Talk:Pork rind

message: The latter part (quote Men's Health) is very biased, contradicting the message in the previous sentence that pork rind is an unhealthy snack. 128.250.233.191 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Issues

message: I propose that we create two articles. One about 'Pork Rinds' or 'Pork Scratchings' and one about 'Pork Rind'. 
'Pork Rind' is the cut of meat. Its also used in the biofeul industry, and in the production of gelatine. Also, according to this article as fish bait. 
'Pork Rinds' are the result of cooking this ingredient in a certain way and deserves an article in its own right. I'm sure you wouldn't put potatoes and crisps in the same article.
If I don't receive any objections, I will do this next week. Tom (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Making two article

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.freshersfoods.co.uk/history.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I think that in referencing the Atkins diet that this particular article should make it somewhat clear that the diet does not recommend eating foods with such a high sodium content. In fact even the levels of fat are to be checked. Foods such as cheese and bacon are to be eaten with 'moderation.' The way this article is written almost makes it seem as if the Atkins/keto/low carb diet endorses eating ridiculously high fat, high sodium, junk food.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins reference 

message: It seems that the two articles are about the same thing, eaten by different people.  — Pekinensis 16:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that way, but it isn't. Pork rind is one type of chicharrones. Chicharrón is a Mexican dish, pork rind isn't. --Vizcarra 17:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the Pork rind entry should not be merged with the entries describing the various forms/uses of pork rinds.  It is also in question whether to merge with Cracklings, but again this is a unique form of a pork rind.  Pork rind is a piece of a slaughtered pig, the skin and fat connected to that skin.  I consider cracklings and chicharron as I would cassoulet, a food made with pork rind, thus deserving their own entries.  In the popular use of the term Pork rind, most people think of the snack food that is more specifically defined as Cracklings, herein lies the confusion, I think.  Pork rind has a more expansive meaning than most people commonly relate it to.--Paultramarine 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose  Crackling is usually meant for flavoring; pork rinds are a snack like popcorn and peanuts.
hey that "somewhat plebian" thing sounds a bit wrong since they are very popular over here,  yeah the british upperclass people south east might think that but they are in the minority, besides they don't make good rinds down there. They make good rinds in the black country ,though nice n big. They hold absolutley no social stigma with working class people, but they may do with the upperclass. The old style rinds origonated from here, Im sure of it, I'm taking that line out! is it ethical to steriotype britains based on a sub group of people that make such a minority??. Considering the rather boring dull snobs from up state new york i think i'll just go and say thats what all americans are like????? ya know regarded by the americans as somewhat plebian, just doesnt sound right does it???? cause everyone knows in any country the workin class by far outweigh the upperclass even if we don't get represented in hollywood movies about britain.
Not to be a snob, or anything, but let me quote the above: "...but they may do with the upperclass because most of them are jewish and have religius laws...is it ethical to steriotype britains based on a sub group of people that make such a minority?? [sic]" --Abunai 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[Chicharrónes]] 

message: Someone had posted here that the "not a significant source of protein" on many packs of pork rinds had to do with the allegation that the protein in pork rinds is not digestable.  This is demonstrably false; indigestable elements of food would not yeild any calories, and using the nutrional information for Utz pork rinds listed in the article (and in the link a the bottom), it can be shown that the protein does contribute to the calorie count:
In 1/2 oz. serving
*Calories:  80
*Fat: 5 g
*Protein: 8 g
Fat is 9 calories per gram, protein is 4.  
5 * 9 + 8 * 4 = 77 calories, which is within the rounding error for the given 80 calories.  scot 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote on this:  I ran across a reference stating that pork rinds contain incomplete proteins, that is they don't contain all essential amino acids.  However, only chicken and eggs contain complete proteins, so by that logic nothing but chicken and eggs are complete protein sources unless combined with other foods...  scot 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect that the "not a significant source of protein" labelling is because of the relatively small pack size, and the fact that the recommended portion size is quite small (thanks to the high fat and salt content). 143.252.80.100 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigestable proteins

message: I replaced the POV tag with a Disputeabout tag.
POV tagger seemed concerned about the social stigma of eating pork rinds, which may not be POV if reporting a fact.
{(Disputeabout|If social stigma about pork rinds exists)} 144.189.5.201 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced POV tag

message: This article talks about "pork rind" singular, which I have never heard used in real life.  I have only ever heard "pork rinds". --WhiteDragon 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both are correct.  The definition of "rind"is A tough outer covering such as bark, the skin of some fruits, or the coating on cheese or bacon.  But I have most often heard "rinds". Prometheus-X303- 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it sounds awkward and should be changed.  Most other similar snack food pages are plural - crackers, chips/fries, etc.  69.85.180.65 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rind vs Rinds

message: Please merge the following:
Crax (also known as cracklings) is a product of agricultural rendering. When bones, offal and connective tissue are separated from useful meat, they are typically desiccated and ground. Crax is sometimes then used in other products, such as an agricultural nutrient. An off-market use for pork crax is as an effective deer repellent.
Category:Meat processing
Entire (soon-to-be) former content of Crax. Dysmorodrepanis 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: In certain regions in China, Pork skins are either boiled or roasted and eaten. USER:cecikierk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.20.186 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it have to be fried? 

message: This article deals with two related topics:  pork rind, a food ingredient; and a fried snack made from that ingredient.  Pork rind has other culinary uses, and needs some text referring to pigskin.  It also needs a section on how the hair is removed (when it is removed). --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now.  The article content still needs to be split, possibly into Fried pork rind and Fatback.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: A merge tag was added to Čvarci, suggesting to merge it here. 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Čvarci merge discussion 

message: Was looking about pork scratchings and saw that Freshers Foods (a snack based company in the UK) has a section regarding the origins of Pork Scratchings.
http://freshersfoods.com/history-of-pork-scratchings/
The sources under the heading Comments and Reminiscences suggest that pork scratching were eaten/originated in the UK, showing at an earlier date than shown in the booksearch by Dohnjoe.
109.153.171.8 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence regarding country of origin. 

message: There is a link to russian wiki tat links to the article about шкварки(shkvarki). In my opinion shkvarki is not equal to pork rinds. Shkvarki is made of lard or fat meat and thert may be some (not a big amount of) rind. As far as i understand pork rind does not consist any lard or meat. Assuming we may conclude that link to russian wiki is not correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.120.205 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose shkvarki is what the artile Čvarci is about. It might be reasonable to extend that article adding Ukrainian/Russian cooking tradition. Off-shell (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pork rind isn't shkvarki 

message: I agree and think that we should add another article. I am not informed enough to make this article, but if I could start it, and some could help fill it in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.177.188 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Article 

message: Many of the references in this article are from news sources instead of scholarly articles. This poses a big problem for the Nutritional Value section since we end up with non-peer reviewed scientific material in an encyclopedia. I suggest someone do some more research for this section and find some scholarly sources to reference. Until then there should be a banner above the page informing the reader of this issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Issues