Talk:Spam (food)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Popular?

"In the United Kingdom spam is often sliced, battered and deep-fried becoming known as 'spam fritters', and is still a popular way of eating Spam today."

No it isnt. Spam is seldom eaten. So its not a popular way of eating it. 2.101.4.222 (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not regarding the popularity of spam itself but the popularity of the preparation method when consuming it Nolansykinsley (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

i still eat lots of spam, but in the uk its becoming too expensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.164.125 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Spam 4 types.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Spam 4 types.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not "the Hawaiian steak"

I was born and raised in Hawai'i and spent nearly 30 years of my life there. Never have I known a single person to refer to Spam as "Hawaiian steak". I just did a Google search, and every source I've seen calling it that is either a) a "Hawaiian" restaurant on the continental U.S. or b) a publication based in a city on the continental U.S. Moreover, all of these references seemed to appear AFTER the Wikipedia article's source for the phrase (2003 NYT article) was published. I think this should be removed, as it's kind of insulting. In Hawai'i, just like anywhere else, Spam is Spam and steak is steak. 174.29.61.35 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very possible that NYT was the first source to note that Spam has been refered to as Hawaiian Steak, just over 8 years ago. And although you may see it as insulting, the New York Times sees otherwise. Bottom line, regardless of how Hawaiin Steak was formed, it is now used, according to Google. I understand where you are coming from though. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of section Similar Products

I have added this section to point out the similarities of the three products, which are distinctly different from most other canned meats. I am working on a page for the former Swift and Company Prem brand of formed pork luncheon meat. Since there is a ban on original research, my own memories of Prem are not sufficient, and published sources are a bit scarce. I reference a link to one of them but most of the others are copies of period advertisments. For the record, my late father was plant superintendent for Swift and Company at the Kearney Meadows (NJ) plant that produced commercial gelatin and table ready meats, including Prem. DocKrin (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Origin of spam name

In the description of SPAM it states the name comes from contracting spiced ham. I watched a history channel program about SPAM and I have heard before that SPAM is not a contraction of "spiced ham" but an acronym that stands for Shoulder, Pork, And Meat. Nolansykinsley (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

On the main page, it is simply stated without citation that SPAM comes from "Shoulder Pork HAM." As stated, neither of these things counts yet as verifiable source either. I think you need to dig up the History Channel show first.

This comes from the website of SPAM itself. If anyone were the pinnacle of authority on SPAM, the Hormel company would be that pinnacle. Why not start there?

"Who named SPAM classic? A man name Kenneth Daigneau, an actor from New York, was crowned the official namer of SPAM Classic. Jay Hormel, the father of SPAM held a contest to help find a name for this tender, sweet meat in a can. The name SPAM was slected and Ken Daigneau received a $100 prize which was a lot of money, considering it was 1936...Does SPAM mean 'spiced ham?' While some speculate that the name came from mashing the two words together, SPAM Family of Products has come to mean so much more than simply 'spiced ham.' While a can of SPAM Classic certainly does include ham and spices, the term 'spiced ham' simply doesn't pain the right picture what a can of SPAM Classic really is. So in the end, SPAM means SPAM. For real." [1]

I think the upshot of this is that if you REALLY want to know what SPAM stands for, you would have to ask Kenneth Daigneau, since he's the one that came up with it. Of course, there's a good chance he's dead by now. So, for the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a question that cannot be answered definitively, except in the following way: the Hormel company corroborates the characterization of their SPAM as being spiced ham, and implies that they believe that Mr. Daigneau mashed up SPiced hAM to come up with the winning name, rather than forming an acronym from Shoulder, Pork, And Meat. Unless you can come up with a published quote from Mr. Daigneau, anything else is conjecture, whether published or otherwise. My $0.02.

Jjaybird (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I worked at Fitch Lovell and was told it was an acronym of Special Processed American Meat . Tony S 88.108.238.74 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see http://www.spam.com/spam-101/what-does-the-spam-brand-name-mean which mentions two possibities spiced ham and shoulders of pork and ham. Special Processed American Meat is obviously reverse engineered urban legend IMHO. The original product contained no spices. The two main cuts of meat in it are shoulder of pork and ham (leg of pork) http://www.spam.com/spam-101/what-is-spam-classic hth Woz2 (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the simple fact that IMHO was used here shows that it shouldn't be on the Wiki page. Where's the citation for "self-evidently a backronym"? I don't really find it self-evident at all. 130.74.185.83 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this an advert for Spam?

