There should be some information on the slaughter part of these animals. [[User:Hires an editor|Hires an editor]] ([[User talk:Hires an editor|talk]]) 14:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
There should be some information on the slaughter part of these animals. [[User:Hires an editor|Hires an editor]] ([[User talk:Hires an editor|talk]]) 14:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? There are other articles about that. Search an article about animal rights as example. No need to turn wikipedia into some activist tool.
Why? There are other articles about that. Search an article about animal rights as example. No need to turn wikipedia into some activist tool.<small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.65.221.23|62.65.221.23]] ([[User talk:62.65.221.23|talk]]) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
== food-borne illness ==
== food-borne illness ==
Revision as of 13:28, 23 May 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pork article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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.
Needs antiquities section, with abhorrence (and reasons) by Ancient Egypt, popularity in ancient Rome (I have some references) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Needs section on medieval French pork butcheries.
Section on Chinese cuisine
References
'nuff said!
Priority 1 (top)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pork article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
I really think a controversy page should be added to this article.
You mean write a separate article about pork controversies? I understand some people don't eat it for moral, doctrinal, and other reasons, but that doesn't seem controversial; for example, there's no disputing that Muslims generally don't eat pork. There is a discussion going on here about health effects, but the article can accommodate reporting on reliable scientific information or religious positions. -Agyle04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALthough it is true that vegetarians refrain from, among other things, the eating of pork, it is not necessary to describe this notion in any detail in an article on the subject of pork, or any other meat, for that matter. A link to a page on vegetarianism at the end of the article would more than suffice.
What does "smallgoods" mean? I can't find a definition of the term anywhere. When I search for it on Google, all I find is links to the Australian meat industry, and a band called The Smallgoods. Is it an Australian term for preserved meats? --64.165.112.14619:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smallgoods refer to the processed after goods of a certain carcass, this would (in the case of a pork carcass) mean pork sausages,bacon, also black and white puddings.
At the other end of the scale you might have pigs kidneys (although these are far too strong for human tastes)Trumpy08:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How come so many rappers (50 Cent, Fat Joe, Xzibit etc.) don't eat pork... according to thesmokinggun.com's backstage tour report?
This may be a cultural/ethnic thing. Some African Americans persuing their ethno-cultural African roots decide to become muslims and thus have religious reasons not to eat pork. Add copycat wannabes and you got a trend.
Other than that? No idea. I'd wager most of them do it for ideological reasons, though. Few people who specifically don't eat pork (rather than meat in general) do so for health reasons alone. -- Ashmodai02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, pork consumption is fairly uncommon in Africa, no matter one's religion or creed. It is a cultural trait that also crossed over into the United States during the era of slavery and became more prevalent during the civil rights era much later. SouthernComfort02:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is hearsay, I have heard that the consumption of spare-ribs started as a tradition among African-American slaves; since that specific cut was considered as throwaway and thus only suited for consumption by slaves and other lower classes. Only much later did ribs gain popularity as a dish among all strata of American society. If this is true, then I don't think the theory of an African aversion to pork transplanting to America holds water. At any rate, if anybody here is willing to take the time to properly research this (I don't really have the time), I'd appreciate if you include your findings here—I'd be very interested in what you find, as ribs are one of my favorite dishes. –Gravinos00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pig that's been sliced open- a carcass. Pork is something that's cut up into chops or some sort other preparation. Big difference. --65.27.34.18100:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! If you are looking for pork, you should see pictures of pork, not happy cartoon pigs. The pictures disgust me too--that's why I don't eat animals. If you want to eat pork and pretend it's plucked off trees ready-to-eat, then you shouldn't go looking it up on Wikipedia. NTK17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a balance---Wikipedia articles should be informative, not pushing a particular point of view. When I saw the pig-carcass picture as the first one on the page, I guessed immediately that it was inserted by a vegetarian, and it seems that I was correct. It should be on this page further down, but "pork" as a food (which is what this page is about) is more directly illustrated by a dish or cooked meat, which is what ought to be first. See the example on beef. --Delirium10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mr. Squeamish Porkeater, but you are jumping to conclusions. The image was added by User:David.Monniaux, a French Wikipedian who took the picture. There is nothing to indicate that David is vegetarian--in all probability he is not. Same goes for Heron, who as far as I can tell was perfectly sincere in his wholehearted "Yum!" Pork comes from pigs. We can have pictures of pigs in the article, we can have pictures of neatly wrapped pork cuts and cooked pork dishes (both of which are present), but the lead picture is most representative. Pork is "pig as meat," and the image of pork halfs, in their intermediate stage between live pig and prepared dish, is most representative of "pig as meat." So there's no need to be defensive. I've never edited this article, and I'm not aware of any vegetarians who have inserted any vegetarian views at all. NTK01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, if anything the pig halves image is not particularly explicit. I've found some good images from the USDA. (At your suggestion, added one to the Beef article). Here's one that could be used here: NTK15:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture is a bit weird -- halves of pigs hanging out in the open public? I don't mind pics of sliced pigs ending up in this article (pork comes from pigs after all -- and I don't have a problem with following nature's way there and eating dead animal parts) but there HAS to be a more apropos image for the introduction.
