Talk:Beef clod

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

US POV
I'm a 57 year old Brit and I've never heard of beef clod. Is this American terminology? If so, the article should document this. There seems to be an ongoing problem with WP butchery articles, as Americans have their own terminology for almost everything related to meat and (understandably) American editors assume that everybody else uses the same categories and phraseology. --Ef80 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on this, but I've done a bit of googling and the British term for this cut appears to be "beef shoulder". Shoulder is mentioned in the intro but without regional attribution or other clarification. If an expert editor can confirm that beef clod and beef shoulder are the same thing, then the intro should be modified along the lines of "Beef clod (American English) or beef shoulder (British English) is...". We would also need a redirect page for Beef shoulder. --Ef80 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'm a 57 year old Brit and I've never heard of beef clod. Is this American terminology?" Well, I'm a 70-year-old life-long beef-eating American and I have never heard of beef clod either. "Beef clod" most definitely is NOT the normal American term for the beef shoulder, or for anything else. As far as I know, it's a made-up term. The normal American term for the beef shoulder is "beef shoulder", and the American marketing term for the most common large cut of meat from the shoulder is the "chuck". Can this whole issue be the work of a vandal or a troll? Since "beef clod" has never been heard of on either side of the Atlantic, why is there even a Beef clod article in Wikipedia for anything to be merged into? It all seems like a prank to me.—104.244.192.66 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusing
http://www.channel4.com/4food/how-to/how-to-do-meat/guide-to-beef-cuts (which is from where I did a web search for clod) does refer to clod, and surely must be British. It's diagram of cuts does not look the same as the one on this page either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.140 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateP&navID=IMPS&rightNav1=IMPS&leftNav=GradingCertificationandVerfication&page=LivestockStandardizationIMPS Series 100 for fresh beef, identifies the Shoulder clod directly as cut #114 taken from the Chuck primal cut. This muscle group is identified and cross referenced in http://bovine.unl.edu/eng/muscleIndex.jsp?listBy=scientificName "Bovine Myology" as the Triceps brachii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.182 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Shoulder tender be merged into Beef clod. The content in the Shoulder tender article can easily be explained in the context of Beef clod, as shoulder tender is one of the three secondary cuts from beef clod (the other two being top blade and shoulder center). --Phonet (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shoulder tender should NOT be merged into this article! This Beef clod article shouldn't even exist.
 * Nobody calls the beef shoulder the "clod". If the beef shoulder is called the "clod" anywhere in the English-speaking world, that use is extremely limited and either arcane trade jargon or very narrowly regional—not anywhere near common enough to merit a Wikipedia article by that name, much less have any legitimate existing article like Shoulder tender merged into it.
 * Surely this is a joke—not the merger proposal but the very existence of the Beef clod article to merge any other article into. If anything, this article should be renamed Beef shoulder (which ANY English speaker can understand, unlike the absurd "clod"), and then have all the separate articles on the various cuts of beef shoulder incorporated into it. That is a proposal I would heartily support. But as long as it's titled "Beef clod"? No way!
 * As for the "the three secondary cuts from the beef shoulder" you named (I refuse to call it the clod), in the US the most common cut from the shoulder is called the "chuck": a chuck roast if it's more than about an inch thick, a chuck steak if it's thinner than that. It's a large-diameter slice all the way across the shoulder, so it includes a lot of fat, bone, and cross-sections of several different muscles, including the muscle now marketed whole, separately, as the shoulder tender because it's the only part of the shoulder that's naturally tender and therefore can be cooked quickly like a much more expensive loin or rib cut.
 * —104.244.192.66 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge this article into Beef clod. The shoulder tender is part of the primal cut known as the beef or shoulder clod. See and, for example (with pictures even). Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the merger (either way). --Jeonghyeonseo (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Should be renamed Beef shoulder
Naming this article Beef clod is absurd. Nobody calls the beef shoulder the "clod". If the beef shoulder is called the "clod" anywhere in the English-speaking world, that use is extremely limited and either arcane trade jargon or very narrowly regional—not anywhere near common enough to merit a Wikipedia article by that name. This article should be renamed Beef shoulder, which ANY English speaker can understand, unlike the absurd "clod". —104.244.192.66 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. See the two references from current books I cited in the section above regarding the possible merger. There are many more such references which now appear in this article. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 15:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)