Talk:Ham/Archive 2

Synonyms
"Nearly all hams sold today are fully cooked or cured."

Sorry, but this is wrong. 'fully cooked' and 'cured' are not synonyms! This article talks about hams from different countries, but does not explain properly what it is! Ham is a preserved meat made by curing pork. Most modern hams are water filled 'imitations'.


 * I'm sorry too, but the statement "fully cooked or cured" means either one or the other. If the two words were synonymous, it would be "fully cooked, or cured".  See how grammar matters? But to make sure that no one else is confused, I'll add a clarifying word to the statement. Richigi (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional value
Why is there no nutritional value for Ham as opposed to the Tofu article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

China
I find it hard to believe that they actually throw out the ham. The book Swallowing Clouds by A. Zee does exist, but can anyone find something to corroborate the story? Kesahun 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm Chinese) I have never heard of that either. I suspect vandalism. Besides, I think "Jinhua" ham should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Celebration
Isn't it ciji great that there's an article about ham? I love wikipedia.

And ham. Blacklite 15:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hear Hear Limkopi 1:50, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Drury Lane ham
Does anyone know why Drury Lane ham is so called please?


 * It sounds like a pun. Drury Lane is a street in London which contains a lot of theatres, and actors that overact are called hams.

Drury lane is where the first sainsburys shop was and this ham is named after the shop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.245.56 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

United States
Why does the US play an important part in this artcle? Did they pioneer ham? :) That sounded stupid, but I think the article needs to state why it's referring to the United States - unless we expand it to detail the state of ham in other nations? Kierenj 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahahaha. "Ham Pioneers" is the name of my new never to exist band. WilliamACopeland

In the paragraph
religeon, it contains the words "Ham is not permitted for consumption by either the Jain, Jewish or Muslim faiths. More for the rest of us."

Aren't the words "More for the rest of us", written in a first person way?

Pece Kocovski 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

opinion
whilst i agree with him i feel that describing thanksgiving ham as "disgusting" is a little over opinionated. good article however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.134.91.147 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Moved Talk Page
I have moved the talk page from the redirected Talk:Ham (disambiguation) to just Talk: Ham, and copied across all the pig ham-related comments. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"not" vandalism
I just removed a superfluous link to an article named "not." As a side note, I know that this IP address has been recently guilty of committing vandalism to this article, but it certainly wasn't me that did it. 168.9.120.8 18:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lock this page?
This page seems to be a popular vandalism destination. I suggest it be semi-locked so anonymous users can't edit.--MARQUIS111 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

China again
I think the China section on ham is written in an inappropriate style for an encyclopedia. It is peppered with unnecessarily flowery and redundant language (e.g. "a most unique", it's unique or it isn't). Additionally is written in passive voice and the French words are a bit too much. Edwin s 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowan Jones
What the hell? AllStarZ 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

-- I concur. Why is Rowan Jones linked at the bottom? I propose it be removed. Buttlumpy 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Marked for deletion.
I have not heard of this 'meat.' It is clearly a hoax and non-notable. 67.60.57.82 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I have added a section on the UK slang usage, I'm not sure what extent this exists in other English speaking countries, I know its fairly common in the UK, particularly Wales.

This slang use for 'Sam' is used frequently in the Surrey county of England. Astheoceansblue (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BirmingHAM too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.86.187 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to focus mostly on listing various cultures, and lack information about ham itself.

I would suggest instead of grouping the content by culture, to group it by preperation techniques (for example, smoking, using cloves, smothering in mustard seeds, etc). References to which cultures use those methods can be made inside each section for those techniques. I think that would change the emphasis of the article from a list of countries which eat ham, into a list of hams.

I'm surprised more traditional English methods aren't mentioned.

--Kate, 85.158.45.41 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more - this article is far too much of a list of different individual hams, when it should be more about the underlying 'principles' of ham-ness. I'd suggest that it needs a complete rewrite to move from a country-based list to a series of 'processes'. I've come here from the Prosciutto article, which I've suggested renaming to air-dried ham or dry-cured ham as a way of a) reflecting the move away from such semi-generic names as the PDO bandwagon rolls on and b) avoiding the slightly surreal debates about whether Prsut from the Balkans is in fact 'prosciutto'.  A more general article like that could act as a  expansion article for a smaller section here on dry-cured hams - and a lot of the individual products should be moved into daughter articles.  Bayonne ham is one of my absolute favourites, but there doesn't need to be so much about it here. FlagSteward 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