"Pork" refers more commonly to the actual meat (prepared or not) than the corpse itself (gutted and sliced, or not), so that's what the introduction should probably show. Although not advocating censorship, I would also suggest considering what kind of pictures will actually ADD to the article, rather than just shock/educate/etc meat lovers and/or veggies. You don't need to show detail photos of a bypass operation in order to illustrate an article on the human heart or heart surgery if a sketch/diagram does the job.
Yes, turning a dead pig into pork is a messy process, but there's a reason we don't have rotten.com-style photos on the articles about cannibalism, self mutilation or manslaughter, or pornographic photos on the sex-related articles. I don't mind the gruesomeness, but I know that a fair amount of people (veggies and carnis alike) do and don't want to be distracted by explicit imagery while reading an article. At least the current photo doesn't have all those guts hanging out of the corpses -- I guess that'd be the kind of thing that would turn most people off.
Adding NPOV pictures to NPOV articles can still have an POV effect -- simply because it creates a context that can be exploited for POV purposes. This is what creates the difference between documentation and propaganda (intentionally or not). -- Ashmodai02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture just makes me feel hungry, to be honest. I think it's an excellent one and quite like it where it is. Clearly I'm not cut out to be a vegetarian, though (or a Muslim). Palmiro | Talk11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like pig! Pig tastes good! Seeing whole pigs hanging makes me want to fire up my smoker! Keep the picture. Dogface04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't handle the picture, then you, along with the people who want to read about clitorises without seeing naughty bits, have the option of browsing with images turned off, and enabling them selectively. We don't eliminate on-point, non-gratuitous, informative and relevant content because someone might have a weak stomach. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Don't say that it shouldn't be shown. NTK03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive diversity of views here. My opinion is that the picture should stay, but be switched with one of the other pictures from further down the page. I agree with part of what Delirium said above; when most people hear the word "pork", they think of prepared meat. So for most people, an image of prepared pork best represents "pork". To a butcher, a farmer, or an animal rights activist, the image of the sliced pig might be better representative of "pork", but for most people it's more representative of where pork comes from than of pork itself. --Allen20:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NTK, my comment was sincere, but now I think that a comprise might be necessary. We are never going to please everybody, because there are different perceptions of animal products around the world. In some societies, people are used to seeing pigs' carcasses hanging up in butchers' shops or on their own farms, so they would not find the carcass photo remarkable. At the other extreme, there are probably urban societies where people only ever see meat in brand-named plastic packs. For balance, why don't we put the middle of the range, i.e. prepared cuts, at the top of the article, then introduce the two extremes, i.e. carcasses and the plastic-wrapped stuff, later? And yes, seriously, there should be a pic of a roast suckling pig with an apple in its mouth, and all the other pork products we can think of. --Heron16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep the picture. Since we cannot taste the picture, the only way to show how pork look like is to show part of the pig too. If anyone cannot handle how pork really looks like, they should stay away from the butcher markets. If anyone cannot face facts and reality, they should stay away from wikipedia. Reality is not always pretty. Kowloonese01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intention behind the split pig that opens this article, but I think it's a bit too graphic. The description of how pork is "gathered," so to speak, is rather clear in its own right. A Picture seems a bit unnecessary. "Just because you like the burger doesn't mean you want to meet the cow."
I've reverted the change. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored, being "put off" by an image that is obviously relevant is not a valid reason for its removal. A single image of pork just before it is jointed is appropriate, topical, and not particularly shocking. --Eyrian17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "meet the cow": obviously the description is not "clear in its own right"—given your and certain others' reactions to the picture, it is obviously adding to the article. Willful ignorance has no place in Wikipedia. Contrary to what an earlier commenter wrote, there are photographs at coronary artery bypass surgery. They are also not pleasant for the squeamish, but they go much further than a mere description or diagram to illustrate this amazing medical procedure which has become almost routine. Pork, if less beneficial or necessary according to some viewpoints, is a lot more routine than coronary bypasses. Let's get over this debate about pictures and move on. If you have something to add you can talk about placement and selection, but there is no room here for censorship. NTK13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the carcass photo skews the article NPOV, regardless of whether the original poster intended that.
The clear majority in this discussion agrees, and favors either moving or deleting the carcass photo. I've moved the carcass photo down, switching it with the cooked tenderloin photo. I think this is a fair compromise, and moving it to the "pork cuts" section actually makes more sense anyway. Rasi2290
Voting is irrelevant, what matters is substance and not count. That said, how does the carcass skew the article toward POV? --Eyrian21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a slaughter-man, this image shows pork as the finished product, if you folks can't handle that, that is your issue, not the fault of the person that posted the pic, grow up, this is an encyclopedia. Trumpy08:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cooking Pork
I recently went to a restaurant where they "by default" cook pork "medium" unless the customer requests otherwise. This was the first time I ever heard of anyone not fully cooking pork. What are the implications of eating undercooked pork? Are there cuisines where undercooked pork is usual? Kimonandreou15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason pork is commonly cooked all the way through is that eating raw pork can cause Trichinosis caused by trichinella. Cooking pork all the way through kills trinchella.
Pigs get trichinella the same way humans do: by eating infected meat. Therefore, undercooked pork is unlikely to pose much of a risk unless pigs are being fed undercooked meat themselves. That is, that they are swill or scrap fed, or are exposed to garbage (or are grown in somebody's backyard or allowed to roam free range through an unsecured paddock or similar). Swill feeding is now banned in some parts of the world and this considerably reduces disease risk.
And, in addition, the undercooked meat the pigs may eat would have to have been exposed to Trinchinella itself. So the prevalence of trinchinella in a region or area will influence how important it is to cook pork through. For example, in Australia, where I am from, Trinchinella does not exist so it is fine to cook pork "medium". I think that this is commonly done here and I've seen it recommended in cook books. There is also now no trinchinella in the UK.
Someone famous contracted trichinosis and tried to sue the restaurant before they died. I read it recently but can't remember who it was.--Moonlight Mile11:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very good documentary on Discovery Health Channel which posited the theory that Mozart died of trichinosis after eating undercooked pork chops. –Gravinos00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a picture of one of a roast pig's head with an apple stuck in its mouth. It's one of the few illustrations I can think of that would be suitable for the otherwise picture-less subtlety. If anyone knows of any, please post the link at talk:subtlety. PeterIsotalo13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find this by searching Pork + Cola. It's an urban legend that's said if you pour cola on raw porks, worms will start showing up. I think this should be added to the wiki page. Lightblade10:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for false rumors, unless they rise to significant prominence in reliable sources. --Eyrian14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pig isn't responsable for any worm itself. Pigs are the victims not responsable for worms. Pigs could be sick as also bull or fish. In fact the rejection to the pig is built by superstition or religion, not real science. One relative of me , a woman, ate pig all his life and she died with 101 years old, in 2007.Agre22 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Health effects
Doing some research on Google, I've found a website that details the health effects and such of eating pork - a subject area that this article distinctly lacks:
[1]
I plan to add information on the article from this site sometime in the near future. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. Black-Velvet11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that the reason Prof. Abdussalam has written this article is religious. However, we don't evaluate sources based on the motivations of the authors. Otherwise, we'd have to exclude most sources on Semitic languages and Middle Eastern archaeology, among others. The article also seems pretty sober and well-referenced. Moreover, even if there is some bias, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we report on all significant points of view on a subject (with appropriate framing statements). However, this article, as far as I can tell, has not been published in a refereed journal, so it does not meet the Wikipedia reliable source criterion. --Macrakis15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a guideline, not a criteria. It does contain a lot of useful information on the topic, and it is referenced (by many non-Muslim sources) cites many non-Muslim sources. If you want, I can ask an admin's opinion. Black-Velvet12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where did you find the "many references"? I found 1 link and 3 title references in Google, and no mentions in Google Scholar. Dr. M. Abdussalam does seem to be an authority on food safety, but this particular article doesn't seem to have been published yet. --Macrakis12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of online Wiki sources are unpublished, that doesn't make the information they contain redundant. Just look at the reference list for this article:
