is an OK start. From a food science perspective back bacon, belly bacon, Canadian bacon, mechanically separated and moulded turkey etc. are all similar in some ways but are different formulas and different processes. More could be added on cuts, formula, injection, curing, smoking, pressing, slicing, moulding, and cooking. For example the fully cooked bacon sold in the US is made industrially using microwave conveyor ovens. All forms/types of bacon mentioned should be expounded on no matter in what country they are popular.76.6.182.209 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Does anyone have a better photograph of cooked bacon? This picture of cooked streaky bacon is absolutely disgusting; i've rarely seen anything less appetising! --www.secularism.org.uk 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the caption to clarify that that's cooked *streaky* bacon. If you're in the UK, I gather from the article you might equate just the word "bacon" with back bacon. The picture seems an accurate depiction of naturally cooked streaky bacon. Advertising photography would probably make it more appealing by pressing it flatter, wiping off extra grease to make it less shiny, and using a slice (rasher) with more muscle tissue, but this looks like normal home-cooked bacon from my US perspective. Agyle 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gammon

How is gammon typically served worldwide?

In England, sliced gammon is usually served with either pineapple or fried egg, and other components of what would normally be termed an English breakfast, but given the comments above I'm hesitant to make sweeping statements based on this. 217.155.20.163 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Youre right not to mak sweeping statements on this because they would be wrong. The rather revolting idea of serving gammon with (tinned) pineapple is very recent and Ive certainly never had it served like that. In my household, Gammon was served with a bechamel-based parsley or egg sauce. --Pog451 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Picnic bacon

In the USA, packages of pre-cooked bacon (from Hormel) indicate that it is made from both regular bacon and picnic bacon. This article should probably mention something about picnic bacon or other types of faux bacon. 66.109.195.72 08:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Picnic bacon is from a different cut of the pig carcass than the usual belly. I added it to the list of bacon types. I wouldn't call it "faux" bacon in itself, but if Hormel is combining the two cuts in one package, perhaps they're somehow deconstructing and reconstructing the tissues to seem like a leaner belly bacon. Combining them sounds like something Hormel, the makers of Spam, would do. Artificially constructed bacon would make an interesting entry, if that is in fact what they're doing. Agyle 09:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Canadian bacon"

I added a couple lines explaining that so-called canadian bacon sold in the US is not Canadian at all and is not even bacon, peameal or otherwise. Most "canadian bacon" is nothing more than ham. If you want true Canadian bacon, it is almost always labelled as peameal bacon.

76.105.157.253 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah, the "What the U.S. terms "Canadian bacon" is actually back bacon rolled in cornmeal" seems wrong. I've had a lot of "Canadian bacon" here in the the US and none of it has ever been rolled in cornmeal. Sorry. I agree that usually it's very similar to or in fact ham.

Canadian bacon is not in fact ham. It is the cured and smoked loineye muscle. THe article needs to be corrected, too. Gigemag76 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadians totally use the term Canadian bacon though, and by it we mean peameal bacon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.83.118 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mexican bacon"

They mentioned mexican bacon on the Simpsons. What is that?

I'd guess it was simply a joke; a twist on the existence of Canadian bacon, (mis-)attributed to the US's northern neighbor, and Mexico is the US's southern neighbor. The idea of Mexican bacon, for some undefinable subjective reason, seems humorous to me. A 2004 UrbanDictionary.com user-submitted entry defines Mexican bacon as thinly sliced hotdogs, fried in a skillet, which also sounds farcical, but may reflect some real-world usage. There are also references in google to "Mexican bacon smuggling," which refer to an incident in which a woman was arrested for trying to smuggle a kilo of bacon from Mexico into the US. -Agyle 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke like the guy above said. Its funny in America to 'invent' a Mexican version of something Canadian or a Canadian version of something Mexican. Ex: Advocating better border patrol along the CAN border, saying "sí" for yes when speaking to a French-speaker, or on The Simpsons when Homer wore a sombrero for his visit to Canada to smuggle drugs.
By the way in Tijuana there are guys who sell hotdogs. They are smaller versions of a standard US hotdog and the weird thing is the wieners are wrapped in bacon and grilled this way. The bacon is like US bacon but smaller, like the crappy bacon you get on a fast-food burger but lighter in colour. Other than that I have never seen bacon in other parts of Mexico.
--Jon in California 6 September 2007
I know this is old conversation, but I used to smuggle proper English bacon (i.e. back bacon) and Canadian bacon (peameal bacon) into the US whenever I traveled back there, when I was living there. Bacon smuggling is rife! You Americans have no good bacon! Also your cheese sucks. Other than that I like the place. Customs officers used to ask where have you come from? London. (There's a great big plane out there did you not notice? And if you said I live next to a pig farm in the middle of the country I would maybe have missed Friends.) OK if you go then. Best wishes (and no flames please it's my birthday I am allowed :) ) SimonTrew (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

