Talk:Feral pig

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CougarWebb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ntayl23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

-- The video from Arizona seems to possibly represent peccaries rather than feral hogs. Supporting this is peccaries tend to herd. Is there confirmation of the exact animal type in the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.163.41 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone really should add info on the movie :-) Bastie 00:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- And something on the Marvel superhero would be fun. If a character as lame as 'Night Thrasher' -- doesn't that make you go blind? -- can have his own voluminous entry, surely Razorback should too.

-- I don't think it's specially interesting the date when they were introduced in North America...

-- I am a lifelong fan of the University of Arkansas, but Texas A&M Kingsville, previously Texas A&I University, is the Javelina, so the statement that the University of Arkansas is the only "university or major sports team with a porcine mascot" is not completely accurate. Rhogskin 12:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I edited it to say "one of the only" instead of just "only". (Cardsplayer4life 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
but "one of the only" doesn't actually mean anything 193.63.239.165 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- I'd love to know where the name razorback came from. Is it their wiry hair? Is the hair sharp enough to cut like a razor? Do the tusks play some roll in the naming? Is there anything dangerous about this animal besides it's tusks? Just curious.

I believe it has to do with either their spine or the hairs growing along the length of it being raised into a ridge along their back, sort of like a natural mohawk.--Beetfarm Louie 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is almost a duplicate of the wild boar page. Also because the feral pig and the wild boar are technically the same animal (both are Sus scrofa) feel like these pages should be combined. This article is lacking citations. It could also flow and and be better organized. This is an okay source of information on the subject matter though.CougarWebb (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if CougarWebb has actually looked at the article, Wild Boar? It is very different from this article. There is almost no duplication between the two. While the Eurasian wild boar and the American (and presumably the Australian) feral pig are classified as belonging to the same species, their histories are quite different. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pages should be combined is my point and the histories be taken and separated out. You said it yourself that they are the same species. If they are the same species then they should be on the same page and just have their own little section explaining the different histories. CougarWebb (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size

I find it very hard to believe that a wild pig can be nine feet long and 1000 pounds. Karl Dickman talk 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound implausible. I found this reference [1] on MSNBC that says 12 feet and 1000 lbs, but there is decidedly little evidence except for one photo. Another reference is this one [2] from about.com which mentions an 8 foot, 800 lb one, but again, little supporting evidence is available. I added these two references and changed the wording of the sentence to say "reportedly" to show some sort of ambiguity, but it still seems a bit fishy to me. (Cardsplayer4life 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Fifty years ago or so, I visited my great uncle’s farm. He had razorback hogs. They were huge, easily twice the height at the shoulder of a common hog, and twice the length. They had a sagital rise on their spine that might have been a foot or more tall. They had a dinosaur-like look. Uncle warned us not to sit on their fence. If we fell in, they would kill us, he said. I recall a weight of half a ton. Though, I do not remember where I heard that. My Flatley (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

there is a lot of stuff in here that is uncited, and I don't know what's what. Can boars really fly through the air? Was the Hogzilla really a razorback? These are important questions

The line about Dimebag using the Dean Razorback guitar should be deleted. He designed it, but he was killed before they could deliver the final prototype to him. He never used it in concert or on any recordings.

124.181.140.1 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norse mythology?

Hello, in the last part of the intro, it talks about a mythological boar as being the possible origin of the name "razorback". I looked around and found an article on Gullinbursti, which is apparently a boar with a glowing mane... but the article mentions nothing about razor-sharp spines. In any case, the spelling is very different from "razorback" or the "glo-so" mentioned in this article. Does anybody know if this etymology is correct? --Kyoko 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconsidered Possibility

With all this confusion on the origins of razorback or "feral" hogs, doesn't it seem likely that these pigs, though some could be hybrids, may actually be indigenous to North America? That Sus Scrofa could've crossed the Bering Strait like so many Eurasion species, and could've been an inhabitant of grasslands, like the red fox, maintaining the plains from encroaching seedlings, and only spread throughout the continent in the wake of deforested areas. It's possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.135.128 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any article, or document putting forth this proposal? The European colonists did not see any wild pigs in North America. Why else would they go through the trouble of introducing them?Mariomassone (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feral or Wild

This article defines the Razorback as "feral". However the article on Feral defines it as follows: A feral organism is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to a wild state.

