Talk:Spam (food)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Hawaii Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Spam (food), or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.)

Contents

[edit] Good Sources

It would appear this talk page is turning into a SPAM (the electronic type) page. Indeed, with all this discussion, I have to marvel at the fact that no one appears to have noticed the spurious and uncorroborated edit of the 22 April. Indeed, the user responsible for the edit dumped two lines into the 'name origins' paragraph, creating a page about George_Savoy at the same time. There are no sources to back this fact up, but what draw my attention to it was the blatant clash with the surrounding test. I'm removing the paragraph and tagging the Savoy entry for removal, until some sensible sources are inserted. Rdrs 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Uncle Ed, isn't calling spam 'delicious' an NPOV statement? ;-P cprompt

We have childish song in France (and in Québec) : "Lundi des patates, Mardi des patates, Mercredi des patates, Jeudi des patates, Vendredi des patates, Samedi des patates et Dimanche des patates aussi." Patates=Potatoes. Ericd 21:35 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it more appropriate for SPAM to redirect to the article referring to unwarranted mail first? There are many out there (esp. outside US), who have no idea that there is actually a product called SPAM, but any internet user knows what Spamming is. I feel there can be a disambiguation on top of the spamming page that can take care of the product (and the other meanings). Spamming is more well-researched than SPAM anyway.

SPAM is first and foremost a product. It is a type of packaged ham distributed by the Hormel compaly and has been around much longer than Spamming. It blows my mind that you have never even heard of it before207.157.121.50 11:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

It is not that I dont see the reason why it is organised as it is now (considering that all-caps SPAM should refer to the product and all), but I still feel it is better, if the article and the disambiguation is organised the other way around. chance 12:25, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I assure you, good sir/madam/other, that the real world (ie countries other than the US) are well and truely overawed by the miracle of spam at least as much, and probably far more than your average yank. The bellman 00:39, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Spam] could if its not a disimbag, but SPAM should redirect to Spam (food) or better yet maybe move Spam (food) to SPAM since its understood that Spam is UCE, SPAM is the hormel trademark.--Ryan (talk, Give Back Membership) 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I could provide a picture of the SPAM Museum if people think it would be a worthy addition to the page. I often visit Austin MN. Metamatic 14:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this all a joke? I live outside the US (Canada) and I've never heard of such... food culture. This forces me to say "WTF?." What on earth is SPAM. I looks so silly it might as well be a joke.

"In the U.S., a can of SPAM is said to be consumed every 3.1 seconds. Among American states, Hawaii has the highest per-capita consumption of SPAM— 5.5 cans per second". Unless Hawaii seceded when I wasn't looking, those two figures are mutually exclusive...

I've deleted the figures, because of the inconsistency you mention, and because 5.5 cans/second is a ridiculous per capita rate. If someone wants to get accurate figures, that's just dandy. -- Coneslayer 23:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
3.1 cans/sec nationwide versus 5.5 cans/sec in Hawaii doesn't need to be mutually exclusive. It's probably just averaged out. I agree, though, 5.5 cans/sec is a bit on the ridiculous side. --Jack (Cuervo) 20:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Its not 3.1 cans per second, its 1 can per 3.1 seconds

[edit] Muppet Treasure Island

I have this movie on VHS. (It's a good movie, when you fast-forward past most of the songs (except maybe Cabin Fever)). Anyway, I thought Spa'am referred to Miss Piggy. Should I watch it again? :P --Jack (Cuervo) 20:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes! I remember this! It is HILARIOUS. Spa'am is the island's tribal leader. He tells Miss Piggy his name in a totally comedic fashion. It just floored me the first time I saw it years ago.  :-)

[edit] "whose original name was far less glamorous,"

Well, what was the original name? Don't leave me hanging! Please! I want to know. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldnt this page be moved to "SPAM™"? or be given a Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)? because the name needs the "™"?Patcat88 20:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, for the same reason as LEGO. "SPAM" is the name of the product. The trademark logo is simply a way of stating that one recognizes that the name is a trademark. It is not part of the name. Hence, for instance, the following text from www.spam.com:
It's the Official SPAM Home Page. The one in good taste. Like SPAM Luncheon Meat.
Note the lack of trademark or registered-trademark signs. --FOo 21:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] genericized

This question is for anyone who has access to an OED or knew what Spam was before they knew anything about computers:

Is the word used generically to refer to similar meat products?