History of bacon

Hi, I was just here looking for how they cured bacon to keep longer in the good old days before refrigerators. I am reading a book about the West in 1898, and it talks about the characters getting a list of what the Canadian government required Yukon gold prospectors to have in order to enter the country; one component was a year's worth of food. Most of it was dried, but one item was 100-200 lbs. of bacon. Good old "streaky" American bacon as we know it today doesn't keep more than a week; how the heck did they preserve a year's worth of bacon - of ANY style - to last for a year, with or without a fridge?? Any takers on this one?Phyreflye 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect that very heavy salting might be the answer 65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Streaky bacon

This page needs a section on streaky bacon, and its uses in cooking. I'd have written something about it, but I came here to found out myself. Jason404 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In Mexico

in this article, it states that "Bacon is said to be one of the favored dishes of Quetzalcoatl, an Aztec sky and creator god. Quetzalcoatl was often considered the god of the morning star, and his twin brother Xolotl was the evening star (Venus) and as such was one of the more important figures of Aztec mythology."

I'm fairly sure that pigs weren't available to precolumbian societies. Quetzalcoatl may well have enjoyed bacon in his private time, but I sincerely doubt that bacon is part of Aztec mythology.

Sorry I haven't signed up yet. I am just trying to find the time to become a dedicated wikipedian :) Will

Interesting comment, although I too have been told that Quetzalcoatl ate bacon when I was on vacation by a guide and we ate something that resembled bacon. Maybe someone else who happens across the article with some further expertise could comment on whether it is bacon made from pig or a similar cut from a different kind of animal. Rob

There are peccaries in Mexico... maybe this is the source of the "Aztec bacon"? Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.85.211 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the first sentence of this section seems to be relevant, if at all. Why continue on about Quetzalcoatl's brother and his importance in Aztec mythology? What does that have to do with bacon? I think the whole section should be removed. If some "Aztec bacon" reference can be found, then maybe add the section back. MDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.25.172 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the extra background regarding Quetzalcoatl, since it can be found in the Quetzalcoatl main article. I've added a reference to peccaries, since it actually makes sense that they would be eating a peccary instead of a European pig, plus it's interesting...I personally didn't know there was a peccary. Thanks for the info Al. --Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.246.131 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to the above information, peccary when eaten would be more similar to game (e.g deer or rabbit) (from http://www.hunting-in-texas.com/javelina-info.htm'). Pigs and peccory originate from different sides of the world and are physically very different animals. Even if aztec gods did eat peccary, the cut would not resemble anything in taste, odor or appearence to what we know as bacon, and any comparison would only be the result of a superficial similarity (imagine saying wasps and bees are the same). According to urban dictionary, mexican bacon is thinly sliced hotdog, fired in a skillet. "http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mexican+bacon". I suggest complete deletion of the topic of mexican bacon, as it seems ridiculuous and founded only on unverifiable information and hearsay, Jai alai (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)jai_alai

The part about Quetzalcoatl seems a bit ridiculous in an article about bacon, but it is good he is a deity so that he can conjure up a peccary that is indigenous to South America, since he is in Mexico which is in North America. South Americans do eat bacon or some thing similar. My wife is from Colombia, South America where they eat Chicharron which is about as long as bacon, but instead of being a millimeter or so thick, it is about an inch thick.Ken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.70.178 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bacon flow chart

This is directed to Noah Salzman.

Noah, I'm sorry you felt obligated to remove the link to this image, which I thought perfectly captured the attitude of all true bacon lovers. Yes, Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously; does this really preclude any sense of humor? Embedding the image directly in the article would have been out of line, but a link?

But then, judging from the comments here on the talk page, the contributors to this article take themselves awfully seriously indeed. Too bad.

  • Sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously.
  • Noah obviously did the right thing. The link has nothing at all to do here, even if it would have been funny. (It isn't, unless you haven't seen the internet before and haven't already seen all the eleventy billion ha-ha-funny-flowcharts yet.)