1. SIMOONS, F.J., "Eat Not This Flesh." Madison, Wisconsin, 1961.
2. GEMMEL, M. et al. (edits).," Guidelines for surveillance prevention and control of taeniasiscysticercosis," Geneva: World Health Organization, 1983, VPH/83.49 (Mimeographed) (This publication gives a full bibliography and can be consulted for further information.)
3. "In Mexico City 1.9% of all human deaths are caused by cysticercosis and T. solium cysticerci are found in 3.5% of all autopsies performed." (WHO EXPERT COMMITTEE ON PARASITIC ZOONOSES, TRS, 637, 1979, Geneva: World Health Organization).
4. SCHENONE, H. et al. "Epidemiology of human cysticercosis in Latin America. " In: FLIESSER, A. et al. (edts.). "Cysticercosis: present state of knowledge and perspectives." New York: Academic Press, 1982, pp. 25-38.
5. See, for example, CHANDLER, A.C., "Introduction to Parasitology (with special reference to the parasites of man)," New York: J. Wiley, 1955.
6. RECKEWEG, H.H., "Schweinefleisch und Gesundheit." Biologische Medizin, 6, 437.455 and 502-506, 1977.
7. "Ernahrungsbericht" 1984, pp. 222-223. Frankfurt/Main: Deutsche Geselischaft fur Ernahrung e.V.
8. NANJI, AMIN A. and FRENCH, S.W., "Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. - Lancet, March 23, 1985, pp. 681-683.
9. ALLEN, C. E. and MACKEY, M.A., " Compositional characteristics and the potential for change in foods of animal origin, " in BEITZ, D.C. and HANSEN, R.G., "Animal products in human nutrition, " New York: Academic Press, 1982.
10. LAWRIE, R.A. - "Meat Science, " Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966.
11. LAWRIE, R.A., "Meat Science," Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966.
12. WILHAM, R. L., "Historic development of the use of animal products in human nutrition," in BEITZ, D.C. and HANSEN, R.G., "Animal products in human nutrition," New York: Academic Press, 1982.
13. WHO EXPERT COMMITTEE ON ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION. "Techn. Rep. Ser. No. 628," Geneva, 1978.
14. "Primary prevention of essential hypertension." REPORT OF A WHO SCIENTIFIC GROUP, "Techn. Rep. Serv. No. 686, " Geneva, 1983.
15. YAMORI, T. et al. "Clinical and experimental pharmacology," Suppl. 3, p. 199, 1976 (cited by the WHO Expert Committee on Arterial Hypertension, 1978).
16. "Prevention of coronary heart disease." REPORT OF A WHO EXPERT COMMITTEE, "Techn. Rep. Ser. No. 678, " 1982.
17. REDDY, B.S., "Influence of dietary fat, protein, and fiber on colon cancer development, " in BEITZ, D.C. and HANSEN, RG. - "Animal Products in Human Nutrition," New York: Academic Press, 1982.
18. ARMSTRONG, B. and DOLL, R., "Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries with special reference to dietary practices. " Int. J. Cancer, 15, 617-631.
19. HOWELL, M.A., "Diet as an etiologric factor in the development of cancers of the colon and rectum. " J. Chron. Dis., 28, 67.80.