Wild Boar (so presumably Razorbacks) do not meet this definition. They are the wild population from which domestic pigs were domesticated in the first place, not domesticated pigs returned to a wild state. Merlin Cox (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point, but I also suspect it may be a complicated mix. Wild boar and domesticated pigs can freely interbreed, and both have been released/escaped into the wild at various times.92.18.67.254 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have changed the lead accordingly. I've also removed some dubious alternative names - if I'm wrong about any of them can someone please reinsert relevant ones. Obscurasky (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the terms Feral Swine, Wild Pig, Feral Hog, and Wild Pig are all different classifications of the Feral Pig. Different state Department of Natural Resource agencies have them classified under a different name because there is no real official name established yet. Some states that have different classifications are Michigan, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama just to name a few. CougarWebb (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remember this is a global project. Your suggestion is very US-centric. Here in the UK, the term "hog" is hardly ever used, let alone "Feral hog". The term "Wild pig" is hardly ever used, nor is the term "Feral swine". The most widely used terms in the UK I suspect are "Feral pig" and "Wild boar". DrChrissy (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrChrissy, this is a global project. Here in Australia the term "feral pigs" is the most commonly used term in any of the shooting magazines I've seen. Razorback is almost unheard of here and I think most here would consider it an American term. --Dmol (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dmol. I actually lived in Australia for 12 years from 1980. I remember hearing the term "razorback", but my interpretation was that it meant a particularly large, aggressive individual, usually male, rather than a frequently used collective term for feral pigs. DrChrissy (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was about the same time that the film Razorback happened, and I think that led to a brief time when the term was used.--Dmol (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to mention that. And of course, I have been back in the UK for 26 years and useage changes. I'm sure yours is a much more recent appreciation of the term. DrChrissy (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of global scope... When I searched for razorback, the very last thing I would ever expect to find is an article about pigs, wild or otherwise. I was even more surprised that this would be the destination of a redirect for that word. Well, I guess I learned something. But what I was expecting to find was a geographic-geologic-topographic article about a kind of "ridge trail" where one must hike along a narrow razorback ridge with steeply falling away slopes on both sides. That is the one and only use of the word razorback I have ever encountered before today. 70.27.171.169 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Concerns?

I think someone needs to add the environmental implications of the introduction and continual population growth of Razorbacks to the Americas. So far there's just a tiny sentence about it being an invasive species in Brazil. In some parts of North America, wild hogs are becoming a big problem. 67.190.163.77 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Azalea[reply]

Merge proposal

Razorback and Wild boar are both about the same species, so I propose they be merged. Back on the Chain Gang (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a "razorback" a domestic pig gone feral?
Farseer-Lolotea (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If razorbacks are indeed pure wild boar, introduced as wild animals to N America without admixture from escaped domestic swine, then yes, the articles ought to be merged. However, if they are mostly or partly feral domestic pigs, then no, clearly they ought to be separate articles. From the photo, they don't look the same, and the detail of the article seems to make it very clear that they are not. Incidentally, the image used in this article (File:Wild Pig KSC02pd0873.jpg) is also used in the wild boar article to illustrate feral pigs, and it can't be both... Either way we need a ref, and I've tagged the lead para accordingly.
Feral pig currently redirects to the feral pig section of Wild boar. If razorbacks are indeed feral pigs, then I suggest that instead of merging as above, this much fuller article is moved to Feral pig, and the Wild boar feral section is shortened and given a "main article" tag. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Razorbacks are not Wild Boar. They are either feral pigs or pig/boar hybrids, depending on what region you're discussing. Steven Walling 23:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: Not moved due to lack of consensus for move. Also, there are unresolved issues about the topic of this article. Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