Reading through the article, it reads like a promotional piece or advert, where everything has been written in a positive spam-promoting way. Nothing is said about, speaking from UK experience, that it is now considered joke bad food, that sales have declined greatly, that sodium nitrate is carcinogenic, etc. 2.101.4.222 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any promotional aspect to the article, it appears to be written from a neutral point of view most of the contentious points are verified by reliable sources. The appropriate place to write about any dangers of sodium nitrate would be at the sodium nitrate article (which is already linked from this one). The point that you write about Spam being considered "joke bad food" would have to be backed up by several reliable sources before being allowed into this article, as it would be a contentious point. If you have evidence of the product's sales history, that would be an appropriate addition to the article. If you have the evidence, you could try your hand at making the addition yourself. ThemFromSpace 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely you've seen the Monty Python Spam sketch? Spam (Monty Python). Or Spamalot. Or Spam (electronic). I see none of them are mentioned in the article. The UK factory closed because of low sales. 2.97.216.222 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well anyone who's eaten Spam (which at any given time may be 3/4 of the planet) knows it's yucky, so if they promote it here, it really won't make any difference. I actually found it listed under "famine foods". Right up there with nettles and bark bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC) It does not even list the ingrediants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrhowson (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Expansion needed

Needs a proper History section. Also: what grade of meat actually goes into Spam? Someone told me it's grade 'F'--whereas dog food is grade 'D'. Any truth to that? JKeck (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Article Edits for Class Assignment

This article will be edited as part of a class assignment for INFO 3460 at Cornell University. The student users editing this page are listed as follows: KathyQX94, Lhe3460, Mwong850, Tkw32. More details about the class can be found here.

Based on discussions on the talk page as well as our own research, we will include the following information:

• History of Spam, including etymology of Spam name
• Elaboration of Spam’s significance in various countries and locations, such as the Philippines and Hong Kong
• Content of Spam and ingredients
• Manufacturing process of Spam
• Statistics behind SPAM, such as how many cans are consumed or manufactured in a day and an update to current statistics in article
• Elaborate on Pop Culture Significance
  • Spamarama
  • Inclusion in media such as television or music

We would like to add the following images to the article:

• Cans of Spam in a grocery store
• Spam and Eggs dish with rice and Sriracha sauce
• Spam slicer

We plan to add a “History of Spam” section by removing the historical content away from the “International usage” section. In addition, we will elaborate on the “International usage” section by adding more information about the cultural significance of Spam in different places, such as the Philippines and Hong Kong. Furthermore, we will also add a section to elaborate on the significance of Spam in pop culture. The resulting overall structure will be as follows:

• Introduction
• Name
• Nutritional data
• Manufacturing Process
• Varieties
• History of Spam
• International usage
  • United States and territories
  • United Kingdom
  • Asia
• Pop culture significance
  • Spam celebrations
• See Also→ Related Articles
• References
• External Links

References:

• onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0022-3840.2000.3402_83.x/abstract
• www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bloomsbury/fcs/2007/00000010/00000001/art00003
• newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/10/spam-turns-75-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-canned-meat/
• www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Spam.html
• www.spam.com/spam-101/what-is-spam-classic
• lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/3567331
• nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1472/2
• science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/spam-food1.htm
• www.spam.com/spam-101/history-of-spam (already a reference in the article but not a lot of history information actually used in the article)

We will find additional papers about the cultural significance in Spam in through the JSTOR database and Google Scholar. We will also locate books related to Spam at the libraries, such as The Book of Spam: A Most Glorious and Definitive Compendium of the World's Favorite Canned Meat. --Lhe3460 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

