Talk:Tastes like chicken

Speedy deletion...please?

This is awful, unprofessional, and irrelevant. Put it in a dictionary, idioms don't deserve to be on wikipedia. Delete please.

Well, now it's more professional. It even has references !! This article doesn't reserve to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.101.120 (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many references to TLC in popular culture. I have seen worse offences in terms of unnotable and/or irrelevant articles and IMO this one deserves to stay.

Besides, this article tastes like chicken. -- Love and cookies, ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. With no trustworthy references to cite it's generalised usage or notability, I really think this article should be deleted. Is anyone around who still thinks it should stay? — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is potentially a good article. In the English language the phrase has achieved a level of importance such that someone unfamiliar with it might look up the phrase to find out more about it. It reflects a unique perspective that probably excludes much of the world's population. The phrase almost represents a sort of cultural dividing line. As such I think it is important. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This expression is a very important one in movie and TV history, one that has become a standard, a cliche, an in joke used by scriptwriters to show the world they know their craft because they know the history of this phrase. But few seem to really know its origin. The earliest movie use seems to be in DW Griffiths' "The Reformers" (1913) , although anyone who can substantiate the legend that it began with a Laurel & Hardy quote is welcome to edit this page! For moviegoers, it has become almost a sport to spot the moment the line will be uttered. Most recently, the original 1913 line was repeated word for word in Lost: . This quotation not only deserves its own Wikipedia page, it deserves whole academic treatese devoted to its evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrypto (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But then it would be appropriate to make this page be prominently about the phrase, and not contain this much (rather pointless, and partially really badly researched) speculation on the taste of chicken. (The article's title is 'Tastes like chicken', not 'Chicken taste'.) 2001:9E8:3844:7C00:998F:CA6A:6065:3212 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Humans?

How could humans taste like chicken and how would anyone know that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you seen/read "Silence of the Lambs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.183.95 (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Touché. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I read that some cannibal said that humans really taste like chicken. --MrZalli (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My anthropology classes mentioned reports from scientists and explorers to the effect that human flesh tastes like pork, hence the term "long pig" used as a reference to human flesh as food. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck is that picture for?

Show chicken meat, if anything. A live chicken for an article entirely about the taste of chicken seems a bit dumb. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, it's no longer a live chicken, but still, I don't think it contributes much to the article. 65.78.144.202 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur?!

I already believe this page is not suitable for Wikipedia, but the "List of animals..." section is getting ridiculous. Someone just added 'dinosaur' to the list, and I went to delete it, but then 'Dinosaur' has just as much supporting citations as all the other animals in that list: none whatsoever. Unless In a week's time, I'm going to remove any animal in that list that doesn't have a proper citation. I'll be glad if that means the whole ridiculous list is removed. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

.....why is chicken on this list? I mean, technically it's correct, but really? The Kytan Apprentice (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of these questions. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire list should be scrapped. I've eaten several of the animals on that list, and rabbit, jellyfish, and dog taste nothing like chicken. There are many accounts that say human tastes like pork. And dinosaur is the greatest evidence that the "source" is satiric or for humor. Either way, I believe the source can be considered un-reliable. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A few questions and concerns

The list of animals said to taste like chicken... what qualifies as a reliable source, in this case? Certainly a link to any blog, article, or recipe that claims something 'tastes like chicken' is all the proof we need that someone has made the claim, be it from Scientific American or MAD Magazine. So how do we deal with the list while keeping in line with wikipedia policy, then?

Also, is there any information on the earliest use of the cliche? How old is the saying? Where did it come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.254.43 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Matrix

Didn't they say in The Matrix that everything tastes like "chicken"? www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/quotes?qt0324288 220.76.15.125 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

wouldnt mouse blather about so much other bullshit, thatd be a pretty cool statement of him indeed. --92.226.149.98 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes they did. Before that, the Lion King did in the 'Hakuna Matata' scene. And Hannibal did in 'Silence of the Lambs'. And DIE ANTWOORD did in 'I want to eat you'. And the hobbit movie did. That's how pop culture works. Find the first source and you've got something notable. --Johpick (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Lead?

Come on, who would fall for that? I'm deleting it. Zeptometre (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's even less likely that they would fall for testis. GTFO. Zeptometre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

chickens ARE dinosaurs

From the article: "Furthermore, based on evidence for dinosaurs as the ancestors of birds, reptile meat might also taste somewhat like chicken and therefore dinosaurs would most likely also taste like chicken."

