Numbers cannot be right: In 2007, the population of the US was not much less than 320,000,000. If every citizen ate more than 8kg of bacon, the amount eaten cannot have been 320,000,000kg. Now on to the Scholastics... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas plagwitz (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these numbers are not right and do not match Wikipedia's population numbers. The link (15) that this statistic references is dead. Based my personal knowledge of my own household I know that we do not eat 90lbs of bacon a year (almost 2lbs a week). And if we did the total number would be more like 5 billion lbs total. So I imagine that the 700,000,000 is correct but we only eat 2.25 lbs of bacon a year in the US. Probably another statistic for bacon use should be found since this has no reference and is obviously incorrect. Gsonwiki (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Canadian bacon, which is the American term for the same cut, is not in common parlance among Canadians;
its association with their country is a mystery to them." Funny, I live in Canada and I just bought some back bacon in Costco yesterday. You could hardly call an item carried by Costco "rarely seen". phreakydancin (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's available, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as the name "Canadian bacon" would suggest. I had never heard of or eaten back bacon until a trip to the U.S. when I was 12, when someone asked me if we Canadians ate Canadian bacon all the time, and I gave him a confused look. --Saforrest (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, you can find regular strip-type bacon (the kind that is also common in the U.S.) taking up lots of shelf space in most supermarkets in Canada. If you want back bacon/peameal bacon, you're going to have to look a little more carefully to find it, and I wouldn't be surprised if small or rural grocery stores didn't have it at all. I don't think I've ever eaten it at home, only at fairs and exhibitions. I think that Costco sells lots of food items that most Canadians have never eaten in their lives. I looked for stats on sales in Canada, but I haven't found any. Canadiana (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a whole thread discussing the difficulties encountered by a man in search of Canadian back bacon anywhere in Montreal (the second largest city in Canada): ISO Canadian Back BaconCanadiana (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite bacon since the 1960s has been simple back bacon. I rarely eat it since it costs a fortune. Easier just to get kolbassa and fry it, eh. (Now that's Canadian.) As for peameal bacon, I have never been very fond of it, since the peameal is gratuitous and too salty. It is around, but you do have to look for it.
And I am still unclear whether "Canadian bacon" to an American means back bacon or peameal, or either.
Varlaam (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (in Toronto)[reply]
Who would eat back bacon, it's disgusting. Anyway, as a Torontoinan who loves Bacon I can attest that in 26 years of life asking for "bacon" on various foods, only once have I been given back bacon. ...dunno if that helps. Nickjbor (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so by Canadian bacon, do you mean the term or the food? I really only know Canadian bacon as a pizza topping, and came here to find out what it really is, and apparently it means many things. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This part of why it is confusing "Canadian-style bacon must be made from the pork loin, and means back bacon,[15] but this term refers usually to the lean ovoid portion (m. longissimus, or loineye).[10] It also can be made from the sirloin portion of the loin (gluteal muscles), but must be labeled appropriately." This sentence doesn't make sense. perhaps it is the technical jargon, but the grammar doesn't help. if Canadian bacon must be made from pork loin it can't be made from anything else. Which term refers to the lean ovoid portion, canadian bacon or back bacon? Is Canadian bacon just another term for back bacon? or a term for a specific kind of back bacon, how many kinds of back bacon are there? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In every part of the US where I have lived, "Canadian bacon" is a cured, roughly cylindrical pork product with no readily visible fat at all. I don't know what part of the pig the meat comes from,Cured back bacon, sliced and it may be manufactured as a composite of several different muscles, but unlike regular bacon its slices are rounded rather than long, narrow strips, and it contains no visible fat. It looks very much like the largest lean portion of the back bacon in this photograph, but with all of the surrounding fat removed. If the objects in this photograph truly are what is called "back bacon" (a term and a product I have never heard of before), then "Canadian bacon" is the same thing only after all the visible fat and smaller lean portions have been removed from the largest lean portion. It is strikingly different from what we Americans call simply "bacon" – it is much more like very lean ham in both taste and appearance. If this helps, the meat on an Egg McMuffin from McDonald's is what I and every other American I know would call "Canadian bacon," although McDonald's slices are more fully circular than what is sold in supermarkets as Canadian bacon. I am speaking from a US viewpoint only; I do not know what "Canadian bacon" would mean to Canadians, if anything.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A simple note (since Americans eat so little bacon) telling what US bacon is called in the UK would be a good addition.
Something like:
Slices from the pork belly (with streaks of meat and of fat) are referred to as streaky bacon, streaky rashers or belly bacon and is most like what is commonly called bacon in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsonwiki (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US bacon isn't called anything in the UK. We don't have US bacon here. :) Archolman 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we Americans don't have haggis or black pudding, but we know what they are.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we have an equivalent to American Bacon in the UK, it's just we call it streaky bacon, you can buy it smoked or unsmoked. There are lots of kinds of British bacon, back, middle, streaky, smoked, unsmoked, air dried, etc, etc. It already mentions this in the article "Slices from the pork belly (with streaks of meat and of fat) are referred to as streaky bacon, streaky rashers or belly bacon."--62.249.233.80 (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really say "aqua" in English? If this is primarily an Italian language usage, then shouldn't this be acqua? Varlaam (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Portal|Bacon}}
Created The Bacon Portal, at Portal:Bacon. Use {{Portal|Bacon}} to display a link in [[WP:ALSO|see also sections of related articles, see example at right. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno how to start a topic, but this really needs to be said,
THIS ARTICLE NEEDS AN IN POPULAR CULTURE SECTION
it should also include the fact that "beer can" read aloud with an English accent is "bacon" with a Jamacan accent
...important stuff folks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.3.184 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a how a popular culture section would be achieved. It's bacon, a common food. The "fact" that people with a Jamaican accent pronounce "beer can", as "bacon" is utterly trivial, and therefore probably would be impossible, or at least very difficult, to integrate into the article. --George2001hi 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you also need to add how when the world ends, bacon will more than likely be used as a form of currency as it is delicious and has no representative value as bacon is awesome.