Elsewhere on Wikipedia is was claimed that it is not! I changed the wording on Genericized trademark so as not to conflict with this one.

[edit] NPOV?

I don't see why the NPOV tag is deserved. To be honest I find it hard to imagine why any conflict of opinion could occur over tinned meat. There may be some discussion about the naming conventions but the neutrality of the article is not in doubt. I'll remove the tag until an explanation is attached. GreatGodOm 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Fully agree. The anon who inserted it couldn't be bothered to give an explanatory edit comment other than "the name of SPAM." The section of the article describing various theories of the name's origin is a little bit jumbled and incoherent and could use cleanup. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is wholly filled, top-to-bottom, with SPAM-worship. Example: "So, ridicule it people do, but it is quite an achievement". That line sounds like a mother correcting a child, and it's not the only in the article. The NPOV tag was very well-deserved. Gspawn 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMEAT

In the movie Waterworld, the Smokers eat a canned meat called SMEAT. I've read that this may be because Hormell wouldn't allow Costner to use SPAM. Wikipedia states that it is a blending of SPAM and Treet PrometheusX303 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The movie I Am Legend contains the quote 'Hmmm, actual SPAM.' which I take as kind of a joke about other movies using the term 'SMEAT'. (Eeach (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] SPAM = Luncheon Meat No????

I see SPAM is different from luncheon meat, but I suppose they are about the same. I prefer an aritlce about luncheon meat being created. It is very misleading to non-Americans like myself, as we all refer SPAM as luncheon meat. I'm confused, very confused indeed. I sound very long winded here, sorry. :( --Terence Ong 15:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems Americans refer to a wider variety of tinned foods with "luncheon meat", whereas we Europeans equate "luncheon meat" with "SPAM". I would've edited this into the entry, except I'm not 100% sure.. If someone is willing to do the necessary research, it would be nice to include this into the entry.

As far as I can tell, in the U.S., "luncheon meat" is a marketing term; it isn't a term that Americans use in conversation to say what's in their sandwich. However, as a category it would tend to include, e.g. American bologna, olive loaf, and other heavily processed meat products, as well as SPAM. (But it would not include proper sausages, for instance.) --FOo 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As an actual American I can say that SPAM is more of a joke to us than an actual food. At least it is among my generation of peers. (Eeach (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Move to all caps—against MoS?

The move of this page from Spam (food) to SPAM, and the subsequent capitalization of SPAM in the article, appears to violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). I don't see any evidence of discussion prior to this move. What's going on here? --TreyHarris 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I've brought up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#SPAM?. --TreyHarris 02:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The move and changes were incorrect. I have reverted them. Nohat 02:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image should really show the whole can. That's what makes SPAM weird...it comes in a square can with a pop-top. Someone should also take a picture of the spongy pink SPAM inside the can. I would do this myself, but I'm a vegetarian and don't want to buy SPAM just to throw it away. Thanks. 216.39.182.234 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it contridict the MoS? I can't see why it shouldn't be in all caps. The bellman 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no picture of the SPAM can? What's the issue here? Jake b 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No issue as far as I can tell! Feel free to take a picture of a can of SPAM and upload it! Or better yet, go to your supermarket and snap a picture of various kinds of SPAM on the shelf! --FOo 02:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I will do that. I have secret lowbrow culinary tastes. Jake b 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Any progress on an image? I have in my possession two half-sized cans of Spam, and I'll be glad to take some photos. But would a full-sized can be better? If so, I'll have to wait until I go to the store again. I really wasn't thinking about Wikipedia when making my last purchase. —TheMuuj Talk 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to see a picture of the stuff inside- I've never actually laid eyes on it. HenryFlower 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I put up an image that shows both the can and the contents. It doesn't look very appetizing, but many people enjoy it (it helps to grill it). —TheMuuj Talk 04:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsourced backronyms

