Talk:Jerky

History

preservative That should be nitrIte not nitrAte right? "Some additional form of chemical preservative, such as sodium nitrate,"

Beef jerky, or the concept of preserving meat by drying it, has been around for at least 50,000 years. It is one of Mankind's first, critical products, storable food. Beef jerky has been carried on expeditions since the dawn of time because it is nutritious, lightweight, and keeps a long time. Even today, beef jerky has cutting edge applications. NASA and RASA have flown beef jerky into Space several times, begining in 1996, aboard the STS-79 Atlantis Space Shuttle flight to the Mir Space Station, STS-118 Endevour Space Shuttle flight to International Space Station, and on the Soyuz spacecraft and Progress freighter spacecraft also going to the International Space Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.44.102 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 June 2004 (UTC) BEEF JERKYY IS MINT!! zoe raine

source, please.

From the "Jerky (food)" article, near the bottom:

"Beef Jerky is considered by many leading experts to be the most delicious food in the universe."

I think we're going to need a source, or at least, some relevant statistics to support this. If you can provide them, I shall eagerly consider them.

Otherwise, I vote to edit this delicious little tidbit out.

Thank you.

It's obviously a joke. I'll take it out. --Crazysunshine 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed?

I'm not precisely sure how to elaborate on my cleanup effort with this article. I've organized everything into more logical sections, cleaned up the wording, fixed links, etc. What else needs to be done? --Crazysunshine 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. At first sight, I'd say it's a little too short, but then again, how much can you say about jerky? --kenohki 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the grammar and consistency of the article could be improved a bit, there's also some information lacking (like recipes for one). In response to Kenohki: There's a lot to be said about Jerky and it's preparation. It's had the lifetime of the human race to develop (+/- a few thousand years).  :) I'd like to add some more to this article in the next couple of days but am not to familiar with how to "properly" go about doing so. Any suggestions on how to proceed? --TheLight

Well, the policy here is "go for it!"--if you make mistakes, someone will come along (often in minutes) and help fix them. If you want to add some instructions or recipes (I was also considering that) I'd look around for some good sources, ideally some from reputable sources (for example, Alton Brown did jerky on an episode of Good Eats, that should be on the Food Network website) and pick out the common points and differences. Write up the basic process and ingredients, noting the differences where different recipes diverge. If you can find a recipe that has nutritional information, that would be good, but it might not be that essential--after all, most of the seasonings are calorie free, and all you do to the meat is remove water, so the nutritional content will remain constant, it will just get more concentrated. scot 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the sentence "Beef jerky was originally developed as an edible alternative to chewing tobacco" from the Preparation section, as this clearly contradicts a previous part of the article which attributes jerky's invention to early South American peoples. The sentence is not referenced either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yougottakickalittle (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I moved this link over from the beef page, but I still think it shouldn't be anywhere because it's just a page of beef jerky for sale: https://www.bulkbeefjerky.com/store Dav2008 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I hit the site, and they had a page full of articles on jerky, so I'm going to point the link to that page. scot 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Death from beef jerky?

The new section smells of false or exaggerated rumors. There's no actual source for it either, just that "new studies" and other such unsubstantiated claims. I think I'll go ahead and remove it. --Crazysunshine 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference section removed

I removed the reference section and the link it contained. The link went to a page that gave the nutrition content for "chunked and formed" jerky. Some may call that nasty stuff beef jerky, but it isn't. Jerky is made from sliced, whole muscle meat. Let's not confuse the article. If someone wants to start a new article about "manufactured meat snacks" go ahead, lets keep this article about real jerky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.248.88 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here in non-anonymous world, references are more important than stupid extlinks. The precious sanctity of the article would probably mean more if there were any actual content in it. Go and expand it. Chris Cunningham 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New image

I added a better picture of jerky rather than an advertisement for some.. (I moved that down). Anywho, can someone get a copyright on that? Crash2108 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually that image is there as a reference, not an ad--that brand is where the nutritional info in the article came from. scot 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but do not you find it odd to just throw up some random nutritional info if you were not in fact advertising it? The picture still needs copyright status. 24.145.168.80 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a 2-D representation of a 3-D object, so the copyright should belong to the creator of the 2-D image, which would be me. I have released it to the public domain. I picked that brand for nutritional info because it's the highest protein percentage I've encountered, and someone asked for a reference. Since the company does not have a web presence (they're a little meat packing place in Perkins, OK, not far from me) the only way I could provide a reference was to provide a picture of the package.

