Jump to content

Talk:Sus (genus)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Swine

"Swine" is the generic term for several closely-related species, wild and domestic, just like "bovine" is a generic term, "ovine" is a generic term - related to sheep, "canine" is for dogs, "feline" is for cats, and I don't know the term for goats. "Wild boars" are swine.

General early stuff

Visit [1] , theres loads of great stuff on pigs, have a read and remember that its probably going to have what you need, check it out!

I remember hearing something about kieran having many more taste buds than humans (10,000 ), it was up in the millions, would be nice to have facts on their tastes.

According to this site "Tongue contains 15,000 taste buds. For comparison, the human tongue has 9,000 taste buds." Same thing for this site.

Do we really need quiteso many pictures on this page?

Not really - I think one or two pictures are enough in almost all cases. For people on modems (like me), all these pictures take too long to download. I think we should keep one of the pictures (I would pick "sow with piglet" with "sow and five piglets" as my second choice) and dump the rest. The image pages could be linked to from the article, if people really think they're useful. --Camembert

Is anybody planning on putting a taxobox on this page like on other animal pages? -- Zoe

I'm unsure of how to best add a link to P.I.G. to this article. a little blurb at the end of the article? Crackshoe 01:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A disambiguation page would, i think, be a bit overkill. Crackshoe 01:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be list of famous and fictional pigs. thealexfish 9:33, 5th of April, 2004

What exactly is "snuffly"? Joyous 01:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

This site I think has been locked, becuase I saw earlier someone had been messing with it and posting immature things. -User: Robin63 1/8/07 7;04 pm

Rossami: Minor correction regarding your sweat gland revision comment: while it is true that pigs are not the only mammals without sweat glands (the naked mole rat similarly has no sweat glands), dogs do in fact have eccrine sweat glands, but only on their nose. There's a nice obscure fact for ya, huh? -- ClockworkTroll 06:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Anonymous: Actually, dogs have them both on their noses and the pads of their feet.

Anyone interested in improving the content of the agricultural information on Wikipedia, here is your opportunity. Livestock has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Week. H2O 23:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More pictures

I didnt think pigs were that interesting until i had to resarch the javan warty pig and the javan is great and interesting!

Ranting

I am going to rewrite the last paragraph (Health Issues) since it contains NO sources for a number of ludicrous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

(The following cited section of the article was removed 09:28, Feb 18, 2005 by: 128.155.18.240 Paul August ☎ 21:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC))

Please read the following section in the article:

Mother pigs on factory farms in the U.S. live most of their lives in individual crates 7 feet long by 2 feet wide.

through to

At the slaughterhouse, improper stunning means that many hogs reach the scalding water bath (intended to soften their skin and remove the hair) alive.

This information may be correct but the writing style and content is biased, in my opinion. Although the living and slaughtering conditions of intensively-farmed livestock is arguably questionable, these sections are biased towards the animal rights cause. I suggest that the information is re-written and placed in a separate article, perhaps something like Intensive pig farming methods. The existing article should have a link to the article where this information is included.

The section covered should be replaced with the following statement(or similar):

the living conditions and slaughtering methods employed for pigs under intensive farming conditions is subject to criticism as causing unnecessary cruelty by many animal rights campaigners (add some links, including ones to the new page if the information is added to a new article).

Alternatively, a section within the article concerned with generalised methods of pig rearing and slaughter is as good and may include references to 'allegations of unecessary cruelty' by animal rights groups. As most pigs are reared under intensive conditions in developed nations, this is appropriate if balanced by a statement that 'traditional methods are generally employed in less developed nations and many regard this as more humane.

More generally, this article could include a lot more information on this animal.

I request a collaboration with the author of this section to resolve these issues if the suggested changes are not considered fair. Talk to me!

I have edited this entry because the last section in the old version was deemed excessively critical by a peer. Cute pics--ChrisJMoor 02:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with balance regarding the mentioned section. I thinkChrisJMoor's suggestions sound fair and any would probably be an improvement. Paul August ☎ 04:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that down, Paul August. Slightly too much information for the context as well, I thought. The problem with getting unbiased primary source information on raising and slaughtering methods is that easily-accessible sources tend to have an agenda; animal rights groups, quite possibly, tend to present worse-case conditions as widespread without proof. Trade sources tend to whitewash allegations of cruelty and are a bit secretive.

How about a section of the article dedicated to the global Swine Industry? It should refer to both factory farming and traditional operations. Some generalised details of these operations would be intersting, as would minority operations such as selective breeding and medical research. A small section dedicated to the critiques of such industries and which special interest groups cite them is important for a balanced perspective. It is probably worth mentioning the role of pigs in experimental xenotransplantation and (briefly and simplistically) why this is controversial.

I have little canonical data on the above topics, but if I can find enough I will start on this section myself if no one else bothers. In the meantime I'll see if any other livestock articles need NPOVing. --ChrisJMoor 20:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If by: Thanks for taking that down, ChrisJMoor is refering to the deleting the section in question, that wasn't me. That was done by 128.155.18.240. In fact, I don't think it should necessarily have been removed. I think this information should be included here or somewhere, as long as it is factual (and sources cited) and as along as it is NPOV'ed somewhat (providing context, adding balance etc) in line with what Chris wrote above. Paul August ☎ 21:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

they should tell how long they live and where they lived most of the time

Truffles and Pig Genitals?

Color me stupid, but this statement about truffles smelling like boar genitals seems either unfounded (too disgusting and expensive for primary research for me to investigate) and furthermore POV.

what are you on abaout?

Pig's Orgasm

Reference to the removal of a miscellaneous fact. Although some people may doubt the length of time over which a pig may orgasm some basic research will validate this fact, further more this research will reveal that the pig orgasm is in fact made up of four distinct phases. In future check facts before they are removed as not doing this prevents others from discovering unusual information.

  • So, if basic research will confirm the claims about a pigs orgasm, I'd like to see that information in this article. I'm actually having a tough time finding any reliable online sources confirming or deying the claim or providing any details. People cite this "fact" so often, it would be nice to have a good, informed, complete and preferably footnoted/cited reference on the matter. -ken, with no username; 10/13/05
    • Someone else can decide if this belongs in the actual article, but here's what I've got. My friendly neighborhood librarian found some fairly useful information in Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. In amidst discussing such interesting reproductive behavior such as "mutual grooming of genitals," "male nuzzling of the sides and vulva of the female" and "Males tend to salivate excessively" it notes that, "There are multiple mounts before intromission, and copulation sessions may last from 15 to 30 minutes. Adults will copulate several times per day." It also mentions that in most species "males associate with females only during estrus."; quotes Wrom:

I'd just like to throw in that I just watched the Dirty Jobs episode with the pig farm, and if this is referring to the male pig, it seems unlikely. No mention of it was made in the show, and the process of obtaining the semen did not seem to take a noticeably long time. Mike Rowe was leaning over while it occurred, if he had had to lean for a significant period, he would have shown signs of a sore back--he showed no such indications when they went to impregnate the female pig. 209.163.146.88 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is technically WP:OR, but yeah, definitely it is not 30 minutes. Um, sad to say, but in a moment of inattentiveness, my new pet pig (who will be fixed next week) managed to get my cat to hold still long enough to uh, finish his business, and I can tell you it took more like 30 seconds than 30 minutes... --66.67.213.241 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

people, people, so uninformed. the "30 minutes" number everyone has been quoting has always been in reference to the female pig's orgasm.

it seems odd/unlikely that she'd keep orgasaming once the male pig had already done its business and wandered off. (taking into account the post that said it took more like 30 seconds for the male to finish up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.138.62 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The cervix of the human female descends into the vagina with each contraction of the orgasm. This causes sperm to travel directly through the cervix. If something similar happens in a female pig then I think there exists plenty of reason why the female pig would continue an orgasm for longer than it takes for the male to orgasm. excuse me?

"Therefore"

I don't get the comment about "Muslims can't eat blood and *therefore* can't eat pigs"--can someone explain why the "therefore" necessarily follows? Some information is missing in this sentence. (Unsigned comment by 129.127.28.3 (Talk | contribs), 13:10, November 4, 2005 (UTC))

And as long as there is a discussion of Muslim restrictions, why not one of Jewish restrictions?
Good idea! This is one thing about which Jews and Muslims agree! Steve Dufour 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonoymous- Accually, Muslims just cant eat pork. I live in a muslim country(although I am not from it) and they eat a lot of lamb and chicken.

Why is Pig Haraam? Is it because it has Weak Kidneys - which are unable to purify the blood efficiently? And the impurities created during metabolism remain in the blood and flesh in large quantities? And blood constantly gives nutrition and oxygen to the body parts/flesh and takes back impurities? Is blood Haraam because it carries and contains Impurities? And so is the flesh of swine? Can anyone answer these questions? - Talmid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talmidne'eman (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "hog" in the U.S.

The article says hog is a synonym for "wild pig" in the United States. Really? I thought that Americans (at least, farmers and other professionals, perhaps not laymen) used hog generically to mean an individual domestic pig, while pig was used as a synonym of piglet. Certainly the animals referred to at family farm hog pen and hog lot are domestic, not wild. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There are hog farmers' associations in the U.S., and I don't think they are raising wild pigs. I'm changing it.

Coleopterous 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

how many pigs does it take to supply NFL with footballs

Anonoymous- was that a lame joke or just a plain stupid question??

Heh, incidentally, the answer is zero. "Pigskins" haven't been made out of pig skins for nearly a hundred years. It's all synthetics and leather, depending on the league. If I recall, the NFL uses the latter -- so the question is, how many cows does it take? heh... ---66.67.213.241 12:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pig, in mechanical engineering, short for 'Pipeline pig' , a device for cleaning pipelines

Pipeline pig, a device that can be passed into a pipeline, often bullet shaped, for cleaning. More elaborate pipeline pigs integrate technology that can perform integrity checking and other maintenance tasks.

A device that moves through the inside of a pipeline for the purpose of cleaning, dimensioning, or inspecting.

Intelligent?

