Talk:Wild boar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Japanese link

The Japanese for boar is inoshishi(猪). The Japanese for suidae is inoshishi-ka (猪科). At the moment on Japanese wikipedia, inoshishi redirects to inoshishi-ka, but they are actually distinct concepts just as boar and suidae are in English.. so please leave ja:猪 alone. Zargulon 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ja:猪 now redirects to ja:イノシシ, which sounds right. A-giau 18:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Zodiac

There should be some discussion of the Boar as a sign in Chinese (and other derivative) astrology. --Varenius 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Link 7 in hunting section

http://www.agfc.state.ar.us/rules_regs/hunting_regs_feral.html

This web link is no longer valid! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegaman66 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Phylogeny

Given the recent DNA analyses showing that cetaceans are related to ungulates (see article Cetartiodactyla), the scientific classification tree of the wild boar needs to be updated. Any objections before this is done? Bytor 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

The lead image on this page is okay. However, this image is much higher res.

. Its available on Wikimedia Commons. Any thoguhts on changing? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1051 pounds

A wild boar weighing 1051 pounds was reported today, maybe the upper weight estimate of this article should be raised.

That was a hog, gone wild. [1] Not quite the same as a boar. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See the article Monster Pig—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Described as" Sus scrofa…?

I've never heard of any species of animal "described" as their species name. Would this mean I, as a human, am described as Homo sapiens? (This bit of grammatical curiosity appears in the "Wild or feral" section.) 71.241.120.149 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Distribution

Does the wild boar life in South America like the rangemap shows or are that peccari's?Mweites 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The range map seems to include native wild boar, introduced wild boar, and what must be also feral pig, which is not the same thing at all. This is misleading. It should show only "proper" wild boar, and ideally should distinguish between native and introduced populations. The historic range would also be useful. The page for this image gives no information as to its source, and the South American distribution (even if of feral pigs) seems very wide, and perhaps does erroneously include peccaries, which are not really pigs at all.--Richard New Forest 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete the image?Mweites 09:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hogzilla

Why is this mentioned in this article? It was shown to be part domestic pig, and there are known domestic pigs that have been much larger than that (including one over 2000 pounds). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.20 (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of sub-species

This site says, "The number of wild boar subspecies is uncertain and estimates vary from 4 - 25." That site lists the four sub-species supported by craniometric data:

• Sus scrofa scrofa inhabits North-West Africa, Europe and West Asia
• Sus scrofa ussuricus inhabits North Asia and Japan
• Sus scrofa cristatus inhabits Asia Minor peninsular, India and the Far-East
• Sus scrofa vittatus inhabits Indonesia

This site also lists just those four sub-species. Therefore, I think it's time to stop edit-warring over whether there are 11 or 12 sub-species, and acknowledge that sources differ as to the number of sub-species. -- Donald Albury 14:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wild boar subspecies systematic is a very difficult thing. I am waiting for a long time for a genetic approach on that issue. In the german wiki I listed all subspecies according to mammals of the soviet union... but that is probably not the best....??--Altaileopard (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always better use reliable sources that are in the language of the wiki you are writing for. Articles in other language Wikipedias are not reliable sources (at least, on the English Wikipedia). -- Donald Albury 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mammals of the soviet union" is not a german book and my intention was not to copy the german subspecies, but to use that book as a ref for subspecies...--Altaileopard (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of Feral Hog/ Hunter

I have reversed the deletion of this image. There is an arguable point that the image may be redundant or not in keeping with the tone of the article. I believe that it should be open to discussion or consensus as that peron who deleted it has been going through my contributions and making hostile edits--Mcumpston (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

pig and boar

A domestic pig is not a boar. A pig come from boar. But the pig have ancestry that are not boars. You can see it in the photos. Nobody say that a horse is a tarpan or a wild cat is a domestic cat or a dog is wolf. The level 2 headline (feral or wild pig) must go to domestic pig article. Anselmocisneros 12:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 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 or a feral pig.
• A feral or wild pig is a domestic pig specimen. Today they are put in "wild boar" article Anselmocisneros 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A Boar is term used in farming for a male Domestic Pig. Boars are male, Sows and Gilts are female, and a castrated male Domestic Pig is known as a Barrow. Perhaps some note should be placed at the top of the Boar page to show that male Pigs are known as Boars, yet are not Wild Boars. You have to dig into the article to find this mentioned. Perhaps a redirect pointing at Domestic Pigs using the Boar(domestic) label is in order.172.134.9.235 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do boars and pigs taste different? 198.177.27.23 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tusks on females?

In the first section, it says only the females use their tusks for self defence. In the second section, it says only the males have tusks. Which is it? Thanks for your help, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Anyone going to fix it!

