Dana boomer (talk | contribs) GAN |
Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Documentary== |
==Documentary== |
||
I heard a fascinating documentary about these on the radio this morning; apparently they can grow to the size of ''cows''... but they grow too slowly to be economical under today's factory-farm systems. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
I heard a fascinating documentary about these on the radio this morning; apparently they can grow to the size of ''cows''... but they grow too slowly to be economical under today's factory-farm systems. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Facts? == |
|||
I notice a couple of factual discrepancies in this article: |
|||
* A sentence in the lead currently reads "There were originally two types of Large Black, one from Essex and one from Devon and Cornwall". However, that's not at all what the RBST says [http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/pigs/large-black here], though it accords with what the BPA says. |
|||
* Earlier today I added reference to Parkinson (1810). It appears that the passage cited here refers neither to the Large Black, as our article states, nor to the Old English Hog, as the BPA appears to suggest, but to the Cheshire pig. |
|||
Perhaps some re-wording is needed? [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I've fixed the first one by expanding it a bit and making the lead more general. As for the second, upon re-reading the passage from the book, I'm not convinced it's the correct one, and so for now have removed the reference. Although some of the wording is very similar, and the date is correct, the author complains that he would not recommend the Cheshire in their current form, while the author of the quote in the article calls the pig he is talking about "as perfect a make as possible in pigs;" - this showing a positive reaction. [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Ermm, you removed the source, but not the quotation that doesn't appear to come from it? No matter, I've done it. The quotation as cited by the BPA reads "...distinguished by their gigantic size, they are the largest of the kind I have ever seen, and as perfect a make as possible in pigs; their heads are large, with very long ears hanging down on each side of the face, so they can scarcely see their way." It is a corrupted conflation of two separate passages from Parkinson. The first is: "''Cheshire'' pigs are distinguishable by their gigantic size: in colour they are black and white, blue and white, (not spotted, but in large patches of black or blue), and some all white. Their heads are large, with very long ears, hanging down on both sides of the face, so that they can scarcely see their way ..." on p.246; the second is "''Black Chinese''; (another sort). – These are the largest of the kind I ever saw, and of as perfect a make as possible in pigs" on p.252. I don't myself see any reason why the two passages should not be cited in the article if the PBA thinks they are relevant, though the wording may be tricky; but you can't fix a corrupted quotation by removing the original source. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Note: I wrote the above last night, but apparently only previewed but did not save the page. I'm sorry about that, it must have made the removal of the quotation seem totally arbitrary and unjustifed. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* There seems to have been more than one black breed in the east of England. The Suffolk or [[Small Black (pig)]], the Black Essex pig, and [http://www.rbta.org/lgeblack.htm "other black pigs from East Anglia"]. Alderson definitely says "two breeds", and Alderson is definitely an authority; but perhaps other views should also be represented? BTW, on Alderson, would there be any objection to changing the reference from the 1994 edition, which does not have any preview on Google, to the 2008 one, which does? Is there any substantial difference in the content? [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:* In the late 18th and early 19th centuries in pig breeds I think there were more "types" than "breeds". I think that the first two sentences of the history section describe it fairly well, discussing one southwest England and one from eastern England. As far as Alderson goes, I wasn't the one who added that information, and Google is blocking me from seeing that part of the book anyway. [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I would have agreed with you about types based on my own meagre knowledge; but reading [http://books.google.com/books?id=wKQrAAAAYAAJ Harris on the Pig] (1870), I get the impression that his idea of what a breed is is very close to the modern one. He gives a lot of detail on what black pigs were where, but none that I have noticed on which of them were lop-eared. I'll change the Alderson reference, then. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:29, 10 February 2012
![]() | Agriculture: Livestock B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Cornwall B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed merge
I absolutely agree that the stub article for "Large Black Pig" should be combined with Sus_scrofa, and feel also that the "large black pig" entry should be removed. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the google search result for "large black pig wiki" links to domestic pig. (Unsigned comment by User:Fishmammal 22:50, 21 October 2007).
- The Large Black is one of many pig breeds, and most of the others have their own articles, as do most breeds of other domestic animals. Generally the only ones that don't are those where no-one has got around to writing one yet. What possible reason could make this an exception? The article at present is a very short stub, but that is no reason to merge an article, and nor is a Google search (though try one on Large Black pig). Incidentally, Sus scrofa is a redirect to wild boar. Large Black is not a wild boar, it is a domestic pig, and if it was to be merged with anything, it would have to be that. Just to make it clear, my view is that this article should not be merged with anything. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree : my vote is no to merge. The Large Black is a distinctive pig breed and this article should be expanded.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge
I have been to a large black pig farm, they are particularly distinct from the wild boar, and it would be ridiculous to even think it so.