The statement that pigs are particularly "intelligent" is highly evocative, but actually makes little sense. Perhaps "easily trainable" would be preferable. All animals learn at the same rate. Trainable behaviors tend to be limited to variations on normal behaviors. Thus, a dog can be trained to bark, but a pig cannot. A pig has a large behavioral repertory and is easily rewarded and thus is easily trainable. Dogs are inherently highly social and their packs are hierarchical; presumably this enables them to take on a master as a leader and to become loyal and eager to please. This is not the same as "intelligence", whatever intelligence is. Birds are not popularly considered intelligent (hence the epiphet "birdbrain"), yet corvidae can show seemingly creative problem-solving abilities. I suggest changing "intelligent mammals" to "easily trainable animals" (the superlative applies more broadly than to mammals alone). Myron 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Easily trainable animals" is a terrible alternative description. Pigs ARE smarter than dogs, it is a fact. The fact that many people eat them does not negate the fact that they are intelligent animals. Please consider reading the book The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. He provides many references. His section on pigs is highly informative. --Revolución hablar ver 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pigs are clearly very smart. To say they are smarter than dogs, well, what do you mean by that? They are intelligent in different ways.
I mean, it's not like you can have them both take the SAT and see who scores higher :D --66.67.213.241 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comparing the intelligence of two species is contentious because the results are dependent on the test used. As someone said, they may be intelligent in 'different ways' as well. To say they are intelligent among farmed animals is fair comment I think. 'Easily trainable' may also be fair comment but this merely the result of high intelligence - use the most direct term. As for saying they are more intelligent than dogs - provide a citation from a serious study and qualify the statement with 'may...according to some studies'--ChrisJMoor 22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: Pigs are considered by some pig owners and afficionados to be very smart, although an animal behavior scientist would say merely that they are "highly trainable" or "easily trainable," arguing that "smart" is a vague term, not measurable in animals inasmuch as they cannot be given standardized intelligence tests such as the SAT. Nonetheless, some who keep pigs as pets claim that pigs are smarter than dogs, citing their ability to ...."

The thing is this Wikipedia entry on pigs is not meant to contain all and only scientific knowledge on and approaches to understanding pigs. It would be quite appropriate for nonscientific things to be included such as that some people love their pigs, while others consider the pig a vile animal. In Europe, a boar's head--often the name or sign of a tavern---is a symbol of hospitality; a (whole) boar on a shield is a symbol of bravery or courage. IN England, for example, the boar was the personal symbol of King Richard III. A scientific-only approach is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It is wrong to insist that because scientists would not use the word smart, that it may not be used here, when in fact that is the language of the reader. It is appropriate, however, to provide the reader with a scientist's view. Therefore is it appropriate to report the facts that some people love pigs; some people hate pigs; scientists would not use the word smart to describe pigs. There are some scientists who think thatthere s no such thing as love. Should that be a reason not to say that people love their pigs? No. But it could be mentioned in passing--if the article gets to that level of detail. It could also be mentioned that dogs and animals who seem to love their owners are thought by some scientists to be merely very good at exhibiting the behavior that gets them free food and shelter--i.e. that domesticated animals such as dogs cats and domestic pigs have no feelings for their owners but are merely good at faking it, like certain professional humans who provide companionship in exchange for ready money.

The fact that one would easily find reading the discussion page more informative on the subject of pigs than the article itself shows that these facts do belong in the article.

However it is quite disturbing that a user would on the basis of being unconvinced announce "I'm deleting it." (See above.) There seems to be a Wikifascism emerging. Is there an entry on that topic? Maybe there is not enough bandwidth for the history page on such a topic.

BTW if someone has permission to edit, would you consider adding a link to Wild Boars in Britain? RUReady2Testify 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The only animal with sweat glands?

The page all about pigs is very factual,fantastic pictures, but I would like to make one correction. Pigs aren't the only animals without sweat glands, the naked mole-rat also doesn't have any. Over all, the page was wonderful. I am only new to this website, so I am hoping that all articles are at an equal standard.

Anonymous(Fuzzy Duckling)yoyo dog

Pigs eat a human child.

Never thought this would ever occur:

Sky news story

It would be good to get this into the article just to show the extreme behaviour of a pig.

Pigs do not behave extremally. The owners had probally not feed the pig in a while and the pig was very hungery. I know about pigs and how the behave and so does my dad. User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually pigs frequently behave extremely. I heard about a case in which a group of pigs took over a farm and began practicing Communism and battery farming which also goes to show the intelligence of pigs. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 

That was a Movie for a english class it was called Animal Farm. A pig ("The General")was the leader and he died so 
another pig "Snowball" made plans to have a better functioning farm. They over throw the farmer and 
become abondent with crops and make a animal "Ten Commandments". They live happily for a time. But another Pig

"Napolion" raises some dogs/puppies and kills "Snowball". He then runs a dictatorship. u need to watch it some time. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually from George Orwell's book, Animal Farm a satire of Russian Communism, as Jupiter Optimus Maximus knows only too well. Behave yourself, by Jove, or the ice pick will be yours! Hostiensis (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra info!!! I talked with my dad. ok pigs r very playful and they play with thier mouths. thats because they dont have hands. But! VERY BIG BUT!! But if they get a taste of blood then they can become cannibalistic they were probably just playing with him and they got a taste of blood and .... Perfect ex. of how playful pigs are. I have a white x barrow and when i scratch him behind his ears he rolls over and he also plays a sort of tag like game with me. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sus species

Sus barbatus (Müller, 1838)

Sus bucculentus† (extinct)

Sus cebifrons (Heude, 1888)

Sus celebensis (Müller & Schlegel, 1843)

Sus falconeri† (extinct)

Sus heureni Hardjasasmita, 1987

Sus hysudricus† (extinct)

Sus philippensis (Nehring, 1886)

Sus salvanius (Hodgson, 1847)

Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758

Sus strozzi† (extinct)

Sus timoriensis Muller & Schlegal, 1845

Sus verrucosus (Müller, 1840)

The domestic pig, feasiblely is a sus scrofa hybridized specie descent . Sus scrofa x sus hysudricus†? ,sus scrofa x sus bucculentus†? Anselmocisneros 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

domestic pig, pig (genus sus), wild boar, feral pig.

domestic pig, pig (genus sus), wild boar, feral pig. This articles are having confusion. I think that someone or a wikiproject 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 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

corkscrew shaped penis?

Everyone coming to this page must clearly have one question, and I think we're sadly failing to answer it.

Let's try and find, and add discussion, about the porcine penis and its unusual erect shape. 63.107.91.99 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it turns out that it is almost impossible to find a picture of a pig's "item." Which is too bad, because, as horrifying as it may be, it really is something everyone should see once in their life. I've never seen anything like that before... --66.67.213.241 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At great personal risk, I have obtained a non-copyrighted picture of an erect porcine member. I know it is not copyrighted because I took it myself. Piggy goes to the doctor this Wednesday, but I figured in the meantime, I might as well contribute to the pantheon of human knowledge... even if it's in a way nobody should ever contribute.
(Now if I can just figure out how to upload a picture...) --Jaysweet 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And here it is:
Does this belong in the article? There is no other place on teh interwebs where you can find a comparable photo, I know people who have checked.... --Jaysweet 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Its a bit big for the main article as it is, in my opinion. You are of course absolutely right - its noteworthy and interesting and offhand I cannot find any other equivalent pictures. The morphology probably relates to the mating system used by pigs and is adapted to scrape rival's sperm from the female. Either that or it helps to guide the penis towards the opening of the cervix if pigs have that adaption - not sure there. All good stuff for the article - you can also try at the penis article and help to offset its anthropocentric bias.--ChrisJMoor 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I left the resolution high so people can manipulate it as desired, e.g. maybe a close-up of the "main event" for demonstration. My understanding of the unique morphology is that the cervix of the female pig actually has the inverse shape, and it helps them interlock or some such thing... But I don't have any [[WP:RS] yet. I intend to do so eventually, but we'll see. Actually, right now, I am very busy dealing with the challenges of having an un-neutered pig in my house, as it turns out... heh... like every single thing he can reach becoming rapidly broken. --Jaysweet 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this talk page. I don't have time to contribute to the article, but I could do a quick search for relevant material. It's generally safe to say that anything that intrigues us has intrigued others. And this applies especially to the world of sex and reproduction. Indeed, prior to the development of DNA analysis, entymologists had a long history of differentiating some species by genital morphology, which often turns out to be unique. Morphology remains of central interest of course. On pig penises, here's some refs to start with, some of which provide comparative diagrams.[1][2][3][4]

I would recommend that the best way to incorporate the information within the article would be in a section on reproduction. That is a valid section, and if the information in it is presented in an informative rather than voyeuristic manner, it adds to the article. There has indeed been research on the matter, both in search of hypotheses to explain the extant anatomy and physiology (e.g. Birkhead[1]), and from more pragmatic perspectives of farm reproduction and veterinary science.[2][3][4] These sorts of sources also provide answers to questions like intromission time. For example, Hafez & Hafez state that "intromission lasts for up to 7 minutes".[2]

Among the descriptions in the refs presented here, Frandson et al's description of the erection of the pig penis is useful for the general reader. Erection of the penis "consists of lengthening the penis by straightening the sigmoid flexure, much as a bent garden hose tends to straighten when water pressure increases".[3] That's a useful, accurate, and understandable analogy that any reader can visualise. Frandson et al don't mention this, but the analogy also points to something long noted by those studying morphology in nature. That is, in nature, some shapes are ubiquitous (i.e. everywhere you look). Primary amongst these are tubes and spheres, or spheroids. Many structures in human anatomy consists of tubes and spheres, or spheroids, from neural tubes to our appendages, our heads, gonads, cells, microtubules within cells, rhibosomes, the list goes on. So the analogy of the pig's penis to a garden hose is descriptively useful, especially since at the conceptual level, the mechanism is the same - hydraulic pressure within a flexed tube, in the pig's case, the sigmoid flexure. The diagram in the Knox ref[4] shows the sigmoid flexure well enough, if nothing better can be found.

There will be more, and perhaps better references out there. But one has to start somewhere, and these alone would be good enough.

