This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Also known as ground beef, this confused the hell out of my local supermarket. What the fuck, America. *facepalms* Contributions/86.30.14.139 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trader Joes has Organic Ground Beef (85% lean/15% fat) at $7.49 a pound, but it doesn't disclose what part of the cow it is!!! Is it just meat or is it noses, hooves, bone, what is the breakdown??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3705:C400:99C1:DEA2:1C0D:50E3 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says ground beef is made from hog!!?
quote: Ground Beef is usually made from the fatty part of a hog
This article needs rewriting to give it a more international flavour. In particular, according to the first paragraph Minced Beef is only known as Ground Beef in North America so the title should be changed to Minced Beef to reflect majority international usage. I do get fed up with IAA (Insular American Articles)!
America has 6 times the population and over 50 times the area of England and it is anything but insular (or IAA). If America were so insular why would there be so many great French restaurant chains and great Italian restaurant chains there? And why are there so many new words in American's vocabulary from France and Germany and Mexico and everywhere else? (At the same time France is passing laws to keep American words out of their dictionaries!) The fact is there is a cosmopolitan push in the world where good things from all cultures are integrated. Globalization will be the great leveler and final arbiter of the best from our respective cultures. So, to those CB's (Crybabys) who are GDW (Glory Day Wannabe's) attempting to preserve the GOD's (good old days) of their once great empire.....GOY (Get Over Yourself).
I took away Mexican cuisine as a cuisine where ground beef is used prominently because it is not true. Whomever wrote that probably was thinking of the "Taco Bell" variety of "Mexican food."
Ground beef is used in Mexican food...to make picadillo, which is a common filling for Tacos, Burritos, Gorditas, etc.
But yes...it is not the "Taco Bell" style of ground beef.Estornino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed, that this should be a international. Remember america is not the only country in the world. In Australia, we call this Beef Mince or just mince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.53.174 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Beef mince" - seriously? 300 million people in the U.S., not to mention 34 million Canadians, wouldn't have the slightest idea what this term means. Since that is the largest body of population in the world that regularly uses ground beef (and since the most consumed dish made of ground beef, the hamburger, was made widely popular in, and from, the U.S.), wouldn't it make much more sense that the main title of this article be "ground beef", with "beef mince" as a linked alternative phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.138.15 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non native English speakers often learn British English. India, for example, with a population of 1.4 Billion. That's 13 times the population of the USA, if that's the metric you're obsessed with. 2601:86:C480:9E0:C91C:4B27:E903:BD5C (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60.231.53.174, thank you for saying what this is called usually in Australia, which is what I wanted to know.
72.227.138.15, how many Americans there are in th world, and how many people of the world use Minced Meat is irrelevant. this is a Dictionary, here to explain wht things mean, your attitude is atrocious and make Americans look bad.
--CatCat (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (btw I am Norwegian, and I can tell you, while there might only be a "mere" 4 million of us, I assure you we eat a lot of "kjøttdeig")[reply]
maybe this article should be about all ground meat. Does it make sense to have a separate article for each type? ike9898 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to have articles for different types as they have different uses, manufactures, and ways to make it with different regulations for example crawdads or crawfish are not shrimp and should not be labeled as shrimp ass they are different TL;DR they are different foods Woolmadj (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this page include explanations for terms like
Lean 92/8
Extra Lean 96/4
Sirloin 90/10
I mean what's with the division? A completely uneducated guess on my part would be "X" grams of meat per "Y" grams of fat I came to this wiki page to see if my guess was correct or not only to find that it doesn't mention them at all. Bushido Brown (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd like to add the following text about a recent United States National Research Council report to the food safety section of this article:
To ensure the safety of food distributed through the National School Lunch Program, food banks, and other federal food and nutrition programs, the United States Department of Agriculture has established food safety and quality requirements for the ground beef it purchases. A 2010 National Research Council report reviewed the scientific basis of the Department’s ground beef safety standards, evaluated how the standards compare to those used by large retail and commercial food service purchasers of ground beef, and looked at ways to establish periodic evaluations of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program[1]. The report found that although the safety requirements could be strengthened using scientific concepts, the prevention of future outbreaks of foodborne disease will depend on eliminating contamination during production and ensuring meat is properly cooked before it is served.[2]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Page moved back to the old name. Once it was pointed out that this was first in American English and at the proposed name, the case to move became clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beef mince → Ground beef – The much more commonly referred to name. Almost six times the amount of google hits for "ground beef" (31,000,000) over "beef mince" (5,300,000) Brodey (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This may be an WP:ENGVAR issue, however. Is "beef mice" dominant in British English? I've never heard the phrase, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Beef mince is synonymous with Ground beef and looking on the website of Tesco (the biggest UK grocery retailer) [1]Mince is always used in place of Ground. Zarcadia (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The question is not a matter of what one UK retailer uses, but what is the more common term in the world as a whole. So far, the evidence seems to favour 'ground beef' (per nom). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with what "one retailer uses" rather that the term Beef mince is the common name in the UK. Of course Ground beef will have more hits on google, as it's the common name in the U.S. (and therefore will dominate internet hits) but that's not a valid reason to change the existing article name as per MOS:RETAIN. Zarcadia (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important to maintain British centrism? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A much more common name. "Beef Mince" sounds like a purely british colloquialism. I see no reason not to go with ground beef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.101.12 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. It's definitely an American term; few Brits refer to it as 'ground beef'. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it appears we have a majority who feel the page should be moved to Ground beef. The miniscule amount of google hits for "beef mince" can only lead to assume it is a term only used in the UK. While Ground Beef is used in a number of countries especially the larger english speaking ones. Brodey (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or move to Minced beef (which is probably actually the commoner term in the UK). ENGVAR issue. Almost never called "ground beef" in the UK. It's not even an accurate phrase, since the meat is minced, not ground. In ENGVAR situations, we go with the term used in the variety of English in which the article was originally written, not the term used by the country with the most people (otherwise Wikipedia would largely be written in American English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed my opinion in light of Skinsmoke's discovery that the article was originally written and titled in American English. If we support WP:ENGVAR then we must always support it, even if it goes against one's own native form of English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minced beef would be an improvement. We won't run afoul of WP:RETAIN, but this form is likely to be better recognized by American English speakers. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that in the UK we usually just call the product "mince". The qualifier is usually only used if it's some meat other than beef (e.g. lamb mince, turkey mince); in my experience, "beef mince" is rarely used in conversation, although it may appear on the packs as sold. Moving to Minced beef would therefore, I think, be a good compromise, as the term is frequently used in recipes here and is pretty universally understandable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree that Minced beef is an acceptable compromise. Zarcadia (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone outside the UK use the term 'minced'? Sorry, but I believe the term 'minced beef' is not commonly found in American English. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, since as already stated this is a WP:ENGVAR issue and the default form on Wikipedia is not and never has been American English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a very clear case of Wikipedia:National varieties of English here, but it's not as clear-cut as some think. The article was created on 3 April 2004 in American EnglishasGround beef. It was moved to Beef mince on 14 June 2009, at about the time the article was being expanded to include examples from outside the United States. However, that move was made without discussion and contrary to the rules on national varieties. On the face of it, this should go back to Ground beef. I wonder, though, whether it doesn't make sense to go for an article title which is understood throughout the English speaking world, as we are directed to try to find commonality if possible. An Advanced Google search for Minced beef excluding Wikipedia and Ground beef, and confined to sites in the United States in English, indicates that, though it is not the most common term, Minced beef is used in the States. The term, although not as common as Beef mince (which surprised me) is also used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (change the search parameters to specify the region). Skinsmoke (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. In that case, I support the proposed move under WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mere fact that the article was originally created in American English makes it evident this is a clear case of both WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. This along with everything else presented I fail to see how this article should not revert back to it's original title? Brodey (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as originally proposed, striking my initial vote altogether. WP:RETAIN seems so simple, but what happens when the change itself becomes stable? Well, in this case, ground beef was the original name and the longer-running name altogether, so I think this move would be an appropriate application of RETAIN. Minced beef still might work as WP:COMMONALITY, but this would be my second choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the already listed reasons. Francosalamena (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Striked for socking by -- DQ(ʞlɐʇ) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Incorrect closure of Requested move discussion[edit]
It is not the role of the mover of the Requested move discussion to close the discussion and move the article. This is out of process, and completely contradicts the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It is up to an uninvolved administrator to evaluate the discussion and close it. By definition, as the proposer Brodey is not uninvolved. The closure should be reverted immediately (the end result looks like it will almost certainly be the same, but still...). Skinsmoke (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused that someone has copyedited away the other half of "hamburger meat", surely hamburger on its own is generally used to refer to a formed patty or assembled burger and not simply mince, sorry "ground beef", in its raw state? 85.210.100.0 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ground beef. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Ground beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Ground beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
The page Mince Rallies redirects here, as referenced on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Down. However the page doesn't indicate what "Mince Rallies" actually means, or what it has to do with minced/ground beef? I still have no idea what it is. Mikeholden (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
