Talk:Pig/Archive 1

Too brief, low quality[edit]

One would think that this article would be entirely more comprehensive and certainly lacking in grammatical errors. So many references missing, it's not funny.

Introduction is badly formed (not a description, but rather jumps right into the question of the name of the species versus the wild boar); also, some "writers" (?) dispute the species name, not taxonomists?

71.241.120.149 09:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Taxonomists are classifiers of animals and plants? 69.226.14.57 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV marker[edit]

I added the {{npov}} alert as the recent edits by Barbara Shack appear to be strongly biased by the "animal rights" bias, without a balanced view from farmers, butchers and consumers. These edits suggest that pigs are usually kept in cruel, inhumane and unhealthy environments with high death rates before slaughter. There is a purported quote without reference from the "National Hog Farmer". This should be cited other than copying several paragraphs from factoryfarming.com, in turn hosted by http://vegsource.com/. A balance should include (with references) that the meat is more tender and tasteful, and economics of farming better with relaxed, happy and healthy animals. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Shack 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Complaints about conditions of factory farmed pigs and other animals are very common. I believe these complaints are likely to be valid. If economics of farming were better with extensively reared pigs extensive farming would be practiced by all except sadistic farmers.[reply]

While I agree that running pigs in paddocks is not practical for the volume of pork consumed in many countries, using only animal rights activist pages as references for production is biased. These often highlight practices that are neither "best practice" nor even legal, without describing the "normal" situation. Another reason to keep pigs in sheds is management of waste products. Disease management is also important, but a significant loss in transport to market is ridiculous - the farmer doesn't get paid for dead animals! The $8M/year (one truck, USA or world-wide?) is not given a context - is it 50% or 0.00001% ? --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'd like to see is an article built up from references from government and university sources, rather than activists. A lot of the issues I have trouble with here are not really specific to the domestic pig article anyway. They might be fine in factory farming, intensive farming, or animal cruelty articles. These issues may also apply to other animal production, such as chickens and cattle.

I've spent the afternoon on this section, and hope I've improved it. Major sentences removed are listed below.

I have removed " Arthritis is also common due to rapid growth, unnatural concrete floors and lack of exercise." as [1] suggests the largest contributor of arthritis is Erysipelas. This was the best reference I could find with Google (most hits for pig arthritis got a fad diet, or stuff about guinea pigs).

Removed "Sows can spend their lives forced into very small spaces, deprived of fresh air, the sun and straw bedding. Pigs cannot root naturally in soft ground or forage for food naturally. Denying pigs their basic needs causes severe physical and psychological stress." as it seems emotional. Better would be to describe the natural behaviour, which has nothing to do wth food, in the appropriate section.

Removed "Tail biting is one of many unnatural behaviours, which develop when they are kept in unstimulating factory farms. " has nothing to do with pigs as food.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 08:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending so much time on it - it looks much better! John Paul 29 August 2006

Seems Biased[edit]

While informative, this piece appears to have been written by animal rights activists. It has a strong PETA or SPCA "feel" to it. A more balanced presentation would be more helpful to the general reader.

Scottsicle

Please feel welcome to improve the article in any way you see fit. Barbara and I have both put a lot of effort into it (with different POVs). It would be quite disappointing (but perhaps understandable) if you decided that the best fix is to delete the three subsections of "As food". --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a bunch more of the discussion of farming style and treatment. This article should be about the species, not a general discussion on humane treatment of animals produced for meat.

One sentence I removed as I don't believe it: "...and in later life to keep their teeth from killing them by entering their skulls (in the wild this would not be a problem b/c they would be worn off". The idea should be added back if there is a reliable reference.

I also removed

According to "Factory Pork Production" (an animal rights activist website)[2], the National Hog Farmer magazine advised, "Crowding Pigs Pays...", and pigs may suffer sores due to cramped conditions and lack of straw or other bedding. It claims that an industry representative wrote, “straw is very expensive and there certainly would not be a supply of straw in the country to supply all the farrowing pens in the U.S”.

as I cannot find a copy of the National Hog Farmer article online, and do not have access to the paper edition (and factoryfarming.com does not say which edition to facilitate a search).

Also removed:

Crowding pigs during transport to slaughter saves money. According to "Factory Pork Production", an industry expert wrote, “Death losses during transport are too high — amounting to more than $8 million per year. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why we load as many hogs on a truck as we do. It's cheaper. So it becomes a moral issue. Is it right to overload a truck and save $.25 per head in the process, while the overcrowding contributes to the deaths of 80,000 hogs each year?”

due to no obvious reason for being there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised to see the pictures of animals kept in cages on this page! I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry on domesticated pigs, which I would have expected to have information on breeds, behaviours, domestication, beliefs and customs centered around pigs, that sort of thing (cf entry on cats or cows). The talk of pigs' intelligence seems to be another red herring. Even as a vegetarian, it seems awfully much like vegetarian propoganda to me. Cheers, John Paul 7 July 2006

Age[edit]

What is the average life expectancy of a pig assuming it died from natural causes? I think this would be good information to add.Rt66lt 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that is what the last sentence of the first paragraph ("The average age of domestic pigs is around 10 years old.") means, but I am not sure. It certainly does not mean what it says. JimCubb 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed that claim as it certainly didn't mean what it said, and sounds a bit high even for what it is likely to have meant. It should be referenced before being reinstated. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Intensive Pig Farming Article[edit]

Hi, I have moved much of the criticism of intensive pig farming to Intensive pig farming#Criticism of intensive piggeries. 80.189.240.94 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV marker as I think problems have been resolved. I notice Scott has removed the gestation crate photo introduced by Barabara, however I am pleased to report this photo is still showing at intensive pig farming and factory farming. 80.189.196.18 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo I left is a better picture, and has a better licence. The article didn't need two pictures of intensive pig farming - it's supposed to be about the species. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why two breed lists?[edit]

There are currently two breed lists: a list "Breeds within the UK" without links immediately followed by a longer "List of domestic pig breeds" with (mostly red) links to breed articles. Is there a reason to keep the first list? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appeared to be no reason for the second UK list, since each breed was repeated under the "List of domestic pig breeds." I have removed the UK list and reformatted the section. --Chobbs138 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 'List of domestic pig breeds' can be moved to a separate page. The list seems out of place in the article. The WP article on Cattle has already done this with the List of breeds of cattle. If there are objections, the change can be reverted. -- Hampshire2004 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Attention[edit]

Taxonomy is wrong (genus, taxon) should be Sus domestica as per ICZN decision IIRC.

* I tried looking this up at the ICZN web site [3] which sent me to the Zoo bank [4]. However, at their site I found all possible spellings and no reference to any decision. Now I'm just a clueless physicist trying to find the right way to write "pig" for my thesis, so maybe someone else is better suited to find the reference to this decision. --Alf 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Opinion 2027 does not refer to pigs! It refers to those animals where the domestic form was described first (as a species, maybe including the wild form, maybe not) and the wild one was separately described later. These, and only these, MUST have the domestic form as a separate species (dogs, cats, cattle, you name it). But it would possibly be better to treat the porker at species level too - for one thing, to be consistent with the others, and for another thing, a razorback hog (which is a porker returning to a "wild" state) and a wild boar are different enough (the razorback has the blunt skull and different behavior of the domestic pig). They can produce fertile offspring of course, but this is no sure-fire criterion, and in any case it's mainly cosmetic anyway. So there is no hard-and-fast rule, actually; the issue could be discussed in the article. Dysmorodrepanis 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So since this opinion doesn't apply to pigs then the name should be Sus scrofa domestica and not Sus domestica? --Alf 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* While we're at it I have a couple of add-on questions: domestica or domesticus? I believe it's female and male ending in latin when making a property into an adjective. So has anyone decided on whether pigs are female or not? Some of them seem fairly butch to me :) --Alf 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

domestica it is... fairly straightforward, this one... the name means literally "domesticated sow". (It would have been "Porcus domesticus" if Linne would have chosen the Latin term for male pigs)

* Thirdly, is it bad of me to split up your comment like this. Should I've replied at the end instead? I can fell my wiki-karma draining away already. --Alf 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore that, m'man... here, a handy karma point: o <- KARMA! No, make that two: oo Dysmorodrepanis 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lists should be split from article as with other animal breeds; some famous or mainstay breeds around the globe should be briefly mentioned in section (traditional/landrace breeds vs high-intensive farming stock).

layout: table -> left?

Intro contains much information which does not belong here. Wild Boar subspecies are nice (because not only the European one has contributed to the ole porker - I think cristatus and/or vittatus too. At least.) but they should be part of a discussion on how the domestic pig was bred.

Conservation status is "Domesticated". rm IUCN link; it is not appropriate for this animal. Dysmorodrepanis 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the circular link to gammon. Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

domectic pig, pig ( genus sus), wild boar, feral pig.[edit]

this articles are having confusion. I think that someone or a wikiproyect must clarify. This one is encyclopedia. It must not to be wrong. genus sus is not only pig. a wild boar is not a domestic pig o a feral pig a feral or wild pig is a domestic pig specimen. Today they are put in "wild boar" article.

Anselmocisneros 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they are not domesticated, they are still in the same genus. Because their DNA is very similar, they have similar features, and they are closely related. I understand why you are confused but that's how it works. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domesticated 2500 years ago?[edit]

That does not seem right at all. That would actually make it one of the last animals to be domesticated. The Livestock article says 7000 BC which makes a lot more sense.

- I have a reliable source for 7000 BC. I'm changing and sourcing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Agriculture?[edit]

I found categories for both Livestock and Domesticated Animals, but projects only for Cats, dogs and Dog Breeds, Horse Breeds. It seems there ought to be a project covering livestock and other agricultural topics, as quite a few of the sites need clean up. Therefore, I have proposed a Project "Agriculture". If there is any interest in this or an alternative project "Livestock", or if someone knows of something already out there, please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Agriculture.--Doug. 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we pick a Verification Template![edit]

This article uses {{refimprove}}, {{citations missing}}, and inline {{fact}} tags in addition to clean up and copy editing templates. I have to scroll down just to see the first line of the article. We need to leave the project/cleanup tag and pick one other way to tag this article if we want to and then work on it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed redundant to have both refimprove and citations notices. Removed refimprove. --Chobbs138 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, though I'm not sure that is the more commonly used of the two. It also seems redundant to have both a general article tag and inline {{Fact}} tags, unless someone is challenging specific text and intends to delete it, even then, it seems better in such a case to either go with the general article tag or remove the offending text to the talk page per Verifiability, or if it's really bad, just delete it. BTW, I think you killed my link by changing the reference format, I fixed it. Can you refer me to Manual of Style entry on BC vs BCE, I was wondering about that issue, and I see you changed my BCE entry?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar matter, I'm removing the copyedit template, as that is part of cleanup and this needs general cleanup.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Breeds[edit]

I like the idea of a rare breeds section, but why do we only have one listed, while Tamworths, GOSs, etc. are in the regular list?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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)[reply]

Arabian Wikipedia[edit]

There used to exist an Arabian language version of this one. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalli (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken fodder[edit]

Perhaps a section "domestic pig fodder" can be added ? Pigs can eg be fed with grass, as mentioned at fodder KVDP (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of article, repetition of other articles[edit]

User:Agong1 made the following edit to the article: [5], with the summary "Put the domestic pig in context and shifted sections to other pages. Hope you are happy".

I reverted ([6]) that edit with the following summary: "Revert: better before. New material little or no improvement, much material missing. Too much change in one go: please discuss first [...]".

The following comment was then posted on my user page (I presume that User:117.201.48.170 is the same person as User:Agong1, whom I hope may be forgiven for forgetting to log in):

I don't think putting all that stuff about pig farming is necessary in an article about the domestic pig. Originally the article redirected from pig farming to domestic pig. Theya re entirely different. I know, I keep pigs. There is an article on pig farming already. Why fill up the 'domestic pig' page with irrelevant stuff about farming. The current articles on pigs are:
Pig, Pigs - redirects to pig, Domestic pig, Pig farming, Intensive pig farming, hog, List of domestic pig breeds etc. With so many articles we can afford to be more selective.
We should keep this article about domestic pigs only and leave other sections for other articles. Now you have reverted it, this article continues to be duplicating, confusing and superfluous. Can you please help WP with all the pig articles and put everything in its right context - and in the right place? Thanks.

117.201.48.170 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for several reasons:

The changes were very large, with large sections of text moved and others deleted. Such multiple changes done at once make it very difficult to see whether text moved within the article has been changed.
The edit summary did not make clear any reasons for the changes, simply saying "shifted sections to other pages". Which sections? Which other pages? Why?
Those sections which had been edited or replaced did not seem to me to be much improved, if at all.
Some material should surely not be omitted altogether, such as the whole of the food, farming and "see also" sections.

I think the argument is that there is material in Domestic pig which is repeated elsewhere. However, this is the lead article for a large subject, and it should therefore summarise and link the various more specialised articles. We do need (succinct) summaries of those topics.

Looking at the article, yes, it could be improved: it is rather confused and I notice that there are some "main article" links missing; we also don't need nearly so many pig terms here (though we do need some). However, I can't see a justification for many of the changes. Could we have a discussion and consensus please on what changes are needed, and if we think changes are needed, then do them in stages so we can see what's going on? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "lead article" business? Is that why Cattle and Deer are so bloated with tangents as to be unreadable? I agree with 117.201.48.170 that summaries of other, related articles do not belong in this article. Else we might as well include a summary of this article in every other, related article; that way, readers of those articles won't have to bother ever reading this one. I think the whole concept of a "lead article" is both time-wasting and an insult to the reader. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "lead article", what seems to be wanted is a featured topic, with related articles gathered together in some kind of navigation box, and as little overlap as possible among them. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Pig is top of the hierarchy of articles about the pig? See below, Trev M ~ 18:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not where I would start. The lead says it is about the genus Sus, but almost all the content is about domestic pigs. I would move that article to Sus (genus). Here's a draft navigation box: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Pigs. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Template:Pigs. – Athaenara ✉ 02:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not where I'd like to end up. It's where people go!– probably in the belief they'll find different to what they do. It's our job to help them to wherever. Check out page hits, below. Trev M ~ 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

User:117.201.52.155 has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging Domestic pig and Pig (I have copied this template to the other article as is usual in this situation). No rationale was provided for the proposal – perhaps the proposer would like to provide one here. (As I am not the proposer, I have given my response separately below.) Richard New Forest (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The two articles have different subjects: Domestic pig covers, um, domestic pigs, while Pig covers pigs generally, with a summary of domestic pigs, but also covering the wild ancestor of domestic pigs (wild boar) and the other wild species of pig. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above; Pig is the summary/parent article for everything and then you have Domestic pig, Wild boar, etc. There are plenty of sources which make this an unquestionably notable topic on its own. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Think about what is a domestic pig? Is it not just a pig?, a sub species of.. well pigs. Domestic means 'of or relating to the family or household' and that is different from considering all the aspects of pigs including farming, breeds etc. Are we going to put articles about 'domestic' monkeys or snakes, trout or tigers? after all they are all kept domestically? Just read the comments above and it is clear the article was a bit of a mess to start with. it seemed to me the word 'domestic' was the problem so I tried to resolve the duplicity with the many other articles within Wiki and separated sections accordingly. Could we not, having so much choice, put the encyclopedic content into proper context and in its relevant sections? What do you think? Agong1 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agong1 (talk • contribs)

Domestic pig is not "a subspecies of pigs", but of one species of pig, Sus scrofa. "Domestic" does not necessarily mean "relating to the household" or "kept domestically"; in this case (and for most other animals) it means "domesticated", which does include farming, breeds etc.

There is a heirarchy of articles. First, pigs generally, including domestic pigs, their wild ancestor the wild boar, and the various other species of wild pigs. Then there are articles for each of those various pig species, including domestic pig, and then there are derivative articles of this, including pig farming etc. This is exactly the way it is done for various other domestic animals. For example, there is Bovini (cattle species generally), Bison, Gaur, Yak etc, Cattle, and Beef cattle, Dairy cattle, Beef etc. Then there is Ovis (sheep species generally), various sheep species articles including Domestic sheep, and Domestic sheep predation, List of sheep breeds etc. Likewise for dogs, chickens, cats, horses, goats and everything else I can think of. This is a logical and perfectly acceptable arrangement, and I can't really see what's wrong with it. (Incidentally, I think you meant "duplication", not "duplicity"...)

Finally, can you clarify whether you are the proposer of this merger? If so, please place a rationale at the top of this section and remove your "support" entry: you only get one voice in this debate (you could do this by simply placing a strike-through code around the "support" (<s>...</s>). Also please respond to the message about this issue that I left you a couple of days ago on your talk page. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems like more clear steering for those seeking, placing or editing content might be useful. I don't see

in any way as hierarchical in importance, simpy that the first point of call of one looking for reference on pigs would be Pig. Get that banner off the articles this week, and instead, above the link to the disambiguation of all the allegorical uses, put a highly visible, clearly understandable directory to the other important pages and what aspects of the pig they cover. Clearly, the Pig article is going to contain most science, and Pig farming the most information on commercial rearing. Domestic pig would seem to be the place describing its association with humans, through history, and associations that are probably not what farmers are thinking about but what those keeping just one or two pigs might be. Hope this helps. Best, Trev M ~ 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW – this article (main page) gets 750 hits/day, Pig gets 3k, disambiguation gets about 60 and Pig farming about 10. TM 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean heirarchical in importance, but in organisation – only that detailed topics relating to domestic pigs ought to be summarised in Domestic pig.

I do like your idea about a directory. Do you mean a template to go in all pig articles? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "differentiation" is a more appropriate term than heirarchy, if we're discussing organisation. Clearly, in terms of hierarchy of hits (see above) Pig "wins", but then these visitors need to be directed to the appropriate pages. Clearly, most casual visitors don't make it to the bottom of the page to follow the "See also"s. I have strong doubts that the hit numbers as shown above accurately reflect the interests of those coming to the site.

So, wrt the format the "directory" would take, I'll go check out what WP has available. Clearly it needs to go at the top, in the position of the disambiguation template, visible, but (as for my preferences) free of unnecessary graphics and colours and other fuss (like the merge template). The disambiguation template would work apart from its semantic inappropriateness and that it strings entries in one line, whereas one compact line per page allowing an explanatory phrase would be more suited to this use.... Trev M ~ 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and move Pig to Sus (genus) and move the disambiguation page to Pig. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....And have 3000 people a day arrive at a disambiguation page? They'd be even less happy than with Pig as it is now. They just need a few quick links at the top of the Pig page to decide where they really want, perhaps confirmed by a brief read of that page leader and a page scan. Trev M ~ 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, once the disambiguation page is at Pig, the incoming links can be fixed. Right now there are about 1300 incoming links and it looks like the majority of them should be linking to Domestic pig instead of Pig. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in a flurry of collaborative editing, we now have a slightly more balanced structure to the pig articles. Before anyone starts wholesale reverting or hierarchical adjustment, can I suggest just watching the page hits for a few days, see what happens? There's still p-lenty of redistribution/improvement of content to be done, but looks like we have a team at it. Best, Trev M ~ 02:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pig and Pig (disambiguation)[edit]

There is a requested page move involving Pig and Pig (disambiguation). One alternative suggestion is to make Pig a redirect to Domestic pig. See discussions on Talk:Pig and Talk:Pig (disambiguation). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have failed because of how it was worded, but the alternative suggestion you make here seems to have more universal support. Should one of us put forward this alternative as is being discussed below? Chrisrus (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pigs[edit]

Would anyone object to my moving this article to Pigs? Please see Pig (disambiguation).Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As JohnBlackburne just pointed out to you at Talk:Pig, the recent move request closed with no consensus for anything, so you should start a new request if you wish to see if consensus has changed. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to do that, what would your position be? Chrisrus (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same as it was previously: Move Pig -> Sus (genus) and then redirect Pig here. I disagree with moving this page because while I feel that this is the primary topic it should be immediately obvious that it does not cover all pigs, or pigs in general, and so the title should remain "Domestic pig" (similar reasoning was applied to a move a few months ago from Seizure to Epileptic seizure to ensure that the topic was immediately obvious even though there was already a hatnote). You shouldn't rely on an informal poll since it was so recently contested, however. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you would object to my so doing and why, and I agree not to do it, thank you. However, I don't know if I understand perfectly the part where you say what your position would be if I did as you suggest. You seem to belive that the article that stands at Pig should be moved to Sus, and that this article should become primary, which it is now not primary, but would be, if it were moved to "pig", so you want it to be both primary and not to be moved to pig, which could be done if Pig were moved to the disambiguation page, so that would be your position if I were to do as you suggest. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...now I'm confused, so let me try again: I think the article currently at Pig should be moved to Sus (genus), then I think Pig should be redirected here. I think that this page and the disambiguation page should both be left where they are. Is that any clearer? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem. This article is not primary unless it is called "pig" instead of "domestic pig". You can't have this article as primary and still call it domestic pig at the same time, unless "p-i-g" searchers are directed to the disambiguation page or some other solution that I can't see, such as maybe something having to do with turning the article "pig" into a redirect that comes here. Yes, it is confusing, thank you for your help! If we are to make a formal move proposal, we should make the right one. That's what went wrong last time, the proposal wasn't fleshed out properly before it was formally proposed. Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic" (emphasis added), and redirecting "p-i-g" searchers here is what I think should happen. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should one of us propose that? Chrisrus (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Poll[edit]

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Last issue: Do most users who search for "pig(s)" probably want the domestic pig?

Yes Users who search for "p-i-g(s)" probably are thinking of ordinary pigs. Chrisrus (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Pigs is too general to be just about domestic pigs. Domestic users who keep pigs may have just one or two or three. Pigs are also wild. Agong1 07:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agong1 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure you've understood the question. Please clarify. When you say "Pigs is too... domestic pigs", do you mean, the article pigs? To say "The article pigs is too general to be just about..." or "The word "pig" is too general... What did you mean by "users"? I meant "people who use Wikipedia". My question was what they are looking for. Are people who type "p-i-g(s)" thinking of such things as Warty Pigs and Bearded Pigs, or do you guess that they are looking for domestic pigs? Chrisrus (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the question and also your confusion - my bad. It's interesting though that you have made a difference between the article about the animal - and the animal. Also the user - as a "person who uses Wikipedia" can also eat bacon and farm pigs, such as I. Sometimes we do both, eating bacon sarnies while searching Wiki! and what am I doing - just looking for pig info. My position is simply that this article belongs in a section of the Pigs article (and in the same way there is also a parallel relationship between the subordinate physical embodiment of domestic pigs' to the superior embodiment of pig's (or sus) in general - but ignore that if it's a bit too Twilight) Agong1 07:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, move the current article at Pig to Sus (genus) and then redirect pig to domestic pig, per Pig's current text that the term most commonly refers to the domestic pig. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is moving Pig to Sus may not help people. They don't know what a Sus is. Redirect pig to sus is another alternative and then have a para on domestic pigs within that article. That way someone doesn't have to actually define what a 'domestic pig' is! Agong1 07:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Helping p-i-g-(s) searchers get where they want to go[edit]

This is not a move request, so please do not instruct me in making move requests. What I want to establish now is simply that it is highly likely that a person who goes to Wikipedia and types in p-i-g(s) is highly likely to be trying to find an article about regular, ordinary, domestic pigs. You may say that to do so would in effect be a move request, and that may (or may not) be the case, but exactly which one or series of moves turned out to be a complicated question with several possible solutions and a cascade of ramifications, all of which would have to be thought through before a move request that can create concensous can be properly written. The best way to go about it is one step at a time. First, we must establish what a person who types in "p-i-g-(s)" is most likely trying to do. Then we can get into the sticky question of what do about the problem. Please instruct me in the best way to get concensous that it is safe to assume that they are looking for an article about plain, ordinary pigs. Then we can move on to the next question. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is exactly that! What are 'plain, ordinary pigs'? Agong1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agong1 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your question. My answer to your question is domestic pigs are common, familiar, ordinary pigs. Such pigs as Bearded pigs, Red River Hogs, Babirusas, and so on are not familiar to most people. Most people have heard of Warthogs and Wild Boar, I suppose, but not Java Warty Pigs and such.

Please answer my question. Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Pig Stocks[edit]

The Global Pig Stocks table is 1) out of date (there is 2006 data available), 2) incorrect (the data doesn't match the source) and 3) incorrectly sourced, the correct source is here, the other one is an archive that only runs to 2004. I noticed when someone tried to about double Denmark's numbers. The new Denmark figure was way off so I reverted but the current data is not correct even for 2005. I'll try to fix if I get a moment but for now, I'll just mark it up as a "to do" item for this page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated with 2007 data from http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/default.aspx JanSöderback (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the table out of the Terminology section up into the Farming section and reduced it from top-10 to top-3, which is more in keeping with the main article being "Pig farming". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pig farming terminology weighs very heavy on the article[edit]

Just came by to have a look what was going on.

I have very little interest in pigs outside of WP, one way or the other. From an encyclopedic angle, I do think some interesting RS cited stuff that was added has been removed simply because it came as too heavy a load, and not quite from the angle some of the contributors would have liked, from a relatively inexperienced editor. Rather than RV most of it, it could have been used more sympathetically.

And as the for the Pig farming terminology section, aside from being a list where the rest of the page is prose, it virtually splits the page in two. I've moved most of the list to ~Farming with a link. Trev M ~ 23:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for creating a new sub-article. The relevant example here is Domestic sheep and the Glossary of sheep husbandry. I think "Pig farming terminology" is a bit awkward, so "Glossary of porcine terminology" or something equally encyclopedic would be good. Steven Walling 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology sub article really needs to be discussed at Talk:Pig farming: I didn't even realise that page existed when I came here. It looks less inappropriate on that page. Trev M ~ 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped the Terminology section, as it did seem to weigh too heavily on the article. The full terminology set is in the Pig farming article. I also changed the redirection of Shoat to the Pig farming#Terminology section. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed tweaking of opening paragraph[edit]

I propose tweaking of the opening paragraph to move 'uses of domestic pigs' to lower relevant sections and add more description of the animal per se to the opening paragraph. Most people would be opening the page to be informed about the animal, not its uses. DrChrissy (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dandies pig[edit]

An editor 136.145.252.249 recently added a sentence in the 'Pigs as pets' section of the article discussing 'royal dandies pigs' with a .pdf reference. This reference makes no mention of these pigs, and also suggests their existence is a myth. The editor needs to provide a better reference. DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Reproduction[edit]

The article contains much arcane information about e.g. pig dentistry, but no information on pig breeding such as age when maturity is reached, gestation period, average number of piglets, weaning period, litters per year, and life span. Is artificial insemination used as a rule or how many sows to a boar is usual? Such information would be of interest to the general reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.48.86 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on humans[edit]

Do you think it would be appropriate for this article to have a section dedicated to attacks of pigs on humans? I noticed there were many cases of lethal attacks on humans already. Including children eaten by pigs. I found some news in my native language (Romanian) about such cases in 1999 and 2002. Unfortunately, the newspaper already deleted their archive. At least, I have them saved on my hard disk:

O fetita de sase luni a fost devorata de porc, 12 octombrie 1999, Evenimentul zilei - little girl eaten by pigs
Un batrin a fost mincat de viu de porci, 24 noiembrie 1999, Evenimentul zilei - old man eaten by pigs
Muscata de porc, 24 mai 2002, Evenimentul zilei
Fetita mincata de porci, 23 octombrie 2002, Evenimentul zilei - little girl eaten by pigs

I think the best idea is to add some statistics of pig attacks on humans, but, if such statistics can't be found, then at least some particular cases of attacks should be mentioned. — Ark25 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be added unless they can be verified by a reliable source.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is one of the top 5 national newspapers in Romania. When they report an event or an accident, it's quite ok to consider that the information they deliver is factual. For example, the Cesspit article contains the information On June 1, 2011, two teenagers from Farmingville in Long Island, New York, drowned after becoming overwhelmed by fumes and trapped in a backyard cesspool measuring 16-feet deep. - Reuters, Jun 2, 2011. Is the Reuters article a reliable source? — Ark25 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider the Reuters article to be reliable, and I would consider one of the top 5 national newspapers in Romania to almost certainly be reliable (although I might not say that about newspapers here in the UK!). The problem is that if the newspaper has removed the stories about pig attacks from their archive, then there may be no independent source of the information.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need Wikipedia to have it's own server like WebCite or Archive.is - to archive the references in order to make sure we can always verify the accuracy of the data. Meanwhile I found this:

Oregon farmer eaten by his pigs, 2 October 2012, BBC
Un porc a mancat mainile unei fetite de 7 luni, 8 iunie 2002, Adevărul - pig devoured the hands of a seven months old baby girl
O fetita de sase luni a fost mancata de porc, 23 Mai 2007, Maria Radulescu, Gardianul - pig devoured the hands of a six months old baby girl
Bebeluş de şase luni, mutilat de porcul familiei, 19 ianuarie 2014, Dinu Zară, Adevărul - * CAZ ŞOCANT la Suceava. O fetiţă de şase luni a fost muşcată de porcul din gospodărie, 19 ianuarie 2014, Cristina Lica, Evenimentul zilei (same news report) - pig devoured ear and some fingers from a six months old baby girl

By the way, Romania is such a wonderful country, it has wonderful mountains, plains, lakes and such hospitable and welcoming natives, why don't you come/move over? :D

Adevărul is another of the top 5. Gardianul was closed but it was one of the say top 10 or top 15. Surely it could be trusted for news reports like this.

The news from Evenimentul zilei that was removed because about two months ago they removed all the news before 2006 but I have them saved in my computer. I'm completely sure they can be found in the printed edition. I have seen many references without external links. — Ark25 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long are their lives?[edit]

Nothing about life span? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.104.218 (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two science articles on pig reproduction[edit]

[7], [8]. I think this is worth mentioning about reproduction among domestic pigs. Komitsuki (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feral Swine[edit]

Shouldn't this article have a section on feral swine—or at least a link to the article on feral swine (currently entitled "Razorback")? They are, after all, domestic swine run wild, and not wild boar. Right now, Feral pig redirects to Wild boar, which is wrong in any case. Even if domestic swine and wild boar are technically the same species, it seems to me that feral swine should be treated separately from wild boar, because of the history of the breed. For now, I'm adding a link to Razorback under "See also"; but it seems to me that this article should include a summary of that. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've added comments at Razorback.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headings - Relationship with humans[edit]

I recently changed a heading to "Relationship with humans". I did this because I felt it was more consistent with other related articles. The editor pointed out this was not a reciprocated relationship and changed the heading to "Use by humans". I agree with this change and I think I might be making similar edits to other articles, however, it might be interesting to read the comments of other editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domestic pig. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Domestic pig. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT: “As pets” shouldn’t be info about how to take care of pigs as pets, but some summarizing facts about them as pets in general.[edit]

After the sentence mentioning that they’re hypoallergenic, it starts to become bad. Instead of including more common facts about pigs as pets, it’s like a how-to guide. Better yet, maybe someone could create a subset with a little bit of info about care. They just really seem out-of-place to me. I don’t know what to add back if I remove all the unnecessary sentences, though... I don’t want it to be mostly bare. Shickorbob (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Domestic pig. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence of pigs[edit]

The article mentions the supposed intelligence of pigs several times with very weak references. One claim is that pigs are the "most intelligent domestic animal", and the citation is to Forbes magazine without further references. The other claims refer to capabilities that pigs supposedly have, but the references are not critically analyzed and there is a lack of comparison between pigs and other animals. All this is important because the claim is very frequently made in favor of veganism or vegetarianism that pigs are extremely intelligent; it is frequently insinuated that they are more intelligent than dogs. This article therefore needs very strong references to support or deny the claim that pigs are "intelligent." Roches (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaporative Cooling?[edit]

There's no WP link for "Evaporative Cooling" at the biological level. Should there be? Gprobins (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False info on smallest breed[edit]

The information regarding the smallest known breed in the world was false, so I have updated it. Do a Google search, and it says that Kunekune are the smallest pig breed... According to “The British KuneKune Pig Society”. Actually, though, Göttingen minipigs are a lot smaller. According to Ellegaard, a “global developer, breeder, and distributor” of the breed, Gottingen minipigs weigh around 26kg, in comparison to Kunekune, which, according to their Wikipedia page, weigh between 60-200kg. Shickorbob (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) YttriumShrew (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic pig → Pig
Pig → Sus (genus)

– When talking about "pigs", people almost always mean the domestic variety not the genus Sus as a whole. We don't list cat under "domestic cat" or sheep under "domestic sheep" despite many of their relatives also being referred to as "cats" and "sheep", it would make sense for there to be more consistency and I don't really understand why searching for "pig" brings you to the genus when in everyday language that is not what people mean by "pig". -- Maykii (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. The domestic pig is usually what people mean by "pig". JIP | Talk 23:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the difficulty to differentiate the not-so-exact English word pig and the well-intended effort to be as inclusive as possible, however Sus as a genus is perhaps too academical for a common word like pig, also if this move end up successful, we would need to move sections from the current pig to this one. Lolitart (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most recognizable title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the nomination; I had no idea there was such a thing as a domestic pig article. --The Tips of Apmh (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Under WP:COMMONAME, this seems appropriate. Using "domestic" as a qualifier is fairly rare and not needed here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support you could make an argument that Pig should be a dab if Domestic pig isn't primary over Sus (genus), but Sus (genus) is certainly not the primary topic. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pig Litter Size[edit]

How many piglets is in a farrow? The people need to know :) 76.255.145.97 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022[edit]

This edit request to Pig has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Part to edit:

"The pig (Sus domesticus), often called swine, hog, or domestic pig when distinguishing from other members of the genus Sus, is an omnivorous, domesticated, even-toed, hoofed mammal."

For the sake of animal rights, my suggestion would be to publicly recognize pigs as individuals with their own experiences of the world, with sensibilities, the ability to feel pleasure, pain ... That they are sentient.

In order to do that, in that sentence, I suggest adding "sentient" to the list of adjectives used, linking to the Sentience page.

Result:

"The pig (Sus domesticus), often called swine, hog, or domestic pig when distinguishing from other members of the genus Sus, is a sentient, omnivorous, domesticated, even-toed, hoofed mammal."

Thank you for your time and consideration! Uridoz (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That would be better handled in the body of the article and not the lede. Plus, that is not neutral. UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023[edit]

This edit request to Pig has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

pig is a slang for coppers 2001:1C01:2231:5900:3EF7:13A:6FFE:E9FE (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: already covered in Pigs_in_culture#Idiom Xan747 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My pet pig" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect My pet pig has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 3 § My pet pig until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in New Zealand[edit]

Your description of feral pigs in New Zealand implies that they went from domestic to wild accidently. This is untrue. They were released to 'go forth and multiply' (and be a food source for travelling and lost people). At the time of European arrival the largest thing to eat in NZ was becoming rare, mostly nocturnal birds, not much bigger than a duck. That is why pigs were released. 125.239.50.110 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you provide verification of this from a reliable source or two. Peaceray (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]