The article also says, "The upper tusks are bent upwards in males, and are regularly ground against each other to produce sharp edges." I'd love to see a description of how a boar might grind his upper tusks against each other. What an absurd statement! Classic wikibabble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I've corrected this. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Article title "Wild boar"

Shouldn't this be at Wild boar, rather than that being a redirect to Boar? ENeville 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To differentiate from tame boars? Can't really see that it makes a difference which page is where. No pressing need for the move so why bother?—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, a boar is a male of several animal species including domestic swine, bears, badgers and racoons, whereas the wild boar is a specific animal. User:Nod2003 4:00, 11 April 2008

Nod and Neville are right. "Boar" is vague and potentially misleading. So it should be moved. Nick (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think wild boar is a better, more specific name.--Altaileopard (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Per MSW3, the proper common name of Sus scrofa is Wild Boar. Since MSW3 is the taxonomy preferred by WP:MAMMAL, I will move the article. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ares and Oedipus in mythology section

I like having the mythology section, but the myth about Ares assuming boar form and goring his own son is unsourced. I would be very interested in reading the story in its original context. Supposedly Ares' motive is to prevent the boy from becoming a handsome youth and attracting Ares' wife (also unclear who that would be). I deleted the following phrase, which had been tacked on to that paragraph, claiming that this tale is "similar to Oedipus marrying his own mother." I don't see the similarity (or the relevance of Oedipus to boars), and there's no citation. The story of Ares given here, if authentic, is instead rather like the story of Hippolytus, whose stepmother was attracted to him. When rejected, she accused H. of rape. H's father, Theseus, cursed him. As H. was fleeing this situation, a sea monster sent by Poseidon (his grandfather, the father of Theseus) frightened H's horses and he died in a chariot wreck. The Roman identification with Virbius emphasizes dismemberment.

The myth of Adonis could be mentioned, as it's famous from Shakespeare as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for a reference to the Ares/wife story and been unable to find one. It IS, however, very close to one of the variations on the Adonis story - Ares WAS known to have been a lover (not HUSBAND - if Ares ever HAD a wife, it should certainly be mentioned in the article on Ares!) of Aphrodite, and one the explanations for the boar that slew Adonis was Ares in boar form ( for example, http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html ) 74.74.175.33 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(previous comment was me, forgot to log in first ) jens (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Title, redux

Wouldn't the correct title be "Wild boar"? I tried to move Wild Boar here. Boar is not a proper noun. Please to fix. Huw Powell (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is, yes, it should indeed be "Wild boar". I'd fix it, except it looks like someone else moved this page from "Wild boar", citing some (not specified) discussion about this. I think this makes a renaming "controversial", so I'll formally request a name change (in a new "talk" section, below). Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Boar Hunting

I'm doing a project on boar hunting and I have no idea when humans started hunting boars. Can someone please tell me????? And by the way, to JIP, Singularis porcus is probably made up. Big M 1:04pm, 11th April 2007.

Probably from before we were humans. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ancester of pig?

The English and the French article seem to be saying the exact opposite. The English version says the wild boar /is/ the ancestor of the domesticated pig, while the French says that that's false. Which is correct?

Just for the record, here are the contradictory lines: English: "Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a species of pig, including many subspecies, and part of the biological family Suidae. It is the wild ancestor of the domestic pig..."

French: "Le Sanglier (Sus scrofa) est un mammifère omnivore proche du porc, dont il n'est pas l'ancêtre, contrairement à une idée répandue." [The wild boar is an omnivorous mammal closely related to the domesticated pig, of which it is not the ancestor, contrary to a popular idea.]http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sanglier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanonthemove (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this true?

"The Bible does not single out pigs in comparison with the many other unclean animals whose flesh is forbidden; nevertheless, in actual Jewish culture pigs are clearly singled out for a special, highly emotional loathing, of a kind not directed at other unclean animals." I haven't read this part of the Bible recently but I seem to remember that pigs are singled out, along with mice, for special harsh treatment. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it more a case of the hooves and the rumination? Kosher mammals should be cloven hooved and ruminate. Pigs don't ruminate. Funnily enough, in Poland I've seen "Jewish style pork" for sale (it's the use of garlic in the cooking) (79.190.69.142 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

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)

+ 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) - :Razorbacks are most often a feral hybrid of boar and the domestic pig, not simply a variant of wild boar. Yes, the three types can interbreed, but they are distinct subtypes and there is too much material for the Razorback article to be merged here. Doing so would violate our guidelines for how long an article should be, roughly speaking. Steven Walling 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But these vagaries also extend to the European population? Personally I don't see a problem with merger, but I would say that this article is already far too Euro-centric. There is, for example, far too much detail on their status in the UK. Obscurasky (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

razor back is just another name for wild bore just like calling them pineywoods or bristle backs it is just another name with the mythological exception the razor back has been known as a mythical creature