  1. ^ a b Birkhead, Tim (2000), Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition, London: Faber & Faber, ISBN 0-674-00445-0, retrieved 20 July 2010
  2. ^ a b c Hafez, B., & Hafez, Elsayed Saad Eldin (editors), ed. (2000), Reproduction in farm animals (7th ed.), Baltimore & Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, p. 10, ISBN 0-683-30577-8, retrieved 20 July 2010 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  3. ^ a b c Frandson, Rowen D., Wilke, W. Lee, & Fails, Anna Dee (2009), Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals (7th ed.), Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 411, ISBN 978-0-8138-1394-3/2009, retrieved 20 July 2010 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c Knox, Robert V, "The Anatomy and Physiology of Sperm Production in Boars" (PDF), SwineReproNet Publications: Extension Publications, University of Illinois, retrieved 20 July 2010

relation to hippos

The reference to pigs' relationship to hippos is somewhat ambiguous and could be misleading. It needs clarification along the lines of Wiki's own article on hippos, which states:

"Until 1985, naturalists grouped hippos with pigs, based on molar patterns. Evidence, first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics, and more recently from the fossil record, show that their closest living relatives are cetaceans — whales, porpoises and the like .[2] Hippopotami have more in common with whales than they do with other artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates), such as pigs. Thus, the common ancestor of hippos and whales existed after the branch-off from ruminants, which occurred after the divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates, including pigs. While the whale and hippo are each other's closest living relatives, their lineages split very soon after their divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates." -IstvanWolf 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hog (swine)

Article was a near duplicate of this article, so I redirected it here.--Isotope23 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound

I've recorded some pig noises. I don't know if we want to use them so I'll stick them here Secretlondon 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pig 'oink'
Tamworth pig 'oink'
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Pig 'oink'
Tamworth pig 'oink'
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Pig 'oink'
Tamworth pig 'oink'
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Trichinosis

There hasn't been a case of domesticated pig-caused trichinosis in this country (the USA) for decades, according to at least one radio show I heard. Is there a source for this article's assertion?CarlFink 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why you can't believe everything you hear on the radio! I did a quick web search and although pig-caused trichinosis is secondary to trichinosis caused by wild bear meat, it is still prevalent. Mantatory reporting only started in 1986, and although there are few cases, they seem to occur in hog raising areas. I don't see that the existing text is alarming or innacurate, but if you want to look up references and document that pig-caused trichinosis is rare - go for it. Bob98133 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New section

I wanted to add a new section to the article, but it needs an expert to look at it first:

Nomenclature

The English language has a large number of words describing or related to pigs of various descriptions, most of which are used in this article. For the clarification of the reader, here is a brief definition of such terms:

Pig
Any even‐toed ungulate of the Sus genus.
Sow
A female pig.
Piglet
An infant pig.
Boar
Swine
(collective noun?)
Hog


  • This is not correct.
A sow is an adult female hog that has farrowed (given birth) at least once. A female hog that has not farrowed is called a Gilt. [2] According to the NPCC a Gilt must be sexually mature.
An uncastrated male hog is called a "Boar".
A castrated male hog is called a "Barrow" [3]
Producers use the terms "swine", "Hog", and "Pig" differently. Among producers "swine" is a general term, "Pig" means an immature animal (synonymous with "feeder pig"), and "Hog" means a market weight animal. [4]
A piglet is also known as a "shoat" though this term generally applies only to recently weaned piglets, also known as "weaners". I don't think the term "infant" is appropriate.

I am not sure that a glossary is necessary within an article. That's what wikilinks are for. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure these terms are all appropriate for this article. These apply to, and are used in the article, Domestic_pig.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pig heart transplant

anyone know about pig heart transplants?Wiki wiki1 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


144.139.131.44 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have! As unusual as it sounds, it is quite common. The pigs are genetically modified so that the organ will be excepted into the human body; since the human immune system is so complex.

as well as heart transplants, pigs skin can also be used to transplant onto burns victims.

Pigs are actually one of the cleanest animals, as strange as this sounds and their genetic makeup is actually quite similar to a humans.

This is the reason pigs organs can be used for transplanting into humans.

do male pigs have a corkscrew penis?

do male pigs have a corkscrew penis?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.233.34 (talk) 07:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

See: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_060.html DMacks (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

sus bucculentus

it says "Sus bucculentus † (extinct)." but if i click on it, i get the following:

"Indo-chinese Warty Pig From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Sus bucculentus) The Indo-chinese Warty Pig or Vietnam Warty Pig (Sus bucculentus) is a species of even-toed ungulate in the Suidae family. It is found in Laos and Vietnam."

which seems to suggest its not extinct. i dont know which is correct but its confusing. it may well just be that the other article is lacking in clear information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.138.62 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Hampshire Sow and Piglets

I removed the recently added [[:Image:Sow and Piglets.jpg|thumb|left|150px|A sow and her piglets]] and put it on the page Hampshire (pig). It's placement needed work and there are enough pictures here, particularly of domestic pigs. I couldn't find a good place for it at Domestic pig, but noticed that Hampshire (pig) was calling out for a picture and this sure looks like a Hampshire sow to me.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pigs in Slang

A new phrase is around and about with young people today. "Oinky Howard", is the new phrase started over an online gaming server known as "Xbox Live", this term seems to meen nothing, we are further investigating this.

Pig Brain

do we really need the pictuyre of that pig brain there? its rather irrelevant `` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet fraud (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually some people eat pig brain. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Most sections on animals contain an evolution section. I'm curious what animals are related to pigs, and what their common ancestors are, assuming this is known. If it's not known, I guess that should be mentioned instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.122.167 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

pigs

Do pigs have veins like humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.208.168 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the bleeding I have seen in shooting pigs intraveniously, I would believe so. 64.250.203.132 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pig/Hog hair

Hog hair is used for artist's brushes. Its worth a mention. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention sow?

I don't know the best place to add it, but shouldn't the fact that a female pig is called a sow be mentioned somewhere in this article? The disambiguation page Sow directs to here, but I couldn't find sow being explicitly mentioned as a female pig anywhere in the article (and didn't want to add it in randomly in a poor locale). -- Natalya 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, a sow has birthed. A gilt has not, and a barrow has been neutered, while a boar has not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.203.132 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

mnamed

{{editsemiprotected}} The genus should probably be "named" instead of mnamed from Porcus.

Blogtim (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done, the whole sentence was fairly inelegant and poorly-formatted - I've reworded it. Thanks for letting us know. ~ mazca t|c 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porkchoptyt0.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.54.224.2 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Presence on Most Vandalized Pages

Hello. I help to maintain the 'most vandalized' page and, having looked at the revision log of Pig, believe that it no longer merits inclusion on the page, so will be removing it. Please do not hesitate to re-add it if IP vandalism becomes a problem again. Hadrian89 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Also pig is pronunced "Moo" in Thai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.27.39 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) they can fly for 10,000,100,010,00l miles over any where and don't worry they don't die —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrybear212 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily turning into wild boars?

This is a nicely detailed page, but what i'm missing is, that when escaping into the wild, feral pigs can quickly turn into wild boars (or just closely reseble them) in just a few generations. I mean, the next generation will look more similar to wild boars, with darker and thicker fur. However, I don't know of any scientific journals detailing it. Maybe someone else does?

Ways to say "Oink"

I think we should compile a list of ways that the English "oink" is said in other places. I think it's of interest for linguistics. Thomasmallen (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

defacement

Proxytoaster (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The section "cheryll wise king of the pigs" with content reading "Cheryll likes to lick pigs all day" is an obvious defacement, and should be edited/removed.

Call for the standardization of the product.....

I just did some searches

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+pigs&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+pig&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+airborne+bacteria+pig&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=airborne+bacteria+swine&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Escherichia+coli+swine&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Escherichia+coli+K88+pig&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.101 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How old?

How old do pigs become? __meco (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Sources are hard to come by, but it looks like the average wild pig gets to 4 or 5 years old, some make it to 8 or 9 years. When cared for by humans, maybe 30 years. Supposedly the oldest pig ever lived to be 68. I can't find any source on this I would be willing to put in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if pigs can or will run down steep grades ? Do they go into water over their heads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.231.115 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pig Manure/Biogas/

Pig manure has the highest yield of methane and the worst smell than any other common animal for Biogas producing digesters. perhaps this should be included somewhere . They get a bad wrap in the environmental section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.169.81 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Breeds of domestic pig

A useful addition to this page would be a list of domestic pig breeds but to bad for you. Wikipedia has one or two pages on pig breeds e.g. Gloucestershire Old Spots but no list of breeds. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I take back this comment there is a list of domestic pig breeds. Perhaps the link should be in the article Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC) hey bone!!!!!!!!!1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.72.15 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.203.70 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

gluttons

It is appalling that gluttons such as myself should be considered neither social nor intelligent. The pig is a fine creature, not only for its implementation and grasp of social mores but also for the very fact that it is capable of such. The pig eats what it must to survive. Any suggestion that its additional caloric intake results in poor social skills or lower intelligence shall be removed from the introduction of this page post haste. Aodeo (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pig diet

Look now, it is a fact that domestic pigs do eat human feces.(wild pigs are also known to eat dung of other animals). It may not appeal to some people but a FACT is A FACT. So Why should this fact be hidden? Because it doesn't appeal to pork eaters? Go and see this in any village in India. If you think only Indian pigs eat poop, put a plate of feces in front of an American domestic pig (maybe they are not allowed to eat), and see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.4 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that I would call recycling. --77.4.73.231 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
59..., if you have a reliable reference for this, feel free to add it to the article. However, simply saying that it is a fact does not make it so. Bob98133 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we need a ref, though I believe it is true: in some parts of the world village latrines are normally located on a platform above the pig pen. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact there is a reffed article: Pig toilet. This says it's limited to Goa in India, but I have seen it in documentaries about South East Asia; it is described for Korea in the article about the Jeju Black Pig. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Now Bob98133, I am convinced. I have seen it with my very own eyes. Now you're still free to do the experiment: Get a plate (or tin or whatever) of human feces and keep it in front of any domestic pig, and see for yourself. However I am not obssessed with including this fact in the article. If you want to believe pigs don't eat human feces, that's your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.0 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 January 2011