20. For a discussion of this subject reference may be made to: "Residues of veterinary drugs in foods," FAO Food and Nutrition paper, No. 32, 1985.
21. "Health aspects of residues of anabolics in meat" (REPORT OF A WHO WORKING GROUP) Euro Repts and Studies, 59, Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 1982.
22. "IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans - Sex hormones. LYON: INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, Vol. 6 (1974) and Vol. 21 (1979)
23. DARBY, W.J. et al., "Food.. the gift of Osifis, " vol. 1. London: Academic Press, 1977.
24. SIMONS, J., "Eat not this flesh, " Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.
Huh? You claimed that "it is referenced (by many non-Muslim sources)" but have not provided evidence for this. That is a list of sources it cites. --Macrakis13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the aforementioned article: while it's pretty clear that the motivation behind its authoring was religious, it does seem to be in good faith. That's just this pork-consumer's humble opinion, though. –Gravinos00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pig isn't responsable for any health problem itself. Pigs could be sick as also bull or fish. In fact the rejection to the pig is built by superstition or religion, not real science. One relative of me , a woman, ate pig all his life and she died with 101 years old, in 2007.Agre22 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]
Agre22, long life is one thing, and a healthy, pure life is another thing. You may suffer due to misery caused by unpleasant diseases till you are 100. Is that a good life?? -59.95.12.37 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pork (or any other meat for that matter) has various bad effects on health. People eat meat anyway because of the taste and try to convince themselves that meat is not so bad. But apart from health... in India the "aroma" of cooked pork (mostly at Christian or non-religious homes) and other meats is felt as an unbearable stench by many Hindus. One man's food is another man's poison? Why is this? Cultural differences? What is the scientific reason? -59.95.12.37 (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wild Boar is an important part of pork.
It is shot and dressed here in New Zealand and makes for a really nice meal.
It has REAL taste, as opposed to the washed out flavour of farm raised pigs.
I have the meat of a boar and a sow in my freezer, should be good eating, think, extreme crackling!,MMM mmmmm(Trumpy09:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Boar meat can be tougher than farm-raised pig meat, yes. The animal is probably much older and ate a much less energy-dense diet than its farm-raised counterpart. Problems with tenderness can sometimes be overcome by mechanical tenderization, which is either done most often with needles or blades, or by moist-heat cooking methods. CRaines (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opening paragraph change
Currently the opening paragraph is "Pork is the culinary name for meat from pigs. It is one of the most common meats consumed by people. Like beef, it is taboo in some religions and cultures." I'd propose replacing the 2nd and 3rd sentence with something like: "It is the meat most consumed by people worldwide, despite its prohibition by several major religions." The Raloff citation (currently citation 3) says it's the most common meat consumed worldwide (by weight of meat, and by humans, of course), and while exact numbers vary by sources I've seen (UN's FAOS, USDA's FAS, US Pork Council), its position as most-consumed meat (even if you include fish & poultry) does not. Beef seemed an unnecessary meat to single out for likeness, as whale, horse, dog, etc. also qualify, and a comparison isn't needed anyway. Cultural or health-based prohibitions seem likely to be minor compared to religious prohibitions, though I've seen no stats breaking those out, and no cultural taboos were mentioned in the article. I'm considering the governmental bans listed in the article as side effects of the religious prohibitions, although perhaps government prohibitions should be mentioned too. -Agyle05:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "Not verified" tag?
There's been a "not verified" tag since July. There are some references cited in the article, and I don't see any fact tags concerning specific sentences or sections. How about removing the overall not verified tag, and if someone thinks a given section needs further verification, they can tag that specifically? -Agyle05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trotters?
So both the rear and front legs have trotters?