While I see this as a very short article, I would love for someone who has done the research or has the veritable sources to point out facts such as it is one of the rarest pig breeds in Australia, it is the only pig breed in Australia that can survive on grass alone and is able to provide a large amount of meat compared to other pig breeds. The only reason I do not state these things as fact is that i only heard them from a breeder and do not quote them as fact until I have further substantiated sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsah (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Expansion of content
The German WP has an extensive article on these pigs under Cornwallschwein beginning like this "Das Cornwallschwein (oder Large Black) ist eine Rasse des Hausschweins aus England. Es wurde Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts durch Kreuzung verschiedener englischer Rassen gezüchtet." A good German to English translator could bring this up to a more informative article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Documentary
I heard a fascinating documentary about these on the radio this morning; apparently they can grow to the size of cows... but they grow too slowly to be economical under today's factory-farm systems. DS (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Facts?
I notice a couple of factual discrepancies in this article:
- A sentence in the lead currently reads "There were originally two types of Large Black, one from Essex and one from Devon and Cornwall". However, that's not at all what the RBST says here, though it accords with what the BPA says.
- Earlier today I added reference to Parkinson (1810). It appears that the passage cited here refers neither to the Large Black, as our article states, nor to the Old English Hog, as the BPA appears to suggest, but to the Cheshire pig.
Perhaps some re-wording is needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've fixed the first one by expanding it a bit and making the lead more general. As for the second, upon re-reading the passage from the book, I'm not convinced it's the correct one, and so for now have removed the reference. Although some of the wording is very similar, and the date is correct, the author complains that he would not recommend the Cheshire in their current form, while the author of the quote in the article calls the pig he is talking about "as perfect a make as possible in pigs;" - this showing a positive reaction. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ermm, you removed the source, but not the quotation that doesn't appear to come from it? No matter, I've done it. The quotation as cited by the BPA reads "...distinguished by their gigantic size, they are the largest of the kind I have ever seen, and as perfect a make as possible in pigs; their heads are large, with very long ears hanging down on each side of the face, so they can scarcely see their way." It is a corrupted conflation of two separate passages from Parkinson. The first is: "Cheshire pigs are distinguishable by their gigantic size: in colour they are black and white, blue and white, (not spotted, but in large patches of black or blue), and some all white. Their heads are large, with very long ears, hanging down on both sides of the face, so that they can scarcely see their way ..." on p.246; the second is "Black Chinese; (another sort). – These are the largest of the kind I ever saw, and of as perfect a make as possible in pigs" on p.252. I don't myself see any reason why the two passages should not be cited in the article if the PBA thinks they are relevant, though the wording may be tricky; but you can't fix a corrupted quotation by removing the original source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I wrote the above last night, but apparently only previewed but did not save the page. I'm sorry about that, it must have made the removal of the quotation seem totally arbitrary and unjustifed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ermm, you removed the source, but not the quotation that doesn't appear to come from it? No matter, I've done it. The quotation as cited by the BPA reads "...distinguished by their gigantic size, they are the largest of the kind I have ever seen, and as perfect a make as possible in pigs; their heads are large, with very long ears hanging down on each side of the face, so they can scarcely see their way." It is a corrupted conflation of two separate passages from Parkinson. The first is: "Cheshire pigs are distinguishable by their gigantic size: in colour they are black and white, blue and white, (not spotted, but in large patches of black or blue), and some all white. Their heads are large, with very long ears, hanging down on both sides of the face, so that they can scarcely see their way ..." on p.246; the second is "Black Chinese; (another sort). – These are the largest of the kind I ever saw, and of as perfect a make as possible in pigs" on p.252. I don't myself see any reason why the two passages should not be cited in the article if the PBA thinks they are relevant, though the wording may be tricky; but you can't fix a corrupted quotation by removing the original source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to have been more than one black breed in the east of England. The Suffolk or Small Black (pig), the Black Essex pig, and "other black pigs from East Anglia". Alderson definitely says "two breeds", and Alderson is definitely an authority; but perhaps other views should also be represented? BTW, on Alderson, would there be any objection to changing the reference from the 1994 edition, which does not have any preview on Google, to the 2008 one, which does? Is there any substantial difference in the content? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the late 18th and early 19th centuries in pig breeds I think there were more "types" than "breeds". I think that the first two sentences of the history section describe it fairly well, discussing one southwest England and one from eastern England. As far as Alderson goes, I wasn't the one who added that information, and Google is blocking me from seeing that part of the book anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you about types based on my own meagre knowledge; but reading Harris on the Pig (1870), I get the impression that his idea of what a breed is is very close to the modern one. He gives a lot of detail on what black pigs were where, but none that I have noticed on which of them were lop-eared. I'll change the Alderson reference, then. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)