Talk:Steak

"Vegan activists regularly hold protests against steakhouses"
The only link given to support this claim says nothing of the sort though. It merely reports a single protest that took place last year in Australia. This does not substantiate the claim that the protests are a regular occurrence, not to mention the whole statement is vague anyway, as it doesn't even bother to specify eg. where exactly in the world are vegan activist supposed to be protesting on a regular basis. It's completely unencyclopedic. 93.147.234.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Main picture is of Lamb
I would think that after reading the main paragraph a beef steak photo would make the most sense at the top of the page. Nothing against lamb steaks but, besides the photo, lamb isn't even mentioned in the article. Maybe move the beef steak picture up and find a fish steak picture for the bottom part?Brian Earl Haines (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this a list article?
I really can only see this turning into a list of types of steak, beyond that I am really not sure what kind of content we can expect here. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we can find sources, we could write sections of the history of steaks, cultural significance around the world, production, marketing/selling/promotion, preparation/cooking, steak dishes. We could a separate list article just for types of steaks. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We should really analyse all this before we reach the week it reaches TAFI. I personally thought this wasn't a very good pick but it was voted in so who am I to complain? Now it seems my fears are being validated...--Coin945 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I say go with it.. Build it up as a good list article and then submit it as a featured list candidate. David Condrey (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What can I do to help out you guys? Mirror  Freak  My Guestbook  14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we should look at expanding some of the new empty sections that Evad37 suggested. Googling for some reliable sources that talk about the history of steak, general ways of cooking steak, and so forth. You could also start editing some of the content we have already for phrasing and see if there are any statements you could find sources for. I'm sure everyone else will have other suggestions, there's lots to do. Sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what at the early stage of a collaboration. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 14:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start listing ways to cook steak. I'll expand the empty sections. Mirror  Freak  My Guestbook  14:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, there is much at stake but not much at "Steak". Hehe... (Sorry I couldn't resist).--Coin945 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, I just had steak last night...It sucked; was waaaayyyy too tough. I like my steak medium rare. Mirror  Freak  My Guestbook  15:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Back on track: I have a concern with the idea of going with a list-only article. What kind of an encyclopedia doesn't have an article on "Steak" but instead says "See: List of steaks"? The reader is left wondering what a steak is and a list won't answer his question. We need to know what a steak is before we can start listing them. This is equally important for the editor and for the reader. A prose article is the primary encyclopedic form. This is especially important for articles such as "steak", which are concepts that everyone are familiar with, and for that reason people need an outlet of encyclopedic knowledge of. Steak isn't vital or core article on WP, but it could be. For comparison, none of those vital/core articles of comparable scope are lists: spice exists independently of list of spices and nut of list of nuts. In both of those articles, the reader finds what one would expect in an encyclopedia: history, culinary uses, nutritional aspects, commercial activities... encyclopedic coverage. It's worrying to see articles turn into lists just because it's easy to copy entries in summary style from other articles and then put a Main article: template at the top of each section. Writing encyclopedic articles rather than more or less indiscriminate lists is difficult, but on Wikipedia it's what we do. I'm not against lists, I'm against the use of lists where actual articles are warranted. It's up to us if WP has an article on "Steak" or not. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * List articles typically have succinct listings of article topics preceded by a bullet point. This article isn't particularly in list format per how most lists exist on Wikipedia. Rather, some areas provide summaries about various types of steaks, with the "main article" template above them. I'm fine with this, because there are many styles, types and cuts of steaks in the world, so it's natural for there to be several entries. In addition to the new sections added that are unpopulated (History, Production, Marketing and sales, and Cooking), additional information that could be added to the article (some of which in these new sections) includes that about grades of steaks (select, choice and prime in the U.S.), the meatcutting of steaks, steak aging (Hanging (meat), (Beef aging), storage, farm-to-table logistics, packaging, food safety issues, and more. NorthAmerica1000 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the million dollar question is: What exactly *is* a steak? It appears that this tossed around term is actually rather arbitrary and can refer to different thing, but in general refers to a certain cut of meat/fish. Maybe there are also other connotative implications of the word, such as the shape of the food and the type of meals it is prepared with. (Beef burger vs. steak burger etc). I duno.. this is a toughy...--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to my suggestions above, more sections that can be expanded in the article include: Fish steak, Pork steak, Meat chop, Fruit and vegetable and Imitation steak. Another option is to omit the Main article templates and headers in the Beefsteak section and rewrite the section into paragraphs, with the main articles linked within the prose. NorthAmerica1000 16:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that this discussion is becoming fruitful, as we are getting to the heart of the content issue. I'm not sure we would necessarily need full paragraphs perhaps just sourced bulleted list like Pizza (Italian section, not United States). This would allow us to share the information without necessitating this article match those articles for content. One thing that we need to differentiate is that steak is different than beefsteak, we want to avoid this becoming a duplicate of that. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two ways to answer the question: "What exactly is a steak?". The first one would be a dictionary definition, a concise description that nevertheless grasps all instances of steak along the lines of "[A steak is] a thick, flat piece of meat and especially beef" (Merriam Webster). However, since WP is not a dictionary, our method, the second, of answering the question is more ambitious. We provide encyclopedic descriptions. This is not an easy thing to do but it's what we're here to do. Encyclopedic knowledge of a subject means that we provide overview and context: what are steaks like in terms of physical properties, how are steaks used in cuisine, when did they come about, how are steaks related to the issues raised by  storage, farm-to-table logistics, packaging, food safety issues etc. What doesn't either answer the question or constitute encyclopedic knowledge is merely listing things: this is a steak, that is a steak and those are steaks too. A steak is more than the sum of all possible types steaks, so to speak. Yes  it's a thoughy and use of the term is not consistent in sources but it's our job to determine the scope and use the sources to compile an overview. It's not the most important thing for us to determine if a "vegetable steak" is or is not a steak and as such within the scope of this article. Ideally, after reading the article on steak the reader would be knowledgeable enough to form his/her opinion about it. Thus, the most important thing is to give the reader enough knowledge about steak so that he or she answer the question: "What exactly is a steak?" Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think some of the improvements have begun to scratch the surface of what generally makes a steak a steak, at least in reference to a cut of meat. Even with a fair amount of list content, the article is already more well rounded. In the case of fruits and vegetables, I have often heard of thick cut fried eggplant being referred to as "eggplant steak", and there are various recipes available online under that name.
 * More generally, I do have experience as a butcher (not an expert), and there seems to be some ambiguity between what constitutes a meat chop and a steak; for example, the "pork steaks" currently pictured in the article with the tenderizing hammer would be described as "pork chops" in my country. At the same time, a cut of pork shoulder would be referred to as steaks. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there is already quite a good article on beefsteak, this "steak" one ought to be more general and make a useful companion that is not repetitive. So I think here we need to minimise the beefsteak aspect and focus more on a balanced overview of steaks so that the two articles are both useful. To that end, I moved the "See main" template up to the beginning. It also means we should not simply copy from one to the other because we know that Wikipedia readers follow the links and they ought not to be let down by finding exactly the same thing in another place. Each article needs to make its own contribution and give its own coherent account of the topic. This means we need to think whether to put new content here or there, especially the extensive material on beefsteaks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For work I've done in the beefsteak section, I have copied content from the individual articles themselves, rather than from the Beefsteak article. Content in that section in this article varies from that in the Beefsteak article. NorthAmerica1000 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There really is an upper limit of the amount of content that can exist in an article of this scope. Perhaps this weeks collaboration should focus on improving some of the related articles, such as fish steak, pork steak and Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 02:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had a go at trying to make the lede talk about steaks, the range of steaks and what makes a steak a steak. Given the range of existing main articles about the different types of steak, I think that the sections here referring to the types should be kept concise and reasonably balanced (equal in size) so that readers can get the overview from this article and can easily go on to the others according to whatever their interest is. We need to have a high-level overview here of the concept of "steak". (Who would have thought of steak as concept? Only a lexicographer or a Wikipedian, I guess.) Hence I think that almost all of the section on beefsteak should be cut from here and integrated into the "beefsteak" article. In other words, the beef steak section should be no longer than the pork steak section. One of the good things about TAFI is having the opportunity to sort out these overlaps and confusions. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I could agree to a merge of content in the beefsteak section to the beefsteak article. However, I don't feel that the section should be limited to the size of the pork section or any other section in the article. Beef steak is by far the primary type of steak in the culinary world, so it's important to include all pertinent information. However, a thorough, yet relatively succinct overview (compared to the size and overall content in the beefsteak article) would suffice. NorthAmerica1000 09:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with user:Whiteghost.ink that the concept is a useful avenue to explore. Social, cultural and value judgements as well.SovalValtos (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with Whiteghost, in the sense that the beefsteak content shouldn't be disproportionately longer. Maybe a bit longer, as it is the main type of steak, but we should make a primary effort to expand content for the other types of steaks, as well as the other social related areas. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Information from this article in its Beefsteak section has been merged into beefsteak. NorthAmerica1000 16:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point about the primacy of beefsteak (not all steaks are equal!) but great work merging and making this section more concise. The article is much better for it. More focused. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Significance
The current sentence is not referenced. Sunday or Friday, or both? But surely off topic as is. I have only skimmed through the page and talk so far, but a first impression is that cultural significance could be an important section. Changing perception of steak, and relative values are areas to explore.SovalValtos (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just mammal steaks, not fish? What does "would be" mean. I have no access to the refSovalValtos (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Various vegetable 'steaks'
I keep coming across examples of vegetable 'steaks'. I haven't found any sources yet that describe it in these terms, but near as I can determine, the general criteria for being a 'steak' is uniform thickness and being of moderate size, at least the size of the palm of the hand. I am also finding products like this which are branding themselves as 'vegetarian steak bites', mostly made out of tofu. There are also various recipes on yummly such as cauliflower, mushroom, cabbage, tofu and eggplant. I'm sure other recipe examples can be found, but I am not sure how to include this content reliably. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddly worded sentence
The lead contains the following sentence: For example, there are "swordfish steaks" and "venison steaks", as well as various types of fish steaks, especially salmon. The mention of swordfish steaks in the first half of the sentence followed by as well as various types of fish steaks in the second half sounds very odd to me. I would normally just rewrite this sentence without further input, but I'm puzzled about the best way to rewrite this and still keep the interesting mention about "swordfish steaks". Does anyone have any suggestions? Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It did read a little oddly, so I moved the ", as well as various types of fish steaks" bit to the previous sentence, and removed the self evident "X-type steaks". -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
I just made a mess of the etymology section. I need some help rewriting it. Also perhaps changing section title to Vocabulary or something, as with the added detail of the language of ordering a steak it's not purely etymology anymore. Also, note valuable resource: http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmeats.html  David Condrey (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin and details related to specific types of steak
There used to be sections for various types of steak but they seem to be gone now.. So not sure where to put this How Did the New York Strip Steak Get Its Name David Condrey (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Resources
David Condrey (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MOTHERLOAD of resources
 * not sure..
 * Route 66 Historical Steak Joint
 * Cut Types
 * US Trends in meat consumption
 * Mexican Cattle/Beef Industry
 * What is the significance of the fact that in English cows and pigs become beef and pork respectively when slaughtered, but fish and chicken stay fish and chicken?

Possible GA nomination?
For a collaboration that seemed to have a bit of a shaky start, this has really developed into a fine example of excellent wordsmithing. I think this could be nominated for GA, but there are some areas I think we could still work on. Off the top of my head, the production section needs expansion, as well as some info on "ham steaks" (which was a good find), and maybe some more expansion on the vegetarian steaks and the human steak section. I am also not sure about the listing of various minced/shredded beef steaks as a bulleted list, maybe this can just be put into straight prose? The marketing and sales section could also do with some additional research for other countries (china, india, etc). -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 08:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gammon steaks
Are "ham steaks from a rolled pork loin" as mentioned and pictured in the section steaks at all? They look like cuts off a cooked joint instead. Surely a steak has to be cooked as the unit that is served. The same logic applies to the standing rib roast mentioned in another section.SovalValtos (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Whiteghost.ink The reason for removing the image of the frozen ham steak is that there is no reference to that type of product in the article. I know that one should not use an image as a reference, but the ingredients which are legible show it to be a  manufactured confection. The caption says frozen, when the label says Refrigerated at 0°C-4°C. The manufacturer calling it  Yu Pin King Ham Steak, does not mean it is a  steak for the purpose of this page.SovalValtos (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen items called ham steaks for sale, in my experience they are cut from gammon and usually have the bone in. They are sold refrigerated in a cryovac plastic package. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?
Is http://www.officialsteakandblowjobday.com/steak/history considered a reliable source? SovalValtos (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's essentially a commercial blog that sells merchandise, and there's no evidence of the site adhering to journalistic standards of objectivity. NorthAmerica1000 15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am removing the reference and some of the material supported by it.SovalValtos (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Vegetable Steak Images
Can anyone find anything suitable? There are plenty of mammal, some of fish but none of veg. I have tried and failed.SovalValtos (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added File:Bishop, East Dulwich, London (3666527372).jpg (An eggplant steak burger at a restaurant) to the Vegetarian steak steak section. NorthAmerica1000 18:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Layout
We are getting there with this article. It is much better. The layout is coming along. The galleries should be limited to three or the page gets messed up. I moved watermelon back into the main body so we now have three vegetable images to match the other galleries. It seems that we need a better image of gammon steak, although I like the cold ham steaks on the plate. We need a better image of frozen steak, preferably ham. Or will the Honk Kong one do? It shows quite a different form and illustrates "frozenness", as well as adds another country. We also need a section on Lamb steak (I put in the heading so far) and then the lamb steak image can go there. I moved the reindeer to the cultural significance section and I am not sure that the standing rib is best for marketing and sales, although it is a great image of how steaks can be cut at the point of serving. The carcasses is good image too but I worry that it is too much like beef generally and not enough like steak. Thinking, thinking ... Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Subsections for red meat, white meat, and others?