Dear Muslim friend, thank you for your contribution. I feel the need to remind you though that any such experiment would constitute a primary source, which is not allowed in Wikipaedia: we work with secondary sources only... i.e. we work with science not with rumour. Now, having come to rumour, I have seen a pig toilet (in an Eastern European village) myself. Surprise surprise, the pigs did not eat the feces. If they did the owner wouldn't have been forced to clean up the thing weekly. I'm sorry to tell you but this is bollocks! 77.4 is completely right: that would be aomw recycling. And pigs would be the cheapest animals to raise... they would only eat their own feces: feed them once and it would be sufficient for a pig's lifetime. Only thinking at that would give you an inkling of an idea whether your assertions are true or false. Now, as for the science of it, there are plenty of sources that detail what pigs do eat. Feces of any kind is not present in any of those studies. And that's the proof it's not happening. It's not happening under normal circumstances. Homo sapiens, under normal circumstances, does not eat flesh from other homo sapiens. Obviously there have been exceptions under the most unusual of circumstances (groups of people starving to death, cultural constructs etc.) but naturally it doesn't happen. 79.112.59.92 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear 79.112.59.92, There is no reason for you to assume someone is Muslim. It is natural for pigs to eat human feces. It is not limited to Goa in India. You can go to any Indian village where pigs are present and see for yourself. Please refute my claim and I will give you 1 million U.S. Dollars. This is my challenge. It should be the same for any European village also. For how many days together did you observe the pigs? How many pigs did you observe? Are you 100% sure they did not eat feces? -59.95.21.125 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear 79.112.59.92, my challenge still stands: show me that a domestic pig does not eat human faeces naturally and I shall give you one million U.S. dollars, but only if I am not able to show you at least hundreds of pigs in India eating human faeces. If they eat you will have to pay me 1 million U.S. dollars, so don't try to run away from the truth. It is not under special circumstances, and I can say boldly that YOU ARE LYING when you saw the pigs in eastern europe (are you sure they were pigs. You love pork and don't like this fact. -59.95.25.192 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


And yet if I want to mention the demonstrable fact, that there are commercial breed pigs which are kept as pets, such as in the link below, I am censored out by Kim Jong-wikipedia. Sorry all, no verifiable facts about animals allowed around here please. If it isn't clear to you that there is a large amount of unidirectional bias present in the gatekeeping of this article, then it is clear to me that you are probably suffering the effects of cognitive dissonance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/esther-the-wonder-pig_n_5371725.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.156.118 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

pigs as pets

there should be an article or at least a section about pigs as pets-anyone up for it?Roxy:Pkid (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there are articles on miniature pigs and pot-bellied pigs... And keeping them as pets is mentioned a couple of times in this article... I have no strong opinion either way, but I can kind of see how there is no section or article at the moment. TastyCakes (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Since there are already mentions in this article, and a separate article about the pigs most often kept as pets, I would be against a separate section about pigs as pets. In sheer numbers, pigs used for food dwarfs any other use. I think it would be a good idea to create a new article for Pet Pigs and link to it from this article. There have been a lot of issues, laws, etc about pigs as pets that would be distracting in this article but could make for an interesting separate article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a section for pigs as pets already in the domestic pig article. Steven Walling 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment. I am a biology grad and becoming increasingly frustrated with the way in which several Wikipedia articles are censored by gatekeepers. There is documented evidence of the common pig, the very same breed which is used in pork production, being kept as pets. If you think discussion about verifiable facts surrounding pigs is going to be distracting, then link to the relevant article in this one. I personally think this is a very poor excuse, and wonder whether Bob has ulterior motives. It's censoring of articles like this that are making me begin to wonder if I should ever contribute, donate, or use Wikipedia ever again. Seriously considering boycotting. Sort yourselves out, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.156.118 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.estherthewonderpig.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.156.118 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So Wikipedia would have the world believe that there is no such thing as a pet commercial breed. Feels like we are in North Korea tbh. Open up the article and let facts see daylight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/esther-the-wonder-pig_n_5371725.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.156.118 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pig → Sus (genus) — Discussion of a request to merge Pig into Domestic pig found issues with the current arrangement of pages. The article about the genus occupies the page name Pig and consequently attracts content about anything and everything to do with pigs, but other articles exist and the result is content forking. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a reason to support, actually. These people probably don't want the genus anyway, but rather domestic pig or one of the many other articles about pigs, so send them directly to the disambiguation page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't re-interpret my vote. It is an oppose. People looking for pigs may well find what they want at this article and if some wanted domestic pigs they will quickly spot the link. By comparison, very few people will type in Sus (genus). --Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think making it a disambiguation page is not a good idea, as it would cause unneccesary clicks for anyone searching for such a common word. I would agree, however, that the overview of the genus may not be the primary topic, and so I would support moving this article to Sus (genus) and then making Pig a redirect to Domestic pig. This would then mirror the situation at, for example, Sheep/Domestic sheep/Ovis. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Pig is vandalized more than most. If it redirects to Domestic pig then that article may get heavy vandalism. I think leaving a disambiguation page at Pig would help to reduce the vandalism. Also, disambiguation pages do not get many edits compared to articles, so if Pig had to be protected that would not suppress as much legitimate editing as protecting the article does now. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that vandalism is a reason to overlook the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline's advice to use a primary topic (when there is one) instead of a DAB. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Domestic pig the primary topic? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would think so, and that certainly seems to be supported by the suggestion (presumably yours?) that most of the incoming links really refer to Domestic pig and not Pig. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a large cluster of articles related to Domestic pig, so when it comes to fixing links, the best target is one of 20 or so articles. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Again I agree with Verno: vandalism is not a good reason to name a page. Also, yes, I think domestic pig must be the primary topic for "pig": it's the thing most people would associate with the word, and is surely streets ahead of anything else on Pig (disambiguation). Richard New Forest (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support VernoWhitney's idea. Clearly, kids typing in Cat, Dog, Sheep or Pig expect to be taken to the article on those extremely common animals. There are 850 million domestic pigs in the world. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I find it self-evident that a person searching for p-i-g should be directed first to domestic pig. It's obvious that most people coming to learn about pigs are thinking of the domestic animal, the barnyard animal, and not the wild boars and such, which sometimes aren't even called "pigs", by the way. Send all pig searchers directly to the obvious place to go. There, they can learn little known facts like the fact that they are decended from the Eurasian boar, and have obscure close relatives, and here's where to go to learn about them for those who want that much detail and a wider perspective, but all we can assume about such learners is that they speak English and part of knowing basic English is that familiar animal that snorts and wallows out in the backyard is called a "pig". The way I see it, anyone who disagrees with that must be an expert who can't remember what it's like not to know anything much about pigs other than what everyone knows about them. If you do not find it self-evident that Domestic Pig should be primary, please ask a random sample of people around you (make sure they have ordinary knowledge of pigs) and ask them if a searcher for p-i-g-s should be sent first to an article about regular ol' pigs or one that tells you about bush pigs and wild boars and warty hogs. This experiement should settle the matter. Chrisrus (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured it out:

  1. Redirect "p-i-g" to Domestic Pig (see above).
  2. Move Pig to Wild Pig with a note that it is only about wild Sus, but there are other definitions.
  3. Stop directing "Wild Pig" to "Wild Boar". All wild Sus are wild pigs.

Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If this article is only about Sus, then why not move it to Sus (genus)? VernoWhitney (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but a common term is generally best for titles. This has been divided, there is no single "pig" article because there is one for the wild Sus and one for the common pig. Sus doesn't cover domestic pigs and "Domestic Pig" doesn't cover the other pigs. So I don't see how any article can have claim to the title "Pig". It's like "Turkey". There is no article "Turkey", there's Wild Turkey and Domestic Turkey. I guess I was thinking of examples like that. Your idea is still preferable to sending all "p-i-g" searchers to Sus.Chrisrus (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm getting the impression that there's a general consensus to move Pig to Sus (genus) and then redirect Pig to Domestic pig? I think the Wild pig issue Chrisrus raised can be addressed later, but unless somebody points out that there's not really consensus I'm going to go ahead and make these changes later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes to the first part, no to the second. I think the disambiguation page should be at Pig. I have been gradually checking incoming links to Pig and a lot of them need fixing. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Has anybody besides you suggested that Domestic pig is not the primary topic or that putting a disambiguation page here is preferred and I missed it? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't oppose sending "p-i-g" searchers to the Disambiguation page first, so long as domestic is primary on that page. I want to see how the top of the disambiguation page will be done. Go ahead with the move, but please be careful not to finish until the top of the disambiguation page is integrated into the workaround. Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, since it's not nearly unanimous, I'll just hold off entirely while the DAB page is being sorted. Now that I think of it an admin is supposed to deal with possibly controversial moves after a week anyways just like at XfD. Sorry for trying to jump the gun. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
At least we can say that the fact that domestic pig should be primary on the disambiguation page is unanimous, or at least very nearly. So we may alter the top of the disambiguation page to reflect this. Chrisrus (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose simple move, but support VeroWhitney's suggestion, ie, the article currently titled Pig should be retitled Sus (genus). A person typing in P-I-G should be redirected to Domestic pig. At the top of Domestic pig should be the usual "Pig redirects here. For other uses see Pig (disambiguation), where all the confusion can be sorted out. I agree that most people typing in P-I-G are actually looking for domestic pig; I do not think people typing P-I-G should first arrive at a disambiguation page. In general the analogy with Sheep is very instructive.Erudy (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Below are Wikipedia article traffic statistics (page views) for JulyAugust 2010. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this external tool, in August 2010 Domestic pig had 17175 / 70345 = 24% as many page views as Pig. So although Domestic pig may be the most common target of incoming links to Pig, Domestic pig does not appear to be the primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you though about how skewed those results may be due to people simply typing in "pig" without knowing that the information they'd want could be hiding in "domestic pig"? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this a question about the number of page views of Pig coming from the search box rather than from an incoming link? I think it does not matter. Do you think that in aggregate people who search want different information than people who follow a link? I think not. Often I use the search box when I want to see a disambiguation page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