I found a source for "Something Posing As Meat," which IMHO adequately represents the genre. I'm removing all the others since no sources are provided. They can be reinserted if anyone thinks they're important and wishes to provide a source. Original backronyms should not be contributed, no matter how funny or apropos they may be. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Spoiled ham"
  • "Synthetically produced artificial meat"
  • "Steam pressed amalgamated meat"
  • "Some parts are meat"
  • "Specially processed American meat"
  • "Someone's pigs are missing"
  • "Stuff posing as meat"
  • "Slime posing as meat"
  • "Specially Processed Army Meat"
  • "Spare parts and animal mucus"
  • "Salt poisoning and more"
  • "Squirrels possums and mice"
  • "Salt plastic and meat"

[edit] Unsourced items

I'm removing these unsourced items. Quite likely they are true and can be sourced, and should be reinserted when (but not before) they can be accompanied with a good source citation to a source meeting the reliable sources guideline. This article is become overly-heavy with unsourced items. Per WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." When I have a chance I will see whether I can source some of these. Certainly someone must have published something about the popularity of Spam in Hawaii. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Another common misconception of where the name came from, is that it stands for "Specially Pressed American Meat" [citation needed] as it was imported in vast quantities to the UK from the US during the second world war, and many had never heard of Spam before the war, leading to the belief that it had been made especially for Britain.
  • The curious popularity of Spam in Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI is explained by two factors: (1) It is an economical meat product, where most food is expensive because of high shipping costs to the islands, and (2) the presence of US troops there during World War II. Spam was one of the very few meat products allowed into Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI during that time due to shortages and scarcity of modern refrigerated shipping.[citation needed]
  • In South Korea, Spam gained popularity following the Korean War and the large presence of American troops there. It became a staple ingredient of "budae-chiggae" - literally "military post stew" - a composite of various meats and vegetables and hot pepper sauce that remains a very popular South Korean dish, especially in late night eateries. The main ingredient of budae-chiggae is Spam (or some similar meat product), something that was relatively easily procured from American military posts at a time when any other meat was prohibitively expensive.[citation needed]

dpbsmith, you can always go onto the Internet and find the info needed to source this topics. Wiki's are a place for building, not for placing "citation needed" on every single topic you just don't understand. We all have a job to keep this info helpful, and by placing marks all over the article, it makes the article look unprofessional.

Find the info to backup source, or leave it alone.

72.154.199.91 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody calm down. The "citation needed" tags may not look good (and have nothing to do with understanding a fact), but if nothing else that should to encourage the editors to go find sources for these statements. Without these tags, it's difficult to determine which statements are sourced and which are not. This article has had many problems with people sneaking unsourced statements in nearby sourced ones. Everybody and their mother has their own meaning for what the name SPAM means, and like to add them to the list. That does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia. There are meanings and backronyms that are noteworthy, but they need to be sourced. As for "finding the info to backup the source," that is not always easy to do. If you just google for the information you might find a website that got their information from Wikipedia. Also, the tags inform readers that they should take these statements at face value. I don't like deleting useful information, so I agree that some of this information should either be marked as unsourced or moved to the talk page.

And 72.154.199.91, be sure to be aware of the 3-revert rule. —TheMuuj Talk 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding this item from the other references section. I couldn't find any non-wikipedia hits for it--until it's verifiable we should keep it here: Dallben 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location of SPAM production

Spam is only produced in two locations in the United States, Austin MN and Fremont NE. Why not include both locations istead of saying: Spam is produced in (among other places) Austin, Minnesota, USA (aka Spam Town USA)?

I could understand only listing one if there were factories all over, but with only two US locations, why not list both?

[Reply to the above unsigned question]
Because if you read that section it's not just talking about the USA, SPAM is made (under license) all over the world. (SouthernElectric 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] A question

Did spam really originate in the 1930s? I thought Thomas Tallis wrote a motet about spam in allium in the sixteenth century. A strongly-flavoured onion or garlic sauce is one way to make this stuff almost palatable.

[edit] JEF (Japanese restaurant)

Citation? The menu is available on-line - http://www.yonabaru.jp/kigyo/jef/menu.htm - and shows what looks like a toasted SPAM sandwich, but I don't read Japanese. NickS 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vintage SPAM

I'd like to add this gallery of vintage SPAM commercial art as an external link.

Gallery of vintage graphic design featuring SPAM

--Mycroft.Holmes 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask again: Do you own the copyright?. If so, you can release the images under a free license and contribute them as true internal content. If not, Wikipedia cannot link to your site. Either way there is no need to link to an external website. Femto 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
These images are between 50 and 70 years old and are in the public domain --Mycroft.Holmes (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Spam is unique part of the history and effects of U.S. empire-building in the Pacific."

Empire Building...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.122.10 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


HAhaha, nice one. Thanks for pointing that out. Sneakernets 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I had friends from Hong Kong when I was in grade school. They ate spam at almost every meal. Hong Kong used to be British, too, so go figure.72.78.154.193 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can sizes?

The size of a can of spam has changed several times over the years. It might take some research, but a table of what size a can of spam was in a given year would be useful.--24.252.10.228 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

how big is your spam?

[edit] SPAM redirecting to Robot Wars page

Why was SPAM redirecting to List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK)? I reverted it back to it's redirect to Spam (food) --Quess 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Monty Python's golden honey spam label.jpg

Image:Monty Python's golden honey spam label.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] top gear polar special

added James May's use of spam as a celbratory product in the 2007 TG Polar Special to the article along with its other pop culture references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.243.157 (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS:TM - SPAM vs Spam, IBM vs Ibm