I think we should group the last part about steaks made from different meats/vegetables into red/white/other. Turkey steak is currently missing in the white meat section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than sorting everything in the article per "red meat, white meat, and others", which could be lead to subjective interpretation, I'd prefer the addition of a Poultry section if a turkey section is added about turkey steak. If the latter doesn't occur, I thinks the article is all right with the section organization it presently has.


 * For example, from the White meat article, "certain types of poultry that are sometimes grouped as "white meat" are actually "red" when raw, such as duck and goose". Also from the article, it states, "Given nutritional concerns, meat producers are eager to have their products considered as "white", and the United States National Pork Board has positioned their product as "Pork. The Other White Meat", alongside poultry and fish; however, meats which are red when raw and turn white on cooking, like pork, are categorized by the United States Department of Agriculture as red meats."


 * Ultimately, this type of categorization in the article can lead to ambiguity. For additional context, see this article from Farm and Dairy. NorthAmerica1000 14:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Human steak section
The addition "Accounts from medieval times, claim that human meat, when cooked, smells identical to that of any other meat, and takes very good, perhaps better than any other meat.[52]" makes no reference to steak, and whilst useful on another page, does not IMHO fit hereSovalValtos (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend deletion of the entire section as impertinent to the subject matter. But if it is to remain, the contributions I've made to it should remain as well unless it can be replaced with better references because without it the section would be a single sentence; a single sentence would clearly not merit the sections inclusion.  This is also why I undid a reversion.  Please do not revert edits done in good faith. David Condrey (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think the entire section should be removed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And it could be moved to cannibalism, I could not find the statement about medical use up until the 17th century on that page and it's no doubt interesting and encyclopedic.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Copied talk discussion from Editor's Page
Please undo the revert you just did to Steak and learn what the appropriate usage of reverting someone is. WP:ROWN If you don't think it belongs, it would be something to mention on the talk page. David Condrey (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * David CondreyI should have said that yours was a good faith edit and your work is appreciated. So sorry for that. I reverted because I thought it made the article worse, being off topic. I looked at your suggested link WP:ROWN and saw  "a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement."   I  still think that is the case but will revert if others think it should be included.SovalValtos (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * if it clearly reduces the quality of the article, revert, because it's vandalism. But what your considering worse is a matter of opinion.  In my opinion it makes the article better because without it the section is merely 1 sentence and doesn't justify being.  I'm going to undo the revert myself.  If you still feel strongly about it, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article.  If there is better content to replace it, then by all means; but until then I'm just substantiating the section.
 * you should never revert another editors contributions unless it's vandalism or undebatable. David Condrey (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

SovalValtos (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with David. In many cases it's best to bring it up on the talk page first. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Marketing
It would be good to include in this section, something of China, Japan, Inuit or southeast AsiaSovalValtos (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so, too. The section is slightly Anglo-Centric, currently. It might be more difficult to find sources for non-English speaking countries though. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Like most food, it is traditionally about using what you can produce. Also the Asian approach to using steak has been different (and arguably healthier). My understanding is that Asian countries used not to be keen on large lumps of meat. I have added a comment and ref.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Class
The article says it is both C class and B class. Which is correct? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Steak. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150211123516/http://www.ukagriculture.com:80/livestock/beef_farming_uk.cfm to http://www.ukagriculture.com/livestock/beef_farming_uk.cfm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006075647/http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/e28.html to http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/e28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology: from "Hamburger Stück"?
I was told that the term 'steak' is derived from 'Hamburger Stück', 'Stück' being the German word for 'piece' and 'Hamburger Stück' being a certain piece of beef that was once served in the city of Hamburg, Germany. It seems clear that 'Hamburger Stück' is the origin of the term Hamburger, but I could not find any source that 'Stück' is also the origin of the term 'steak'. Can anyone help me to find an answer? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ham steak" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ham steak. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021
"fish steak" under "types" section, defines fish steak; "Fish steaks are cut perpendicular to the spine and include bones". however, "fish steak" wiki pages defines it " either include the bones or be boneless".

Please change "Fish steaks are cut perpendicular to the spine and include bones" to "Fish steaks are cut perpendicular to the spine and may include bones". 61.255.148.47 (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021
On Protest section, remove the better source template and add this sources  218.41.211.248 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  03:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021 (2)
On a Pork Steak section, there is a sentence "Cooked gammon steaks are a component of a full breakfast, whereas steaks from a rolled pork loin are more likely to be served at lunch." then cite this While on Beefsteak section, there is a sentence "Steak can be cooked relatively quickly compared to other cuts of meat, particularly when cooked at very high temperatures, such as by broiling or grilling." cite this. 49.228.224.219 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I do not see how those stories about healthy recipes relevantly support the text. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  04:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)