Pipatron (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

American bias revisited

Hey, I'm an American, have never set foot in Britain, and I agree this article now has a complete American bias. The photo and extensive info on UK bacon needs to be restored, even if the article starts out with, or is centered around, American-style bacon. Thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree - I also agree with the bit about English Bacon being the "classic" bacon. Whoever posted those bacon sales above also forgot to include the British Commonwealth too in their sales comparison. Regardless of all this though, the fact remains that American bacon is an entirely different entity to that eaten in most of the rest of the English speaking world, so it seems ludicrous that it dominates so much - there should be at least equal time given to other major varieties or, yet again, Wikipedia becomes too US-centric at the expense of usefulness to non-Americans70.189.213.149 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't really describe an Internet encyclopedia article on "bacon" as "useful" to anybody, regardless of what countries predominate. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition for bacon shown in the second paragraph of this article does not conform USDA IMPS (Institutional Meat Purchase Specfication) for Item 535 (Bacon)(page 30). Has anyone factchecked this text? What manufacture would put this label on their product? If it is true, how much trich contaminated bacon is produced? Does this label only appear on bacon and if so why? The definition of Canadian bacon also does not conform to that IMPS Item 550 (Canadian Bacon) (page 35). There is nothing in the US standard about rolling it in cornmeal.Bobmarkwillis (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written

Boy the phrase designed by committee is applicable here, trying to please everyone has created one of the worst pages I have seen on wikipedia, and unless the Aztecs called their peccary meat bacon, and actually smoked it or cured it like bacon, it is just that peccary meat and not relevant. Riveira2 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Streaky

I agree with Jason404, there is a definite lack of streaky bacon in this article. i believe there is a general discrimination against streaky bacon in the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatty Smells (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant or even true?

From the article:

"Canadian Bacon is also the name of a popular strain of marijuana in New York City." 68.46.183.96 (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

True or not, not relevant; I deleted it.
Thanks.68.46.183.96 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Back bacon

{{editsemiprotected}} {{editprotected}}

Add back bacon to the see also section 70.55.203.112 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, makes sense to me. ~ mazca t | c 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The link to "Bacon Cookies" links to a defunct blog (no content). Although I am a registered user, I am not established and cannot delete this myself. --Yourpopquizkid (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In Canada

As a Canadian, I find the sentence about bacon in Canada to be confusing and misleading. We refer to strip bacon as simply 'bacon', and to bacon from the back of the pig as 'back bacon' execpt when it is cured in brine and sugar and coated in peameal, in which case it is 'peameal bacon'. Our back bacon is usually only a lean ovoid, and does not contain the streaky bit which is apparently found in back rashers in the UK. According to the Government of Canada in its Standard Classification of Goods (SCG) 2001 there are four kinds of bacon in Canada: Back Bacon, Smoked Back Bacon, Peameal Bacon, and Side Bacon (which is streaky bacon and known to Canadians as just 'bacon'). See: http://stds.statcan.ca/english/scg/2001/scg01-search.asp?classification=02&cretaria=0210 208.90.103.254 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the UK we would call the lean ovoidwitout the thin bit a "bacon medallion" Dainamo (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Why hasn't this problem been fixed yet? The article still asserts that, in Canada, we call back bacon peameal bacon. However, peameal bacon is much more specific than that. (ie. peameal bacon is back bacon coated in cornmeal) Calling back bacon peameal bacon in general would be like saying that americans call all automobiles trucks. It's an absurd claim to make, and has yet to be referenced/cited. And yet, because this article is (for some odd reason) protected, I can't even add a 'fact' tag to this outright falsehood.
It's a sad state of affairs when we can't even get bacon right. (This really isn't a complicated subject, people) 209.90.134.67 (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply change the sentence to:
In Canada, it is called back bacon, though it is far more commonly coated in cornmeal for peameal bacon.
I mean, if nothing else, it's already mentioned earlier in the article that streaky bacon is simply called 'bacon' here. Plus, the article would no longer be lying. :D 139.57.100.104 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow... It's December now, and still not fixed. And the article is still (for some inexplicable reason) protected from editing. 209.90.134.188 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed it Zedcaster (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon jerky

The first bacon jerky was created and tested by the Bacon Freak bacon club in California and released for sale in September 2008. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsblaze (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC) NewsBlaze Daily News (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Whale?

{{editsemiprotected}}

The edit on 16:46, 2 October 2008 by Mattopia added "whale" as one of the animals from which bacon can be made. If true, I'd like a reference.. personally I'm dubious. Was that vandalism?

 Done, I've removed it. I rather hope it's true - i'd certainly try whale bacon. But it doesn't sound very likely and it needs a source. ~ mazca t|c 11:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The salad of animal kingdom

The phrase in the introductory paragraph "universally known as "the salad of the animal kingdom" was added on feb 7 and is referenced by a google video search for "porky the pig". This seems like a joke, or possibly vandalism, but is certainly not a valid reference. If there is a specific video, that should be referenced directly. As it is, the video shown is of porky the pig saying "that's all folks". Also, the term itself seems in practice far from universal: I have heard similar terms a few times on American cooking blogs, but that's about it. The term gets three google hits if you search for it as "the salad of the animal kingdom" in quotes. Overall, smells more like vandalism than bacon to me, removed. DewiMorgan (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The English-speaking world

Seems that the major differences discussed in the talk page are over differences of definition in the English-speaking world. These differences seem split regionally into three, at least until we get some input from our antipodean brethren: Canada, the UK, and the US I feel that splitting the section into three should clarify most of the discussion, so I'm trying that. I'm putting them alphabetically here and on the page: feel free to apply some other ordering. US-first might make the definitions make more sense. If you revert, please do comment here: undiscussed reverts will be treated as bot-mistakes or vandalism, but discussed ones will be respected. I'd also like to know whether people think this was the right or wrong thing to do.

I've also used the contentious term "British Isles" - this will likely need to be changed once a term has been agreed for "the archepelago that includes the main landmasses of the nations of Ireland, Great Britain, and SeaLand, as well as the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, and all minor outlying islands". I suspect this change will be made throughout WikiPedia by bot, though, so it should be fine to leave it as it is until then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/name_debate for the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DewiMorgan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the fact that Ireland is essentially listed twice-- once explicitly, then implicitly in British Isles-- is unsatisfactory. I am also wondering if "English-speaking world" is a good description of these nations collectively. I appreciate it doesn't have to be an exhaustive list-- any editor can add other nations. e.g. South Africa-- but the leading sentence is a sweeping statement that does not imply it is specific only to the countries listed. Would it be better simply to put "British Isles" and then "North America"?
Similarly, the "Bacon mania" should be a subsection of United States, not on a par with it. I am tempted to just move it but since the main article is AfD or merge then I will leave it in place for now until that's been resolved. SimonTrew (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That was my fault, I changed the title of it and re-leveled the section, looking back it should have had threefour - =s not twothree. The AfD was a keep and there was no consensus to merge. Will fix.--kelapstick (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(kelapstick did it within a couple of minutes of posting that last one here. So, done.) SimonTrew (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The new article Bacon mania is about certain usages of bacon. I think it should merged with this article. I am starting this section to invite discussion. Aleta Sing 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose the phenomenon of bacon enthusiasm (or obsession) has enough content, and is different enough from bacon itself, to warrant a stand alone article.--kelapstick (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Most articles that are subject to merge proposals I would have thought have unique content. It is not just a question of whether it is different, but whether it helps the encyclopedia to have it as a stand-alone article. Bacon mania will be a fad that will be of no consequence five years from now. As a stand-alone article it will become an unvisited backwater because no one will even think of it. Merged into the main bacon article, it will be both kept in perspective and not lost as a bit of interesting history once the next fad has come along. I also wonder whether, once the initial fad has passed, a question of notability will arise for the article. That question is avoided by keeping it as a section of "bacon". Yes, I know it might be notable per WP policy - someone wrote about it in Salon.com and some newspaper articles. I am not suggesting it for an AfD. I mean 'notable' in broader terms - is it something people will seek out a staond-alone entry on? Or will it be something better read about in the context of the food's history generally? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge It would be undue weight to merge all the notable content. Also it is a narrowly focused article, so it wouldn't be appropriate in the bacon article (mostly a U.S. phenomenon). ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote before we even discuss this. Bacon mania seems to be the idea that some people really like bacon. Does it really need a separate article? Lutefisk mania, anyone? Jonathunder (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, given the Lutefisk mania of notable individuals such as Garrison Keillor, this is an excellent analogy - as the balance of the Lutefisk article demonstrates. A good exemplar for Bacon, may I suggest. :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If there was a movement including websites, news coverage, camps, and notable dishes, developing around lutefisk that were substantial and distinct enough to warrant a separate article that would be okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Lutefisk lovers lifeline is a real website and I could point you to tons of news articles about the stuff, particularly in my part of the world. Camps, though, I don't know. Are there camps for bacon?
After checking the links in bacon mania, it looks like they are festivals for bacon, with cooking competitions. Lots of foods have that. There's even a SPAM festival near where I live, believe it or not.
But seriously, the bacon mania article is short enough to be one section in the bacon article. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Merging because it is short enough to be a section in the bacon article is "merging for the sake of merging". Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and the dramatic difference between bacon and The Beatles) Beatlemania stands alone as a small article (with less than half the citations). Also Lutefisk mania is not a really good example since (when I looked) I couldn't find any sources of it actually called that, where the name "Bacon mania" is sourced in the article. The SPAM festival mention in Spam is only referenced by the festival website, if there were independent sources that could be used to establish notability they could be separate articles too.--kelapstick (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have seen nothing that indicates we need a separate article for bacon mania though. It is related to bacon, and I think anyone interested in it is going to be looking up bacon. Unless there is a really good reason for a separate article, I think it would be best to be all kept together. Aleta Sing 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The obvious point that no one seems to have raised is that the terms "Bacon mania" and "Bacon nation" are taken from single newspaper articles and are not really in and of themselves actual terms commonly known or used. They were just creative terms "coined" by writers covering the topic of bacon for specific newspaper articles. They really are not terms which are notable enough to warrant an individual wikipedia article. Perhaps an article entitled "Bacon in American culture" would be more apt. I think that the content is certainly relevent to the bacon article and could be suitably merged under a section entitled "Bacon in American culture". However, a stand alone article could also exist, so I am indifferent to a merger. The name should be changed though.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple more examples of the use of bacon mania from the last couple days on Google News [5]. The article isn't so much about bacon in American culture as it is about bacon fanatacism. So I think the title is okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I hardly think two more news results readily establishes this as an actual "term" in wide use. Further, the articles themselves seem to point to "bacon mania" as an American thing. Just to let you know, if the merger or name change doesn't go through I'm going to AFD nom it for lacking in notability. At best its a nelogism.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Those links go to a blog of a NYT writer, not to a printed article. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point Jonathunder. I have some further comments to make. First, I have yet to see a non-American source using the term "bacon mania", which seems to indicate that its a cultural term specific to the US. Second the term "bacon mania" seems to be used consistantly within articles as a means of commenting on American culture (not just bacon enthusiasm in general). Third, articles on neologisms need to be treated carefully because they can mean different things to different people. I would definitely call this term a neologism. It may be notable enough for its own article and it may not. Right now I am leaning towards non-notable since there isn't enough coverage on the term itself to establish notability. (people may use the term, but until the term itself is the main focus of multiple sources there isn't enough independent coverage to establish an article. Right now this article is really OR.) Regaurdless, I think the fact that it is an "American neologism" should be made clear in the article, and a more careful approach of the topic made. Right now the article is asserting that this is a clearly established term, which it isn't.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger since Bacon mania has enough content and notability to stand on its own. It is a cultural phenomenon, and as such it is more about the culture that simultaneously worships and reviles this product than about the product itself. BTW, Publix has a good sale on thick-sliced hickory smoked Smithfield this week (2 for $7), but if you're going there, I'd get the Niman Ranch bacon--more expensive but well worth it. Not that I'm not an objective observer, of course. Sorry, didn't mean to spam there. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm almost always for merging, and this article could really use some quality content. The only noticable effect we'd see from merging bacon mania would be a heavy US bias and an even unhealthier dose of recentism. It seems more representative of internet fads than it is of food or cooking. Peter Isotalo 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Merge with great reduction of elaboration This is absurd. I honestly think this is all a joke or some sort of veiled social commentary. Do you know there is a Chocolate-covered bacon article, and that it's several times longer than Chocolate-covered peanut and Chocolate-covered raisin combined? There is apparently no article for Chocolate-covered strawberries. Similarly, Chocolate-covered pretzel is mentioned only in articles for specific brands. Yet how many people actually eat chocolate-covered bacon in comparison to those other foods? But the Chocolate-covered bacon article has THREE PHOTOS! Huh? An article for Bacon explosion effuses that it is "one of the most popular meal ideas in the world". WTF?!? Are they going by media hits that people e-mail one another links to the YouTube video for a laugh, or are they going by the increase in sales of bacon and the related ingredients since the recipe was first presented?

I've been involved in articles for albums and songs where I've been told it's Wiki policy that we have to establish the necessity to show a picture of the cover, or the artist, and that we can't use a band logo, and that the use of any photo needs to be greatly justified. There are articles about famous human beings that don't have a single photo. Just because a few media outlets report on something new to put chocolate on top of doesn't mean it's notable enough for its own article. I would suggest considering the phenomena of Martini (cocktail) and Cigar, both of which have had great resurgences in popularity, magazines devoted to them, businesses dedicated respectively to selling and to consuming nothing else. Each has a particular aesthetic and ritual for making and using them, each has significant varieties, each figures prominently in a boatload of novels, films, TV series. Yet there is no Chocolate martini article, much less one on "Martini Mania", despite the 800,000+ hits that phrase calls up on Google. This seems like satire. When there is a Bacon Aficionado magazine with major celebrities on the cover, will we then realize we have been deprived of a Cigar mania article all this time? When there is a Bacon addiction support group will we realize we were remiss in not lavishing such attention on the mania sweeping this nation that saw bars and cocktail lounges in every community, restaurant and airport lounge? When it becomes a color additive to soft drinks, or sold in vending machines, or available in minibars? No, there are simply articles about the things themselves, and any "mania" surrounding their use is adequately described therein or implied. (Isn't it reasonable to presume any greatly successful enterprise, be it a song/dance/film/TV series/restaurant chain, etc., indeed any news, is owed to some sudden and great concentration of high interest?) Again, by how much have bacon sales risen in the U.S. as compared to before this media "mania"? How does bacon sell relative to other processed and unprocessed meats? Are "bacon clubs" any more populated than your average small-town festival or fan club gathering? There are hot dog eating contests and pie eating contests, and bake-offs, carts on streetcorners and fairs and amusement parks, and Guinness record attempts at making the biggest hamburger or whatever, that could all be gathered together to make mania articles about all of those foods. On the one hand, food is both necessary for life and it is a sensual experience (as in of the senses). I'm all for beefing up (excuse the pun) food articles to properly represent the wide variety of common foods and delicacies alike. But are they each to be given their own several-paragraph-long articles with numerous photos?

If I can get serious about bacon for a moment (!), the Baconnaise section of this article notes "Jon Stewart satirized baconnaise in his The Daily Show as an example of Americans' laziness: "for people who want heart disease but are too lazy to actually make the bacon."[32][33] Outside of the United States, baconnaise seems to emblematize America in the same way Stewart proposed, as suggested by the French blog Ecrans.[34]" Isn't there honestly a chance that we're giving a slanted representation of bacon? Buying into and egging on (can't help it) such stereotyping? Are we sociopoliticization of bacon and its gluttonous consumption? What about the religious element? Shall that have its own section? Its own article? I understand there is some published material in that regard.

Bacon air fresheners? Should we develop an article on "Lemon mania" given all of the furniture waxes and floor cleaners and oven sprays and air fresheners and laundry detergents that began using the scent, or how pervasive it is in beverage presentation, from water to diet soda, etc.? How about Farrah Fawcett and Star Wars? Separate articles on the mania surrounding that? Michael Jackson's jacket or glove? Madonna's bustiers et al? The Macarena? Clothing is arguably as necessary and certainly as specialized and with a similar propensity to be taken to ridiculous extremes, yet each fashion mania is not described separately from the fashion it describes. Whatever mania there is regarding any of this is relevant to note in the article about the thing itself. If for some reason editors see fit to make the main Bacon article longer than other food articles, we could either start one page about bacon-related foods that would include Baconnaise and the chocolate-covered variety et al, or we could, I daresay, question whether it really merits such detail. For full disclosure I will add that I do very much like bacon but almost never eat it. So rarely does anybody make it as crispy as I like it that it's usually a letdown to order it out, and the negative health effects are unwelcome enough to keep me from purchasing a whole slab very often myself. A natural-born American generally more exposed to the media than I'd care to be, I had no idea (other than the Baconnaise) that there was any such mania until I read it here. Is it possible much of it has been, er, whipped up to help market that new product? It seems the "mania" part of this is primarily an internet phenomenon, and not one based on the actual sales and consumption of the bacon itself. Abrazame (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion

FYI: There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon mania of possible interest to editors of this page. Aleta Sing 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And please see the bit I've just added above under English-speaking world: I think it should be a subsection of United States, not on a par with it. I just note it here as that conversation was last contributed to in Feb. SimonTrew (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Has been done by Kelapstick -- forget it. SimonTrew (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dripping vs drippings

I added a link to dripping. I have never heard it called "drippings" as an uncountable noun. Wikitionary only gives it as "plural of dripping". Is this a dialect variation ("pork drippings" as opposed to "pork dripping")? Or a simple mistake? I've kept it as drippings for now. If the former, I'll add "drippings" as an "or" in the "dripping" article lead.

I also put "white adipose tissue" as the pipe for "grease" since grease is just a dab page none of whose entries are directly relevant here. "lard" is a better pipe, but I imagine many would complain that bacon fat was not lard (even though the lard article specifically includes unrendered fat and pig fat).

Comments please. SimonTrew (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon flavo(u)r

The section on bacon products should have about bacon flavour crisps etc (which are generally vegetarian). I would add myself but it is hard to find references that are not just manufacturers. I am not sure what is in bacon flavour except MSG. I think you can buy it on the shelf like you buy vanilla essence, orange extract etc, in those little jars. But they don't tell you what's in them.

We need a section on bacon crisps (chips), Frazzles (UK brand), etc, in some form SimonTrew (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon Salt

The Bacon Salt section contains this comment.

(though the claim to be zero-calorie and fat-free is an artifact of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Nutrition Facts requirements; all but the "Natural" variety actually contain around 17 calories per gram, including 9 calories from fat)

I believe the editor who (in good faith) added this misread the bottom of the nutritional label which states that fat has 9Cal/g, and carbs and protein each have 4Cal/g. It does not assert that a gram of Bacon Salt has a gram of each. Page is locked so a registered used needs to fix this.

