Talk:Pork roll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ingredients[edit]

This article is nice, as far as it goes... but what _is_ Taylor Ham? It's obviously processed. Is it closer to being a type of sausage or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.12.106 (talk • contribs) 14:59, June 9, 2005

Yes, it's a kind of sausage. - CobaltBlueTony 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the cuts of pig going into the pork roll? Pork butt? byproducts? Inquiring mind wants to know????— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.201.208 (talk • contribs) 01:39, January 2, 2006
I believe it's byproduct, the ingredients only say pork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.149.131 (talk • contribs) 23:53, April 5, 2006
I'm in Pittsburgh, originally from NJ. Was raised on this stuff and no idea what exact meats comprise it. I'm guessing a mixture of lean ham and fatty, hot dog-like by products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.122 (talk • contribs) 12:51, October 11, 2006
Taylor Ham is a brand name, there is no way pork roll should redirect to Taylor Ham. It should be the other way around.
I was born and raised in Trenton, I still live in the area, and NO ONE I know around here calls pork roll Taylor Ham. (As a side note, I happen to prefer Case's, but that's a different story)
My best guess is someone from North Jersey wrote this, where Taylor is the most popular brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.48.21 (talk • contribs) 15:15, August 24, 2007

My mom is from New Jersey and we have always called it taylor ham instead of pork roll and in my opinion taylor ham just sounds more appetizing. Pork roll sounds like some fatty thing that overweight people shove into their large mouths while they lay on their couches drinking beer and eating greasy potato chips and watching nascar. It also sounds like the fat rolls of a pig that they rip off, shove in a car board box they found in a dumpster, and put on the shelf in the grocery store for all the fat lards in our country to buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.94.138 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of Taylor Ham until I moved to North Jersey, but I HAD heard of pork roll while growing up in Cape May County. But I have another question about this article: Since when is Morris County a part of Central Jersey? It north of me and I'm definitely North Jersey, these days. Such references, along with the mixed up redirect, make me question the validity of this article. Olibear (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) olibear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.48.21 (talk) 20:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Pork roll is in far more common usage and taylor ham is just one brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodmarket (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is like "copy machine" redirecting to Xerox, or "dvr" redirecting to Tivo. Somebody plz fix!66.173.161.10 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am from somerset county, northern edge of what could be considered central jersey, yet people as far north as I live still call it pork roll. It's only in the northernmost few counties that calling it taylor ham is common. As pork roll is the more common usage, it should be the title of the article with taylor ham linking to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasar J (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree When I grew up in Bergen county (definitely North Jersey) the school lunch frequently featured "Taylor Ham" and nobody called it pork roll. In Philly, where I live now, it's always "pork roll". At the supermarket, the generic products are always "pork roll", but Taylor brand is always available and sometimes Trenton brand too. The first rule of WP:NAME is to Use the most easily recognized name, which seems to be pork roll. WP:NAME provides no further guidance that I can tell. I do think we ought to default to the generic name is a situation like this where it may not be entirely clear which is most widely used. That being said... The article would need a minor rewrite to make sense under the new name. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the rewrite, added a photo to show that even Taylor calls it pork roll, and added a reference as to why Taylor calls it pork roll. It's ready to be moved, but needs admin help. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you have the power to rename and redirect pages. Here is how to rename the page correctly. It probably also makes sense after renaming to create a new Taylor Ham page that redirects to Pork Roll. Information on setting up a redirect. Give it a try if you want! Jzerocsk (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved pages before, but in this case the destination page has a history with more than one edit due to a misspelling. I tried it. If you can do the move, please do! Moving will create the redirect automatically. Apparently the admins are waiting 5 days for a discussion. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh didn't realize that. I guess we'll just have to wait it out. Jzerocsk (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Parsecboy! (cool name BTW) -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can this conversation be revisited? Consensus on this move seems to only include two signed users. The first citation on this page used for support of the name directs to an expired webpage, and credible sources can be found for support of Taylor Ham as the proper title (see New York Times article) -- BrosefStalin 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see below, where I've started a new section. I'll respond to your comment here in that section as well. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uses in sandwiches tag[edit]

I added that tag, as well as the "dubious" tag because the information is tedious at best. I don't know how one would go about citing such specific claims, and why anyone would care. Also, the one sentence about some guy in Jersey and his alleged renown with lunch meat is cause for concern. As the person sounds living, we need to worry about slander. One could argue the statement is merely a sort of advertising, and should be removed accordingly. On the other hand, it could be slanderous. Saying a guy is renowned for his sausage skills is just a bit suggestive. My mind can't be the only one in the gutter after reading that. So at least, we need a lot of cleanup. Also, if this article gets integrated into the "pork roll" article, it's fine with me. Taylor ham is a Philly/Jersey specialty, and most people around here ask for it by name. It warrants a mention in the "pork roll" article anyway, so why not merge them?72.92.19.123 (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatch Rocket[edit]

Wha? A quick google search for "swatch rocket" and hoagie yields 5 results, 2 of which are unrelated, two were this article, and one was a Facebook post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.7 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Roll[edit]

This article is filled with some spam in addition to pork roll. The preparation section just randomly turns into an advertisement for a pork roll festival:

Trenton, New Jersey held its Inaugural Trenton Pork Roll Festival on May 24, 2014 produced by Scott A. Miller, Pork Roll Productions LLC DBA The Pork Roll Festival.

TimeDoctor (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pork roll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name revisited[edit]

Regarding the recent activity involving this article's name, I'd like to point out the ref added by User:Pawnkingthree: https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/results_of_our_great_pork_roll_vs_taylor_ham_battle_divide_nj.html, which contains a few key points relevant to the name debate:

  • "We analyzed the results in a number of ways and found that the seemingly even divide between Taylor ham and pork roll is no myth - New Jersey is almost dead evenly split on the issue."
  • "... pork roll, which is the technical term for the product in the federal government's eyes."

Also note the earlier discussion on this page, which decided on "pork roll" as it was the more generic name, given the otherwise even split. The whole North Jersey vs. South Jersey thing is fun and all, but for the sake of stability here, I think we should stick with the current name, and focus on the quality of the article, not whether the title is what our "team" calls it or not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrosefStalin mentioned a NYT article above: [1] The way I see it, the author barely leans toward "Taylor Ham" (while using both terms interchangeably), and regardless of how reliable the NYT is, given that the article doesn't actually discuss the correctness of the name, it's not a very good source for the correctness of the name. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a major issue here is that the article suggested by :User:Fru1tbat is simply a survey of regional differences. I'm reluctant of relying on that source given that it also includes a rationale (described as a more refined analysis) for declaring Taylor Ham the correct name: "Under this more refined analysis, Taylor ham emerges with 4.56 million people to pork roll's 4.30 million."

Instead, I propose we look to sources like Marc Mappen, the former Executive Director of the New Jersey Historical Commission, who created a series, [[2]] for the New York Times. This column includes the [and origin of the product], Taylor Ham. These are the experts we should rely on. -- BrosefStalin (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Refined" there just means "applying more math", not "more correct". You're re-linking the exact same NYT article I discussed in my second comment above, and while it discusses the origin, like I said (among other things), it does not discuss the correctness, or provide any real insight into which one we should use as the title here. "Pork roll" is both the more generic and official name for the food item, and I still see no good reason to move away from it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this conclusion is from. If this were math, refined would suggest less data. A more common definition of refined is "more accurate." My broader point is that we don't have articles to cite correctness. The survey you linked to suggests that Taylor Ham is more accurate. Usage by New Jersey experts suggests that Taylor Ham is the default. What are you citing? -- BrosefStalin (talk)23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my personal experience, as a northern Jersey resident, there really is a north/south divide - Taylor ham in north Jersey, pork roll in the south. The nj.com piece is just a bit of fun and shouldn’t be used to determine which is more accurate. I see no reason to fight over the article’s title - it seems to have been Pork roll for some time - and note the regional difference. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Pawnkingthree, and I wholeheartedly agree (however it may appear otherwise). --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem, do we really need another article called Taylor Pork Roll? This seems unnecessarily confusing to me. Information on the company can be contained in this article (Pork roll). Taylor ham should redirect here, not to your article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused as to why this is necessary. It struck me as a POV fork when I first saw it, but maybe I was too quick to judge. It doesn't seem like the company is quite notable enough outside of the main topic here to have an article to itself. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely important. Taylor Ham is in fact a notable brand of pork roll. In North Jersey, the term Taylor Ham is misapplied to all pork roll. This shows the actual term Taylor Ham and its origins. It is also the first pork roll producer, generating $200,000 in 1894 ($5 million inflation adjusted) and has been cited as "one of the most important of Trenton's commercial interests". The brand owned multiple stores in the 1950s. It has received significant coverage. A merge with pork roll is incorrect, while all Taylor Ham is pork roll, not all pork roll is Taylor Ham. Many companies produce pork roll such as Case's Pork Roll therefore it warrants separate articles. Valoem talk contrib 16:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Absolutely important" is a pretty big overstatement. Taylor is prominently included in the pork roll article. Expanding the info about Taylor the company in the pork roll article would be fine. Forking the article is just a lame partisan attempt to highlight one producer of a regional food product over the others.
I thought we had the issue settled in 2009 and nothing has changed since then. While the term "Taylor Ham" remains in common usage, there is literally no product for sale by that name in the USA. Taylor has labeled their product as "Taylor Pork Roll" for over 100 years. The idea that there is any meaningful difference between "taylor ham" and "pork roll" is just yet another manufactured "debate" intended to stir the pot. This fork was poorly thought out, confuses the issue and should be reverted. --Austin Murphy (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Pork Roll is a notable brand of pork roll. The brand passes WP:NCORP and the article is therefore notable. We do not redirect brands to there products which is why we cover companies and brands as individual articles. This is not a fork, one is about pork roll the product, the other is about Taylor Pork RolL, the brand. Merging the content to pork roll would give the company undue weight in an article about pork roll. Valoem talk contrib 11:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

recipes[edit]

Dodgy sourcing[edit]

There are a bunch of sources that are bad, here. There's dead hyperlink to an anonymous posting on a WWW forum. There's a "Sausage King" history that doesn't support what the text in the article says. There's an anonymous and not fact checked self-submitted post to a food company's comments page. I think that some of the affected content can be re-sourced to some of the better sources, like the Genovese and Edelstein ones, and the Susan Sprague Yeske book, which are fairly lengthy and might have these details, so I haven't zapped it. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have fixed this, mostly. Some unsourced portions remain. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_roll&oldid=1209823264"