Razorback → Feral pig — Following from earlier discussion, "feral pig" is a more widely applicable name. Feral pig is currently a redirect to a section in Wild boar. Propose merging this with Razorback, leaving a summary and a "main article" link in Wild boar. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Feral pig is the more encyclopedic name, and the current redirect is inappropriate since the vast majority of feral pigs are not Wild Boar, but are of a similar breeding to Razorbacks. Steven Walling 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree, although the term 'Razorback' is in common use and this must be acknowledged/reflected within the text. Obscurasky (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: it would say something like "feral pig, known in North America as razorback and in New Zealand as Captain Cooker". If as I suspect it is also known inaccurately as a "wild boar" in North America (which would explain some of the confusion above), we could also explain that. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it differ from other feral pigs? And even if it does, why not just have a section on razorbacks in Feral pig? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on this talk page in the following section, "razorback" as used in North America is ambiguous. It generally means a wild boar, or a hybrid between wild boar and feral domestic pig. The razorback is a wild or feral pig with a remarkable amount of relatively long coarse hair. In many places, particularly on islands, there are feral pigs that are derived exclusively from domestic pigs and resemble domestic pigs in having short, fine hair. They are not razorbacks. I would have no objection to putting a section about razorbacks on a page about feral pigs, except that "razorback" also refers to wild boar. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is that a "support"...? Richard New Forest (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'64.105.65.28' makes a couple of good points above. If he is correct, when he says that 'not all feral pigs [in N.America] are razorbacks', this will need careful explanation and citations.
The fact that 'razorback' can also be used to refer to both feral pigs and wild boar in N.America could also be troublesome. The reference to razorbacks was removed from the wild boar page; either this was inappropriate, or reference to razorbacks should not appear on a feral pig page either - in other words it should stay as a page in its own right. Obscurasky (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything to indicate that there are any pure-bred wild boar in North America. Everything seems to point to feral pigs in North America being various mixes of domestic pig and wild boar, with at least some (and perhaps all) of them being called razorbacks. Everything I have seen indicates that at least some (and perhaps all) feral pigs found in other parts of the world are razorbacks under another name. If we have one thing, it should have one article. Only if there really is a consistent difference between razorbacks and other feral pigs could separate articles be justified, but at present it seems clear that razorbacks are at most a kind of feral pig, and I think all the razorback material would fit comfortably into a section in Feral pig. We can't have a separate article just because one dialect uses a different term: that would be a dictionary definition. So:
  • Are there any pure-bred wild boar in North America? If so, what are they called?
  • Does the thing called razorback in North America occur elsewhere?
  • Are all feral pigs in North America called razorbacks?
  • If not, what is the difference?
  • If they are somewhat different, aren't they nevertheless similar enough to be combined in one article?
Richard New Forest (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any takers for these questions? I think the answers would help our decision. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, but I'm not quite sure what the new term should be. As a native speaker of American English, I don't consider "razorback" to be the primary U.S. term for this kind of animal. (If you had asked me "What's a razorback?" outside the context of this page, I'd probably say "the University of Arkansas mascot.") In the Smoky Mountains and other parks near where I live, the animals resulting from interbreeding of wild boar and domestic pigs are most commonly referred to as "wild hogs," "feral hogs," and "wild boar." For example, see: [3], [4], [5], [6], This website for a national park in California calls them "wild pigs." This other California national park site discusses "feral pigs," referring to domestic pigs gone wild. This state of Wisconsin webpage says "Feral pigs (Sus scrofa), also known as wild pigs, wild hogs, wild boars, European wild boars, Russian wild boars, or razorbacks, are rangy-looking non-native members of the domestic swine family, Suidae." --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but as I said above, are there any pure wild boar in America? If not, all razorbacks must be some kind of feral pig. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are or have been pure wild boar living in the wild in North America, but they are not native species. I think one source of confusion about native wild pigs in North America is the fact that North America has a native species that looks like a pig: the collared peccary or javelina (Tayassu tajacu). Another source of confusion is the release of non-native, non-domesticated species (eg the "Russian razorback") of pigs into the wild. Those pigs are wild pigs, not feral pigs, but they have contributed their ancestry to multiple lines of feral pigs. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "Russian razorback" is an American common name for a Eurasian species of wild boar. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
European wild boar were imported to several locations in North America and released for the pleasure of hunters. This is discussed in several of the references that I cited above (for example, this newspaper article). The animals discussed in the article are the progeny of interbreeding between these wild boar and feral domestic pigs. I'm not aware of javelina being involved. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Better definition required

I'm not sure the lede is totally accurate. Is a Razorback a specific 'type' of pig? My understanding is that the word is an Americanism, applied to any type of wild hog. Obscurasky (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Usually it means a feral pig most closely related to the domestic pig, but the term is often applied to any type of wild hog. Steven Walling 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the lede, but I think it needs building on. Would someone authoritative on the subject care to add someting. Thx. Obscurasky (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boar (disambiguation)

A requested move concerning Boar (disambiguation) and Boar is being discussed now at Talk:Boar (disambiguation). 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation box for pigs

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Pigs. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pig disambiguation

There are discussions in progress on Talk:Pig (disambiguation) and Talk:Pig which affect this page. Please participate there (not here). Thank you. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article

The discussion above about moving Razorback to Feral pig has been closed (considerably prematurely in my view). The reason given for a "no move, no consensus" decision was "unresolved issues about the topic of this article". Can we now resolve them please?