Done. Nice catch. --Weetoddid (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that Weetoddid, but someone already reverted you (sigh)
Just to clarify, I have in my kitchen right now,
  • A can of Swiss Miss hot chocolate mix
  • A box of Barilla spaghetti
  • A box of Kluski chicken noodle soup mix
  • A can of Ocean's Harvest clam chowder
They all have "Calories per gram: Fat 9, Carbohydrate 4, Protein 4" That's a statement about where calories come from in general, not about what's in that particular box. 76.211.5.122 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at a can of tuna that says "Calories per gram: Fat 10" so it's obvious there are varying nutritional elements. However, it does appear the nutritional label being used as the source is outdated as I just looked at my own bottle of bacon salt and it doesn't have "Calories per gram: Fat 9, Carbohydrate 4, Protein 4" anywhere on it now. So carry on. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I cant remember now but i was probably the editor that converted it into the nutritional label, and my apologies if i cocked it up. one of the problems with that nutrition facts label is it only applies in the US. I have suggested getting one for EU (which is consistent across the U though of course in different languages) and ideally it would be great if they were the same template and just a switch on it to turn it from one to the other. However, thats a hard job and is not gonna happen very soon. SimonTrew (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maple bacon

is conspicuously absent from the page. What gives? -Ich (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How long did this take to work out?

"A study by Newcastle University found that foods high in protein—such as bacon— break down into amino acids." I think a 14 year old should have been able to tell them that! Is there a way of writing it so it doesn't sound quite so stupid? Smartse (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What if the 14 year old was born penniless and illiterate? If protein breaks down into amino acids (it's been a while since I was in Bio) that fact could either be stated plainly, or the entire bit could be taken out all together as being of no special relevance to bacon and self-evident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
But sods law if you say that proteinsbreak down into amino acids (actually technically amino acids ARE proteins) then someone will immediately come along and say it is unreferenced. It kinda gets my goat a bit sometimes on WP that you simply state a well known fact and you get oh CN or whatever. Of course all facts are to an extent disputable but in the context of a particular article its not reasonable to have to explain that electricity is a form of energy etc but i will bet you if you take it out someone will revert it. SimonTrew (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I will happily point out that I am the one who rewrote the sentence that way, if only because it allows me to show that I was correcting it from the miserable way it had originally appeared:
"A scientific study suggested that the taste, and even the smell, of bacon speeds up metabolism, which helps the body rid itself of alcohol faster when someone has a hangover."[1]
I rewrote this as:
"A study by Newcastle University pointed out that foods high in protein—such as bacon—and food high in carbohydrates—such as bread—together break down into amino acids. The combination can speed up a sluggish metabolism depleted of neurotransmitters due to overconsumption of alcohol, suggesting that a bacon sandwich can help the body lessen the effects of a hangover."[2]
I had corresponded with a troublesome editor over equally absurd additions to political and scientific articles that showed a similar grasp (or lack thereof) of basic facts, and had him on my watchlist when I noticed this edit. Even more laughably obvious than my meager attempt to paraphrase the biology of it is the fact that the smell alone will accomplish nothing, and it is irresponsible to suggest it would. Some idiot would have read that and, the next time they got hammered, thought they'd be fine to drive if they only got a whiff of the nearest diner. (Taken to a hypothetical extreme, such an edit could kill someone. By vehicular manslaughter, that is, and not heart disease or stroke.) I found the "article" cited for the mention as oddly absurd. Indeed, why not tell people to eat fatty steak, lamb, veal or ribs and fries, fish and chips or French toast? How about fried chicken and hot buttered biscuits? Why not tofu, or ice cream? Rice pudding? Flan? Beans? A hard-boiled egg? Both that article and its addition to this article struck me as dim-witted, giddy PR and I'd be as happy to see the whole section removed as I would to see it better explained by someone qualified to do so. I'm not sure about SimonTrew's point about the reference; I would note that whomever edited that section since my edit has removed the part about the carbohydrates/bread, which was actually mentioned before bacon in the article and so—purely based on the reference, of which there is one—would seem as relevant. My point isn't to gratuitously utilize my eighth-grade science, it's to responsibly correct a poorly written section that showed no grasp whatsoever of an article which was obviously intended to affect human behavior. Abrazame (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this section from the article for several reasons:

(1) The Telegraph article does not explicitly say that Newcastle University did this research;
(2) I cannot find any scientific paper by quoted expert E. Roberts about this subject (although I'm not sure for what keywords too look for).
(3) The "Centre for Life" is not part of the University. Elin Roberts is in the business of science communication. [8].
(4) The underlying explanation is not specific for bacon. Unless bacon has a well-known reputation in the UK for curing hangovers (I never heard of it), I don't see why this should be in the bacon article.