You may of course decide not to make any edits. "our own research, we will include the following" is a dubious basis and plan; original research problematic & fixed plans treacherous. Good luck! SovalValtos (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very highly likely that students at Cornell will be culminating their data from reliable sources, as opposed to using their own supposed original research. University students are typically taught how to compose research and writing based upon using reliable sources, as well as using empirical research methods. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources listed above, [2] from science.howstuffworks.com, does not appear to be a reliable source. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hello! Nice to meet you. Writing for Wikipedia is different from most other writing that people do because the focus of writing is limited by what is already published in reliable sources. It is not possible to plan to write something unless you have sources on that topic, so without knowing what sources exist, I cannot say whether it would be possible to follow the outline you have. Rather than planning what to write, I would instead recommend finding which sources are best quality and most interesting to you. Summarize something that you enjoy reading even if it does not obviously fit into the sections you imagine you want to fill. Northamerica1000 is right about the sources being dubious. As a rule of thumb, try to make a citation which includes an author and a date. Edited content which is supposed to be authoritative generally names the author as an authority and dates the work as a definitive version. If you cannot find those things, ask why that is, and whether the writer thought that the work was good enough for anyone to want to cite it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Something more - consider checking Gumbo as a model article for food. A lot of people have worked on that one and I think it looks nice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the Gumbo article is one of Wikipedia's Featured articles, which as per Featured article, are "considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm one of the teaching assistants that is reviewing and helping the students complete their assignment. I just want to clarify some of the concerns I think I'm reading here from SovalValtos and Blue Rasberry (talk). The students will not be conducting original research - their reference to "our own research" is alluding to a search of reliable sources on SPAM which they will summarize or paraphrase to help enhance the existing content on this page, not unpublished personal research. Their sources are well listed underneath this section, if you'd like to review the material in more depth. Let me know if you still have concerns about the students' work! Thanks, everyone. -Easowers (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Easowers. Thanks, it seems like you understand what should be done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the joys of working within a reputable academic institution is that a decent library should be to hand, so that written references, not available via the internet, should be more accessable than to someone with just a computer. It might take more work though! SovalValtos (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Class project progress for Spam article

As part of the class project, we will document summaries of our changes to the Spam article. The students involved in this project are: tkw32, mwong850, KathyQX94, and lhe3460. Below are our edits on September 24, 2014:

• Added five more sources to our list of potential sources to draw from as we contribute to the article.
• Added statistics about the usage of Spam in the United States and began referencing sources
• Added ingredients of Spam to Nutritional data section
• Added a pop culture section for Spam drawing from information in the International usage section
• Corrected general grammar mistakes and typos
• Added an image of cooking Spam in the United States section in the International usage section

--Lhe3460 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam in a pan

On removing the image file from the body of the article, I added the Wikimedia category, Spam (food), to the it so that the image would appear via the Wikimedia link at the bottom of the page. I do not know of any requirement to notify that the author of an image is the one adding it to a page, but it can be useful to aid transparency. It is also more satisfying, as a photographer, if someone else chooses the image to add.SovalValtos (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant sources for Spam page edits for class assignment

Below is a list of relevant sources as part of the class assignment for Online Communities at Cornell University. As stated in our proposal above, we are currently working on editing this Wikipedia article for a class assignment, and have compiled a bibliography of relevant sources to potentially add to the article.