So far it seems to me that we have established that all or most feral pigs in North America are called razorbacks, and there seems no indication of any difference between these and other feral pigs.

The only other thing for which the name is used is the "Russian razorback", which seems to be an American name for the wild boar, and so is not the same thing as the animal covered by this article. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard New Forest wrote "So far it seems to me that we have established that all or most feral pigs in North America are called razorbacks, and there seems no indication of any difference between these and other feral pigs." That is not my reading of the discussion above. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reading of it then? Richard New Forest (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wild boar distribution
The page Razorback should be a disambiguation page, not an article nor a redirect to another article or section. "Razorback" meaning a pig may refer to a species of wild boar not native to North America, members of that species escaped in North America, and their descendants. Not all feral pigs in North America are descendants of Russian razorbacks. However, "razorback" in vernacular use sometimes refers to any feral pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might very well be a way forward. Presumably we could then have a new article at Feral pig?
(Incidentally, I'm not sure that the "wild boar" distribution map is all that reliable. It's apparently not just for wild boar but for the whole Sus scrofa species, in which case it would include feral pigs other than wild boar. It omits several populations altogether: NZ, S America, southern Africa, Caribbean. Finally it does not seem to give any sources – I also notice it is not reffed where it appears on Wild boar.)
Richard New Forest (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

javaporcos?

What is this word, and what does it refer to? In context in the article as it stands, it means "Wild Boar/Domestic Pig cross", but the word itself is a combination of the spanish word for peccary (Javalina) and the Spanish word for pig (Porco), which, it has been pointed out, is very far-fetched as the two aren't even in the same family, although a non-expert could be forgiven for thinking that they should be able to cross, looking like two types of pig on the face of them. My guess is that it's a Spanish word for a mythical Peccary/Pig cross. I've Googled around for the word, and can find nothing to convince me personally that the word even exists. Let's get rid of it! Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

I have seem this only now. Javaporco exists, it's a mix between two Portuguese words, Javali (for boar) and Porco (pig). By the way, the most common Spanish word for pig is Cerdo. Javalina is not used in Portuguese, which has two distinct nouns for peccaries: Queixada (White-lipped peccary) and Cateto or Caititu for the Collared Peccary.16:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)~

Javelina

The video featured in this article is not of feral hogs, but of collared peccaries (javelinas). These are wild (not feral) and native to Arizona (the video is from Scottsdale) and they are not a member of the family Suidae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfdavised (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from "Feral pig"; More support for moving to "Feral pig"

I have changed the redirect for "Feral pig" from the non-existent "Wild boar#feral pig" to this article. Apparently somebody (properly, in my opinion) deleted the "Feral pig" section from "Wild boar", but forgot to change the redirect.

I, too, would support moving this article to "Feral pig". I don't know enough to make a scientific argument for that, but my understanding of the history is that razorbacks are overwhelmingly descended from domestic swine that have run wild over the generations, thanks to the old practice of open-range culture; and that any admixture of European wild boar is incidental. There are wolf packs with some admixture of domestic dog, and probably packs of feral dogs with some admixture of wolf; but I don't think anybody has suggested that that obliterates the distinction between wolves and dogs. No more should the occasional admixture of wild boar into razorback populations obliterate the distinction between European wild boar and American feral swine. Neither should the colloquial usage of referring to American feral swine as "wild boar" obliterate that distinction. They are historically different races or breeds, if not taxonomically distinct species, and Wikipedia should recognize the distinction.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term "Razorback" is colloquial and used widely only in Australia and North America. This article is also extremely American-oriented. Therefore, I suggest we have two options. One - the article is moved to American Feral Pig with a STRONG statement in the article that due to regional differences in language, this includes both the domestic pig and the wild boar. (There is already an article Australian feral camel.) Second, information in this article on feral domestic pigs could be merged into the Feral pig article and the remaining information moved to Free-ranging wild boar or something similar. Whichever, the title of "Razorback" should not be allowed to remain.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move November 2014