So why is t that even though the trademark SPAM is supposed to be SPAM, that we seep it as Spam, but when it comes to the trademark IBM, we keep it IBM and not Ibm. Obviously IBM is one of those exceptions you has as the MoS is not a policy, just a guideline. SPAM would be another exception.--Ryan (talk, Give Back Membership) 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"IBM" is standard English formatting for the IBM company - it's a set of initials, it's pronounced "eye bee em" and there's no way to pronounce the word "Ibm". MoS:TM covers this with the example of MCI: "MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used." --McGeddon 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just as people differentirate Spam from SPAM so should Wikipedia.--Ryan (talk, Give Back Membership) 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, MoS:TM clearly says to use "standard English text formatting", and the standard formatting for a pronounceable company name is to capitalise only the first letter. It might not be a policy, but it's a clear consensus of editors - Realtor is a much closer example than the initial letters of IBM, and we don't call that article REALTOR® (or use all-caps throughout the article).
People differentiate between email spam and spam luncheon meat by calling them "email spam" and "spam luncheon meat" in any contexts where there might be confusion - capitalisation doesn't work, because we wouldn't know whether "spam" was someone being aware of the capital letters and intentionally referring to email spam, or if they were talking about the luncheon meat but ignorant of Hormel's preferred capitalisation. --McGeddon 22:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted this back again - there may be a good argument for going directly against MoS:TM in this case, but the current reasoning of "IBM is capitalised" and "it differentiates it from email spam" don't hold up, and Ryan's blanket search-and-replace of "spam" with "SPAM" has broken a lot of links and images (and generated self-contradictory sentences like "'SPAM' is generally spelled and used as a proper noun."). If any other editors would like to give an opinion on this, please do. --McGeddon 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might offer a fresh view, SPAM is an acronym, like IBM or ICBM, whereas Spam refers to unnecessary email. The former refers to the abbreviated title of a product, and the second refers to the first as unnecessary meat, etc. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the article, though, "Spam is generally spelled and used as a proper noun" - if an acronym can be pronounced as a word, people generally start using it as one (eg. radar and laser), and non-technical news sources adopt it to make sentences more readable. (A quick check of Google News shows most newspaper style guides lower-casing it.)
I don't think the "lower case refers to email" argument helps us - it's much clearer to a reader if we talk about "Spam luncheon meat" and "email spam" in any context where there could be confusion between the two (and there isn't any such confusion in this article, with email spam having its own clear section). We can't expect anyone to parse the isolated sentence "spam is great" as obviously referring to the email version because it's lower-case - they don't know whether the writer is honouring Hormel's all-caps request or not.
Incidentally, search-and-replacing one word with another throughout an article can often break images and wikilinks - please be careful not to do this in future. --McGeddon 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about the broken links; that was my bad. However, you will note that I was reverting a global change to the spelling that you had made, somewhat unilaterally, I might add.
I am not sure if it was you or someone else who is asking for an RfC on how SPAM/Spam should written, but it might be a good idea, considering some of the issues involved. I think its rather key that the owner Hormel has a standing request that the acronymic spelling be used; that's pretty encyclopedic and conclusive proof to me that - despite how people are using it colloquially - SPAM is the proper method of spelling it.
Using a common patois example, a lot of people currently use to describe nudity as being 'butt-naked'. This is a mispronunciation of the correct and originating term 'buck-naked'. That both are in usage doesn't negate the original usage. Perhaps its a bad example, but cut me some slack - I just woke up (lol). As well, a Google quick search renders every result for SPAM leads us to link discussing the meat product, while Spam/spam almost always leads us to discussion of the email spam. It might be advisable to split the article into SPAM (food) and Spam (smail), as both can have significant entries.
Honestly, I think it would be unencyclopedic for us not to use the proper term. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
A side note: Some of the terms that were linked need to be changed:
  • Spamalot to SPAMalot - on the musical's own website, the tile spells out in caps SPAM
  • Spam fritters - will need to be renamed to reflect the proper spelling of SPAM—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
You weren't reverting from my unilateral edit to the consensus version of the article, you were reverting to the all-uppercase version that User:RyanB88 unilaterally imposed last week (which is why all the images and links were broken).
We should use the "proper term", but the proper terrm that an encyclopaedia would use, rather than the proper term that Hormel would like us to use. Wikipedia's manual of style for trademarks specifically suggests to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment", and gives the specific example of "realtor" versus "REALTOR®". We just need a good reason for going against the manual of style guideline in this case, and as I say, the idea that this helpfully distinguishes the meat product from email spam doesn't apply to the current text of this article. --McGeddon 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am open to suggestions, McGeddon. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Having come here from WP:RFC/STYLE, I have to agree with MOS:TM. If it helps any, there's an increasing convention in British English to differentiate between acronyms that get read as a word (eg Unesco, Nato, Aids) and those that don't (eg IBM, NSPCC, RNIB, ICBM) and to spell the former as proper nouns, in mixed case, whilst keeping the latter as all-caps — I've done exactly that in this comment. I'd suggest that, as an acronym-pronounced-as-a-word, Spam should be treated the same way.
Incidentally, I didn't realise, until reading this debate, that Spam was an acronym at all; I think very few readers would be aware of that before reading the article. Certainly, I've never seen it in all-caps except on a tin of the stuff.
I have to agree quite fervently with User:McGeddon — we have a style guide, we should stick with it. — OwenBlacker 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not thinking that it implies that. I am thinking that the issue might be easily resolved by splitting the article into two separate items: SPAM (food) and spam (email). There is more than enough material for both articles, and they wouldn't be in danger of AfD. This also resolved the deeper issue of what is Encyclopedic; I am not sure the REALTOR example is as applicable as is being inferred. In every instance that SPAM appears in print, it is in caps - SPAMalot (the musical), in media, in most Google search links, etc. By differentiating between the two, we are clarifying as to which usage is being used. If it requires a DAB or reference at the top of the split article s to refer to redirect towards the other, that is us doing our job. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have lengthy articles for Spam (email) and Spam (electronic), which are linked from this one, and there is already a disambiguation link to Spam at the top of this article. --McGeddon 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, so we don't even need the section on spam (smail) in the article at all. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's useful to explain its connection to the luncheon meat, and to link to the article. But yes, it only needs a small section. And this is a very strong argument against using "SPAM" and "spam" throughout the article to differentiate the two - this article is entirely about the luncheon meat apart from one small section clearly titled "Email spam", so there's absolutely no need to use capital letters to distinguish the two. --McGeddon 07:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of a strong argument for ignoring clear Wikipedia guidelines for trademarks which encourage capitalisation, and the support of another editor, I've reverted this again. There's no need to use arbitrary capitalisation rules to distinguish "spam luncheon meat" from "email spam" in an article that is (apart from one section clearly labelled "email spam") entirely about the luncheon meat. --McGeddon 15:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the absence of ... the support of another editor," I am sorry that I did not notice this thread earlier. I also strong support the use of SPAM in this article but my edit of the article replacing spam with SPAM was reverted quite some time ago and I simple gave up on the arguement as having no what to find consensus for the use of SPAM That revert was back in early July see User_talk:Dbiel/Archive_1#SPAM there are also several other discusion of this subject on this talk page. Yes I strongly support the usage of SPAM but find that I must yield to MoS:TM though I still belive that this should be an exception. Dbiel (Talk) 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the absence of an argument and the presence of support. Thanks for respecting MoS:TM - I agree that we'd have to do something if this was an article that freely discussed both luncheon meat and junk email in a way that was confusing to the reader, but since it's entirely about the meat, I think we're okay. --McGeddon 12:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cham"