• Lewis, George H. "From Minnesota Fat to Seoul Food: Spam in America and the Pacific Rim." The Journal of Popular Culture 34.2 (2004): 83-105. Wiley Online Library. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0022-3840.2000.3402_83.x/abstract>.
  • This article will add to the “History of SPAM” section, as it describes food’s transition from the U.S. to other parts of the world. Spam started off as being seen as a cheap lunch meat at its inception in the United States, but its adoption into East Asian cuisines has changed its perception positively.
• Matejowsky, Ty. "SPAM and Fast-food "Glocalization" in the Philippines." Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 10.1 (2007): 23-41. Ingenta Connect. Web. <http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bloomsbury/fcs/2007/00000010/00000001/art00003>.
  • This article elaborates on the significance of SPAM internationally, as Filipinos have localized the global product Spam in a fast-food context. Specifically, SPAMJAM Cafe, a thriving fast-food restaurant chain in the Phillipines, shows SPAM being rebranded from cheap food in the U.S. to a delicacy in the Philippines.
• Carbone, Nick. "Spam Turns 75: 10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Canned Meat." Time Magazine 9 July 2012. Print.
  • This source contains information about history and specific statistics of SPAM use. For example, SPAM was popular from its start, because the meat was immediately adopted as army rations when it was invented during WWII. This is also how SPAM became popular overseas such as in “Guam, [which] consumes more than 16 cans of Spam per person, per year”.
• "How Products Are Made: Spam." Made How. Print. <http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Spam.html>.
  • This article describes the history behind SPAM, the ingredients of the meat, and the manufacturing process. We will use this source in our “Content of SPAM” and “Manufacturing process” sections.
• "What Is SPAM Classic?" Spam. Hormel Foods, Inc. Web. <http://www.spam.com/spam-101/what-is-spam-classic>.
  • SPAM is made of pork shoulder and ham, salt, water, potato starch for thickening, sugar for bringing out the savory, and sodium nitrite for preservation. We will use this source in our “Content of SPAM” section of the article.
• Dahre, Johansson. "SPAM A LOT: Why SPAM Is Not (all)unhealthy Food-SPAM as Political and Cultural Resistance in Hawaii." Feast and Famine: Exploring Relationships with Food in the Pacific (2012): 1-8. Lund University Publications. Web. <https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/3567331>.
  • This source sheds light on the significance of SPAM in other regions of the world. American health authorities advise against eating copious amounts of unhealthy foods like SPAM, but some Hawaiian villagers see their consumption of SPAM as a political resistance of American influence.
• "HORMEL SPAM, Luncheon Meat, Pork with Ham, Minced, Canned Read More Http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1472/2#ixzz3DcAGodOC." SELF Nutrition Data: Know What You Eat. Condé Nast. Web. <http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1472/2>.
  • This source will contribute to the statistics and content of spam sections. It is the nutrition label of “HORMEL SPAM, Luncheon Meat, pork with ham, minced, canned” given for 3 different serving sizes (100 grams, 1oz, 2oz).

--Lhe3460 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Below are additional sources that we have found to help us contribute to the article:

• Smith, Rod. "SPAM turns 75." Feedstuffs 12 Mar. 2012: 7. Academic OneFile. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.library.cornell.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA283946772&v=2.1&u=nysl_sc_cornl&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1>
  • We will use this article to discuss some of the historical content regarding SPAM, including the introduction of a mascot figure. Other information include when the 7 billionth can was sold, and roughly how much SPAM is eaten in the US will also be included. This is article was published in an accredited Journal titled Feedstuffs, and we are using strictly neutral informational content. Although, the article name is similar to that of the Times article we are also using, the information presented is different and will contribute more material to the Wiki article.

Ramen Noodles and Spam: Popular Foods, Significant Tastes

• Kim, Sojin; Livengood, Mark (1995). Ramen Noodles and Spam: Popular Foods, Significant Tastes. pp. 2-11. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  • We will use this article to discuss more historical and cultural context of SPAM. Information includes the use of SPAM during WWII, cultural significance (in respect to locations such as Hawaii), and other data gathered from utilization of SPAM in certain dishes and the connotations it brings about. This article draws on both the positive and negative aspects of SPAM giving it a neutral balance.
• Owens, Michael (2007). “Food Choice, Symbolism, and Identity: Bread-and-Butter Issues for Folkloristics and Nutrition Studies”. The Journal of American Folklore. pp. 129-177. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  • We will use this article to further note the social influences of SPAM and society. Here the article focusses on the usage of SPAM and what the product conotes in varying cultures/races/etc. This establishes both the thought of SPAM as a positive and negative influence, where SPAM is seen as an indication of both wealth and poverty.
• Sullivan, Jill; Keck, Danielle (2007). “The Hormel Girls”. American Music. pp. 282-311. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  • This resource shows us a glimpse of the history of Spam within a military context, specifically during World War II. It shows the story of the Hormel Girls, a group of women who went from a drum and bugle corps to a traveling troupe touting the wonders of the products, especially Spam. The article also has information about Hormel, the creation of Spam, and its historical role during the war.
• “Milestones in Our History”. Hormelfoods.com. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  • This site displays milestones from the history of the company behind Spam, Hormel. The site shows some interesting statistics from history about the rise in the popularity of Spam, including when the one billionth can of Spam was sold.

Please let us know if these resources follow the criteria covered in WP:42. We are also starting to contribute to the article. Let us know if you have any advice or guidance for us.