I thought that one of them was something else...The front are hands or the back are feet or something like that. I certainly remember a episode of some soap opera where a guy raising a pig makes the mistake of promising to sell 4 trotters.--Josquius 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The term 'trotter' is most typically refer to the front legs of a sheep, but can refer to the front legs of a pig as well. The trotter-equivalent on the rear leg of a pork carcass is a hock. It appears that your soap opera guy was mistaken. CRaines (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph states "As with beef in Hinduism, pork consumption is taboo in Islam and Judaism." These are religious reasons but their background differ very much. In Hinduism cows are sacred animals and in Islamism pigs are considered filthy, unholy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.82.221 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pig cultivation
The first para speaks of "pig cultivation." Such a practice would be cruel and unusual. Daffodils are cultivated, corn is cultivated, even, I believe, some ladies are cultivated, but pigs, like cattle, sheep, and all other farm animals, are raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs)
This article says ALL pig meat (including ham, bacon, prociutto, etc.) is called pork. This may be a technical term but i know of NO ONE who refers to ham or bacon as pork. It should be noted that usually (or rather coloquially) pork refers to the meat of the mid-section of the pig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of Swine Flu not appropriate for this article
Recent edits are adding information to the potential health risks section. These evidence for these edits are from low quality citations. Please do not cite news articles about studies- instead cite the study. Also, a web page without scientific citations is of questionable value no matter what institute it is from. Preferably the citations would be from review articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I would add that all of the religious quotes from holy books belong not on this page but on the link provided regarding the religious prohibitions. It would be more appropriate to have specifics about cooking and cuts of meat here than a pile of quotes from religious texts. 69.123.13.152 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict Over Worms
Under the paragraph titled "Fresh Meat" reads this sentence:
"Despite popular belief, it is a myth that raw pork contains "hook worms" or any sort of worms. Only when the pork is rotting will it develop any type of larvae or worms."
Under the paragraph titled "Potential Health Risks" read this:
"The pig is the carrier of various helminths, like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc. One of the most dangerous and common is Taenia solium, a type of tapeworm. Tapeworms may transplant to human intestines as well by consuming untreated or uncooked meat from pigs or other animals."
Good call, 198... i have removed the earlier mention of no worms since it was not referenced. The Health risk section is referenced for trichinosis, but could use ref for other worms. Bob98133 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are other articles about that. Search an article about animal rights as example. No need to turn wikipedia into some activist tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.221.23 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
food-borne illness
Hi, 70... Do you really think that the name of the manufacturer and the weight in pounds needs to be included regarding Listeria Monocytogenes? What struck me as important was that this product was "fully cooked" yet contained diseases which you seem to think can only be transmitted by uncooked pork, which I've changed to undercooked. While your quote from FSIS about cooking killing these organisms is correct, and should be included, it doesn't seem that this recommendation is always followed. Bob98133 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HI Bob, im sorry if i went over the top there. I think the important thing I was trying communicate is that in that instance the phrase "fully cooked" was part of the products name and didnt necessarily communicate if the product was actually properly cooked. I think given that the FSIS statement says that properly cooked pork will not have these diseases we should consider these "cooked" foods cited as being undercooked. I just think that its important to mantain the distinction between the presence of disease in raw/undercooked and properly cooked pork. 70.112.184.148 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Leave it and see if other editors have any problem with it. Silly me to think that "fully cooked" meant cooked fully. Undercooking was a big problem years ago when microwaves became popular since they don't heat foods evenly. Bob98133 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
references in Islam section
none of these references work - all go to 404 pages - the Cdn government apparently changed the url format for these pages. Bob98133 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hey, shouldn't the introduction section state "In Islam, Judaism and some sects of Christianity," since Ethiopian Orthodox christians don't eat pork as do 7th day adventists? I'll make the change if no disputes, also sikhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.74.249 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hams, etc.
The lead currently points out that "The word pork denotes specifically the fresh meat of the pig that is left unsalted, but it is often mistakenly used as an all-inclusive term which includes cured, smoked, or processed meats (ham, bacon, prosciutto, etc.)" yet two sentences later explains that "Pork is eaten in several forms, including cooked (as roast pork), cured (some hams, including the Italian prosciutto) or smoked or a combination of these methods (other hams, gammon, bacon or Pancetta)." So just how mistaken is it to use pork as an all inclusive term, when Wikipedia does just that?193.82.198.157 (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Size of pork farms in the Netherlands. Farmers say they need larger herds to compete on the global market.
Pollution concerns from increased manure output.
Antibiotic concerns, use of.
Netherlands government discussing these issues.
Decrease in pork farmers down from 28000 in 1990 to about 2000 in the near future.