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

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Razorback → Feral pig – WP:NOT#DICT. The article as it presently stands is essentially a dictionary definition article confused with an encyclopedia article. We have content about feral domestic pigs, then some other material about mis-usage of the term to refer to wild boars when people can't tell the difference, and the article is wrongly focusing on word usage instead of what "razorbacks" (feral pigs) are and why they're notable. The thread immediately above this RM is entirely in support of this move, and the previous RM was as well, except for a sole objection, that razorbacks are feral pigs but not all feral pigs are razorbacks. Obviously, this would be dealt with by having a Feral pig#Razorback section covering this Americanism (and Australianism), to the very limited extent the usage can be distinguished from the general term.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: An ongoing problem with the current situation is that editors keep linking to the Wild boar article from terms like "feral pig", because they believe we have no feral pig article and that the wild boar one is the closest we have; I've even got people editwarring with me to keep falsely classifying Wild boar in Category:Feral pigs, solely on the basis that incoming links to that article are mistakenly looking for feral pigs. Recently, I found that, despite feral pig long redirecting to this article, someone changed it and feral pigs again to redir to Wild boar#Feral pig, a section no longer existing, and which should never have been in that article at all, any more than we'd have a section on feral domestic dogs somewhere in the Coyote or Wolf articles. Enough already. Let's just resolve to clean this mess up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence This isn't as clear cut as if first appears. Your point about the article being essentially a dictionary definition is valid, to a degree, but the article also contains information which is specific to the Americas, and as such it is distinct from other pages on Wikipedia. Obscurasky (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: For the reasons I posted in the section just above this one, I agree with the proposal. In hopes of helping Obscurasky off the fence, there's no reason why an article entitled "Feral pig" can't be primarily about American razorbacks, since, for historical reasons, they are probably the prime example of feral swine in the world. The article should of course treat of other cases, such as in Australia, the Pacific islands, and wherever else there may be significant populations of feral swine; we don't need a separate article for the American population unless a generic article on feral hogs would be too long to allow full treatment of that sub-topic. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I would personally prefer that the article be renamed "Feral swine" or "Feral hog", since a pig, strictly speaking, is a young swine, and the usage of the industry is to call these animals generically hogs or swine; but broader colloquial usage favors pig (cf. the article Domestic pig), so I'm willing to bow to that. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support We must stop slang terms or terms which are used only in highly localised circumstances. The word "chook" is extremely widely used in Australia (and increasingly so in the UK), however, this correctly redirects to chicken Chicken. @Jdcrutch - the words swine and hog are hardly ever used in the UK, except where this is the species name. Where does the use of "pig" to mean "young swine" come from?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (an American dictionary—I don't know about British usage in this case) gives, as the first definition of pig,
a young domesticated swine not yet sexually mature; broadly : a wild or domestic swine
I have heard people connected with the industry refer generically to hogs more frequently than to pigs, though I don't have a reliable published source for that. (But see the recent political-campaign advertisement, popular on YouTube, in which the candidate said she had grown up "castrating hogs" on a farm in Iowa.) Nor can I support with a published source my preference for swine as a more technical or scientific generic term, but I do have the strong impression that, at least in the U.S.A., it is used that way. (And see, e.g., the dictionary entry just quoted, as well as swine flu.) At any rate, as I've said, I don't intend to press the issue.
P.S.: For British use of swine, see also http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25418/25418-h/25418-h.htm#Page_40.
  • Support: As previously stated, razorbacks are feral pigs, but not all feral pigs are razorbacks.Mariomassone (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the description in the article is correct, this isn't strictly true. 'Razorback' is a term used for feral pigs and wild boar in North America. The qualification 'North America' is also important, since it's what makes this page distinct. Obscurasky (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the wild boar is not native to North America, any "wild boar" referred to as a razorback must be either one that was brought over from Europe or Asia and escaped into the wild, or the descendant of such an imported animal, or not a true wild boar at all—for as we know American feral hogs are often referred to colloquially as "wild boar", even though they are not of the Eurasian variety. I have no figures to cite, but my sense is that the number of actual Eurasian wild boar, imported to North America by rich hunters and released or escaped into the wild, must be vanishingly tiny compared to the generations of domestic swine run wild in the American South over four centuries of free-range swine culture. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. The article is principally about the term - which is native to North America.Obscurasky (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Feral pig is obviously much more common in sources and in common usage. Steven Walling • talk 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just noticed there may be a precedent to this. There is an article, Brumby, which is a term used to describe free-ranging feral horses in Australia. As far as I know, the term is used only in Australia. I still believe that a huge amount of information in the Razorback article is misplaced there, and removing that might leave us with something akin to a stub. For example, use of the term in Australia is generally meant to indicate a large, aggressive feral pig with a ridge of hair down it's back (hence, razorback). This is only my personal opinion after having lived in Australia for 15 years, but if the link with Australia is to remain, it needs clarification and verification.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good observation. I should think, however, that a redirect from Razorback to Feral pig would be sufficient, as long as the Feral pig article appropriately treats of razorbacks (as known in the U.S.A. and Australia, respectively, if there's any difference). If someday we find that the razorbacks are, um, monopolizing all the copy in Feral pig, to the detriment of the other feral pigs, we can always herd them off into their own article again, with a link from the head article. At the moment, though, it seems to me that a stub for razorbacks would be little more than a dictionary entry, as SMcCandlish pointed out in the OP. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