--Ham- Anglo Saxon = settlement by a river or stream. In England you will find many towns with the suffix Ham eg. Farnham,Amersham,Chatham. There is even a town called Ham near Richmond on the Thames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parma ham
The artivle states that in italian Parma ham, no nitrates are used. I doubt this. Nitrates are used to kill Botulinum bacteriae. These nasty little bastards produce a highly toxic venom which kills humans in small dosages. --91.16.185.72 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden the sentence "..., but can include garlic salt and sugar, producing a sweeter meat" about Parma ham. The production of Parma ham is strictly coded, and rules are reported in the so called "disciplinare di produzione" (http://prosciuttodiparma.com/download/disciplinare.pdf). This particular phase is reported in the section "E.1.4.: Salagione", and only salt is allowed: humid salt for the skin and dry salt for the lean (page 51 of the above document). In other words, if other than salt is used, it is not Parma ham, and it might not have the Parma symbol (the crown with the word Parma). In the same section is reported that no nitrates or other preservative are used, and this is an answer for the user above. I have also renamed this section, previously known as "No Nitrates in Parma ham?", and now containing a wider subject. --Stefano Mancini (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Romania
Although I am a Romanian, I have never heard of the beliefs mentioned in the article. The Romanian people was christian at its birth, so the information refering to offerings to gods might be about the acestors of the Romanian people. Anyway, a citation would be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.113.252 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples for eating Ham
Examples: Ketchup Bread Cheese How to make a wonderful Ham sandwich: You get out: 4 slices of Ham, 2 peices of bread, 1 bottle of Ketchup, and 1 bottle of Mayonnaise. You lay both peices of bread, spread the mayo on the bread, then spread the Kechup on the bread, then put 2 slices of ham on both slices of bread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94squid (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S./U.K. usage difference
The lead suggests that in the United Kingdom and Ireland, what Americans call "ham" is called "gammon". This needs to be clearer. The section on tinned ham, and the section at York on York ham creates the impression that the word "ham" is used in the U.K., and that its meaning there overlaps with its meaning in the U.S. -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is typical US ham made?
I am a vegetarian from the US, and when I think of "ham" I think of something very specific: It looks exactly like the photo in the article, with a diamond knurl pattern on the outside and a clove in the center of each diamond. How exactly is this prototypical ham made? I assume it is wet cured, but do they just drop the ham in brine and let the liquid diffuse in, or do they inject the liquid into the ham? If they inject it, can you see the needle hole? Do they use the cloves to disguise the needle holes? That would be a great idea, camouflage!

Also, is it possible to make dry cured ham that is one big chunk, or does it have to be sliced before curing like prosciutto? If you dry cure a ham without slicing it, but then you slice it, will the middle eventually rot because it wasn't cured like the surface?

Thanks.18.188.69.228 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A revision that weakened the section on cancer risk
At 16:19 on 8 February 2010, 76.120.169.71 revised the "Ham associated with increased cancer risk" section giving this explanation: "Prior wording too damning. Study concludes limiting due to possible risk, not elimination."

There are two parts to his revision. In the first part, he replaced the text "Among the recommendations of the report is that, except for very rare occasions, people should avoid eating ham or other processed meats" by "The report recommends limiting consumption of". This is a wrongful change, because the report recommends: "Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat" (http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/Second_Expert_Report.pdf, page 20 of the PDF file). Thus, the report does recommend elimination of processed meat from the diet. Furthermore, 76.120.169.71's wording results in the section containing no mention of ham.

In the second part, he replaced the text "The report states that once an individual reaches the 18-ounce (510 g) weekly limit for red meat, every 1.7 ounces (48 g) of processed meat consumed a day increases cancer risk by 21%. " by "because of a possible increase in the risk of developing certain cancers". By so doing, he eliminated the footnote and replaced the report's positive assertions of increased risk (http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/Second_Expert_Report.pdf, page 141 of the PDF file (internal page number 116) in the table at the top of the page indicates that processed meat "increases risk" of colorectal cancer, and lower in the same page where it says "The evidence that red meats and processed meats are a cause of colorectal cancer is convincing.") by weaker wording that speaks merely of a "possible" increased risk.

The sources support the prior wording. Therefore, I have reverted to the prior wording. Wideangle (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ham and Cancer Risk, deletion rationale
So I took the bold step of removing this section -- maybe I can get some help on how/if this should be re-instated. Here's why:


 * Does ham increase the risk of cancer? Likely.  However, after reading the provided citation, it is clear that the article in question was not directed specifically at ham, but at ALL red meats in general.  Also, it seems to be more predicate on weight gain than anything else.  "Red or processed meats are convincing or probable causes of some cancers. Diets with high levels of animal fats are often relatively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain."