Pork and Cannibalism
What the reference said was that it INCREASES 3% of piglet mortality not that 3% of Piglet mortality is caused by Cannibalism.
Also it is utterly irrelevant to state that some psychopath thinks that Pork tastes human flesh.
I removed this section entirely. JayBee1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.173.110 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically pigs were only valued because their hocks and trotters made effective weapons for early European tribes. Hrothgar once said: "thine trotters shall be smitten by mine blade, henceforth.""
Could the material in this section be re-worked elsewhere? It goes from stating statistics to a subsection on pork culture in Asia, with a Brazilian dish thrown in as well. Could a section on Pork by region be added, where this will fit better? '''tAD''' (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image gallery
To avoid gallery grown into cluttering image-o-rama, I suggest one country one image only. Any unnecessary addition of certain nation pork dishes would be deleted. Thank you.Gunkartatalk13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can not be like that. If you think like that, pork dish will be limited of image and stuck for the knowledge talkm — Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Readers can always refer to Wikimedia link Category:Pork_dishes if they're interested to see more pork dishes images. Per MOS:Image. May I ask you what is your motivation to push much of Singapore pork dishes into gallery? Gunkartatalk13:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use of pig farm image in the pork page
Given that the article is on pork, it is natural to include where pork comes from. I cannot find more recent stats, but the intensive animal farming page says that "In the U.S., as of 2000 four companies produced 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 60 percent of pigs, and 50 percent of chickens and according to its National Pork Producers Council, 80 million of its 95 million pigs slaughtered each year are reared in industrial settings." Given that the majority of pork in the world comes from intensive animal farming, I find it is more than reasonable to include an image on it. Smk65536 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pigs are natural foragers, but you didn't just add a picture of a pig, you chose the picture of a pig in a cage. And you are attempting to justify changing the image in this article's lead (and the caption) by making use of one country's figures from 15 years ago? These are figures that don't actually currently form part of this article. I would suggest it would be more appropriate to develop a description within the article of any intensive animal farming issues that relate to pork, before attempting to make changes to the selection of images. You might want to revise your estimates about intensive pig farming to being closer to about half of pigs being raised in intensive settings worldwide [3]. And please note that the sow stalls have been banned in the UK since 1999 and across the EU since 2013. [4] Some other pig welfare info here: [5]Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Pigs are natural foragers" This is irrelevant to the discussion. "by making use of one country's figures from 15 years ago" as I have said, I like to base my arguments on fact, and I could not find better figures. In the first article you linked, in the "pig farming today" section, I quote "at least half of the world's pig meat is produced from intensive systems." This corroborates my finding. "sow stalls have been banned in the UK since 1999 and across the EU since 2013" change in legislation is great, but that does not change the fact about the current situation, where more than half of the worlds pig meat is produced from intensive systems. Smk65536 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on pig farming, it is an article on pork and I'm trying to help maintain a WP:NPOV. There are currently 2 pictures in the lead section, one of an uncooked cut of pork, one of some pork being cooked. Also, when I have provided you with up-to-date referenced information please have the courtesy to desist from claiming that you have found information that corroborates your finding- I explained that around half of pigs are reared in industrial settings when you had initially estimated 80/95 or 85% (using an outdated source relating to a single country). Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not an article on pig farming" again, this is irrelevant to the discussion, and I am trying to add useful illustrative pictures to the article which relate to where pork comes from in the world. It is you who should desist from your intellectually dishonest debate tactics. My claim, which I repeat again, is that the majority of pork comes from pig farming, not the strawman argument that you have set up above, claiming that I say this is "85%" in the world.Smk65536 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd support an image of a pig (living or in hung carcass form), as with the beef or veal articles. I can't help but think your insistence on giving prominence to a picture of pigs in their own excrement is linked to the ideologies espoused on your user page – I think WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., would suggest we omit your suggested image. That image is already featured on a number of more relevant pages that actually discuss intensive pig farming. IgnorantArmies(talk)14:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE come into play here. Pig farming is certainly not a fringe topic. But I'm ok with your suggestion of showing a different image of where most pork comes from. I suggest that the images in the Cat meat article also be taken into account. Smk65536 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved