Jump to content

Talk:Eggs as food/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non sequiturs

[edit]

The article appears to be locked for editing, yet it contains illogical passages, e.g., multiple non sequiturs that require editing. ~PB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb1618 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical errors

[edit]

The article appears to be locked for editing, yet it contains embarrassing grammatical errors that require fixing. ~PB

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Egg as food. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

[edit]

"Eggs are laid by female animals of many different species, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and fish, and have been eaten by humans for thousands of years." Please delete the word Mammals in this sentence because mammals do not lay eggs. Humans as well as many other aquatic creatures are mammals and are examples. Humon888 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Humon888: Monotremes are mammals that lay eggs. I'm not sure how relevant this is to human consumption of eggs though. Deli nk (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A PLATYPUS IS NOT A MAMMAL!!! If it lays eggs, by definition, it is NOT and CANNOT BE CALLED a mammal! There you have it: american education tax dollars hard at work. You a millennial, I take it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that "mammal", as in "mamma" in Latin, refers to the breast, right? As such, the defining characteristic of a mammal is the ability to suckle young. As such, the platypus, which has mammary glands and the ability to suckle young is a mammal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.243.205 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Egg as food. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

[edit]

Almost all this article is about poultry eggs, and more specifically chicken eggs. That's fine, after all, in English, when we say "egg", that's what we're usually referring to. But the lead of the article explicitly mentions reptile and fish eggs, so it sounds as though the article will include them. Other bird eggs, such as seabird eggs, have been important foods in the past (see Egg War), and should be mentioned.

Either the lead needs to be rewritten to clarify that this article is specifically about poultry eggs, or we need to provide basic coverage of other kinds of eggs, such as a section on fish eggs, which of course will refer to {{main|Roe}}.

Finally, the section on egging doesn't belong in this article. It has nothing to do with their use as food. Should the article on baseball (as opposed to the article on baseball bats) talk about the use of bats as weapons or vandalism tools? --Macrakis (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes that should be made

[edit]

I would like to suggest for people who are able to do this work (I cannot, since I'm not a native speaker and lots of mistakes would come up) a small list of things should be really changed in this article:

- The article is about "egg as food", but it's only about "chicken egg as food". Other species should be added, to the most common, such as duck or quails, to the most exotic.

- Health effects category should be about medicinal use and known benefits of this food, not only concerns.

- Cholesterol as a problem for health is, to say the least, outdated science. Looking for sound scientific studies on the internet, even in a very fast research, will show the reader this. The be impartial, the article should say that in the past eggs were considered a problem for its cholesterol content, but now are'nt anymore, both because cholesterol doesn't lead to heart problems as thought before and also because eggs (mainly raw) do not elevate one's cholesterol levels, according to state-of-the-art research.

- It is important to note that salmonela is a issue only when chicken are raised in sick conditions, thus being contaminated. That's not the case with organic or even non-organic but grass-fed (non industrial, local farming, both work) chicken.


I thank in advance anyone who could add this information. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortulo (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grade A vs AA

[edit]

It's unclear in this article which one is less worse. I've had grade A and AA eggs, and they were both just garbage quality that made me vomit. Which one is supposed to be less worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.43.77 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MAMMALS DON'T LAY EGGS!!!

[edit]

Who is the genius who approved this crap?! American stupidity truly knows no bounds! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? "The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), sometimes referred to as the duck-billed platypus, is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal[3] endemic to eastern Australia, including Tasmania." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus I think term for this is "hoist with his own petard", well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.243.205 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional values box?

[edit]

The source of the article indicates that it used to have a nutritional values box which is now commented out as "misleading". It would be very helpful if the article again had a nutritional values box. What was the reason of removing the last one and how can it be remedied? (I'm happy to research this to make it satisfactory.) Al-Quaknaa (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. It was done by this edit by User:SlimVirgin. GliderMaven (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'll wp:be bold and edit it back into place. There wasn't a good explanation in the edit removing it, but I think "misleading" was because someone sees "155 calories" and thinks "wow, so many calories in an egg?" I think including the calorie count for a single 50-gram chicken egg in the body text makes sense, but "100g of eggs" for the nutrition facts is standard and sensible.-Ich (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be nutritional information displayed by tables in the article. When the SlimVirgin edit was made, I assumed the problem was that nutritional information for different preparations (raw vs. boiled vs. fried vs. poached, etc.) made the discussion burdensome. In the USDA Nutrient Database, there are 93 nutritional reports as "standard reference". We should have a discussion in the article for the most common types of preparation (of chicken eggs, presumed as most common worldwide). What do people think they are?
  1. raw
  2. boiled (hard)
  3. fried
  4. poached
  5. scrambled
  6. egg whites
  7. dried eggs
  8. other (identify)

--Zefr (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, hard-boiled or raw would make the most sense. Raw or dried eggs are generally not consumed as-is, fried/scrambled could have oil used in the cooking process (which would throw off the fat content), and poached eggs often lose some of their white in the water (or, in a poaching pan, you still put a drop of oil in the cups). Egg whites are not the whole egg; we have a separate page egg white and the same goes for cadbury eggs. All that being said, the differences between raw and hard-boiled are pretty small (mostly, I suspect, due to loss of water that causes the other ingredients to occupy a proportionately higher percentage of the weight). It doesn't seem likely to me that the nutritional value of an egg changes appreciably when boiled in shell, and I suspect most readers understand there's little difference between raw and hard-boiled eggs from a macronutritional perspective.-Ich (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem in that the Nutritional Value text seems to indicate that individual eggs have the various values specified in the box: "Eggs (boiled) supply several vitamins and minerals as significant amounts of the Daily Value (DV), including vitamin A (19 percent DV)..." Individual eggs do not. 100g of eggs do. The text should clarify this. —173.164.206.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to add new section for eggs consumption per capita

[edit]
Since this is about eggs as food.

It may make sense to add a table on which countries consume the most eggs per capita which is Japan, followed by Paraguay, then China, etc Source as below. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-consume-the-most-eggs.html 49.195.134.75 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eggs_as_food/Archive_4&oldid=1160960666"