As for the contention that the picture constitutes an ad, I suppose it could be cropped down to just the USDA required panel--that should not be copyrightable since it's a US goverment format. However, doing that orphans the nutritional information and makes it unverifiable. Right now, if you doubt the info, you can write Ralph's at the address given and get written confirmation of the information. As it is, while it might be considered an advertisement, I think it's acceptable based on the Wiki policy for linking to commercial websites. If you link to a commercial website that contains information (like, say, nutritional information) that is acceptable because the commercial nature of the website is secondary; the primary purpose is to provide a verifiable, authoritative source for information used in the article. I think that the picture of the label should be covered under the same guidelines. scot 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Availability" section and external commercial link

With regards to this section it implies that brands using actual slices of beef instead of formed grounds or paste are only available through specialty stores and sites. This appears to me to be no more than an advertisement for the website used as a "reference." Several brands of beef jerky readily available in convenience stores and supermarkets claim to use solid beef strips in at least one of their varieties. As an example (because I happen to have a package on me at the moment) Oberto's "Natural Style" beef jerky states that it is made using "solid strips of lean premium beef..." That seems to share in the claims made with regard to these websites does it not? I am going to edit accordingly but I wont remove ref #3 just yet in case anyone has any objections.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|

• I agree with your edit. In the US, at least, real jerky is available at most grocery stores, but there are also quite a few brands of the processed stuff. I have edited the next sentence after your edit to more clearly indicate that the other products are not actual beef jerky. More importantly, however, I really don't like the in-line cited source for this section, beefjerky.com. It's a commercial pitch for a product which clearly violates WP:External links. I'll leave it in for now, but we really need to find a legitimate source for this section. --Satori Son 12:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Under "Links to be Avoided", Rule No. 4, : "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." The link in the Beef Jerky article at Ref 3, does not have "objectionable amounts of advertising, nor does it require payment to view relevant content. Thus, per the Rules, it is not a site that should be avoided. Yes, it primarialy exists to sell product, but the two qualifers to that prohibition are not met. Rule #4 is quite clear, i.e. a commercial site 'per se' is not a "link to be avoided" unless one of the two the qualifers in Rule #4 are met. The link was added to allow the reader to see an example of a Beef Jerky-specific website. Naturally Beefjerky.com would be a good example of that. I've added the mention of the website back to the #3 ref.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.248.36 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have misread the external links guidelines. Section 1.3.4 states that if a link meets any of those four criteria, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The third and fourth criteria listed are not qualifiers for the second listed criteria (it reads "or", not "and"). Thus, any site “that primarily exist to sell products or services”, as you have admitted above, is specifically prohibited. I have reverted the article to the above discussed version and removed the improper external link. Also, please do not delete the comments of others on talk pages. Thanks, Satori Son 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Recipes

Excuse my ignorance, in advance. What about BeefJerkyRecipes.com makes it ineligible to be an external link? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.30.178 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At www.BeefJerkyRecipes.com [1] users can search 100s of Beef Jerky Recipes by: Meat Type, Flavor, and Cooking Method. Users can rate recipes and even submit their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartjerky (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Links to recipes belong with this article. See this tool, and enter "beef jerky" https://tools.seobook.com/general/keyword/ You will find that the term 'beef jerky' was recently searched 48,493 times. The second most popular search term is 'beef jerky recipe' with 18,400 searches. That is pretty conclusive proof that a lot of people want to find recipes for beef jerky. These external links should remain with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.251.86 (talk • contribs)

seobook.com is all about promoting web sites. Is that what we're discussion here? --A. B. ^(talk) 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whether "a lot of people want to find recipes for beef jerky" is wholly irrelevant. Those links do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:External links and have been removed. This issue has been discussed in detail above. -- Satori Son 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Satori Son, Please cite the exact language in Wikipedia:External links to which you refer. There isn't anything there that specifically and precisely supports your assertion. Also, take an actual look at the page you recently deleted the link to, https://www.beefjerky.com/catalog/recipes.html There is nothing specifically commercial included on that page. What is there, are 100 useful recipes for beef jerky. One person's opinion (your's) isn't the Law in the Wiki. Why don't you go put your effort and attitude into someone else's project, and leave this one alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.251.86 (talk • contribs)

Nothing specifically commercial? How about the extremely large text at the bottom of the recipe list which states Before you try to make homemade, try our beef jerky. You can taste Final Frontier Jerky now! Order Now. How is that not specifically commercial? IrishGuy ^talk 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the "opinion" is not mine, it is a Wikipedia official policy. If you do not like it, you are free to attempt to change that policy; the relevant debate page is Wikipedia talk:External links. Second, that policy clearly states under "Links to be Avoided", Rule number 4,: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services...". This issue has already been thoroughly discussed above. The website in question, beefjerky.com, is a retail sales website that is specifically prohibited from being linked to. Finally, while I appreciate your helpful suggestion to direct my attention elsewhere, there are numerous other volunteer editors and admins who would take my place. We have no financial interest in whether this commercial site has a link here, but we are committed to maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Can you say the same? -- Satori Son 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services" isn't an absolute prohibition, but requires a judgement call on the informational vs. advertising value of the link in question--is it there because it's promoting the site, or does the link point to a page whose primary purpose is commercial?. A reader specifically asked for information on beef jerky recipes, which is, I beleive, a valid request. The link in question, to https://www.beefjerky.com/recipe.html, does in fact contain a large list of jerky recipes. While the list is hosted on a commercial site (the recipes themselves are at recipesource.com), the recipes are not for sale, nor is the jerky made from these recipes for sale. While the link does implicitly promote the site by taking you there (although "beefjerky.com" is probably not really in need of such promotion) I think the informational value is high enough (with a very wide range of recipes--from hamburger based to smoked to simple salt and pepper recipes), and the page has fairly limited commercial content (a link to the retail part of the site), to warrant allowing the link to stay. scot 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do not agree with your unique interpretation of WP:EL, I do greatly appreciate your finding of the original, non-retail source for the recipes. I have updated the article with that link, so the information is still there, and we are now in unquestionable compliance with WP:EL. -- Satori Son 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The link Satori Son changed the recipe link to, has SEVEN advertising links. The site primarialy exists as a front-end for Google advertising revenue. The previous site, https://www.beefjerky.com/catalog/recipe.html, has minimal advertising content, so it is closer to unquestionable compliance with WP:EL. Scot's comment above is not a "unique interpretation" of WP:EL, it is flat out common sense. Satori Son has demonstrated a fanatisism that is unrealistic in the real world. Let it go, Satori Son. This project is in close enough compliance with WP:EL. There must be other pages that need your editing skills and zeal.— 63.239.251.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks again so much for your suggestion, but be please be comforted by the fact that I am editing other articles as well. I see the same is not true for you. To scot, since you are an established editor with no hidden agenda, which of the two websites do you prefer? I will abide by your decision. -- Satori Son 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute! I just realized that your company's website page is simply a list of links to the RecipeSources.com website that I linked directly to. All you are doing is adding an extra step for users before going to the site that I added, which you object to for having too much advertising! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Either the recipe link should go straight to the end target, or it should not be included at all. Based on your reasoning above, that RecipeSources.com is just "a front-end for Google advertising revenue", it should be deleted. Any thoughts from others? -- Satori Son 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Recipes add no educational value to the article. You don't see Britannica linking to random recipe sites. I'm removing the recipe link again. Chris Cunningham 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just chiming in...the link does appear to be simply promotional advertising and is not permitted by guidelines. See:WP:EL--MONGO 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Satori Son asked me to come offer a perspective on this dispute. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to link to the recipe page at beefjerky.com, because the link goes to a commercial website in violation of WP:EL. I think it would be appropriate to link to b:Cookbook:Beef Jerky for a recipe. A huge collection of beef jerky recipes is not critical to the article. If the people who are promoting these commercial sites here are really interested in teaching people about how to make jerky, let them add their recipes to the Wikibooks cookbook under a free license. —ptk✰fgs 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wikibook link is probably a good resolution (this is pending looking at the Wikibook--if it's just one recipe, then it's POV, because there are MANY recipes, as evidenced by the 100 recipe link set). It's obviously non-commercial, and fulfills the request for information on making jerky. As to the statement that recipes add no educational value to the article, I strongly disagree. A recipe answers the question of "How is jerky made". Britannica may not have such information, but Wikipedia isn't Britannica, it's better, precisely BECAUSE it has information like this. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to comprehensively inform the reader, so cutting out relevant information the users WANT to know because "it's not in Britannica" will just turn Wikipedia into a copy of Britannica. Remember that the difference between a dictonary and an encyclopedia is that an encylopedia is comprehensive. When I look up steel, I don't just want to know that it's iron with carbon added--I want to know where it came from, how much carbon and other alloying elements are in it, how it's made, how it's heat treated, what impact all that has on the properties. How does that differ from including recipes and the nutrional information for jerky? Should we strip that information from the article on steel? Or is jerky just somehow a less important subject? scot 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the generic recipe - how is it made - is essential for the article. More specific instructions, of course, are to be moved to Wikibooks. Links, in a restricted quantity, are normal, and WP:EL does not forbid commercial sites to be linked, as long as they are free to view (ad-served). However, rewriting is still a good option. Remember that only the specific form is copyrighted, not the ideas. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Retail price of jerky

Why is jerky so expensive? A tiny 3 oz bag could cost nearly $10 USD. --72.202.150.92 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Materials cost. Take for instance Ralph's jerky; 21 grams of protein per 30 gram serving, 1 gram of fat. Since beef is 7 grams of protein per ounce normally, that means that Ralph's jerky is reduced 3:1 from the original. That means that to make a 1 pound package, you need 3 lbs. of beef. And not just any beef, but to keep the fat content at 1 gram per 30g serving in the final product, that means you need 1 gram of fat per 90g to start with, which is between 98% and 99% lean. Also, you need large cuts with straight grain, which limits the cuts of beef you can use. The process of drying the beef also requires a significant amount of time, space, and labor, to slice the beef thinly, lay it out on drying racks, and let it dry at low temperatures. A pound of Ralph's jerky runs about US$21; if you consider that works out to US$7 a pound for raw materials, that's not so outrageous--you'd pay that much for a decent steak cut, and even more for something like a filet. scot 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Materials do cost. By the way, who owns/sells Ralph's jerky? On an enlightened note...you must take into mind that not all jerky is equal. You can get better quality if not equal quality to Ralph's jerky from https://naturalchoicejerky.com They sell up to a half pound of jerky for only $12.00 + free shipping with no preservatives, no msg, gluten free organic beef jerky. Its hard to find this kind of quality jerky at stores. I eat this jerky all the time and I am happy to educate people by letting them know exactly where and how to get something I enjoy. Especially if its a good alternative. --Naturalchoice 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph's is a meat processor in Perkins, OK. They don't sell online, the only way to get their jerky is direct from their location, or from local stores (the Stillwater, OK, Wal-Mart, for example, generally stocks it). scot 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing--looking at the Natural Choice jerky, it's a significantly higher moisture content, with only 10g of protein per 30g serving, half the protein density. The only places I've found that sell the really low moisture jerky are smaller producers from this area. Robertson Hams, which has a number of locations along I-35 in south Oklahoma and north Texas, offers a similar product, with 20g of protein per 30g serving, though theirs has a tiny bit of carbohydrate (1g). Prices are similar, about US$20 a pound. scot 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

At my local Giant Eagle this week a 4 oz bag of Oberto's was $5-$6 US. Flank steak was $7.99/lb. 20x20 inch furnace filters were ~$7.50 for a 3-pack at my local Lowe's. All the other ingredients and hardware for the Good Eats recipe I already had on hand. DarkAudit (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I ended up with about a pound of jerky after starting with a little over 2 lbs of fresh meat. If I'd already had the filters on hand, the homemade would definitely be cheaper than store bought. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference

I have restored the Economist reference that was deleted with the edit summary "Removed Economist referece. [sic] Requires subscription to read." We do not delete good references simply because the hyperlink becomes inactive; see WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". If you would like to double-check the validity of that source, there are these public facilities called "libraries" that store information such as this and let you read it for free. Go check it out.