This ("Cham" or "챔") seems to be a South Korean product. Has anybody seen or tried this? Are its ingredients and taste the same as SPAM's? Whatever it is, the left cans depict much paler content than SPAM. Wikipeditor 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fish 'n' Chip Shop SPAM

Perhaps the popularity of SPAM as part of the fish 'n' chip shop menu did decline, but today I would suggest that at least in South Yorkshire SPAM Fritters are ubiquitous. As an observation, though, canned SPAM is always, in my experience, rectangular (with curved corners) in cross section, whereas SPAM Fritters are circular. Are they, in fact, the same meat? 195.38.93.206 11:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a spam fritter from a fish 'n' chip shop in Dover three years ago. My first. It was rather good. And it definitely was not called a SPAM fritter on the big board. Varlaam 06:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (in Toronto)

[edit] SPAM is forever

Deleted trivia about SPAM not expiring. The reference doesn't mention anything about it. --Quess (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery meat

The intro paragraph contains a reference & link to "long pork". Somebody have Soylent Green on the mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.142.226 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section removed

As we should be avoiding trivia sections, I have taken the bold step of removing the section to here. I think we - through discussion - can figure out how to incorporate the info into the various other sections of the article, or can expand some of the trivial bits into their own section. The good thing is, most of the trivia bits are cited, so there's that, at least.

Trivia
 Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.
The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.
  • A Spammobile travels around the US.[1]
  • Two NASCAR Nextel Cup drivers have driven cars with Spam sponsorship: Lake Speed, #9, in 1995-1996, and Mike Wallace, #91, for several races in 1997. [2]
  • There is a Spam restaurant in the Philippines called Spam Jam, named after the annual festival that Hormel Foods holds in its corporate headquarters. This restaurant was approved and licensed by Hormel Foods. The only items not containing Spam are the french fries and the hotdogs, which use Hormel's "Wrangler" brand instead.[3]
  • There are also Spam slot machines. [4]

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced varieties

A paragraph stated:

Spam Black Pepper, Spam Less Sodium, Spam Garlic, Spam and Cheese, Spam with Bacon (Hormel bacon), Spam Spread, Spam Fritters, Spam Lite (containing pork and chicken), Spam Golden Honey Grail, Spam Hot and Spicy (with Tabasco sauce), Spam Hickory Smoked, and Spam Oven Roasted Turkey[5] - the latter is also available as halal food (see the halal sign on cans), meaning that it is permissible under Islamic law, and is especially popular in Muslim markets.

Unfortunately, the cited source does not confirm this, so I've edited the list to include only the varieties mentioned by the cited source. This doesn't mean that the others don't exist, but they shouldn't be reinserted without references. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First canned meat? No.

I'm removing:

In 1934 Spam was introduced as one of the first meats to be introduced in can form.

According to Canning, "Robert Ayars established the first American canning factory in New York City in 1812, using improved tin-plated wrought-iron cans for preserving oysters, meats, fruits and vegetables," and canned foods, including meat, became popular in the late 1800s.

Owen Wister's "The Virginian," published in 1902 and describing the West a generation earlier, includes this passage. Note the chicken and devilled ham:

Those to whom their night's holiday had left any dollars were spending these for tobacco, or cartridges, or canned provisions for the journey to their distant camps. Sardines were called for, and potted chicken, and devilled ham... portable ready-made food plays of necessity a great part in the opening of a new country. These picnic pots and cans were the first of her trophies that ivilization dropped upon Wyoming's virgin soil. The cow-boy is now gone to worlds invisible; the wind has blown away the white ashes of his camp-fires; but the empty sardine box lies rusting over the face of the Western earth.

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)