Too long winded. Replace with "awesome" after "Bacon is". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.91.51 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a (Cornish) recipe for curing bacon. Would this be best in a sub-section of the Description, or a section of it's own? A ham curing recipe could be included, to illustrate the difference. Archolman 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have a North American view, (& spellings, although it is supposedly written in UK English), e.g. "fresh bacon". I have never heard this term used to describe "green bacon" in the UK. Just a thought.
I like the article, & bacon. It's made me peckish! Hmmmmm, bacon sarny & Daddy's sauce! Archolman 00:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove the following unsupported suggestion that the Bakony region of Hungary is a possible source of the English word bacon:
The other possible origin of the word bacon is the Bakony area in North-Western Hungary. Where a bacon type kind of meat, szalonna, has been produced for centuries. This szalonna became a much loved commodity around the world and was shipped to, among other countries, Great Britain under the name "Bakony".
The old Germanic roots of the word bacon are very well attested and appear to be universally accepted by English language dictionaries and other authorities. The word was in the English language before the suggested commerce in cured pork products between Bakony and Great Britain is likely to have occurred anyway.
Although I do not suspect the editor's good intentions, and the suggestion is intriguing, I could find no outside support for this suggestion. Even the WP article on Bakony makes no mention of its likely impact on the name of this longtime staple of the English diet. If anyone can provide reliable documentation that the word bacon was indeed derived from Bakony, please restore this deletion along with adequate citations from reputable sources.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this reference (archived here) from something called The Budapest Report (archived here), which seems to be a sort of blog in English by Hungarian journalists. Although it was not cited, this article almost certainly is where the editor who added the suggestions about Bakony got the information.
The Budapest Report site certainly looks professional, but it cites absolutely no evidence supporting its conjecture that the English word bacon "most likely got its name from a type of Hungarian szalonna produced in the Bakony region." That lack of a reliable source, coupled with the universal attribution by English language dictionaries of bacon's etymology to Germanic roots – with no mention of the Bakony region in Hungary – convinces me that the bacon/Bakony connection is fundamentally someone's fantasy, based on the superficial similarity between the two words and the coincidence that a bacon-like product is produced in Bakony.
Every other site I could find that makes the same claim quotes either the Budapest Report article or (and there are many more of these) this WP article.--Jim10701 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further investigation led me to a comment written by Andras M. Badics, the author of the Budapest Report article noted above, in response to an earlier comment challenging his claim that bacon is named for Bakony. The earlier comment had quoted Merriam-Webster's assertion (shared by all other major English language dictionary publishers) that bacon is attested at least as early as the early 14th century (1300-1350), was derived via Middle English and Anglo-French from a Germanic root, and is cognate with the English word back. Badics wrote in response to that challenge:
The bacon - bakony [sic] idea is from Dr. Istvan Kiszely who claims that we exported 300,000 cattle annually to the British during Hungary's Turkish period, which is somewhere around the time you mention in the etymology.
"Somewhere around the time" is off by a couple of centuries. According to the WP article on Hungary, the Turks did not even partially conquer Hungary until the Battle of Mohács in 1526, when bacon had already been an English word for at least 200 years. Although Istvan Kiszely does seem to be a respected Hungarian anthropologist, his expertise in the history of the English language seems to be deficient with regard to the origin of the English word bacon.--Jim10701 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In continental Europe, this part of the pig is usually not smoked like bacon is in the United States..." Does this mean pork belly is not smoked or that all bacon is not usually smoked? The (overly long, needs trimming) lead does not have a close enough instance of specific part name to know which "this part" is. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Baconsalt.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Article says that cuts from side or back of pig are usually used for bacon except in the US. This seems like a dubious claim to me. It is true that belly cuts have gone out of fashion due to the fear of fat, but I think they are still used in classical cooking in Europe. For example, if a classical French recipe calls for bacon it definitely means belly and not back bacon. Likewise, pancetta, which is Italian bacon, is always belly.
From personal experience, in the UK "streaky" bacon (from belly) is always available whenever back bacon is. Older people do not seem to accept back bacon as bacon at all.
So we need a source for the "usually" part, or else it should be changed to "bacon is traditionally from belly but increasingly from other cuts like back" or something. -- Borb (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love bacon. I'm an American, well educated and well fed. I have never heard another American refer to bacon as "side pork" as the article says Americans do. Perhaps this is an error in the article. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a regional thing?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to wikipedia's philosophy, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
Therefore, if this article is missing many citations, then someone should add {{Citations missing}} to the top. I can't do it because this is semi-protected. --96.242.163.228 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first paragraph of the lead contains the statement "Fresh and dried bacon must be cooked before eating". This sentence should be removed, as various bacons (such as Jamón serrano) are eaten uncooked.