 * Do processed foods in general increase the risk for cancer? Likely. However, aside from the weight gain factor, the direct evidence about nitration from the citation is pretty weak.  As the article states, "...while the epidemiological evidence that these (processed foods) are causes of cancer is limited, it is a wise precaution to avoid them. Processed meat includes ham, bacon, pastrami, and salami. Sausages, frankfurters, and ‘hot dogs’, to which nitrates/nitrites or other preservatives are added, are also processed meats.


 * Finally, does an article that makes broad recommendations concerning weight gain, red meats and processed meats in general deserve special highlight within the article specifically in ham? I mean, do we tag this section to cheese, alcohol, beef, lamb, sugar, and starch as well?  I personally think that's excessive, but I really don't know.  Thoughts?

Djma12 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Does ham increase..?" If A= processed meats. B= ham, and X= suspected carcinogen, then this argument is a logical fallacy of the form:
 * 1) All of set A are X
 * 2) B is not all of set A (irrelevant, it only has to be one subset within A)
 * 3) B is a subset of A (relevant and left unstated)
 * 4) Therefore B is not X (invalid conclusion, does not follow from 1 and 2)
 * 5) Therefore B is an X (valid conclusion of 1 and 3)
 * The fact #3 that B is conjunct and a subset of A is left unstated and therefore the obvious conclusion that B is indeed an X is obscured


 * Red herring assertions vs scientific evidence = failed assertion. Even opinions of experts are citable; WP editors' opinions or assertions never are. Valid criticisms would be process-related, or a preference for other studies due to procedural superiority.
 * Throwing arguments at the wall 'til one sticks. Contentious use of WP:USELESS. Red herrings; cheese is not carcinogenic, alcohol does have a 'warning' section, Alchohol... I conclude that this list is assembled in error. Special highlight? It's several paragraphs and is distinct from the other material, so a section is given it, as is given to all the other material. It is at the bottom. No 'special highlight' here. KKthxbye. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of the concept of elementary logic. And no, you didn't address any of the points brought up.  Before we turn a medical discussion into a philosophy class, did you actually read the article cited?  It is very clear in the assertion that the ALL high-caloric food items, including processed grain and (yes) cheese,  are carcinogenic by virtue of weight gain.  Nothing specific about ham in that instance.  The only specific mention of ham is when it mentions cured meats, and the article concedes at this point that the level of evidence for cured meats is limited, but precautionary.
 * If you truly wish to include a section on the carcinogenic value of ham, FIND BETTER, SPECIFIC CITATIONS. Citations that essentially state "High calorie meals cause cancer and ham is high calorie" is rubbish.  Djma12 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is Red Herring considered red meat? :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Breathing in any industrial nation is a probable cause of cancer. Is it therefore importantant in an encyclopedia that we include statistics about the correlation between breathing and cancer risk in EVERY article about EVERY industrial nation in the world? This is irrelavent information at best and blatantly biased at worst. Scrap the section!    65.116.205.162 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Smithfield ham
Virgina law regarding the designation Smithfield Ham doesn't apply outside of the state as far as I know. The US does not have appellation laws I'm pretty sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.197.155 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Prague ham
Umm, Prague ham is from Prague and is still a contemporary product. Does anyone else think it should have its own section? jmcw (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It most definitely should, let's do it! As far as I know, it is even a geographical trademark protected by EU, applicable solely to the city of Prague. Kronos.cz (talk) 2:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

York ham and Jambon de Paris
While Jambon de Paris might (or not) be the correct designation for what is eaten in France, people commonly just call it "Jambon D'York" (pronounced "dior") i.e., York Ham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.203.7.145 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oct 2013 rewrite
I have undertaken a major rewrite of this article, to bring it in line with good articles on WP. All the information about local ham habits has gone (it isn't encyclopaedic), and information about individual hams and their process should be in their own article (with the exception of a few illustrative examples). I am still looking to expand the new sections on history and process, which really form the backbone of what an article on ham should be about.

Hopefully you can see that this article is now far more useful, and it makes the topic clearer to the reader. Part of that has been to treat this article as being solely about the processed meat, rather than the cut of meat - the information for which can now be seen at Gammon (meat) (seemed the easiest title to avoid ambiguity, following the BrE naming), as they are effectively two separate, but linked, topics, and 95%+ of the article was about the processed version.

My intention is to bring this to at least Good Article status in the near future (which would be great, because its eligible for a WP:MILLION) so any help gratefully received on expanding the content (especially with information and citations around the process for wet cure and smoking).

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Under 'Dry curing' there is mention that increasing amounts of salt and NO2/NO3 reduces shrinkage, and there is a citation.

The citation doesn't support the claim: it says (inter alia) "It was shown that: (a) the curing ingredients NaNO2 NaNO3 sodium ascorbate and sodium erythorbate have little effect on meat shrinkage; (b) addition of 1 - 3% salt reduced the meat shrink from 34 to 14%, followed by a plateau at 3-5% salt additions and a continuous increase of the meat shrink with the increase of the salt addition from 5 to 10%". That is, nitrates and nitrites have no effect on shrinkage, and salt below 3% reduces shrinkage. Salt between 3% and 10% increases shrinkage. Accordingly I am deleting that particular claim (but leaving the cite). MrDemeanour (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions/Comments
The link at footnote 29 is broken: http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/Second_Expert_Report.pdf

Wikipedia defines red meat as "meat which is red when raw". Does this definition include processed pork (which is white when raw)? I'm asking because the paragraph under the section Health Risks puzzles me. Is the health risk coming from eating red meat (beef, venison) or from eating processed pork or both?

Harbre (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I dug more into this. The report is now split into several documents. The main link is

http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/expert_report/report_contents/index.php

The recommendations are in http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/chapters/chapter_12.pdf

The report states that "the evidence that red meat, and particularly processed meat, is a cause of colorectal cancer is stronger now than it was in the mid-1990s" (p 382). While the "Panel emphasises that this overall recommendation is not for diets containing no meat", it recommends to eat "very little if any" of processed meat. This "includes ham, bacon, pastrami, and salami. Sausages, frankfurters, and ‘hot dogs’, to which nitrates/nitrites or other preservatives are added, are also processed meats."

Furthermore the panel recommends to limit red meat to 500 g (18 oz) per week. This is the cooked weight being equivalent to 700–750 g raw weight. Still, I can't figure out whether (unprocessed) pork is part of red meat or not. The report lists poultry and fish as alternatives.

Harbre (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pork is red meat. If you look at older breeds, and at close cousins like boar, it is very much a red meat.  Modern production has made it look pink or white.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Whole ham?
The illustration is clearly an image of a half-ham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:1470:8017:8991:580A:BE1A (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the ham art
How is ham particularly notable in art? Having a section with a few paintings of pieces of ham is dumb as hell. Should be removed. --Sub12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to object, I've removed it. --Sub12 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we put the ham photos back. What do you guys think? Glitch glitch11 (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, restore the ham pics. --32.97.110.59 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweet hams
I came here looking for information on honey-cured ham and other sweet hams, but there's only one tiny mention that such a thing even exists. --Tysto (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Soc314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment
1. Elaboration on why the term "ham" is controlled within areas of Europe and The United States?

2. A Citation is missing regarding "black pepper" and "precious saffron" within Methods. Juliannewilkinson (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Why is this page not a disambiguation page that leads to the other pages that also can lay claim to the word Ham? ZeusGuy (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is widely agreed upon to be the type of food.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldnt it be widely agreed that it should lead to a disambiguation page because quite a few pages presently can lay claim to the word Ham, and quite a few might in the future too as the English Language grows? ZeusGuy (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explains precisely why it's the way it is.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merriam Webster has a disambiguation page so should WP, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ham. It has 4 definitions. 1. Anatomy, 2. Food, 3. Vernacular 4.Tailoring. In that order. Ham you eat is not first. Kristinwt (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Need A Disambiguation
There is also the non-food hams as in "Ham Radio" and Ham as in bad actor. How can we redirect those? Kristinwt (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See Urban Dictionary #17 and #18. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ham&page=3 Kristinwt (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If thoise other meanings have no WP entry, then no disambiguation is needed. --Jotamar (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Making Jambon de Bayonne--Step 4.jpg

Fiambre
Fiambre link goes to Guatemalan recipe Portuguese Fiambre is boiled meat from pork, chicken/hen ou turquey ( like boiled ham). See https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiambre Mggr58 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sort of fixed. --Jotamar (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving stuff from 'gammon' article here, as it not relevant/confusing to the British concept
Text below from the article on gammon:

Particularly in the US, "fresh ham" may refer to raw, uncured hind leg of pork.

Glazed ham (sometimes called glazed gammon in the UK) is coated with a flavoured or spiced sugar solution before cooking. This caramelizes during cooking and also gives a distinctive appearance. This may be enhanced by scoring the skin in a diamond pattern beforehand, or by sticking the joint with cloves.

As I can't edit this article you guys can figure out what to do with it. Perhaps put it in the section on Uses. Not a bad article this 'ham'. Leo  86.83.56.115 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Different varieties of ham
Only pork ham is talked about in the article, but there are other varieties such as turkey ham. Should their existence be mentioned also? HotPotatoMan (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be mentioned, however it should remain clear that this page is intended for pork ham, no matter that it is not specified in the title. --Jotamar (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)