--Lhe3460 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Commentary

I don't recommend using the How Products Are Made – Spam article from http://www.madehow.com, because while it is informative, it does not appear to be a reliable source. However, the two books listed at the end of the article are usable: Spam: A Biography is an independent, secondary source, and SPAM®: An Authorized Biography is a primary source that could be used to verify content in the article. Of note is that primary sources are typically not used to base significant content within articles upon. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite doing more on line research, I am unable to find much beyond old advertisements for Swift & Company's Prem, which was one of SPAM's competitors in the 1950-1970 time frame. The other competitor, Armour Treet, is still in production, if much harder to find that SPAM.DocKrin (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am copying the following from my talk page. _ :Hello, I'm Tiffany and I am part of the above group. We noticed that you started editing the Manufacturing process section of the Spam article using a source in our bibliography. However, two other user had already pointed out that this source is unreliable. Would you mind if we replaced these edits with reliable sources? Thanks! Tkw32 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC) _ I would be pleased to see more reliable source added. I do not think you meant to say replace the edit. I cannot find the "two other user" who pointed out the source is unreliable, just NorthAmerica who said it "does not appear to be a reliable source." Not quite the same thing. SovalValtos (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos! If you read through the commentary from other users on our initial proposal, you'll see that we received some great feedback from Blue Rasberry regarding the reliability of sources, in which was mentioned "Northamerica1000 is right about the sources being dubious." Looking at the Made How article again, we also noticed that it does not include an author or a date that would be able to be used for citation, as per Blue Rasberry's advice. Thus, there were in fact two users who mentioned that the source may not be reliable, and we think it would be best to remove any sources that are not fully reliable, in order to preserve the accuracy of the article's content. In the meantime, we are currently searching for more reliable sources for the Manufacturing section of this article. Please let us know what you think, thanks! - Mwong850 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More sources that can be used

Below are some more source search links and sources that can be used to verify content within and expand the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Google Books search

• The Guide to United States Popular Culture. p. 762.
• The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. pp. 559-560.
• Vault Guide to the Top Consumer Products Employers. pp. 180-181.
• Cuisine and Culture: A History of Food and People. p. 347

• Google search for new sources

• Bloomberg Businessweek article. "How Spam Meat Has Survived Spam E-Mail".
• Adweek article
• Forbes article
• Mother Jones article

These are great, NorthAmerica! Thank you so much. I know the students appreciate your assistance, and your activity is greatly assisting their learning and editing progress. Easowers (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰! I am Kathy, one of the students working on the Wikipedia page. I just wanted to extend the thanks, especially for finding more reliable sources that can be used in order to provide valid, unbiased, additional information onto the article. Your constructive criticism is very much appreciated and we will keep you updated on what we are doing on our end. Thanks again! KathyQX94 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

The new reference in the History section seems only to be an oblique referral to Thatcher, possibly a letter, in a magazine section. I have only seen what the link leads to and not the complete context. Is this really a robust reference?

SovalValtos (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a second dubious source does not substitute for one proper source. The npr special series kitchen window looks like a lighthearted magazine article rather than a reliable source.

SovalValtos (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a sound, published RS http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=+3Hx4ASLKU&pg=PA357&dq=margaret+thatcher+praises+spam+&source=bl&ots=MHF303UeF Irondome (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The link above was taking one straight to the book this a.m. Odd..Anyway it is the "Historical Dictionary Of The 1940's" Edited by James Gilbert Ryan and Leonard C. Schlup. Published by M.E Sharp Inc, 2006. ISBN 0-7656-0440-X. Page 357 for the relevant quotes. Irondome (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant Changes to History, International Usage, and In Popular Culture Sections

Hello, my name is Kathy. I am one of the members of our class project, which consists of the following users: KathyQX94, Lhe3460, Mwong850, Tkw32. Again more information about the course and our project can be found here.