89.100.207.51 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: There is no evidence that Jamón serrano is a type of bacon or prepared in the same way as fresh and dried bacon which must be cooked prior to eating.RyanVeseyReview me! 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bacon is a general term for any kind of cured pork. Jamon serrano is a variety of cured pork, so Jamon serrano is a variety of bacon. The same applies to prosciutto crudo, which is also eaten uncooked. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking that unsourced material be removed. Sources are not required for the removal of unsourced content. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Similarly, you have no evidence to support removing it. With a edit request, you need to include sources, as we may know little about the subject Mdann52 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Burden citations are required for adding or restoring material, not for removing unsourced material. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found a source that explicitly states that bacon may be eaten raw [1]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I didn't quite do what the IP asked for - but "must" is too far anyway. Of course anyone with a frigging brain would cook it but there's no LAW (at least for personal consumption) that forces one to. In any case even if that's reverted, the IP has had plenty of discussion so answered=yes EggCentric 21:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - I think you would need to establish some consensus for this. It's kind of a meaningless statement - after all any food MAY be eaten cooked or uncooked. Any substance even! EggCentric 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase: "Fresh and dried bacon are eaten both cooked and uncooked." 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much better. But one could just omit the sentence entirely? quota (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it ought to be cooked is OR. Per WP:Burden, citations are required for adding or restoring material, not for removing unsourced material. It should be removed as it is OR. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How was it clearly against consensus? Bacon may not generally be eaten raw 'in your experience', that does not mean that it is not generally eaten raw. Eating it raw is quite common. And how does BLUE apply? All sorts of foods carry risks from eating, that doesn't mean that they aren't eaten.89.100.207.51 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know trichinosis is an issue, but that doesn't change the fact that bacon is consumed both raw and cooked, in the same way that salmonella being a risk doesn't change the fact that raw eggs are consumed (e.g. in mayonnaise). From new scientist, vol. 38 (1891): "The best Bologna sausages are made of chopped bacon and pea-flour, and are flavored chiefly with garlic and cloves. When the bacon is old, but sound, says the Sanitarian, such sausages are wholesome and highly nutritious, and are especially useful to laborers, travelers, and soldiers in camp, and others who have not the means of cooking at hand. They rarely spoil, but, being eaten uncooked, they may sometimes introduce trichinæ." 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: No consensus for change. Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Fresh and dried bacon ought to be cooked before eating." is Original Research. Per WP:CONLIMITED, lack of consensus on one project does not override wider policies such as No Original Research. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus to provide sources is on the editor who adds or reinstates material. The statement is unsourced. I have provided reliable sources that show that it is untrue. It should be removed. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: See above Mdann52 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much more willing to make this edit than Mdann52 appears to be except the references aren't adequate. The references don't provide enough information that I would know where to find the information. Attempt to use {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}} RyanVeseyReview me! 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[6][reply]
References
^"Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's magazine". 84–85. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
I agree that if properly sourced, this section would make a useful addition. LadyofShalott 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe there is enough information. I will Assume good faith because I don't have access to the sources, but there isn't enough information to identify the source. What in The Bacon Cookbook says that Hungarian Gypsy Bacon is eaten uncooked? I assume you used the cookbook to find the information so you have a page number. What in New Scientist says that it has an increased risk of causing Trichinosis is there a title to the article? RyanVeseyReview me! 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A side note for Dennis Brown. If you like bacon as much as I do, you should try Bacon Explosion. I've only made it once in my life, but it was beyond amazing. RyanVeseyReview me! 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The info on gypsy bacon is on page 11 of the bacon cookbook "cured spiced pig belly blackened with pigs blood before long smoking. Eaten uncooked or cooked." The article was actually in popular science, not new scientist, my bad [2]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now:The references still are not descriptive enough. In addition, you could consider using the reference I provided. RyanVeseyReview me! 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, is the page title of the Bacon Cookbook reference "Gypsy Bacon" or "Hungarian Gypsy Bacon"? If so, consider using |chapter= to insert that title and then |page=11 to give a page number. My same remarks apply to Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book. For the other sources, do you have page numbers and dates for the articles? Your first source is from 1928; however, without more identifying information nobody could find it even if they had access to the paper. What was the title of the article that referred to it? Was there a page number? RyanVeseyReview me! 12:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually curious as to some of the accuracy of some of this now. Your quote from the bacon cookbook states "cured spiced pig belly blackened with pigs blood before long smoking. Eaten uncooked or cooked." It really appears that the bacon was cured and smoked which would mean it was cooked. People can then choose to finish cooking it or eat it "raw", but not raw because it was already smoked. The information in that reference worries me that the entire section is based on this same idea-that the bacon is eaten "raw" having already been smoked. RyanVeseyReview me! 12:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
[reply]
That doesn't necessarily mean the information shouldn't be included, but it could be changed to something like "Some varieties of bacon are eaten without cooking prior to serving; although, they are still smoked or cured. In some cultures this is the norm. Varieties eaten "raw"..." RyanVeseyReview me! 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smoked does not mean cooked. Smoking at sufficiently high temperatures will cook food, in the same way that exposing food to air at sufficiently high temperatures will cook food. The fact that something is smoked does not mean it is cooked, anymore than the fact that food has been exposed to air would mean that it is cooked. Please see Smoking_(cooking)#Types The reference specifically states that gypsy bacon may be eaten cooked or uncooked. Uncooked means uncooked, not "only cooked once". I find it strange that you're attempting to impose such a burdensome requirement on the formatting of my references when swathes of the article are completely unreferenced yet are allowed to remain. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "burdensome" requirement is normal practice for introducing references after a person's first month or two of editing. Another editor may make this change, but personally, I think that due to the fringe-like nature of your statement, it needs well formatted references. RyanVeseyReview me! 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is fringe-like about it? Bacon is eaten cooked in some cases, and uncooked in other cases. It's a simple fact, and I have provided references to reliable sources to back it up. Even if it were fringe-like, and it's not, that would have no bearing on how the references should be formatted. Nor does the fact that I haven't been editing for as long as you have any bearing on how my references need to be formatted. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that the fact that you haven't been editing for as long should have any bearing on how your references need to be formatted. What I meant to state was that once an editor has been editing for a while, they fill out the entire references. That is the proper way to do it because it makes it easier for a reader or another editor to verify the information. Assuming you have access to the information, filling out your references should be easy. RyanVeseyReview me! 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article discuss both cooked and uncooked varieties of bacon, or only cooked varieties? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article should cover both varieties. No need to unnecessarily split the article. TOW talk 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to cover both as uncooked varieties are a notable aspect of the subject. Additionally, excluding uncooked varieties in favour of cooked ones skews the article away from a global perspective and onto a US/UK perspective where cooked varieties are the norm. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The article should clearly discuss both varieties as has been determined above. Please fill out the references and I would be more than happy to include your section in the article. RyanVeseyReview me! 17:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you saw and I remarked, I was restoring edits that were made without consensus. RyanVeseyReview me! 04:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything. Per WP:BURDEN "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Per WP:CONLIM, lack of consensus on a given page doesn't override broader policies such as WP:No original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
89.100.207.51, this is wikilawyer-y side noise that sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF. You're using Ryan's revert of a non-consensus removal of unsourced content as justification for asking him to add almost-but-not-quite-properly sourced material? Don't do that, you know it's not right. Instead, get the sourcing for the material you'd like to add right. (By the way, WP:CONLIM isn't policy--it's not even a content guideline--and is irrelevant anyway. Maybe you meant to point to something else?) Zad68 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC comment I am providing a comment in response to the RFC listing. My comment: Both Ryan Vesey and 89.100.207.51 are "right," and if each editor would listen to the other, you'd come to a consensus very quickly and improve the article with relevant, sourced content in proper balance. It looks like there is a miscommunication between Ryan Vesey and 89.100.207.51, Ryan is saying that the material need to be sourced properly, and he's right; 89.100.207.51 is saying the material should be in the article, and he's right, but I think 89.100.207.51 is interpreting Ryan's insistence on proper sourcing as pushback against having the material included, which isn't actually the case. Details:
Pay attention to WP:UNDUE. I did some Google scholar searches regarding uncooked bacon and found very little, but more than nothing. Keep this material in proper proportion. I actually think the amount of content 89.100.207.51 is suggesting is in good proportion to the sources given then size of the article.
Reliable sources must be cited properly for the material. I think the sources are there, but just need to be cited properly.
Re "cooked", be careful here, cooking does not require heat, as the WP article says. Generally, when something is "cooked", it has undergone some sort of chemical change, usually from heat, but not always, take a look at ceviche. However I think splitting this hair about whether something that has been low-temperature smoked has been "cooked" or not is a red herring. If reliable sources indicate that strips of salt-cured pig meat have been smoke-flavored are called "bacon," then article content regarding it is justified. The article should use "raw" or "uncooked" or "flavored" or "low-temperature smoked" or whatever other term the sources use.
This is an easy one, wrap it up and get the content into the article. Zad68 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to point to WP:CONLIMITED, not WP:CONLIM. I still can't see how unsourced material is favourable to sourced material that simply hasn't been formatted to a particularly high standard.89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
89.100.207.51, by asking to have a poorly-sourced edit put in, and pointing to the revert of the removal of an unsourced edit as justification, you're not trying to make a point, are you? If so, that's a bad idea. Do you really want your change in or not? I agree with Ryan, your suggested change just needs to have its sourcing provide more detail and be formatted correctly. Either do it properly or drop it. If you actually have the sources you are referencing in front of you it should take you about 2 minutes to get it right. Please stop playing games, please stop pointing to other stuff, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has nothing to do with anything here. Zad68 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On that point, we need to assume a lot of good faith for sources that we can't verify ourselves. If you do not have page numbers available for your sources, it reduces the credibility. RyanVeseyReview me! 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Suggestion - Curing and smoking bacon[edit]
The first line of the "Curing and smoking bacon" has a "citation needed" marker.
Bacon is cured through either a process of injecting with or soaking in brine or using plain salt (dry curing).[citation needed]
McGee, Harold. (2004). On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. New York: Scribner
p. 173 lists bacon as a salted meat. McGee does not specifically mention injecting bacon with brine, however he does mention both brining and dry-salting.
There are available prosciutto's/pancettas made from other meats (duck, goose, lamb, beef, goat) aside from pork. These were traditionally used by Jewish Italians and also as regional delicacies. You can argue the merit of whether or not it is 'bacon' in the strictest of senses but I do feel it merits inclusion!
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The final section "Other bacon-flavored products" diverges into political discourse on bacon and the perception of the United States. I feel that this would best be moved to the Bacon Mania article, or a seperate sub-section on bacon symbology. The references to Jon Stewart would seem more fitting under Bacon Mania commentary than the food article.
Many thanks for your consideration.
173.71.91.111 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have removed it, as the quote actually appeared in the article twice. -- Dianna (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "health concerns" section has too much coatracking. 174.226.202.182 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this section is strongly antithetical to WP:NPOV because there is profound disagreement in very mainstream sources about the alleged dangers of nitrites, and the observational Harvard study implicating cured meats in mortality rates cited is brand new and its methodology is still being thoroughly vetted in the literature. The notion that saturated fat and salt have negative health consequences is HIGHLY controversial. More or less the claims presented in this section only appear NPOV from the perspective of a layman with no direct knowledge of the current scientific environment, because the all of these spurious claims only actually fly in the world of health journalism. 69.142.252.103 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This statement under Health Concerns absolutely must have a citation: "Bacon is usually high in salt and saturated fat; excessive consumption of both is related to a variety of health problems.".
This is not any kind of direct knowledge, it's pandering to NNPOV prejudices about nutrition. Also the phraseology "is related" dangerously makes this statement have the feel of original research. This sentence alone without reference to any source causes this article to read as though it's taking a position, and that is completely unacceptable. 69.142.252.103 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beef bacon is so delicious it should be featured more prominently and given its own section, if not its own article. It has more flavor than pork bacon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.84.199.235 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supposed to be in British English, but it appears someone ignored that a long time ago and nobody has bothered to return it to British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.131.188 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you say "bacon" in Jamaican English you've said "beer can" in British English. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be raised and changed? If it says british english then it should be in it or be changed to American english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.17.223 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Bac~Os® from Betty Crocker should not be confused with real bacon bits. Bac~Os® are primarily made from soy.
Giftdestruction (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the sentence mentioning Bac-Os because it seemed promotional to single out certain brands, and no source was provided to support the assertion that those brands are popular (or where they're popular, if indeed they are). I'm not sure whether this affects the status of this edit request because it's not clear whether the proposal was to add the above wording or to modify the existing wording based on the above wording. Rivertorch (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for Americanizing the whole article before reading the Talk page. However, the spelling of "flavor" in the "addictive taste" section should stay Americanized because that is the spelling used in the quoted source. --Captain Infinity (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sugar not mentioned in the first paragraph describing bacon[edit]
The general definition of bacon seems to like it should be updated to include sugar / sweetener in the opening definition.
No bacon seems to exist without sugar / sweetener it would seem to be part of what bacon is.
The statement toward the end of the overview "Flavourings such as brown sugar or maple are used for some products." should be changed to say something along the lines of:
"Flavorings such as brown sugar or maple are used in almost every product." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.177.177 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While there is a tendency on both sides of the Atlantic to serve belly bacon well-done to crispy, back bacon may at first appear undercooked to Americans." Source?
Removed couldn't find a source and likely isn't true
Cuts of bacon
Quite a few types of bacon are unsourced.
Working only missing a ref for one kind now, Middle Bacon everything now has at least one reference or more
Production
Are you sure there's only that much of info for production?
Y added process section
Around the world
There are many citations missing.
Working added some refs
Bacon fat
"Despite the disputed health risks of excessive bacon grease consumption, it remains popular in the cuisine of the American South." Unsourced.
Done found a source :)
Alternatives
Vegetarian bacon is unsourced.
Done added two refs!
Reception
There's really no need for this section, it's overkill for a food article.
Considering that I haven't really reviewed the prose yet, this doesn't look good.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many unreliable sources in the article (such as About.com, Know Your Meme, and maybe wiseGEEK). There are still many unsourced statements. Because of that, I'm failing this article. You can renominate this later.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of this article mainly refers to current uses of bacon.
I would have thought there should be something about its history here.
john f 178.103.50.255 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.252.185 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reader feedback: I came here looking for info...[edit]
I came here looking for information about the history of bacon.
I am going to start writing this section now. Thank you for the comments!! Updates will be written here. Newyorkadam (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
I recently came across an article [3] that gives the four year increase in bacon sales in US. It also notes that in 2013, bacon hit an all time high of $4 billion in the US. There are some other small pieces of information that may be of interest within the article such as, "65% of Americans would support the idea of making bacon our "national food"." The article contains a ton of informative content.
Question is... does this type of information belong on this page? Because it only deals with bacon in the US, it might be too specific. There is a section on the "United States" on the bacon page but there are not any hard numbers (numbers support claims). I realize this page is more of a global summary on bacon but the information I found could be of some use. If you guys would agree on the content deserving place here, I'll move forward with the addition. Let me hear your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Meatsgains: Hi there, thanks for the source! Bacon is currently a Good Article nominee and I'm planning on making it a featured article. I think numbers/statistics are definitely an important addition. That reference would actually work really well in the 'Bacon mania' section. There's also an article on Bacon mania, maybe I (and you, if you're interested) could contribute to that :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
@Newyorkadam: Okay great! When I get a chance I'll add in some of the content from the source above into the 'Bacon Mania' section. Feel free to do it before me if you have the time. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added in the most significant statistics and findings from the article I found. Feel free to change what I added and include more content from the article if you would like. Happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'Bacon' is originated from a mountain's name in Hungary: Bakony.[edit]
I think, for this article to be complete should contain the fact that the English word 'bacon' is originated from the Hungarian Mountain's name: Bakony. For the first time it can be surprising, but read this explanation: "In the middle ages around the XIV. century, the biggest industrial center of pig-farming was in Hungary. Pigs and bacon were imported from here to every corner of Europe. This farming center was situated next to the Hungarian mountain, called Bakony. This was the place, from where bacon spread, and got its name. This is not the only English word that is originated from Hungarian, f.e. 'coach' as a wheeled wagon comes from the name of the Hungarian settlement: 'Kocs' [kots], where the first prototype of this kind of coach was found. Besides these, "itsy-bitsy spider" is another expression that doesn't mean anything in English, but has the Hungarian "pici" core-word inside of it (meaning 'tiny'). In Hungarian, 'ici-pici' [itsy-pitsy) means something very-very tiny. The expression 'itsy-bitsy' was used for the first time by a Hungarian Hollywood filmmaker who wrote the "Itsy-bitsy Spider' song for his kids at the beginning of the XX. century. The expresion was also used later in the rock 'n' roll era in Caterina Valente's song - Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Honolulu Strand Bikini. Since it didn't mean anything for Americans, it soon transformed into 'Incy-Wincy' and so on." 81.183.245.214 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst not implausible, I would recommend that you would provide the source for your statement, so we can see how reliable it is - it would be an interesting thing to note, if the source is reliable. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every source I've found says the same thing that the article currently says ("The word is derived from the Old High German bacho, meaning "buttock", "ham" or "side of bacon", and cognate with the Old French bacon.") Newyorkadam (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
The story, whether "implausible" or not, is worthless. "Middle English: from Old French, from a Germanic word meaning ‘ham, flitch’; related to back." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bacon is global, but I see nothing about peoples of South America, the Phillipines, the Arctic, etc. Do Hindus eat bacon? What about Mormons? I can't remember. What about the ancient world. Didn't St Paul make it OK for Christians to eat bacon? Why? Was bacon offered the gods in ancient Greece and Rome?
The article focuses mostly on the western world with a "Gung-Ho for Bacon!" POV. The editor should avoid online sites that express the same. This POV is not encyclopedic.
Also, sections like "In popular culture" and "Reception" are trivia. They're dated and can safely be sent to the circular file. The article can be slashed and hugely gutted. Some references (like cookbook authors) are not reliable sources. One source cited about the word's origin also tells us "Bacon actually is good for the brains of unborn children. Bacon contains a nutrient called choline which has been shown to boost the intelligence of people, if they got a lot of it before they were born." There's too much discussion on this page for the article to be a GA and too much questionable sourcing. Doduf (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section to me seems to be more POV and coatrackish than a good faith addition. I'm inclined to remove completely. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on both of these sections, and I can assure you I have no bias and that it's a good-faith addition. What specifically stands out to you has biased? -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
[[4]] the stuff about CAFOS. I understand that is a concern but the phrasing and relevance doesn't seem to warrant it's own section. I'm not opposed to it being cited elsewhere in the article but when there is a standalone section that focuses only on certain parts it's out of balance. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your deletion. Unless bacon has specifically attracted unusual numbers of sources to discuss CAFOS or unless it applies to bacon in a more specific way than other pork products, it doesn't belong here. Maybe in the main pork article, but not here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket:@Dennis Brown: If the Production section were to be expanded (numerous paragraphs) with a sentence or two included about CAFOs, would that be ok? -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Absolutely, I think it could merit a mention for sure just not a two sentence paragraph that focuses solely on that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, as long as it wasn't a thinly veiled attempt to insert negative material. Information is good, but it has to be balanced, or it becomes WP:SOAPBOXing. Ideally, it would cover the history of production, say from 200 years a go (or more) to today, to contrast methods, and preferably include methods from different countries since the article isn't just about bacon in America. That would be encyclopedic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other concern I had and I mentioned in an edit summary but also the geocentric nature about the post. If we are going to talk about production I think we should at least make it more of a world view. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following text should be deleted
"Arun Gupta of The Indypendent has pointed out how bacon possesses six ingredient types of umami, which elicits an addictive neurochemical response.[39]"
Upon examination of the source material I have discovered Arun Gupta was referring to a specific MacDonalds bacon recipe which contains 18 ingredients, 6 of which contain the umami flavour. I believe the reference to be incorrect as it leads the reader to believe this is true for all bacon. The source article itself points out that bacon doesn't usually contain "ingredients".
Rick4676 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done: I have clarified that Arun was referring specifically to McDonald's in this case, rather than removing the sentence. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Bacon cooking tips:
-Pan frying- Take your bacon out 30 minutes before use, this helps let the bacon come to room temperature, making it cook faster. Then using a butter knife to separate the bacon keeps it from being ripped or stretched. Soak the bacon in water for 5 minutes, this helps make it so the bacon does not shrink as much when frying. When frying the bacon add a little water, this helps keep the grease from splattering fat. Bacon cooks fast depending on the level of heat your stove is on, staying close and keeping an eye on the bacon while frying will ensure it does not get burnt.
Not done, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and this advice is unsourced and written in an inappropriate tone. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for the Back Bacon article to exist in addition to this article. The information contained in Back Bacon is essentially the same as here, only perhaps with more detail/sources. I don't have edit rights on semi-protected but perhaps someone could add the appropriate tags to these two articles. Vile-eight (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now being auto-confirmed, I have proposed the merger of Back Bacon into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vile-eight (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are different parts of the hog. Why not merge beef steak and beef tongue? Same thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says Bacon is a "meat product" not a cut of meat, and the list of bacon types indicate what part of the hog it originates in. Back Bacon and Bacon are worded almost the same. Gammon (meat) seems to be a 'cut' of meat from a side of bacon. Which just might mean that any of these delicious items should have their own article (or maybe not) Omar (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
in the "bacon fat" section of this article there is a typo in the spelling of the word "onions" in the last paragraph.
Dmerker (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Although it would've been best for you to link to the specific passage of text that was wrong, I've gone and corrected the typo. Thanks! Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 00:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the photo of back bacon rashers in the article you see a large meaty part with a short streaky tail. Middle bacon is the same thing only with a long streaky tail. In other words, it is a back bacon rasher and a streaky rasher in a single piece.
So the claim that middle bacon is "intermediate in cost, fat content, and flavour between streaky bacon and back bacon" is, although true on average, not a useful description. One end of the rasher is streaky bacon; the other is back bacon. No part of the rasher is like a cross between streaky and back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.135.34 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
please change the word "scliced" to "sliced" to correct a spelling error
Patrickwkenney (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
For the purpose of correcting the errant spelling of the word sliced, which currently appears as scliced, please replace:
thumb|German Griebenschmalz used as spread
If streaky pork belly bacon scliced in cubes is being used for lard preparation, as traditionally in Germany, the parts with higher smelting temperature are being roasted and stay in the lard. The result is Griebenschmalz, a famous spread.
With:
thumb|German Griebenschmalz used as spread
If streaky pork belly bacon sliced in cubes is being used for lard preparation, as traditionally in Germany, the parts with higher smelting temperature are being roasted and stay in the lard. The result is Griebenschmalz, a famous spread.
Thank you for pointing out exactly where the error was. I've fixed it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015[edit]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the Germany subsection the text under the image for Tiroler Speckknoedelsuppe is misspelled as "Tyrolian" it should be Tyrolean. Roy Watts 02:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahalatabanila (talk •contribs) 02:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if reception is the right word. I think that maybe criticisms or perception would work better. It almost seems like a troll. BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem that has had a ton of discussion on IRC. I agree it's not the correct word, but people were saying that a word like criticism is biased and does not accurately share both sides (both sides are discussed in that section). -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Whoever inserted the "Process" section has simply transcribed or plagiarised most of the YouTube clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tvx_CKB7uI which shows an episode of Discovery / Science Channel's "How it's Made" series. It refers specifically to pre-cooked and packaged American bacon and has little relevance to bacon made globally. Being an unreferenced plagiarism I suggest it should be either removed or, if the original contributor wishes to keep it in the article, be properly referenced and moved to the "United States" section of the page. --MichaelGG (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bacon comes from cows than eat bean the udder are sliced to make the deliciousness of bacon itself normally store baught bacon is dipped in sticky liquid farm animals that were killed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.161.188 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fascinating information, many thanks for that well researched insight. --MichaelGG (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There's a grammatical error in section 4 Addictive Taste.
"Arun Gupta of The Indypendent has pointed out how the food industry adds flavorings to bacon, such as McDonald's, which uses six different umami additives to elicit an addictive neurochemical response."
Sounds like McDonald's is now a flavor. Should read something like "Arun Gupta of the Indypendent has pointed out how the food industry, e.g. McDonald's, uses six different umami additives to elicit an addictive neurochemical response."
This edit request to Bacon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Some of the information about the history is incomplete or miss leading, please allow me to edit,
Many thanks from Charles R. Nesson
Baconisawesomelikenorris (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Addictive taste," citation to left-wing podcasts[edit]
This is not serious sourcing.
> A lot of our foods are pumped with all sorts of umami, everything from savory foods to ice cream, because it elicits an actual neurochemical, physiological response.
This man is an idiot and should not be cited for anything. Taste is an actual neurochemical, physiological response. He's merely come up with a shocked, conspiratorial way to describe "making things taste good."
> Yeah, this thing has something like 80 percent of your daily intake of cholesterol. I mean, you know, it’s absolutely deadly,
Dietary cholesterol is known to have no relevance to health (see the science report of the recent draft FDA nutrition guidelines.)
> And so, the farming sector shrank drastically from 1940 to 1970. In 1940, 18 percent of the populace was still farmers; by 1970, it was 4.6 percent. And so, all this subsidies, essentially, what it did is it created the condition for the concentrated animal-feeding operations to arise. ... government policy played this big factor, because there was cheap water, cheap grain, cheap fuel, cheap land, anti-union laws that allowed these factory farms to come into being.
The government didn't invent economic efficiency you absolute tool.
> But the thing is, these factory farms couldn’t exist if there wasn’t a market for these products, hence the rise of the fast food industry.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Yeah, you can't have 1000 pigs in the same place unless there are fast food restaurants. That makes sense and is in no way an obvious non sequitur.
Okay I'm done line-by-lining this but seriously, what kind of morons allowed this "information" to be inserted, this is some ignoramus on a talk radio show ranting about how big business and the gummint conspired to make bacon taste good, what is this garbage doing here 174.93.35.205 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Nutrition section had percentages listed after the grams of protein and fat. I'm assuming these are meant to be the Recommended Daily Value, but the numbers were obviously incorrect if that's the case (5.4g of fat as 27% and 4.4g of protein as 22%). I've removed them under this assumption - if it's incorrect, an explanation for the meaning of the percentage should probably be added when putting the percentages back in. Arathald (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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: 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.
There's Chicken bacon and beef bacon. I've tasted both. Unfortunately there's not a lot of news articles written about them. I think there may be more if I start looking at halal or Kosher bacon.
I was looking to see if we had anything on sala and ended up here without any luck. Sala does have a large disambiguation page however. Sala is a Ukrainian/Russian dish usually served as an appetizer or with vodka. It's very fat thick-cut very salty bacon almost always served raw. The best has a slight tinge of red from blood. Before I ran into sala I didn't realize that Americans had some pretty strict cultural dietary restrictions - like about 7 that specifically relate to sala. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Bacon. 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: 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Bacon. 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: 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.
I have just modified one external link on Bacon. 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: 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.
Health concerns section need to be rewritten[edit]
In short it is erroneous, argumentative and dubiously sourced. Largest error is transported from the HuffPo article that bacon contains nitrates. Only bacon which has not aged properly and was cured with the Prague Powder #2 potentially could contain nitrates. Some of the statements in this section are actually not found in the linked articles, such as the last sentence misleadingly stating certainty of matters where must be talked about the probabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.121.150 (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed weakly-sourced and added a recent review; there is not a huge amount of WP:MEDRS which makes specific mention of "bacon". Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are due, probably even in the lede. But we should avoid a load of general non-bacon-specific content about processed meat (there's an entire article for that) and certainly should not be using sensational journalism from The Guardian; health sources must be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Health concern material on the article about bacon must be specifically about bacon, not processed meats in general. A link to that article is appropriate, but non-bacon-specific material should be left there. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must protest in the strongest possible terms, the link of bacon to cancer is extremely well established. And this isn't simply a nebulous link between 'processed meat', it's a link between bacon and cancer due to the nitrosamines and other chemicals that are produced in the curing process. And this isn't the daily mail. And the WHO lists bacon as a category 1 carcinogen; it's in the same category as cigarette smoke.[5]. How is it you get to think that you can censor the lead of the article to remove all mention of this from it???GliderMaven (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the body. It's probably briefly due in the lede, like how I attempted.[6]. Oknazevad - can you explain what your objection to this summary sentence is? Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverting to before the conflict. The sentence is not a bad addition. oknazevad (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - so will adding this do the trick wrt health? (The lede generally isn't a very good summary of the article and could do with some expansion). Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015[edit]
please amend the UK and Ireland section to begin
United Kingdom and Ireland
A rasher of bacon is a thin slice;[4] rashers were called collops in the sixteenth century.Thick slices are called bacon chops. Bacon is usually described as either streaky or back:
Bacon is not a meat type. It’s the result of a method of preparation.[edit]
As stated in the wiki there are other types of meat that could be referred to as bacon like turkey bacon. Pork is a type of meat so Pork bacon would be the correct term. It’s like South African’s prepare different meats by ‘braaing’. So you get braaied sausage or braaied chops or braaied pork.
It’s a method of meat preparation. Cylotec (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
barding and larding (redirects?, deleted article?, removed content from article?, etc.?)[edit]
Barding (in the context of bacon) is laying or wrapping fatty strips (e.g. bacon) on top of or around the outside of meat (like the armour around a warhorse).
Larding is putting fatty strips (e.g. bacon) through the inside of meat (the name just comes from the French word for the fatty strips used).
Although "larding" is described in the linked Lardon#Larding, the only mention of bacon in that section is a claim that Julia Child doesn't think that bacon works for larding.
There's no article Barding (cooking) and barding and larding redirects to Bacon#Bacon_fat in this article, which has a link ( [[Larding#Larding|barding]] ) to an article that doesn't exist but redirects to the "Larding" section in the article lardon which mentions "barding" in it's "See also" section ( *[[Bacon grease|Barding]] ) that links, through a redirect, back to this article.
What's going on is that barding and larding was a terrible article that confused two separate if related techniques that belonged in separate articles. Barding (cooking technique) already exists as a redirect to the bacon fat section of this article, and I made barding (cooking) redirect there as well. I changed the link at the lardon article, and reworked the passage here to make it clear that bacon can be cut as lardons; the discussion on the suitability of such use belongs at the lardons article. I think it's pretty well sorted now. Just need to make sure that no article is linking to the lousy barding and larding redirect and instead links to the more appropriate of the two separate topics. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bacon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Must we use before-and-after photos of bacon that has, quite obviously, been burnt beyond recognition as an example of how it is prepared? I'm not usually one to niggle over details, especially when it comes to food preferences, but I really think that the "after" photo is unworthy of the food, itself. We didn't dig chicken nuggets out of the bottom of a fryer's filter trap for the McDonald's article. 107.242.113.10 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too well done for your tastes? While I tend to agree that it's more done than I like, it's exactly the way my mother likes it. So the image is a valid depiction of cooked bacon. oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done: There is no evidence that Jamón serrano is a type of bacon or prepared in the same way as fresh and dried bacon which must be cooked prior to eating. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - I didn't quite do what the IP asked for - but "must" is too far anyway. Of course anyone with a frigging brain would cook it but there's no LAW (at least for personal consumption) that forces one to. In any case even if that's reverted, the IP has had plenty of discussion so answered=yes 
Egg Centric 21:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done - I think you would need to establish some consensus for this. It's kind of a meaningless statement - after all any food MAY be eaten cooked or uncooked. Any substance even! Egg Centric 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Partly done:—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Done I have removed it, as the quote actually appeared in the article twice. -- Dianna (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_38.djvu/page444-600px-Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_38.djvu.jpg){kind=link}
Removed couldn't find a source and likely isn't true
Working only missing a ref for one kind now, Middle Bacon
added process section