When I get redirected to a presumed "primary topic", often I just repeat the search on an external web search engine. I do that because so often when there is a "primary topic" then the relevant disambiguation page is pruned down, seemingly to drive traffic to the "primary topic". Fortunately, Google and other search engines have no concept of a "primary topic". Below are the first 10 hits, in order, that Google returned for "pig site:wikipedia.org". 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Pig 70345
  2. Pig (zodiac) 9818
  3. Domestic pig 17175
  4. Pig (dice) 1185
  5. Pigging 5155
  6. Porky Pig 13358
  7. PIG (musical project) 1136
  8. Pig iron 13957
  9. Pink Floyd pigs 2731
  10. Guinea pig 80610
I'm not talking about the number of page views coming from different links. First, you should read WP:DAB and know that google hits and incoming links are nice but not the only factors involved in deciding what the primary topic is. In either case, someone is going to link to Pig instead of Domestic pig if it's even remotely on-topic solely because of the fact that it is short and simple and obvious. In this case it can't be a fair comparison simply because most people wouldn't think to add "domestic" in front of their search term. I'm not sure what you mean about pruning down disambiguation pages to drive traffic to the primary topic, so I can't really address that.
That said, sticking to what guesstimates we can make with the numbers: To use my sheep comparison of earlier, for August Sheep (the redirect) was viewed 23678 times and Domestic sheep (the target) was viewed 42605 times. That means the redirect had more than half of all of the traffic, because it's just easier. Note that Sheep has 2500+ incoming links whereas Domestic sheep has 1500+, so the distribution of traffic is reasonably close to the distribution of wikilinks. Compare this to Domestic pig with a mere 300+ incoming links and Pig with 2500+, which means that "Domestic" is getting roughly twice as much of it's share of the traffic compared to its number of links. Obviously these numbers and calculations are really rough, but they do seem to indicate that more people want to know about domestic pigs than are currently being led there. Feel free to point out the glaring holes in my logic, but my point is that numbers just can't be the sole deciding factor. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the simplest, non-technical methods of navigating to Pig in WP (so I assume a large number of people will come this way) is to type pig into the search box. If the user's connection is fast enough, as most will be, a list of articles beginning with Pig appears beneath the box. If the first reasonable choice is Pig, the user is likely to go for it; I currently get Pigeon under Pig, then Pig iron, with the rest in the unscrolled box being equally unlikely. (The most simple I know being to type a term after the last slash in the address bar of the browser at a previous "straight" WP page but we must presume such users don't need much help getting where they want.)
But not everything from Pig (disambiguation) is offered as an option in the search scroll-down box, or even the disambig. page itself as a last resort. The non appearance of all disambiguation page information seems to be Wikipedia-wide, so I'm going to follow up in the appropriate place once I've found it. This means that where there are pages (even ones clearly highly relevant to the search) that don't begin with the same word, the user must use the laborious the full search method to find them. We're probably going to have to live with this (indefinitely, knowing WP) so what's the work around? I'm now going to make a redirect to Domestic Pig called Pig (domesticated) to see if it appears in the search box: I don't know how long integration into this might take though. It might also help in other unforeseen ways. The technique could then be applied to pages such as "Cultural references to ~" etc. Whatever the effectiveness of such a technique, it cant see it having any negative impact on how things might work. Then we have another issue: do terms from Redirects appear in the list of search possibilites? Trev M  ~  13:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking about for the workaround (and it seems more appropriate to discuss it at Talk:Pig (disambiguation) anyways, so I'll just answer your second question: Yes, redirects do appear in the list of search possibilities. This supported both by your Pig (domesticated) example as well as Sheep. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That the "workaroud" should be done in such a way that all who search for p-i-g-(s) should be sent first an article just about domestic pigs, not as it is now to the wider definition that includes their wild cousins, Sus. Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree with that, if it's consenses. It would also be helpful if in the search hints list we could get Pig (genus) and Pig farming to appear visibly near the top when just p-i-g is typed. However, after Pig, the alphabetical order of the terms I'm offered seems to fall apart: some other criteria (hits?) used to select the order. A similar short page-top list of the other major pig pages like at the top of the Sus page would be good on those pages too. Trev M  ~  23:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So to review... There are now three different opinions about what topic should occupy Pig: the genus Sus, the domestic pig, and the disambiguation page. All of these options reflect different opinions about the existence and identity of a primary topic for "pig". 69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the disambiguation page were at Pig, this is how it might look. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 

Pig may refer to:
===Animals===
*Sus, the genus of domestic, wild, warty, and bearded pigs
**Domestic pig
***Pork
**Wild pig or wild boar
*Suinae, the pig subfamily including bushpigs and giant forest hogs
*Suidae, the pig family including warthogs and babirusas
*Peccary or javelina, another even-toed ungulate animal
*Guinea pig, a domestic species of rodent that is popular as a pet
etc.
Please make the obvious primary so most users need look no further:

Pig most commonly refers to the Domestic Pig

It also refers to: ===Animals=== etc.

Please, shall we move this discussion back to pig (disambiguation) Chrisrus (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another way the disambiguation page could be formatted, if it had the page name Pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Pig may refer to:
===Animals===
*Domestic pig
 **Pork, or pig meat
 **Feral pig
*Sus, the genus of domestic, wild, warty, and bearded pigs
**Wild pig or wild boar
*Suinae, the pig subfamily including bushpigs and giant forest hogs
*Suidae, the pig family including warthogs and babirusas
etc.
That would not have the most likely referent primary, which, as you will remember, was an compromise offered by me instead of sending all searchers directly to the article at Domestic Pig, so we're needlessly delaying the vast majorty of "p-i-g" searchers. So, please don't draw their eye any lower than it has to go and bother him as little as possible with our problems about the taxon artlices. Just slap the most common, obvious, and useful link, right up front, separated from the table of contents and the title "animals" and then so closely accompanied by so many more potentially confusing articles. Your way is primary in the sense of being "the first" link, but being "primary" in this context, talking about Wikipedia disambiguation pages, where "primary" has the meaning "up in the first line", where we say "(Term) usually refers to (primary referent). It may also refer to:" and then we present a table to navigate all the rest of the so named articles. We want to direct the big traffic away from the smal tunnell, keep traffic moving, as we're already inconveniencing them. We want to keep separate the easy dispatch from the somewhat confusing situation with the articles based on taxons.
Second, "pork" is a very unlikely referent, is not an animal, and would disturb the ease with which we can explain our system of articles that cover the increasingly wider and looser system of taxon-articles that could conceivably be the target of a searcher for "p-i-g-s", which is a little tricky and potentially confusing for the user. We already have the redirect Pig (meat), we can put "pork" elsewhere, pretty confidently do without it, and get down to the business of clarifying all the articles we have about pigs, more or less loosely defined.
Next, if the user knows the term "feral pig", why didn't he or she search for it? Besides, if we start there, where will it end with the compound nouns? There've got to be hundreds of articles about particular breeds, types, landraces and so on and on and on this pig or that pig, subspecies of wild pigs, and extinct pigs, ay! Please don't open a can of works with compound nouns. Please stick to articles that are either called "pig(s)" or which could concievably have a claim to factually answering "yes" to the question "Is this article about pigs in general"? In sum, either named "pig" or about pigs in general. Chrisrus (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally, please have the quick obvious primary at the top more clearly separated from the confusing business of communicating our system of articles based on the taxons. Keep the primary "p-i-g" searchers away from with all that taxon stuff, which is secondary, but actually pretty primary in another sense of that word. Chrisrus (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the confusion evident in this discussion, and in the jumble of content on the article with page name Pig demonstrates why the page Pig should be a disambiguation page. If any article resides there, it will attract contributions about anything related to the word "pig". Let's have peace, please, and put the disambiguation page there. Let's help readers and contributors alike find the article they seek. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with either directing "p-i-g(s)" searchers directly to Domestic Pigs, or to the disambiguation page IF Domestic pig is above and separated from all the rest as is normally done with primary redirects.Chrisrus (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What about the page view stats? According to the August 2010 stats, Domestic pig gets less than half the views that Wild boar and Pork get:
Wild boar 37505
Pork 35230
Domestic pig 17175
Although I have fixed hundreds of incoming links to Pig, the effect on page views of Domestic pig has been slight at best. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The very fact that you have had to correct hundred of incoming links to pig should demonstrate that domestic pig is the primary topic. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not say all links went to Domestic pig? Many incoming links I fixed did intend the domestic pig, but they were not the majority. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make any assumptions about the links you changed, but now that you brought it up, let me ask you: how many links clearly meant domestic pig, how many clearly meant Sus (genus), and how many would've worked either way? Just a rough impression is all I'm asking about. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
When I started, Sus (genus) had 0 incoming links and now it has 100. Some are from taxonomic navigation boxes. I also found many incoming links intending Suinae, Suidae, or Suina. I found even more links intending Pig farming and the like, or Pork or related articles: an example would be mentions of suckling pig, meaning the food item, that did not link suckling pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am still waiting for indexing of transclusions to catch up, but I would say (a) all but a tiny fraction of incoming links are unclear if they intend the domestic pig or the genus, and (b) the majority of incoming links intend the genus. That is as it should be, given that Pig currently is an article about the genus. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone find a precedent for a major article page (handling as many hits) moving to a dedicated DAB page? Trev M  ~  16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Off hand, I can think of one that is likely. Avatar currently is an article and getting over 140,000 hits (page views) per month, but page view statistics suggest the article is not what most readers are looking for; the article likely will be moved so the disambiguation page can reside at the ambiguous base name. See Talk:Avatar_(disambiguation). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Now Avatar is a disambiguation page and incoming links are being fixed. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I found one. In November 2009 Polarization (disambiguation) had 1672 page views and Polarization had 58017. The ratio was 1672/58017 or 2.9%. In December 2009 the article at Polarization was moved to Polarization (waves) and replaced by the disambiguation page. In December 2009, as all the incoming links to Polarization were fixed, page views on Polarization (waves) climbed from 0 to many hundreds per day. In 2010 so far Polarization (waves) has averaged 20455 page views per month. So, roughly 60% of the page views on Polarization before the move were in error. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In 2010 so far, Polarization is getting 29900 page views per month, which is roughly the difference between the page views it got before the move and the page views Polarization (waves) is getting after the move. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That's two good precedents. I've actually been through the Polarization (waves) page.... (and come out walking at a strange angle;).... Avatar, I think is one of that case of a rarely used word being "usurped", and editors refusing (rightly) to give way to the current wave of interest in the trendy usage, but being reasonable enough not to try to force all incommers to read about what avatars "were" before allowing them the trendy page.
The Polarization one is clearly more relevant to this example. It's a similar volume of hits page. But 40:60 is quite down the middle, and clearly does require the user to make their own choice up front. I'm still nowhere near convinced here, though. Can you argue that 60% (or even 40%) of visitors to domestic pig want something other than what they'll find at that page or one of the other pig pages – or would be happier to get to disambiguation first? What' the others think? Trev M  ~  23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that the hatnotes on Pig have been normalized for a while, we can get a better sense of how many visitors there are looking for something other than an article about the genus. In September 2010 so far, page view stats on Pig (disambiguation) / Pig are 2802 / 85300 = 3.3%. So that supports what we all seem to agree about anyway, the genus is not the primary topic here. I think the length of this discussion also supports the view that there is no primary topic. Let us please move the disambiguation page to Pig and fix the incoming links so that more readers are more likely to go directly where they want to go. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

7 days elapsed for move discussion – please summarise

This is a catch 22: I'm resitant to spending time and energy helping organising articles until a consensus is reached on what the pages stand for. 69.3.72.249s answer is a compromise fix, and so far off ideal I will not go with it.

A pig is an animal, and all other uses originate from – or mess with – that starting point.

Domestic Pig is such a large field compared with other occurrences of the animal, that I will go with the consensus to make that the target article, but I still feel when considering a topic it is best to start with the widest view and work within that towards specialisation - as per the summary style.

The only way 69.3.72.249s push could work for me would be to make such a general page about pig that it could include practically everything on the DAB page as a readily accessible link and still be considered an article. In such an article, the animal would still represent by far the most of the page content, albeit with human overtones, such as a section pointing to the Main of Pigs in culture. A large, more prominent than usual See also section could contain most of the catch-alls in the existing DAB page. This idea could just about work but would need very careful management to stop it becoming a directionless free-for-all, even with semi-protection. One way would be to organise it would be as a very strict template only in each page section. All content in the page sections would transclude from the respective Main page Lead sections. This would deter users without the patience to figure out what is going on from spoiling the page. A similar system has been used on other pages I work on.

Otherwise, the issue of dismbiguation for me is simple and as I started with it, whether it be on the Pig (genus) page or the Pig (domestic) page. The vast majority of users will want the article about the domestic pig "animal", or articles within the Pig tree, that are children of Domestic Pig "animal", eg. Pig Farming, Wild Boar. So, they arrive at a Pig "animal" page: in the "hat" position on that page is a simple DAB choice: stay with "general" pig animal; go out of pig animal to mostly allegorical uses (the dedicated DAB page); go to further specialisation within the pig animal field. Exactly how the latter is routed and named, I'm open to persuation.

Does that close any gulfs, raise any more possibilities? Otherwise I feel we're just in a stalemate, and we really need to study what consensus is about. That's my flexible position. Trev M  ~  16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Trev M, I mean no disrespect when I say I think you are confusing primary topic and root word. Yes, "pig" is a root word of "domestic pig", "wild pig", "pig genus", "pig family", etc. However, the Wikipedia concept of primary topic is not based on any primacy of root word. Root words are very important for organizing dictionaries (including Wiktionary), but do not have the same role in encyclopedias, at least not in Wikipedia. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
No confusion at all: simply trying any which way that might work to get around this idea of typing "pig" into WP and landing at a page asking you what you might want. :>) Trev M  ~  21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What is so bad about that? What if most of the people who type in "pig" do not want to go to Domestic pig? That's what the page view stats are showing. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that the page view stats are showing that. Again, from my look at the sheep layout it seems that traffic for such articles should roughly correlate with the number of incoming links (if anybody knows of another situation where "Domestic foo" is it's own article and not a redirect I'll look at those numbers too, but this is the only corollary situation I'm aware of). In this case we have 2265 links to Pig (including redirects) and 332 links (including redirects) to Domestic pig, so domestics have about 13% market share, if you will. Now just looking at traffic for the past three days (it's arbitrary but since links have been getting fixed the more recent the better) we have 8.2k hits for pig and 2.8k hits for domestic pig, so domestics are getting about 25% of the total hits. As I said before, this means to me that more people are wanting to go to domestic pig than are currently being sent there, which (again, to me) indicates that people who type in page do want to go to Domestic pig. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that I still don't believe any of the numbers should be the deciding factor and I feel that consensus is pretty clear for this to not be a disambiguation page, but since you apparently like the numbers I feel I should offer an alternative interpretation of them. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The situation here is not comparable to Sheep and Domestic sheep because Pig is not a redirect to Domestic pig. Swine is a redirect to Domestic pig, so is comparable. Below are page views for August 2010. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
First, please be careful not to edit others posts. Second, what conclusions are we supposed to draw from that comparison? Numbers for the sake of numbers don't help anything. Third, Swine redirected to Pig until the 13th of this month so I really don't know what we're supposed to be looking at. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean about editing others' posts. As far as I know, I did not do that; I never even put that string in my edit buffer. Nonetheless, I apologize. Re what conclusions are we supposed to draw, I have no idea. I was just pointing out what would be an apples-and-apples comparison. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is something we can make of this. Consider page view ratios of the disambiguation page to the base page, regardless whether the base page is an article or a redirect. From those numbers I would say incoming links to Sheep may need fixing even more than incoming links to Pig do. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Swine (disambiguation)/Swine 0.5%
  • Pig (disambiguation)/Pig 2.0%
  • Sheep (disambiguation)/Sheep 3.6%
Looks like you've just made a very good case for not moving Pig to a dab page, 69.3.72.249! Trev M  ~  19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether this argues "for" or "against" depends on what is the norm. Is it about 2%, lower, or higher? I think it is lower. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Above I mentioned a similar move request involving Avatar. Computing the same ratio, I see what look like a desperate need for the disambiguation page to be moved. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Avatar (disambiguation)/Avatar 37%
Now that I'll agree with (Cow is even worse at 5.8%), but that's getting away from what we're supposed to be discussing here. If we could make Pig a redirect to Domestic pig for a month and then see how the numbers compare to what we have now, that would be a great way to see whether people are getting where they want to go, but we can't really do that without figuring out a set timeframe and what conditions to look at which would determine what happens at the end of the "trial period", etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you expect to happen? I would expect if Pig redirects to Domestic pig then page views on the disambiguation page will shoot up. I would expect that because right now Pig is about the genus Sus, and the majority of incoming links reflect that fact. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sus has alot of traffic now only because it's the primary referent for "p-i-g" searchers, so that's likely to change. I don't see any particular reason that a user, having passed up the chance to go directly to Domestic pig, would necessarly choose Sus over the rather wide selection of taxon-articles we'll have nicely laid out for them on the disambiguation page. They'll probably select the pig "family" over the pig "genus", if only because "family" is a nicer word, but that's not as strict a definition of "pig". So, once it's moved out of the primary position, you'll see traffic drop off for Sus pretty quickly I think, whereas Suidae the other taxons should increase their share of traffic from disambiguation page users.
So we want to clearly mark on the disambiguation page which taxon, if any, has the best claim to be called "True Pigs" among experts. Does anyone know if experts call whether experts use the term true pigs to refer to Sus or Suidae or what the situation is? The fact that "pigs" presently directs there makes you think it's Sus, but we should check to be sure. Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unverified information in this article and on the pig disambiguation page.

Both this article and the disambiguation pages say that "A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus"

Please help me evaluate the varificablity of the following sentences:

  1. A pig is a domesticated wild boar.
  2. A pig is an animal of the genus Sus.
  3. A pig is an animal of the subfamily Suinae.
  4. A pig is an animal of the family Suidae.
  5. A pig is an animal of the suborder Suina.

I though it would help search "Google Scholar" for the term "true pigs": http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22True+pigs%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS359US360&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws

In the first of these,Pigs, Peccaries, and Hippoes, the term "true pigs" is ussed four times to refer to the Suinae, spelled with an "n", no "d" at all. So far, it looks that the statement number two is not verifiable.

In the second, the expert author and the editors used the terms "true pigs" and "swine" in opposition to the "New World Pigs and Peccaries", which, by implication, are not truely pigs.

The third does not seem to apply.

The fourth, I can't get beyond the paywall, but again it is discussing peccaries. The term "true pigs" is useful when discussing peccaries.

In the fifth, they use the term like this "True pigs first came to the New World in the form of the domestic pig". That's again contrasting them with the New World Pigs and Peccaries, which implies that they are the false pigs.

The sixth says the true pigs are the Suidae.

The seventh also says "Suidae".

The eighth speaks of "True pigs of the Suidae not native to the New World"

The nineth discusses the Suina as consisting on the one hand of the True pigs and the New World Pigs, and the more distantly related Hippoes on the other hand. This makes me think that the disambiguation page shouldn't carry the Suina, as hippoes aren't pigs so we shouldn't be directing any "p-i-g" traffic there. It also makes me wonder if there is a taxon for the Suina minus the Hippos.

Glancing past some that don't apply, I find two more that define "true pig" as Suidae.

That gives Wikipedia's definition (the genus Sus) exactly zero for ten as the definition experts use for "True Pig" in this sample. How much more evidence do we need that "Sus" = "pig"? Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that fact, no more discussion is needed to stop treating Sus as primary either here or on the disambiguation page. Even though this discussion is dragging on and on as to what, then, should then sit at the article pigs. The guideline that disambiguation pages should wait for this to be decided should be trumped by the more important principle of varifiablity, not to mention truth. Chrisrus (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So far in the entire discussion of this requested move, no one has objected to moving the article about the genus from Pig to Sus (genus). We are debating only what else should occupy Pig instead of that article, and until now the only contenders are: Domestic pig and Pig (disambiguation). Given this review of usage, it appears we should add a 3rd contender: Suidae. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is for you all to make that clear on the disambiguation page, please, so I can change the first listing there to domestic without getting reverted. That it shouldn't be Sus anymore is agreed. Please tell him Sus is just plain not supported. You can go on discussing the proper place for Pig, disambig or domestic or even Suidae or Suinae, but not Sus. Help me explain to him that it's ok for me to go ahead and replace Sus with Domestic Pig on the disambiguation page. I'm being reverted on the grounds that this discussion has not ended, but so far as the primary not being Sus, it's over. It's not Sus and so we should change this blatenty false fact that stands at the top of the disambiguaiton page that sus is the best taxon to mean "pig". Explain why an exception should be made to the guideline that disambiguation pages must at all times be the same as the primary link for Pig; help me, and we can collapse this subsection. I'm sorry for the distraction, but Sus on the top of the disambiguation page does not need to stand any longer. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I get your point, Chrisrus, but I agree with the other contributor that the formula for disambiguation pages applies to this one. The time to address what comes first on the disambiguation page is after this requested move is closed. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So to your mind, disambiguation page guidelines trump verifiablity rules, truth, accuracy, and the fact that "A Pig is an animal of the genus Sus" is just plain bullshit? Please explain. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No, to my mind the real problem is the first sentence of the article now at Pig. Fix that, and the fix to the disambiguation page will follow; fiddling with the disambiguation page in this manner just hides the problem. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So your answer to my question is "no"? Meaning those guidelines apply when they conflict with verifiablity? Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No, my answer is that the problem you are trying to fix is in the content of Pig, not the disambiguation page. So fix it in Pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Please answer this question yes/no question: Does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trump WP:V? Chrisrus (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Please ask your question on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this suggestion. I have done so, please all feel free to comment there. I believe we have agreed that disambiguation page should have pig at the top. Then we can take our time figuring out where pig should point.
In reply to your statement above "No, my answer is.....fix it in pig, I have done so just now, but I wonder if we will see it reverted on the grounds that this article is suposed to be about the genus Sus, that we have another article about Suidae. So your idea seems good but maybe won't work. Maybe "Sus" should get it's own article and this one could be the suggested "umbrella artcle" as described below. Chrisrus (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New Idea

How about having an article "Pig" that describes the various animals that are referred to as "pig" and has links out to more specific articles. Not exactly a WP disambiguation page, but a prose disambiguator for the various animal articles that explains the differences briefly. Not normally what we do, but may make sense in this case? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; a sort of hybrid disambiguation page/umbrella article; very good, if that's what it evolves naturally to be, so be it. The important thing is to clarify the situation for the user and as helpful as possible. A very good candidate for what could occupy the space at Pig (animal), form the animal section of the disambiguation page, or both. Please, however, let Domestic pig be a choice right at the top in a bold way, so those who just want to read about regular ol' pigs can get where they want to go and opt out of reading about the taxonomy and cladistics of the pig. And in the meantime, please lets replace the statement at the top of the disambiguation page that says that Sus has some special claim to the word over taxons such as Suidae, with the Domestic pig so that large percentage of users can get where they want to go. Chrisrus (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've taken a step back and reviewed my WP:MOSDAB roots and changed my mind. It is clear to me that there is no agreement on a primary topic. When that happens, WP:MOSDAB suggests that the disambiguation page appear at the term (i.e., enter "pig" and get the dab page). The discussion here is odd in that it seems to have determined that there is a primary topic and then deciding what it is. To me, that's backwards. You should decide a particular page is the primary topic and then set it up as such or have the dab page at "Pig" and discuss how best to feature the most likely articles in an effective way. Should an article like the one I describe above (a general discussion of the various animals called "Pig"), consensus might determine it is the primary topic, but in the absence of such an article and the absence of consensus on what the primary topic is, the dab page should be at "Pig."
Side note: The discussion of of the "genus Sus" on the dab page is of tangental association with this discussion. On a dab page, the phrase on each link, including the first one, is to be interpreted as "In one meaning of the work, "Pig" is . . ." and that meaning is the meaning that briefly and clearly distinguishes the associated article from the rest on the page. The phrase is normally a shortened version of the essentials from the lead of the article in question. I would suggest at the moment that the first sentence of the dab read "A Pig is an even-toed ungulate of the family Suidae." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas, but I don't know where you see disagreement as to the primary target of "p-i-g(s)" searchers being Domestic Pig. The disagreement is about whether to send them directly there or to the disambiguation page. Some have mentioned the possibity of other primaries, such as Suidae, but no one has argued for them. It's pretty self-evident that most such searchers are probably going to be best served by the article about regular old, common, Domestic pigs. Is there some doubt in your mind about that? Chrisrus (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is a primary target, the MOS suggests the term go directly to that page. If it goes to the dab page, that indicates there is no real consensus that there is a primary topic. If consensus is that Domestic Pig is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be where the reader is headed, then that article should be at Pig. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Let's do that then. Because there are some ramifications of doing that that we need to get working on. Please make the move. Chrisrus (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so can't do anything more than you. Anyone who leans toward the "should be the dab page" have a comment? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If I understand what you're suggesting Chrisrus, this should be handled with a separate requested move. The result of the current move discussion is not clear. The move as proposed appears to have had significant opposition. Positions might have shifted over the course of the discussion, but the discussion has been rather wide-ranging. If I understand correctly, you're proposing that the current article at pig should be moved to Sus (genus) and the article currently at domestic pig be moved to pig. The disambiguation page would remain at pig (disambiguation), though the language would be updated to reflect the new primary topic. I suggest proposing this at WP:RM as a new move discussion so that consensus can be more clearly established. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a decent backlog at WP:RM, but I've been hoping an admin would come along and just realize that there is also the alternate proposal (which you just repeated) before determining consensus as opposed to filing a new move request while the current one is still waiting to be processed. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is with the backlog, but rather that given the long and wide-ranging discussion, it is very difficult for a non-involved admin to come along and understand that there is any consensus for anything. A new move discussion could make that more clear. older ≠ wiser 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Aw, geez, really? This has been going on for a long time and although it wasn't the original question we have agreed that Domestic Pig is the obvious primary. What that means for the rest of the articles is going to have to fall from that. Can we at least have a sort of "Resolved: Domestic Pig is primary" statement, and then the rest of what we have to do as a result of that will be helped by being seen in the light of this fact? Chrisrus (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking back over the discussion, I think the only move one could claim consensus for is to move pig to sus (genus). The disposition of pig seems less clear. The possibilities seem to be 1) Redirect pig to domestic pig; 2) move domestic pig to pig; 3) move pig (disambiguation) to pig. older ≠ wiser 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I have a comment. I did not propose moving the domestic pig article here because by page views it is not the primary topic. In fact, there is no primary topic: the idea of "the word pig and all it connotes" is exactly what a disambiguation page is for. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article Pig should stay as Pig as it is widely used word.Triplespy (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What's with this recent move to change all articles on animals to their scientific names? In this situation it's just renaming a page to one of its redirects. This discussion is getting a little overcomplicated and the reasons for the move aren't very good. --WikiDonn (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

User:117.201.52.155 has posted a merger proposal template on this article, suggesting merging Domestic pig and Pig (I have copied the template to this article as is usual in this situation). Can we please discuss at Talk:Domestic pig#Merger proposal. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected, edits needed

(This article is semi-protected, so I cannot edit it. The protecting admin is Connormah but User talk:Connormah also is semi-protected so I cannot ask this admin to un-protect.)

The hatnote about Porcus should be deleted; Porcus no longer redirects to this article. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How about substituting Template:Pigs for the navigation box there now? Also, delete the ungulates category; the pigs category is in that category already. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I understood your request correctly,  Done VernoWhitney (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph now[5] discusses hog and swine, but neither Hog nor Swine redirect to this article. I would delete those paragraphs and add to the "See also" section Hog (disambiguation) and Swine (disambiguation). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A photo of a domestic sow and piglets has been added to the taxon box. I suggest that to avoid confusion between this article and Domestic pig, any photo used in this taxon box be of one of the species that looks least like a domestic pig. I am in favor of no photo in the taxon box. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of photos, it would be helpful to show and discuss the babies of several species. Many domestic pig babies are hairless but the norm in this genus appears to be a full pelt with longitudinal stripes. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone please put the move notice {{movenotice}} on the page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article still begins in a misleading way. Google does not show the hatnote, so all the Google search user sees is this:

  • Pigs are even-toed ungulates of the genus Sus, placed within the family Suidae. The name hog most commonly refers to ...

Instead, how about this:

  • The pig genus Sus is placed in the family Suidae. Sus includes one species of domestic pigs, as well as ...

The idea is to state clearly in the first sentence that this article is about the genus itself. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

The root of this continuing content dispute seems to be the first line of the article Pig, which is about the pig genus Sus. Someone please edit the article to fix the first line. I suggest The pig genus Sus includes domestic pigs and their wild relatives... 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

agree.88.230.30.66 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree.88.231.236.53 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on article semi-protection

Should semi-protection on Pig continue indefinitely? Of the last 500 edits to the page, 146 were by IPs or were reverts or undos of edits by IPs. Of those 146 edits, 41 edits by 33 different IPs were not reverted, leaving 105 edits or approximately 53 edits by IPs and an equal number of reverts and undos by registered users. Is saving 53 bot-assisted reverts and undos worth losing 41 contributions to this article and possibly alienating 33 new contributors? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On page Pig, using just a text editor, of last 500 edits, I counted IP 110 edits that were reverted and 10 that were undone (237 lines inc 3 doubles) leaving 263 edits, of which 22 were since the most recent semiprot, (leaving 241) and 211 were during an earlier period of protection (22 May 2008-22 June 2010)....

....Leaving about 30 potentially useful edits during unprotected time when 120 revertions/undos of IPs were made. (not including protection changes).

Sorry if that's completely wrong. It doesn't sound like the same page as yours!

User at 69.3.72.249, please help us all and just get yourself a handle. As the guy on your (last) page said, you wouldn't have to wait. Say nothing about yourself. At least you get to create pages etc. and people know who you are and that you do serious work.

Best, Trev M  ~  23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget that - just realised I pasted the full edit history of pig in there, which is a few more lines - will recheck and post back in a moment Just checking previous calc....

Just checked again, and no I did paste 500 lines in, and that calc above is probably not far off. How IPs could have made 53 useful edits when I make only 30 total potential useful edits to page during unprotected time, I don't know. I need to go to bed. Trev M  ~  00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes was tried, and an admin declared it was not working and switched the page protection back to semi. See the log. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

terminology section

Do you all know the expression "All pigs are swine, but not all swine are pigs"? Any truth to it? Chrisrus (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Future of this article

I've been tempted, and actually have, a tiny bit, tried to improve this article. However, if we don't know what's going to happen to its nature and scope or whether it'll be merged, it's hard to work on. Please come to a decision, we've been under notice to summarize for a long time. Chrisrus (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The requested move has closed; result is no move. The genus remains at Pig. To go about improving it, I would try to "forget" the page name and focus on the topic: the genus Sus. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That result is not the final word. The nomination was flawed and there was confusion. If a proper move nomination were to be initiated—wait a while, please!—I suspect a move could be achieved. Abductive (reasoning) 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do go on. What do you think should be done next, and if we must wait a while, how long and what are we waiting for? Chrisrus (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to Sus

Would anyone object to my moving this article to Sus? Please see Pig (disambiguation), first section.Chrisrus (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent move request to the very similar Sus (genus) that failed, as it seems there's no clear consensus for it and some opposition. I do not think it would be right to move it unilaterally in light of that. If you think a move is appropriate now I suggest another RM to see if consensus has changed enough to support it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If I were to do that, what would your position be? Chrisrus (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know: I did not have any particular view on the last one, so if it's the same as last time I suspect that would be true. My point was an observation based on the move request only a month ago, and more generally the guidance on controversial moves. The RM should also deal with what happens to Pig. Does another article become the primary topic or does (as suggested in the last RM) the DAB page get moved to Pig?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The rest would be to move pig to either Domestic Pig or disambiguation. You personally have no objection? Chrisrus (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't move it yourself as Sus is an existing page, so you'd need to file it at WP:RM#Uncontroversial requests, but it says there "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial.", which is clearly the case here. For controversial and potentially controversial moves the process is the same as the last RM: decide exactly what moves you want then subst a {{move}} or more likely a {{move-multi}} here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First, please understand that the suggestion I was making was not only to move this article to Sus and to move the article domestic pig to "pig".
I understand that you would object to my doing so and the reasons you give for holding that position. I agree not to make the move, thank you for responding.
I also understand that if I did as you suggested, you would not oppose. Is that correct?Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Domestic_pig#Move_to_Pigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 October 2010

Please sign this post. Chrisrus (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nature and Scope of this Article

So, this article will be about pigs in general, defined as those pigs of the genus Sus, not all the other pigs in the Suidae. On the basis of..., I don't know, nothing in particular, if you're not in the Sus proper, your not a pig. This is sort of a thing Wikipedia is claiming to be true on it's own, despite what experts say. And that's our decision.

Or we make it an umbrella article, one that explains how the taxonomy of pigs works, the pig (animal) part of the disambiguation page in text form. And about the word pig (animal) and it's relationship to hog and swine and sounder. It sumarizes and links to the different articles we have about pigs, such as the breeds of domestic pigs, and so on. That way, a person comes here looking for "p-i-g" can get just the basics here, and connects to the other articles for more detail. It's not a completely developed idea, but the article should lead the way to what it wants to be as we work on it. But I see no scientific justification offered so far for limiting it to just the genus Sus. Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It is really simple. The article has a taxon box and the taxon is the genus Sus. So the article is about the genus. The article should explain the (publication) history of the genus, its extant and extinct members, its natural range now and in the fossil record, and what it is related to. Leave it at that. Remove all the tangent paragraphs that are (so tedious) summaries of other articles. An article about "pig" might be appropriate for Wikipedia, but the page name of such an article by formula would by Pig (word). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but why not divide the article? We remove the taxobox and put it in another article about Sus. Then, this will be "pig (animal), an umbrella article, one which uses text to explain the situation about the word "p-i-g" (animal) and helps them navigate the other articles. Helps them to understand, about the words "pig" and "hog" and "boar" and "Sus" and "Suid" and so on, and an overview of the taxonomy, and so on, clarifying the historical debate about what constitues a pig.

Well, for starters I dislike "umbrella" articles. They do not aid navigation and if navigation really is what is needed then the disambiguation page should be moved to Pig. "Umbrella" articles are garbage can articles, generally loaded with synthesis and POV and content forks, targets of vandalism and edit warring. I have asked before and now I ask again: unprotect this page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there agreement on this?

Is it safe to assume that most "p-i-g(-s)" searchers probably looking for domestic pigs?

This is not a move request! The exact solution may be moves or series of moves and other ramafications and turned out to be a complicated question. I don't want to start another entmoot. Please everyone just answer yes or no. Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes, I should have said "in your opinion". Please if everyone could just weigh in briefly, in your opinion. Chrisrus (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

I'm not sure what you want. Above you ask what it is people are looking for when they type "pig". Here you say you want to establish they are looking for domestic pigs. I.e. you are asking a question that you are already satisfied you know the answer to. If you want wikipedia to reflect this, i.e .you want users typing "pig" to be taken to domestic pig, the normal mechanism is a move request: a straightforward process that any editor can initiate. That is the proper way to gain consensus about such a change, as it makes sure the discussion is advertised where interested editors can see it, and that the discussion goes on for long enough that consensus can form.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you have specific ideas about what the significance of the answer to the question might be, but many other suggested solutions exist. For the moment, please just answer the question. Is is safe to assume that most people who type in "p-i-g-(s)" are most probably looking to learn about ordinary, domestic pigs. IPlease, if it's not too much trouble, could you please, in your opinion, yes, or no, that's what they are most likely looking to learn about Chrisrus (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Poison Ducts" AKA "Running Sores"

If found this on a religious website advocating a kosher diet.

Every animal has its purpose. Scavengers, such as the pig, are designed to clean—not to be eaten! Some of the “cleaning” features of the pig are remarkable.

One such feature is located under its hooves. Often referred to as poison ducts or running sores, these “sores” act as a conduit for poisons to ooze from the pig’s body. This is one reason pigs can eat poisonous snakes that would kill other creatures and not be affected themselves. However, these ducts will often become “plugged” from the amount of toxins pigs must excrete from their bodies. If this becomes the case, a farmer must quickly have the pig slaughtered and sent to the market before it dies.

Is there any truth to this? I've tried to find more trustworthy sites that verify this, but all I've turned up are similar unverified claims from other anti-pork websites. HypertimeTraveller (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no, this is garbled nonsense. Many animals (certainly sheep, and very likely pigs too) do have glands on their feet, but these are usually scent glands and have nothing to do with toxins. Poisonous snakes are not poisonous to eat for any animal, but only if their toxins get into the bloodstream when they bite you; like other animals pigs are affected by their bite. Pigs deal with toxins the same way other animals do. It is true that they are adapted to cope more easily with food toxins – for example, the lethal dose of botulin is hundreds if not thousands as high for a pig as for a human. These toxins are metabolised, and any excretion of metabolites will be done as by any other mammal (including us), not including excretion through the feet.
Avoidance of pig meat is a perfectly respectable cultural tradition, but it has no more logic than other food taboos such as avoidance of horse, dog or insects. Actually it seems to me that a desire for pseudoscientific explanations for such taboos shows something of a lack of confidence in the culture. I don't eat horse because I am British and we don't eat horses: I don't need any silly logical excuse for it.
Anyway, why would toxins oozing from the feet make a pig inedible?
Finally, if pigs are "designed" not to be eaten, why does bacon taste and smell so wonderful? To me they seem perfectly adapted to being turned into the most delicious range of tasty products... Richard New Forest (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info. =) HypertimeTraveller (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} There was an unsubstantiated claim inserted in the section "Health issues" that should be removed. It could be readded in a new sentance with the reference if a reference is found that substantiates it, preferably by a medical journal or study.

The statement "Modern pork almost never has this issue and trichinosis has been virtually wiped out except in wild animals like bear." is not supported by the reference ^ Marie Parsons. "Pigs in Ancient Egypt" http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm

The secton for reference #15 should be changed to

The presence of these diseases and parasites is one reason pork meat should always be well cooked or cured before eating. Some religious groups that consider pork unclean refer to these issues as support for their views.[15]

Done Removed the offending sentence and replaced it with a sourced one. — Bility (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lindgren Boar

a rare type of pig is know as lindgren Boar, it has just been found as a fossil 124.150.87.25 (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This article has been deleted as a "blatant hoax". There are no other Google hits. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is their live expectancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.223.231 (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pig as a "tool-using species"

I was directed to the "Pig" page from "Category:Tool-using species". However, there is nothing in the pig article describing any such behavior. Addition of this information would help complete the article.

C8linreana (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Many abrahamic religions"

That bit in the Cultural/religious section seems unnecessarily sloppy - there are only three (so-called) Abrahamic religions, and two of those have a negative attitude towards pigs, Judaism and Islam. Name them both, perhaps explain why they have an irrational dislike for the creature, and move on. The section as it is offers no real information. 78.133.77.63 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) ok sexy drop he made to this women and produced a little baby.. That is the real truth guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.11.71.52 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Consumption concern for humans and pigs behavior

I have read somewhere that if a pig gets stressed they will kill and eat their babies. This is definitely a health concern for humans who consumes pigs as food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.131.55 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

Delete it all Hsdf;sd (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Lol SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 13:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

wild boars are called razorbacks, feral pigs are not.

This is factually incorrect. feral pigs are NOT razorbacks. Syedalibangbang (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

motion to remove ham photo?

Article is about pig not ham. Sus. What about the scientific name of a pig is sus meme??

Still relevant Syedalibangbang (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

vandalism

Stop posting about among us!! Eg224 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thats sus Sam.L (123e443) 123e443 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

PIGS CAN FLY!!! Lilsoccerboi9 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: for obvious reasons. ​ - Flori4nK t • c 10:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't angry birds 950CMR (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

Pig change eight living species to nine living species DrTeriyaki (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Spycallers (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sus_(genus)/Archive_1&oldid=1101339787"