Talk:Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork

Clean-up attempt

I agree that this article is not very good. I made an effort to remove the more dubious claims, and here are some of them:

One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork. One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork.

WHAT! I cannot possibly imagine that a good 60 million people in North America suffer from trichinosis pr 2006. As for that, trichinae is well representeed in numerous other animals we consume.

A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America (USA), it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Taenia tichurasis, twenty-two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ova’s present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature. These worms are not noticed during meat inspections, nor are they killed by salting or smoking. Few people cook the meat long enough to kill the trichinae. The rat (another scavenger) also harbors this disease.

Which goes for ALL MEAT, not only pork. If you write for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, keep you bias to yourself!

Surely if a pig has ingested the blood of another animal, it is unclean — and God-forbid ingesting the pork would be (in the words of Jean Soler) “doubly unclean”.''

Please, this is not very scientific. There is a long list of animals that (qv.) "ingest the blood of another animal", but are supposedly OK to consume.

Were the internal organs, for example the heart, the liver, or the brain crippled or damaged, the animal could die immediately and its blood would congeal in its veins and would eventually permeate the flesh. This implies that the animal flesh would be permeated and contaminated with uric acid and therefore very poisonous; only today did our dieticians realize such a thing

Hello! If YOUR brain, liver or heart was crippled, YOU would die as well! This is nonsense.

Sausage contains bits of pigs' lungs, so those who eat pork sausage tend to suffer more during epidemics of influenza.

THAT would be an interesting SCIENTIFIC study to see. And what about Avian Flu? From pigs with wings?

Pig meat contains excessive quantities of histamine and imidazole compounds, which can lead to itching and inflammation; growth hormone, which promotes inflammation and growth; Sulphur-containing mesenchymal mucus, which leads to swelling and deposits of mucus in tendons and cartilage, and replacing it with the latter resulting in arthritis, rheumatism, etc. Sulphur helps cause firm human tendons and ligaments to be replaced by the pig's soft mesenchymal tissues, and degeneration of human cartilage.

And the medical and scientific evidence for this claim is...?

Pork has very little muscle building material and contains excess of fat.

Wrong! A pig is in fact a very agile, strong and powerful animal. It is perhaps the most dangerous of all domesticated animals because of its strength, speed and aggression.

This fat gets deposited in the vessels and can cause hypertension and server strokes that lead to heart attack in later life.

That goes for ALL fat, not specifically pigs!!!

Also it is said that the pig’s brain is similar to that of the human brain but on much smaller scale if you would to compare them together, an example would be a dwarf planet recently one such named Pluto quite distinctive with comparison to the Earth in the sense that they both are rocky or "inner core" but are worlds apart so Pigs are classed biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to the human flesh and that is classed as cannibalism if God-forbid one eats a Human meat it would taste exactly the same as the swine but only a lot stronger a bit like alcoholic liquids.

I don't know. This is not even close to being scientific. This is hodge-podge of misunderstood comparisons, various non-relevant trivia (from geology and astronomy, nonetheless!), and some twisted culinary digression about alcohol-flavored humans (a la cock-au-vin?)

Pigs have been used for dissection in biology labs due to the similarity between their organs and human organs.

Or simply because they are accessible? What about the use of mice, rats, monkeys, kittens, frogs, fish etc.?

--Sparviere 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a DISGRACE!!!! It is full of superstition, quasi-fundamentalist ranting and POV. If you belong to ethnicities or religious orientation where you have to deny yourself certain kinds of food, then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Isn't the object of an encyclopedia to be, well, OBJECTIVE?--165.155.192.142 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this particularly nice piece of unfounded information:

"3. Consumption of pork causes several diseases

The other non-Muslims and atheists will agree only if convinced through reason, logic and science. Eating of pork can cause no less than seventy different types of diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc. One of the most dangerous is Taenia Solium, which is in lay man’s terminology called tapeworm. It harbours in the intestine and is very long. Its ova i.e. eggs, enter the blood stream and can reach almost all the organs of the body. If it enters the brain it can cause memory loss. If it enters the heart it can cause heart attack, if it enters the eye it can cause blindness, if it enters the liver it can cause liver damage. It can damage almost all the organs of the body.

Another dangerous helminthes is Trichura Tichurasis. A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America, it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Trichura Tichurasis, twenty two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ova present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature."

Though I'm not going to deny that even thoroughly processed or cooked meat of any kind can still contain highly resilient parasites (which nowadays is quite exceptional as I've never heard of massive numbers of people getting sick after eating pork or any other kind of meat), unless these claims can be backed up, they have no place here. Carbon warrior 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that, Carbon Warrior! This has the unmistakable flavor of POV. --Sparviere 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article suffers from a lack of references and some highly POV text. The 'Great Facts on Pork' is especially bad. --Nydas 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It ("Great Facts on Pork")was deleted a few times (twice by me), but some fellow seems to have raised it from the dead once again for motives known only to himself. NJW494 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Great Facts on Pork" should be an article unto itself. You have to be pretty heartless to delete something that hilarious. Extremeleigh 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article uses the Muslim name for Jesus (Isa) and says PBUH (which only Muslims use) after the name. This is obviously from a Muslim POV. It also omits other bible verses that would contradict this such as: Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Still crazy after all this editing...

I move to delete entire section "Side effects of pork consumption". Some religious crackpots have certainly done a great job filling in all sorts of (unsourced) claims to why their taboos are scientifically based and not cultural. I can see that other editors have taken a serious approach and emphasize the original eco-socioligal reasons for the taboo (Harris). Anything besides that is POV. Medico80 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(one year later) you're right. I have moved the section to Pork where it belongs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line

It's as clean as any cow after cooking, or not? --AnY FOUR! 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much in this article about pork, per se, rather plenty of discussion aimed at prohibition of eating pig, pork, ham, bacon, trotters, snouts, whatever. Have I missed something? I propose moving to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pig meat or similar. Comments? --Dweller (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on where you stick the goalposts really....the problem is the duality of the meaning of the word pork, which can mean either, meat of a pig, or fresh meat that is not cured. I must admit I have no problem with the title either way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pork is, however, the usual and expected phrasing. I see no great advantage to leaving the reader wondering why we are not saying it, as long as the lead is clear what we mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been meaning to pul out my magnifying glass and preuse my longer oxford dictionary to address this in both this and the parent article on the food of the gods...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does pork really mean pig meat in general? Would you describe trotters as pork? I wouldn't! Is this a cultural thing? --Dweller (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, could be my ignorance. I'll do some homework and get some soundings. Happy for this to be speedily aborted if I'm just being daft/ignorant. --Dweller (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...if someone asked me what type of meat trotters were though, I'd say 'pork' (rather than pig-meat) as I would with gammon or bacon. Still, interesting concept though...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave the article where it is. In this context, pork means any pig meat; It's the normal English term, while pig meat is legalese. The article on pork starts out Pork is the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig (Sus scrofa), often specifically the fresh meat but can be used as an all-inclusive term. It's said that since at least 1 March this year, I didn't check further back. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity Dictionary.com gives the inclusive definition. I don't think this title is confusing and I know that I personally assume all pig flesh with the term "pork." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unreferenced

The article is extremely unreferenced and may contain WP:OR. Many inline citations should be used in the article. And in this way some other articles also can be created like Religious restrictions on the consumption of beef etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yes. Agree, actually many food articles are in a fairly indifferent shape. I am planning to (eventually) take pork to FAC at some point but it is a long way off and much more work than the horde of biology articles I done so far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Scholastic allegory

Shouldn't someone who knows (that is, better than me) add for explanation the medieval analogy of
- a ruminant: the theologist must always keep repeating the same doctrine and
- split hooves: it is necessary to distinguish right from wrong?
which was quite popular at some time, including Dante who says of someone in high position to be "a ruminant but without splitting hooves", or something? --77.4.72.236 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)