Talk:Pemmican

message: these sentences need some separation. without knowing enough about the allegiances or interests of these companies and aristocrats the references to them are less helpful. i think just a slight expansion and normalization of this text would be very helpful - wish i were well-enough informed to do so myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbrick (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: is there a reason?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.180.234 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: reason it keeps so well?

message: Bear Valley Pemmican does not actually sell any pemmican as described in this article. They sell something more like a granola bar. Should this link be removed? 24.84.39.21 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear Valley Pemmican 

message: I'm just curious. Is there blood on pemmicans? It doesn't have any mention of it in the article. Komitsuki (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read about it in about 20 different places and blood was never mentioned as an ingredient.  North8000 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood 

message: I replaced a formerly removed section (by Ostermann) that referenced three modern producers of pemmican and/or pemmican-inspired products: USWellness Meats, Tanka Bar and Canawa. Canawa is apparently no longer in business so was not replaced, but the other two were so, in two different sections. Since pemmican is a particular food, I created three sections (the content of the second and third only being small revisions), which delineated real pemmican from protein bars that are simply "inspired" by pemmican and bars using the word "pemmican" in the brand name. It's a significant distinction and replacing US Wellness Meats, which is presently the only pemmican for sale in the USA, brings more truth to bear.
The EPIC Bar entry is now accompanied by Tanka, as both are not pemmican, but claim to be pemmican (or wasna) "inspired." The EPIC Bar entry was placed from an IP located in the same city as EPIC Bar and had the tone of an advertisement. I stripped it of that tone and marketing data, down to a basic description of what the product is. I left it there because I believe this merits discussion and a group decision towards strengthening the accuracy of the page.
I would like to raise the question as to where one draws the line amongst Wikipedia entries between a definition and the inclusion of other subjects (or in this case commercial objects) that are only related to that subject because the owners of that object declare it so–or, in this case, state that they were "inspired" by the subject at hand. I'm referring to EPIC and Tanka Bars. If one includes them because they internally make a marketing claim that they are related to pemmican, the food, though the product doesn't match the recipe of the pemmican definition, then shouldn't we include the hundreds of jerkies and other prepared meats that are more closely related to pemmican than just those inspired by it? Or, is an internal marketing claim somehow more deserving of wikipedia space than the facts that might dispel that claims inclusion? Pemmican2014 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your implied answer to your question.  Looks like it has already been remedied. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Pemmican References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pemmican. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031129131749/http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V5N2/V5N2Physiology.html to http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V5N2/V5N2Physiology.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How is that the History part of the article starts with the english and french colonialists when this food comes from the Native American people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.125.219.227 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The claim that pemmican may remain edible after a century cites a Steve1989MREInfo video where the MRE item in question is described as 'Bread and Meat component', timestamp 1:33:20, throughout the video Steve describes the 'pemmican' as wheat and lean beef and nothing more, but a particularly relevant timestamp is 1:08:20 where he describes the manufacturing process as '[it's] cooked wheat, kiln dried, parched, cooked in steam, kiln dried again, and parched again' and the beef as 'fresh lean beef, free of most fat/sinew, ground, evaporated (but not cooked) and sifted', this claim in the video is never cited so more information on the manufacturing process or the information gained through field testing of the MRE can't be provided here.
Throughout the video he describes the unpleasantness of the pemmican using terms like 'smelling of fish food', 'like a dog treat', 'it smells like sewer water, beef and wheat', but he never uses a term like 'rancid' that would indicate that the pemmican contains fat as he often does on other MRE items containing fat (like chocolate, dried milk, cheese, etc). When he makes a soup out of the pemmican there doesn't seem to be any visible fat floating on the water. Additionally the MRE instructions suggest that the pemmican can be fried in fat after having been made into a porridge, this step seems redundant if the pemmican recipe included tallow.
While I don't think the unpleasantness of the century old pemmican is relevant (it does appear to be edible), or that the pemmican in question is only the constituent parts of pemmican (if fried in fat after being rehydrated it's essentially pemmican), I feel that the fact the pemmican recipe appears to lack any form of fat or tallow is especially relevant to the claim that pemmican can last for a century. 77.99.98.181 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve1989 Citation 

message: The etymology (including of a non-cognate word with the same referent) is extremely interesting, but it is too much for the intro. It should be in a tiny section of its own. 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:5DF8:1945:FCA1:FE16 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The description of ingredients seems accurate. But then at the top of the page there's a section where it says Main Ingredients, and it includes pelican. Is that someone's joke, as the words sound the same? I haven't seen any evidence that pelican is usually considered a main ingredient, and it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. 146.199.147.36 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pelican was added by @Ironman1104 on Apr 5. I agree that it sounds unlikely to be a common ingredient, and it may be a joke. @Ironman1104, could you please explain your edit? Indefatigable (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Either way, it doesn't belong in there. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelican?