Talk:Monster Pig

This article was nominated for deletion on May 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Chris Griffin

This article says that Chris Griffin from Family Guy killed Hogzilla 1, I'm guessing this is a joke or a mistake? Aaron 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, more than one person using the same name. PianoKeys 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I have added a credit to the image, it is a publicity. PianoKeys 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+tag removal

This story has been picked up by every major media centre in the World, it is notable. PianoKeys 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but it currently doesn't make any claim of notability. Phil Sandifer 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what would you require to make the notability standard ? Please look at the bottom of the article for the citations, including one for CNN.

Some explanation of the notability in the lead would be good. Right now it seems like it's very well-sourced, but it doesn't answer the basic question of "who cares?" Phil Sandifer 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added world record to the first sentence to clarify the notability issue. 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I've heard about it even here in Japan...quite notable.Poisonotter 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kgs vs Kg

I notice an editor changed all of these, I would think lbs and kgs go together and lb and kg go together, any suggestions from other editors on this ?? PianoKeys 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kilograms is always kg - kgs would be kilogram seconds (whatever they my be :)). i think 1 lb and 2 (or more) lbs is the correct form for pounds, but I haven't edited the article. nb my usage is british english, american english would be better for this article ofc. Trugster 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in point of fact, etc., ... "lbs" is popular, but simultaneously incorrect. The correct plural of "lb" is, as it happens, "lb". Tom e r ^talk 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There is a significant amount of anonymous IP vandalism, can someone request that we block IPs from editing the article of 30 days until the topic calms down ?? PianoKeys 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

An extra paragraph about the criticism is definitely necessary.

Agree, this page needs criticism and this page IS notable67.171.64.190 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Squeakbox

User:Squeakbox deleted half the article and posted an afd +tag without any prior discussion, so I reverted the article and posted a note to that effect on his talk page, would others keep an eye on this editor, I am not at my computer very often these days. PianoKeys 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Squeakbox's removal of off topic stuff. --Duk 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is not off-topic, it adds context about what a "Monster Pig" is and why the article is warranted. It is not uncommon for articles to have several sections about related material. PianoKeys 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the case if the article was titled "Monster pig". The capitalization indicates a proper noun, and the article content indicates that there is a specific pig under discussion. The way to incorporate this would be "see also" links to other articles discussing the other large pigs. --Eyrian 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to figure out whether it's about one particular pig, or big pigs in general. Friday (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I thought about putting it here, but decided to make a new page. List of Pigs over 1000lbs. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change suggestion

Since we already have Bigfoot, I propose a name change to Bigsnout...this just makes sense. Just because they call it "monster pig", doesn't mean we have to.--MONGO 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream media is calling it 'Monster Pig'. That is going to be the name that sticks. DarkAudit 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no fun. Well, if they change it to this new name, I want the credit.--MONGO 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to be added

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/06/01/0601monsterpig.html

A piece saying it wasn't a feral pig but a pet.

Feral

Feral simply means an animal that was once domesticated has gone back to living in the wild. This is very common and is the case with "Monster Pig". The pig was once domesticated and was hunted and killed living in the wild as a feral pig. Whether his original owner called him "Fred" is irrelevant, someone owned Monster Pig once, until it became feral.PianoKeys 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Pig did not become feral. He spent only four days in the hunt park before being murdered by that fat little redneck shitfucker scumbag fuckmouth. Canned hunts are for cowards and I will kill you little fool!

MonsterPig.com has posted the following comments regarding the feral status of the pig:

The news media used it for headlines for a week claiming it's size was a hoax. On the evening of May 31, I was contacted by Bran Strickland of the Anniston Star and he told me that he had good news and bad news. He said that the good news is your claims about the pig's massive size have been verified. The bad news is that he came from a hog breeder and that the pig had been sold from the breeder to the preserve for the purpose of hunting. Early on the morning of June 1, I went to the computer and read Bran's article which portrayed the pig as a family pet. The pig that Jamison killed did not act like a family pet. It was a very aggressive animal. I was upset at first to read this report but after going through a week of being told what we killed did not exist by the network media, I decided to get to the bottom of this myself. I got my whole family up at 6:00 a.m. and traveled to Heflin, AL to meet with the Blissitts to give Phil Blissitt, whom I have never met or talked to before, the opportunity to explain to Jamison why he had sold a pig that was described as being so gentle and sweet to a hunting preserve in order for someone to come and kill it. I was able to arrange a meeting with Mr. Blissitt who was happy to oblige as he is a father of a young boy similar to Jamison's age. Mr. Blissitt explained to me that he was an avid hunter and fisherman and that he did not see anything wrong with the hunting of the animal and if he did, he would not have sold it to the preserve. I asked him to tell me a little bit about the animal and asked was Mr. Strickland of the Anniston Star accurate in his docile description of the pig. Mr. Blissitt said he had bought all the pigs for his wife. The hogs were her deal, he and his son just took care of them for her. He said all of their pigs had just recently been sold for slaughter and the big boar was too big to be a breeder because of his massive weight and stature and would certainly be unsuitable for slaughter, referring to him being an uncut boar hog. He said the pig had gotten out several times by simply walking through the fence. He also said that the pig was very scary to people who would come in the yard because of his jaw popping, which is usually seen as a sign of aggression in hogs. He said that on several occasions, he had seen this massive pig throw other pigs around, once even over the fence. Mr. Blissitt also told of building the pig a large shelter that was big enough to cover him and keep him out of the weather but he said the pig tore it to bits in less than 40 minutes. Mrs. Blissitt herself even said in Mr. Strickland's article that at times the pig would even become irate. Mr. Blissitt said he could see how anyone looking at the hog with his jaw popping and aggressive behavior in the 200 acre hog preserve, that is part of the 2,500 acre hunting plantation, would certainly believe this pig to be very scary. He congratulated Jamison on his hunt and said that somebody had to kill the pig. Mr. Blissitt then said that they never would have brought this issue up if we were not trying to claim it to be a record wild hog. I explained that we had never declared it to be any kind of record and until recently, I was not very well educated on the terminology of hogs and their classifications. As the Alabama Game and Fish Commission investigated the story and the parties involved for wrong doing with the exception of Jamison and I, we sat patiently trying to understand what was going on. When the investigation was complete, I spoke with officials from the Alabama Game and Fish Commission who insured me that nothing illegal or unethical had occurred by any of the parties investigated. They did not tell me this pig had been purchased for stock on the plantation, which does have many species of pigs, including Russian black boar, that do raise there in a feral environment. He did state that the pig was of a domestic origin which was the ONLY legal way for owner's of pig hunting preserves to stock or restock besides pigs being born on the property. I did not really think a lot about what he said nor did I care at the time because I was still fighting the battle proving the pig was real or at least to get the news media to quit saying it wasn't. Now from the first time this story was told to the interviews Jamison and I have done on radio and television, we have never failed to say that the pig was hunted on a hunting ranch or farm. I know many of you real hunters and animal rights activist have chastised Jamison and I for this hunting trip from the very beginning trying to make it sound like it was something short of a true hunting experience and your opinion is well received and understood. However, I own no hunting land and have very little time so this opportunity to hunt what we thought and technically still is, according to the definition I have, a feral pig, was something I do not regret doing for my son. Had I known that in a short time, someone would call this pig their "pet", we would have simply hunted another hog. I would like to thank Mr. Blissitt for his honest and forthcoming description of the pig and his understanding and taking time to explain to my son that he did NOT shoot the family pet! I have no hard feelings at anyone involved nor do I feel like I have been misled in any way now that I have a total understanding of this event.

PianoKeys, living on a game preserve is not "the wild", it is just another form of farming (verified at Monsterpig.com, we have never failed to say that the pig was hunted on a hunting ranch or farm). If it lived on a farm it was domesticated. As such, the animal could not be considered feral and the references should go back to "domesticated". 154.20.180.11 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of the argument are included in the article, to provide balance. PianoKeys 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Blissitt says they were told the pig was being sold for "breeding purposes". NPR story --Gbleem 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

No. Why?? --CoastTOcoast533 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify? --Eyrian 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Perhaps a confused user looking for this? Lost in the brambles in pursuit of megasuus? Tom e r ^talk 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

This article reminded me a bit of largest organism and may deserve a link to or from it - or maybe we should have some kind of new article on large domesticated animals and plants that it could be incorporated into. We see giant pumpkins, cows, etc. all the time, this is another along those lines. Dcoetzee 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Manipulation of Stone Feral Hog Shooting Photographs

Fake?

www.sandpointgallery.com/pig 85.167.43.76 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of main image

IMHO it's rather misleading to leave the caption as "Jamison Stone poses with Monster Pig" - there is much evidence to suggest that the image is not what it appears to be. Surely the caption should alert the reader to the fact that the pig is smaller than it looks like in the image. Otherwise we're simply perpetuating the meme without adding any information. Stevage 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(When did the word "meme" replace the word "picture"?!) I'm not very impressed by the quality of the source questioning the picture. I'd probably want to see something more reliable. Friday (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only speculation the image is not correct, this is covered in the controversies section, the image caption is meant to be short. PianoKeys 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty convincing. Question: Would you show that image to someone and say "see how big the pig is" and leave it at that? No, you'd probably say "this is a really dodgy photo of the pig". Also see [1]. The reliability of the source isn't really that important: you can see for yourself that the images have clearly been edited (if nothing else, the father was chopped out of one), while the family claims that the images weren't edited at all. So there's a problem. Stevage 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rights Controversy

Information needs to be added about the animal rights controversy, specifically how People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) called for criminal charges against the killers of "Monster Pig" because of animal cruelty laws allegedly violated in the four hour hunt.

Why? The article already mentions that charges are being considered ... no point in giving PeTA free publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikippl, do something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamison%27s_Hog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.128.239 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pig's Weight?

The article lead-in states the pig weighed 1551 lbs, the body of the article states 1051 lbs. Which is correct? I am at work writing this, so I don't have the time to run through the sources and verify, but if someone could get this taken care of, it'd be appreciated. 207.250.126.186 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both weights are incorrect as reported by the AP (the reference was cited in this article but is now removed. The AP article said the scale only measured by ten pound increments so the original report by Mike Stone was in error. Jan 13 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RhondaRS (talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I haven't understood. In every science class I've ever taken they always tell us to estimate one significant digit past the minimum increment of the measurement device. It seems to me like they measured it correctly.Ziiv (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pigs go feral rapidly

Domesticated pigs released into the wild will develop tusks and hair in a few days. So...we are splitting hairs in a sense. TCO (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The authenticity of the photo has been disputed"

I think it has been comprehensively proven that the well-known photograph was an optical illusion, confirmed most obviously by the second, lesser-known picture of the boy resting on the hog, in which their relative dimensions are revealed. This article: http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-45.php which already appears in the footnotes, is virtually conclusive. I think it is time to note on the caption that the image was faked, and to stop giving undeserved parity to the contrary position.

File:Jamison stone monster pig stinkyjournalism fig11.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jamison stone monster pig stinkyjournalism fig11.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MonsterPig.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MonsterPig.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]