Perhaps an archived version will be available at some point on the Wayback Machine, which deliberately lags by six months or more. But even if not, a quality published source is still acceptable even if the full article is not available to view online for free. -- Satori Son 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New photo

I have a photo of a bag of jerky. The photo was taken on International Space Station, with the bag floating in front of the big window, with the black of space, the curve of the Earth, and some space station parts visible. Its a pretty cool photo. Can it be used in the article? Officially, its US government property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.150.63 (talk) 20:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, US federal government work is not copyrighted. Upload it, and under the licensing section, look in the dropdown box for "Work of a US Government agency", which will tag it as public domain. scot 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Class Upgraded

I've read the article over a few times and believe that the "START CLASS" rating of this article is out of date. I have looked over the rating guide and respectively moved the rating of this article up to "C CLASS." If there is a problem feel free to revert my edit. Thank you, CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 10:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

I understand that the External Links Policy says that "sites that primarily exist to sell products should normally be avoided"...but it does not say "absolutely be avoided". There are some instances that linking to a site that exists to sell products is warranted. This is one of those times.

The link to the Jerky Glossary is absolutely relevant and beneficial to the readers of this entry. It is a comprehensive list of terms with their definitions that pertains to nothing but jerky. This content is unique and will be found nowhere else on the web. There isn't any deceptive practices going on...and no advertising gimmicks are used to trick users to click on a product to purchase. It is great information on an e-commerce site that unequivocally adds great value to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.30.178 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it seems to be a glossary for the Jerky.com site more than for jerky itself. Many of the terms in the glossary are irrelevant to a general reader looking for information on jerky (the very first, for instance, is A.F.O. -Air Force Positing Office). It covers general farming, manufacturing and sales terminology not just jerky. It also has a particularly US focus which is not ideal for an international encyclopedia. The terms that are important probably ought to be covered in the article itself - making this a page that fails the first of our links to be avoided points. -- SiobhanHansa 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong?

What has jerky got to do with Hong Kong at all? It didn't originate there, and isn't native to there, so I say all references to Hong Kong be removed. SJ2571 (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Contradicts Itself

The sourced intro is later contradicted by the body of the article. The intro clearly states that cooking is involved in the process at least some of the time. The article then describes in detail one of several ways to make Jerky and keeps refering to the process as "raw" and to "prevent cooking". 67.8.72.12 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ethymology

how can the word Jerky come from a quechua word and dont have any background in latinoamerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.100.157 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

long time without refrigeration

The article says jerky can be "stored for a long time without refrigeration" What is a long time? 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month , 2 months, 1 year, 2 years, indefinite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.151.148 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

caloric data

The article would be significantly enhanced if it contained some data relating to the caloric content of jerky. If some jerkies have higher caloric content than others, some comparative data would also be useful.

24.5.116.154 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just from a fan's view: add JR's Beef jerky

Jim Ross, the WWE Hall of Famer, produces by fan response a highly popular beef jerky, which I would say could be mentioned as an example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDube (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

"Jerky" doesn't warrant a disambiguation page, as far as I can see.

Aside from its link to Jerky (food), its content currently consists of links to Jerky (game), a card game apparently not notable enough for an article thus far, and The Jerky Boys, a prank phone call performance group, which contains the helpful additional word "Boys" to differentiate it from the food (in case someone were to get them mixed up). There's also a link to Jerk (disambiguation).

I propose moving this article, Jerky (food), to Jerky, with hatnotes for everything except the card game. Alternatively, we could dispense with the hatnotes and have one link to a dab page, Jerky (disambiguation), but I think the dab page may be superfluous. Thoughts? Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• agree with move I previously deleted the one redlink in the dab page (after looking for the game with little luck, but before seeing the move tag here), which leaves jerky (food) and the jerky boys, which is not likely to get any hits. At any rate, you could put a hatnote at the top of the article for jerky boys if it really does need to be there. The vast majority of users searching the site using the term "jerky" are looking for this article. I would bet my lunch money the percent is pretty close to 100. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerky. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722031203/https://www.cucinaecantina.it/gusto.php?type=terra&attr=0&view=1&id=80 to https://www.cucinaecantina.it/gusto.php?type=terra&attr=0&view=1&id=80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721070152/https://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/jerky_and_food_safety/index.asp to https://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/jerky_and_food_safety/index.asp

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) 12:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

beefjerky.com looks like an ad

The picture of the beef jerky on the space station reads like an ad. Should this be removed? --Edward Versaii (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I say remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Dried meat"?

Is Jerky a universal term in English, or is it considered primarily a USA term? I note this because of the plethora of types of dried meat in other cultures. Kortoso (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the mentions of biltong in the lead?

It has it's own article, I see no real reason why it should be talked about here. Jtrainor (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)