Han-Kwang (t) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Baconnaise

I have no idea why this article is locked, but:

BACONNAISE IS NOT VEGETARIAN!!! Ya nimrods! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.41.196 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bacon is pork, which is NOT red meat

Why does the article mention the dangers of eating highly processed red meat, when the linked-to red meat article states that pork is a white meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.254 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Crackling vs Cracklings

Considering the underwhelming response I got for dripping vs drippings, I do not have high hopes here... does *anyone* call it/them cracklings? I've always said crackling, and it is an uncountable noun, perhaps one might say fungible. I can see e.g. chitlins/chitterlings as the comparison, is this a dialect thing? (Bearing in mind of course this is British English we are doing here.) Comments? SimonTrew (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in the Queen's English, but on the other side of the pond I've only heard cracklings (or cracklin's) and drippings. --Weetoddid (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian bacon

{{Editprotect}} I'm just trying to add something on Canadian bacon.

Canadian bacon is already mentioned several times in the article. What do you think should be added? Algebraist 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is pancetta a kind of bacon?

Multiple mentions in the article calling pancetta "Italian bacon". I'm not sure if I agree with that. Most bacon you encounter around the world is smoked or has pretensions to being smoked (ie. being sprayed with "liquid smoke" ... ick). Pancetta on the other hand as far as I am aware is never smoked, is always dry-cured and due to long drying is much drier and firmer than a slab of bacon. I think it's a different product altogether despite superficial similarities. Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schellack (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what is meant by bacon. But I would say that yes, they are a type of bacon product based on the cut of meat and an alternative curing process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To me, if it isn't cured with saltpeter, it isn't bacon. --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bacos

Bacos redirects here but is not mentioned in the article and contains no bacon.--Weetoddid (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be its own article. I think baconnaise and bacon salt should be split off also. Bacon salt contains no bacon, and both products don't seem to merit more than a mention in the main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Cuisine as a category?

I came here from Irish coffee because I was looking at its cats... and noticed that this page had the category Irish Cuisine as well... I am bringing it to the tak page here before I remove it. --StaniStani  23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration, British Cuisine should go as well. Revert if you disagree, and discuss here. --StaniStani 

Bacon UK Canadian bacon

Here is some additional information regards Canadian bacon:

Canadian bacon was introduced to the UK during and after World War 2, The UK had food rationing until 1953, and though you might have the money and ration coupons, the food you wanted might not be available.

Tins, (cans), of Canadian bacon sometimes appeared in the shops, and were not rationed. The bacon was what is called streaky in the UK, and was tightly rolled, each slice or rasher being separated by paper; the can being then filled with brine. After opening you fried the rashers; though being wet with brine the bacon spat horribly when put into the hot fat. Eggs were also scarce, but you could get powdered egg that you mixed with water. You then fried this. Finally you fried bread, this absorbing every last piece of fat and flavor from the pan.

This was the hight of luxury, a plate of bacon and eggs for Sunday breakfast. I wish it was still available. Canadian bacon and Spam still retain fond memories to those who lived in those times.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Lingard (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that, to appreciate that, you'd had to have been there. Dried egg and tinned bacon - sorry Chris, it sounds gross to me  :( Obscurasky (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nitrite content in this food

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The History and the future of Bacon

If you want to talk about bacon, there should be information on the history and future of it. For example, who invented bacon? --209.244.30.253 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare, of course. Cstaffa (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I give. What does Shakespeare have to do with bacon? --209.244.30.253 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Every person in the entire universe when thinking of bacon they never had the thought of uncooked bacon. Bacon the word has always meant the cooked version. So why is the front page of Wikipedia a uncooked version of bacon?

Cooked vs Raw Bacon

The most known form of bacon in the entire world is cooked bacon. So why is the first picture an unknowable forum uncooked bacon. If you asked a million people, they would not recognize that meat as bacon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.74.4 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article says smoked bacon is ready to eat without cooking. There may be an issue here with the definition of 'smoked', but at the very least it should say that some smoked bacon does need cooking. Obscurasky (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo/details of a bacon joint (not rasher)

Seems to be omission of much discussion of the bacon joint as is common in Ireland, i.e. a big round lump of bacon that you boil for some time and slice up in thick slabs for with potatoes, vegetables, etc. in a proper dinner.

In fact bizarrely there seems to be more mention of this in the article Corned Beef, which mentions the Irish dish of Bacon and Cabbage (which the Irish-American Corned Beef and Cabbage is based on).

zoney ♣ talk 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Only weeks or months?

Bacon is not only cured for weeks or months. Some high priced bacon variants are cured for over 3 years. --95.88.227.44 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Health Concerns

There is a new study out on the negative health effects of bacon. I'm posting it now. --PFS (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bacon sandwich really does cure a hangover, The Telegraph, April 8, 2009
  2. ^ Bacon sandwich really does cure a hangover, The Telegraph, April 8, 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacon/Archive_1&oldid=1136544638"