return to definition and scope

I have been expanding the article to include free-roaming wild boar in the UK. This is on the basis that in the UK, wild boar can only be farmed under licence and must not be released. When wild boar have been farmed, they will have been artificially selected for traits desired by humans, i.e. domesticated. This would mean that any free-roaming wild boar in the UK are descended from domesticated wild boar, i.e. they are truly feral, and should be discussed in the article. Would other editors like to comment?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: "And what happened after that, which is even more interesting, is it appears that once they were introduced, these domesticated pigs spurred or lit the blue touch-paper for people to domesticate the local indigenous wild boar."[7]__DrChrissy (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and "Wild boar were important prey animals for early hunter- gatherers across wide areas of Eurasia (1) until the early Holocene, when this predator-prey relation radically shifted as they, and several other large mammals, were domesticated"[www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050326004537.htm]__DrChrissy (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate DrChrissy's work here, and also the invitation to comment on the idea of "feral wild boar" in Great Britain. While I understand the point, I think it's confusing and imprecise to refer to escaped boar as feral wild boar—a bit of an oxymoron, really, in that an animal that's already wild can't become feral.
I would note, for one thing, that selective breeding, per se, is not the only criterion for domestication. Large numbers of zoo animals are selectively bred these days, but I would contend that those are not domesticated. They are selected for genetic diversity, robust health, and other traits that might benefit them equally in the wild; not (I gather) for docility, tractability, productivity, and other traits that would make them useful to human beings. (Cf. the so-called domesticated silver fox, whose breeders don't yet consider it truly domesticated, as it won't reliably obey human commands.)
I don't think an escaped lion or chimpanzee could properly be called feral—could it? (If so, then maybe our definition of feral needs revisiting.) Even if they established stable populations in the wilds of Belgium or Florida, I think they'd be considered introduced or invasive, rather than feral.
On the other hand, if farmed wild boar are truly domesticated, can it not be argued that they have become just one more strain of domestic pigs, and that they no longer deserve the designation, wild boar? (That would especially seem to be true if wild boar and domestic swine are indeed of the same species, as many, if not most, biologists appear to think.) In that case, I wonder if the industry hasn't come up with a different designation for them. If these domesticated boar are in fact a type of domestic pigs, then escapees of that type would merely be feral pigs, not feral wild boar.
I don't know enough about these animals to take up a strong opinion, but maybe DrChrissy can educate me. At the moment, I'm inclined to say that if the British boars are in fact domesticated, the escaped ones should just be called feral pigs, without distinction; but that if they remain wild, though captive, then the escapees should be referred to as reintroduced wild boar (the species having once been native to Great Britain), and not feral wild boar. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting questions. I suggest that wild animals that are farmed would, like those in zoos, normally be referred to as "captive"; when they escape from captivity they are (surprise, surprise!) referred to as "escaped" (as above). We don't normally talk about "feral muntjac" or "feral coypu" or "feral salmon", I think. Domestication is a millennial process, not one that takes place over a few generations; but it doesn't necessarily lead to obedience: neither chickens nor cats reliably obey human commands – at least in my experience. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for domestication vary from species to species, I would say. The criteria for domestication of the silver fox were set by Dmitri Belyaev when he began his experiments in the 1950s, and include obedience to human commands. His intention was to see if foxes could be bred into domestic dogs, or a close analogue; and a key characteristic of domestic dogs is their inherited willingness (under proper conditions) to obey human commands. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I think the criterion of obedience to human commands as an indicator of domestication is ...ermmmm...rather bizarre. Circus lions, bears and elephants captured in the wild are used in performances and sit, rear-up, bow, on command. I have worked with zoo animals including giraffe, rhinoceros, hippos etc - many of these will perform tasks on command such as lifting their feet for routine inspection. Does that mean these individuals are domesticated or not? I do not think so.
The phrase "reintroduced wild boar" is problematic. In the UK, if wild boar are free-roaming, they have not been "re-introduced" but they have escaped from a farm: perhaps the the phrase "have established breeding populations" is appropriate here. In areas where wild boar are NOT indigenous, (e.g. the US) then "reintroduced wild boar" is not appropriate for free-roaming wild boar. I think the problem here is that taxonomy and nomenclature have not kept up with the animals. A previous editor is correct in saying we do not refer to "feral muntjac", "feral salmon, etc. but perhaps we should. WP has articles on Feral chicken and see also Chicken roundabout!__DrChrissy (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)__DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm that previous editor. It's appropriate to talk about feral cats, chickens, pigs, horses, donkeys and the like precisely because those are domestic breeds which have, in places, re-established themselves in the wild. But we don't use "feral" of wild species, even if they have been been kept and raised in captivity and then escaped. I expect that in Britain the line between "escaped" and "released" is as grey as it is elsewhere. Here there is an infestation of nutria (coypu) because years ago farmers were conned into buying them to raise for fur; when they found that that was not nearly as easy as they had been promised, many of them just opened the cages to be shot of the problem. Boar in captivity are hybridised with domestic pigs and then released into the wild to increase the fecundity of the wild population (which is one of the reasons Europe is completely over-run with the damned things). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know you are that previous editor and please do not read anything into me not mentioning you by name; I have run into problems in the past by naming editors on talk pages, even though I did not post anything negative about them. I totally follow your point of view. My problem is that in the UK at least, when I try to research "feral pigs", all I seem to get is information on wild boar. Your argument seems to be based on whether the free-roaming animal is "wild" or not, but there are feral camels in Australia, feral parrots in the UK, Feral rhesus macaques in the US, feral Cyclura nubila (dubious example I admit)...all of which I believe we would think of as being "wild". My question is quite simple. Should I include information on wild boar in this article? If we choose to debate what the term is, that is entirely OK. But, I would hate to spend time on editing the article to include wild boar only for someone to come along and say that free-roaming wild boar should not be discussed on this page and start deleting. I am looking for concensus.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

I tried to clean up any uncited information I could find as well as any misspellings. I added citations for any "citation needed" tags I could find. I removed a few sentences that were irrelevant to the subject being discussed. I added 3 sentences of new information of my own with citations and hyperlinks. Any and all feedback would be welcome Ntayl23 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but they weren't "misspellings", they were just not US spellings. But there's no clear indication which of the UK/US spellings were there first so I won't change it.--Dmol (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Feral pig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

And once again, a "semiprotected" wikipedia article is full of bullshit. The line "Texas has the largest estimated population of 2.5–2.6 million feral pigs existing in 253 of its 254 counties" sources to a webpage that does not contain that number or any such claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.105.123 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fur

Why do feral pigs so quickly regain the fur that their domestic ancestors lack completely? Natural selection? Sexual selection? Steinbach (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be mentioned in the article. As it is, it's confusing to have only pictures of hairy pigs in an article about escaped hairless pigs. This return of fur and tusks is a very interesting phenomenon, and the absence of any mention of it is confusing. I've seen Reddit and Quora discussions give handwavy, unsourced explanations involving epigenetics, but I had hoped to find something a bit more definite here on Wikipedia. Amaurea (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catch dogs are not playing dodgeball during feral pig hunts

From the Hunting in the United States section:

> It will dip, duck, dive, and dodge the tusks until it can get a hold of the beast, pinning it or biting its ear.

This is a clear reference to the movie Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, missing only the fifth "d" of dodgeball (defeat) in the description of a catch dogs behavior towards feral pigs. It is unsupported by the citations provided for the article and should be removed or replaced with a more accurate description.

Removed; that was one of two passages added on 30 Jan 2021 with non-encyclopedic language (e.g. "incredible amounts of damage", and the dodgeball-influenced phrasing). Plantdrew (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Feral_pig"