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Dinosaurs are not ancestors of birds, but in fact birds are (part of the group) dinosaurs. The last part of the sentence implies that somehow reptiles are more closely related to disonaurs than chickens, which is also false since reptiles don't belong to the clade dinosauria. Remove the whole sentence?

Birds are not dinosaurs. That is an oversimplification for shock value and to drive home a point concerning the ancestry and inter-relatedness of these two classes of animals. Birds are class Aves, dinosaurs are dinosauria. I concur on changing the wording of the sentence, but it should be pointed out that not all birds taste the same. I've had pheasant, dove, and ostrich and none of them were anything like chicken. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs - if you're using phylogenetic taxonomy. However, not everyone does so (even biologists don't do so all the time, or they would have to insist that birds are reptiles - and fish), and saying "dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds" does make sense for casual use. I'd rather dispute the original claim on the grounds that:

1) The theory "tasting like chicken is an ancestral trait of tetrapods subsequently lost by mammals" is almost completely without evidence, and has lots of contrary examples (birds that don't taste like chicken, mammals that allegedly do). The Annals of Improbable Research isn't the most rigorous of journals, I don't think.

2) The statement given in the article (rather than the Annals of Improbable Research) seems to get the logic backwards: "chickens are descended from dinosaurs which are descended from reptiles, therefore reptiles might TLC, therefore dinosaurs might TLC". At the very least, what it should be saying is "Chickens, modern reptiles, and modern amphibians all TLC, therefore the common ancestor probably TLC, therefore intermediate species probably did as well". Iapetus (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Annals of Improbable Research article is a primary source, so not appropriate for citing in a Wikipedia article. It is speculative entertainment with a sample size of 1, and should be written about as entertainment. Theyogre (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous information

The statement: "Also, chicken reportedly has lower levels of glutamates that contribute to the "savory" aspect of taste known as umami; processing or tenderizing other meats would also lower glutamate levels and make them taste more like chicken.", is obviously false. Chicken has more glutamatic acid (glutamates) at 3458 mg per 100 grams than salmon (2830 mg/100gr) or even beef (3191 mg/100gr) according to the German Wikipage on glutamic acid. Also this myth was busted on the Mythbuster show "Tastes like Chicken". 2A02:8070:249C:FA00:3015:6C71:925B:DE81 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

This article is unseasoned

I definitely think it's a subject that's worth researching, if not for deducing the plain fact of the matter when it comes to meat flavors, then for why the phrase has lingered in western culture. The article here is not the best though, it's full of unsourced statements and assumptions, such as the part about dinosaurs (an interesting proposition, but given how wildly avians actually vary in flavor and texture, you could never know for sure, given their extinction).

If there were any good sources or research on the matter, I think the idea of an article on the matter may have good merit, even if the idea of various meats 'tasting like chicken' is proven baseless or false. The problem would be to find those sources, if they even exist, which would then require new research. What would the field of study be for such a thing, and where might one source funding? 77.110.1.75 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Source of claim that chicken and turkey used to be tastier: More than questionable

aside from the fact that the cited article needs to be fetched from archive.org, https://web.archive.org/web/20071024140855/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw10212007/2003957455_pacificpturkeys21.html :

- Mentions genetic diversity of domestic chicken, but does not address the change in taste of chicken at all, only turkey - Is basically an interview with a poultry farmer, who should be cited as the source, not the interviewer, - Said farmer produces what he calls "heritage turkey"; he of course has a vested interest in portraying positive differences in taste as result of his unique breeds, and not, say, diet, preparation or customer expectation - the half-sentence where the citation "[2]" actually is attached to, namely "trace chemicals in the meat that would give it a distinctive flavor" is not even mentioned in the article

All in all, this source should be handled with a lot more care than it is done here. "Reportedly" is plain false.

I'd recommend to remove the whole paragraph – unless someone actually has (after 11 years of being marked as in need of reference) a reference that actually contains a clear study on how mass-produced chicken (and not turkey, this article isn't about turkey) is actually especially bland. (I've eaten home-raised cock; it indeed tasted more intense than most, but not all chicken meat I've had otherwise. I'm a primary source with N=1, so not appropriate for Wikipedia at all). 2001:9E8:3844:7C00:998F:CA6A:6065:3212 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)