We have made significant changes to the History, International Usage, and In Popular Culture sections of the Spam(food) article (Edits were made on October 1, 2014). These edits include:

• Changing the name of "World War 2 and its legacy" to "History"
  • Making this "History" section a larger section, separate from the "International usage" section
  • Moving the "History" section, now it is situated before the "International usage" section
  • Moving, integrating, and adding information onto the "History" section
    • Repeated information was deleted; any relevant information regarding WW2, the Korean War, other wars was moved from the "International usage" section to the "History" section; information already included in the "World War 2 and its legacy" was intermixed with the other information to create a more coherent article
• The wording and placement of information in "International usage" was changed to create a more fluid article
• Some information previously under the "World War 2 and its legacy" section was moved to the "In popular culture" section
• Citations were added where needed
• Wording, grammar, and some typos were fixed to create an overall more fluid article

KathyQX94 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

All of these were needed improvements. You have grasped that odd historical stories are best grouped together in a history section rather than named individually. What you have done is all thoughtful copyediting work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Further edits to Spam page for class project

We focused on the following different aspects of editing for this stage of the project:

• Citations
  • Added citations for the paragraph regarding the Korean War in the History section.
  • Added citations in the International usage section for the statistics regarding Guam and Chinese usage.
• Reorganization
  • Took out irrelevant sentences in the Introduction of the article.
  • Moved the Name section to the top of the History section
  • Moved Varieties and Nutritional data section to the bottom of the page after looking at other food articles, such as Kit Kat and Cheese
  • Reorganized content about South Korea in International usage section into one paragraph
  • Deleted Manufacturing section because of lack of reliable sources
• Expanding Content
  • Added a very brief historical summary in Introduction
  • Added photo of nutritional label on can of Spam to increase readability of content in Nutritional data section
  • Added content to History section regarding the transformation of perceptions of Spam and its 75th anniversary
  • Added content to United Kingdom section under International usage regarding Spam fritters and various recipes
  • Expanded content regarding China under International usage
  • Expanded content regarding Japan under International usage about Hormel relief efforts, Burger King's introduction of Spam burgers, and popularity of Spam in Japan
  • Expanded content related to Hong Kong under International Section about its use and perception and deleted existing uncited content
  • Expanded content regarding Philippines under International Usage about its use and perception
  • Expanded content regarding Israel under International Usage about similar canned meats and perception of Spam
  • Added content to Popular culture section

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Lhe3460 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, when I review Wikipedia articles, I usually use the WP:DIFF function in the history. I look at what is removed first, then I check to see that what is added has sources. I hardly check actual content at all which is counter-intuitive to what most readers expect that writers do. For me and from my perspective, this is all content, and I hardly care what is written because I am not a creative writer and do not at this stage consider the reader's needs. Again, I am speaking for myself, but I think other early reviewers at Wikipedia might be the same.

The kind of summary that you wrote above is the kind of thing which would be read when a reviewer comes to seriously improve this article, perhaps to bring it to WP:GA status. I expect this article will get there someday because it is a popular topic, but if I had to guess, attracting a GA writer cannot be predicted to happen and likely would not happen except with the passing of months or years unless you yourself become that person. If someone made a GA proposal then this would be reviewed in the peer review process, as this seems like the kind of descriptions which spontaneously appear in those reviews. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional feedback

KathyQX94, Lhe3460, Mwong850 & User:Tkw32: Thanks for your contributions to the article. I especially like your improvement to the structure of the article. One thing I noticed where you could improve is in the use of words like 'remarkably' - specifically: "In South Korea, Spam ... is remarkably popular to a majority of the population". "Remarkably" ("it is worth remarking upon the fact that") is a statement of opinion, not simple fact. (Removing it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.) Another little nit-pick: "popular with" not "popular to".

Thanks for contributing to this article and sticking with it. I hope you all stay around and continue editing Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian (Wiki Ed), thank you for your feedback! We will be sure to make these edits. Tkw32 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

B rating

Lhe3460 I talked a bit previously with your group about Wikipedia ratings, saying that different projects have their own criteria and that it is all a bit subjective anyway. Any article which seems established but unreviewed gets a C-rating in most WikiProjects. To get the first peer-reviewed rating, WP:GA, a lot of work has to happen as the entire article needs to be reviewed and someone has to make a statement saying that they did a once over of all available sources of information and the article mentions every subtopic which ought to be included.

For the inbetween, a B rating, I would expect a person to give an article a good once-over. First, say on the talk page, "I checked these information sources. This is what is included currently, and these are the subtopics which are yet to be covered." If someone is missing, it would be ideal to at least start the missing sections. After that, check the article to see if any content is WP:UNDUE or not backed by sources which merit inclusion. As I look at this article, I am skeptical of parts of the pop culture section, all of the celebration sections, and all of the varieties sections. Most of this is not backed by reliable sources, I think, and if that is the case, it ought to be deleted before the B rating comes. Perhaps other parts of the article are similarly weak.

A big part of critical thinking is recognizing what is missing from a narrative and what parts of the narrative ought not be in the narrative. There are no easy instructions to follow to get this kind of human instinctive insight, but trying to match the existing sources to the presented narrative comes close. When there is not a match, something is usually off. Thanks for your continued interest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blue Rasberry, thank you for giving us more detailed feedback on Wikipedia ratings and this article. We now have a better understanding of what it takes to get an article to a B class rating. As we are new Wikipedia editors working on this article for a class assignment, this has been a great learning process for us, and we have put in a lot of effort to improve the article to the best of our ability. Hopefully, like you mentioned, the article will attract more experienced and reliable editors to continue making changes even after we wrap up this class assignment. In the meantime, we hope that our contributions have been helpful, and have learned a lot from this experience. Thanks again for all of your feedback and advice, we really appreciate it! - Mwong850 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from INFO3460 Peers

• Necessary Citations
  • Maybe you need a citation for the last sentence in the second paragraph of the intro, "Nevertheless war torn countries with rationing appreciated Spam."
  • The last paragraph of the history section, referencing the Korean war, could use a citation.
  • Cite the 16 tins of Spam consumption statistic for Guam, which is under International Usage in the United States section.
  • United Kingdom first sentence needs citation.
• Organizational
  • Maybe could merge manufacture and nutritional data.
  • And re-tabulate nutritional data into a more easy to read format, like a table.
  • Probably could expand more on each country in the Asia section.
  • Name should be a category within history.
    • History section should be the very first section.
• Formatting
  • Capitalize "territories" in International Usage, United States title.

--Xucy (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede starting 'Nevertheless war...' was intended to summarise the History section and by giving a more positive feel than the preceding part of the paragraph be neutral overall. As summary no Cit needed. SovalValtos (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the taking the time to leave us feedback and suggestions! They were really helpful and we kept them in mind as we made our final edits. - Mwong850 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Asia section

Might Israel be better placed than in Asia?SovalValtos (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos, we felt that Asia was an appropriate place to include Israel's international usage, since Israel is in Western Asia. Do you have suggestions on an alternative placement? Tkw32 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediterranean rim maybe. The home of pizza. Israel does not naturally group with Phillippines and Hong Kong for this article. I do not understand what is meant by Israel's international usage.SovalValtos (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused having been working on a pizza article, so delete the words "the home of pizza"SovalValtos (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

At first, we thought Israel was out of place as well, but upon further research, we realized that Israel is geographically recognized as part of Asia. Furthermore, we didn't think the Israel section was significant enough to create an entirely new geographic region under International usage. For Israel, we talked about Spam's impact on Israel's use of canned kosher meat that was similar to Spam. Could you elaborate on what you're confused about? Thanks! - Mwong850 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Nutritional Data Section

The information presented under the Nutritional Data Section was formatted into a table for easier readability (this idea was mentioned previously on the Talk page). Can anyone provide feedback on the layout of the table? Is the information better presented in this fashion? Thanks! KathyQX94 (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Reads fine, but a selective use of the material in the source. What product in which market at what time? Spam Classic seems to be just one variety and not bedrock. DV is a term relevant to what market? SovalValtos (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback! Although, there are numerous types of Spam, we used the "Spam Classic" version as an example, in addition we posted the photo of the nutritional data label for the 60% Less Sodium version. % DV, stands for % Daily Value which is usually presented on the nutrition label of a packaged food. Although, our project has come to a close, this is a good proposal for further improvement. Would it be reasonable to post more nutritional information on the other types of Spam?KathyQX94 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Army Food Service / Army Catering Corps

"Spam" is still procured for U.S. Armed Forces. NSN: 8905-00-126-4020. Nomenclature: LUNCHEON MEAT,CANNED, RTE 6-lb can, rectangular, Type I.

Used in: Standard "B" Ration for the Armed Forces. Departments of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps Novmeber 1984. SB10-495, NAVSUP INST 10110.6A and MCOP10110.25C [3] Retrieved: 01 April 2015.

Nutrional info: USDA Commodity, luncheon meat, canned [4] Retrieved: 01 April 2015.

Recipes: INDEX OF RECIPES - ARMED FORCES RECIPE SERVICE. UNITED STATES ARMY TM 10-412, UNITED STATES NAVY NAVSUP Publication 7, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AFM 146-12, Volume 2 and UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MCO P10110.4G. [5] Retrieved: 01 April 2015.

History: Hormel Foods History with the U.S. Military [6] Retrieved: 01 April 2015. We Sustain Tjlynnjr (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) .

Images

Isn't it better to have pictures of canned spam regular rather than 25% less sodium? it's more iconic. --45.48.59.96 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Food or brand?

The title includes food but much of the article is currently about a brand. Is there a difference?SovalValtos (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point, thanks for bringing it up! At this time, we think that the article is best left as Spam (food). Although it is a specific brand, usually when people talk about Spam, they are referring to the specific luncheon meat, and although the article addresses the brand, most of the article actually discusses the meat itself as it is used as a food item. Of course, this is our own opinion, and we do feel that this is an interesting concern, so it'd be great to hear the opinions of others as well on whether or not Spam should be considered a food or a brand for this article! - Mwong850 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why the heck is this response in the first person plural? Never speak for others on a talk page. It's rude. oknazevad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand the reason that the word food is there. It is to disambiguate it from the type of email named after it, which has a separate article. There is no debate over Spam being a food or brand, as obviously it is a brand of food. pschemp | talk 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

"However, in spite of Hormel using quality pork shoulder to make their product, rather than the lips, tongue, and snouts used by competitors, consumers could not tell the difference by their appearance.[10]"

This sounds like an advert for Hormel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.9.136 (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"consumers could not tell the difference by their appearance." -- I can't believe it's not pig anus! doesn't sound like an advertisement. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon. It's promotional to say "we're better than our competitors", regardless of the degree. oknazevad (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote was removed and preceding sentence regarding domestic use was moved to "United States" section. Now the history section stays on WWII topic instead of going WWII -> Domestic Use ->WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.9.136 (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. per below –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Spam (food) → Spam as food – For consistency with similar food articles such as Chicken as food. See also the similar RMs at Talk:Duck as food# Requested move 14 June 2016 and Talk:Anchovies as food#Requested move 22 September 2014. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Chicken as food" is because there are other aspects to chickens, such as their biology or their natural state. Similarly for ducks or anchovies. Spam is different, not being an animal. This is presumably going to be the only article about the canned meat. It's "Spam (food)" to distinguish it from email spam or electronic spam. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article isn't similar to chicken/duck/anchovies at all. "Spam as food" implies that there is some other meaning or use of spam - "spam" in this context is not the same as electronic spam. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: spam is food. The ending "as food" can only be used when something can also not be food, unless you are suggesting that people eat their junk mail? Ebonelm (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would not be WP:CONSISTENT at all; the cases are not even slightly comparable. It's Chicken as food because the same thing – chickens – are food, and they're breeds of domesticate livestock, and they're a species of genus Gallus, etc. Spam as food is a unrelated topic to unwanted electronic advertising, so parenthetic disambiguation applies, as it would between "Snorkel Weasel (band)" and "Snorkel Weasel (programming concept)" and "Snorkel Weasel (politician)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. After this proposal fails, the titles Spam (food) and Chicken as food can be used as a succinct illustration of when parenthetical disambiguators should be used (for entirely different topics sharing a name) and when natural disambiguators should be used (for sub-topics of a main topic). —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apparently making sculptures out of spam is a thing. If the article grew long enough "spam as art" could be spun off as a subtopic covering sculptures, and "spam as food" as a subtopic covering dishes using spam. But they'd still be subtopics and would need to be linked from a parent article covering the brand itself. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Spam can.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Korean Spam

Can anyone substantiate or negate a claim that Korean Spam has a different formulation?Kdammers (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Khruschev and Spam

' Nikita Khrushchev declared: "Without Spam we wouldn't have been able to feed our army" ' I can't find any original source of this claim/declaration (in Russian). Can someone help me? 81.173.137.238 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never heard ths sentiment. My info is that post-war, Khrushev complained vehemently to Ike about the U.S.' sending tons of Spam to the USSR. A captured German general said it kept him and his fellows alive one winter because the Russians wouldn't eat it, and put it in the prisoners' stew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:D445:53B:379F:C497 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)