No, razorbacks are mainly feral domestic swine (as is clear from the article), and wild boar are a distinct wild (sub)species occurring in Europe but not in North America – so it's not that surprising that this article should be Euro-centric. Domestic swine (including feral pigs) and wild boar are different species (or subspecies. depending on source), but such pairs of wild and domestic (sub)species are normally treated separately (Dog and Wolf, Cat and Wildcat etc). Please see alternative proposal below. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Move of Razorback

Please see move proposal at Talk:Razorback. Proposal is to move Razorback to Feral pig, which is currently a redirect to Wild boar#Feral pigs. Material from that section would be merged into the new article, leaving a summary and a "main article" link. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq|Wild boar}}

Wild Boar → Wild boar — Per WP:CAPS, I believe the second word should not be capitalized. It looks like the page was originally titled "Wild boar", and User:Tombstone renamed it to "Wild Boar" in November 2008. Because of that, I'm reluctant to just move the page back, so I'm formally requesting a renaming. -- Narsil (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Uncontroversial move in my opinion. We only capitalize words in the article title if they are always capitalized in running text. That is clearly not the case here. Jafeluv (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSCAPS, "boar" is not a proper noun and should only be capitalised if it forms part of, e.g. the name of a public house. This seems to be beyond argument, and I'll move it now. No need to waste unnecessary discussion on this. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving the article from Boar to Wild Boar to Wild boar left behind a redirect at Boar. I think that if "boar" and "wild boar" are the same, then this article should be moved back to Boar; else if they are not the same, then Boar should be a disambiguation page. This is up for discussion now at Talk:Boar (disambiguation)#Requested move. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Radiocative Boars in Germany

Heard on NPR that radioactive wild boars are turning up in Germany, but there's no mention on the wiki page about it, even though there's a header for "Status in Germany" that talks about their skyrocketing population. (NPR link here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129008757) I'd add to the article, but I'm just kind of a casual reader... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.108.10 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boar-eating bobcats?

The part where is says that bobcats eat wild boar is uncited, and I want to remove it. It sounds fishy to me, and although I'm sure in the history of time some bobcat has predated on some tiny sick abandoned baby Sus scrofa, I doubt it happens often enough to list the bobcat a a boar predator. Boar are just so much larger and more powerful than any bobcat, and the article bobcat lists with citations a bunch of things that seem more like the kind of thing everyone knows bobcats eat: mostly rabbits and smaller things. Coyotes maybe could steal a piglet if working in teams, but bobcats don't work in teams. I'll wait a bit for comment and then go ahead and make the edit if no one objects. Chrisrus (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds fishy to me too. Be bold my friend, Steven Walling 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ok, I did the deed, and removed the lynx as well, for all the same reasons and also, although I know about the fast expansion of the feral pig/Wild boar ranges, the maps and range discriptions that Wikipedia currently have show that the two ranges don't even come close to overlapping. Plus lynx are so specialized on showshoe hare they don't eat just anything in a certain prey range like bobcats, or so says the article Canadian lynx. And they tend to be such skittish, scaredy-cats around anything even close to their size or which is agressive. I hope we've got it right now, but I'm not too worried this edit could possibly have been a mistake on my part, it's a pretty absurd proposition. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." Such unsourced extraordinary claims can certainly be summarily removed. -- Donald Albury 11:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bobcat also occurs in a different continent... Lynx in Europe (much bigger than American lynx) eat mostly roe deer, but would no doubt take a piglet if they got the chance. I agree though: not often enough to be worth a mention. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That brings up a good point. What percentage of the genetic material in the Sus populations referred to on the map that shows invasive populations in North America is really Eurasian Wild Boar, the referent of the taxobox, and how much of those animals' genetic material is Domestic Pig? It's my impression that they're mostly pig with some Eurasian Wild Boar mixed in. Chrisrus (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orczar's additions reverted. Discuss here please

[http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wild_boar&action=historysubmit&diff=445895107&oldid=445893963 wide range of negative connotations and have been (often cruelly) exterminated by environmentalists operating under the controversial invasive species concept

I agree Steven Walling that this doesn't belong in the article. It is not negative to state the facts about these creatures. Saying often cruelly is bias as well. They kill them off, because they are a pest species. I don't recall anyone calling invasive species a controversial concept either. And feral pigs aren't the same as wild boar. A feral pig is a creature that has two litters a year, 10 piglets a litter, and grows to sexual maturity in 6 months, allowing it to spread rapidly throughout America and cause problems. Dream Focus 22:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"cruelly" and "negative connotations"

If using phrases like "cruelly" and "negative connotations" violated the neutral POV rules then not much of anything could be expressed in Wikipedia. One of the references I used talks about cruelty involved in killing "invasive species", so that's the issue I raise. Wisconsin dept. talks about wild pigs posing an aesthetic threat. How can an animal be aesthetically threatening? Wikipedia is full of opinions on various issues, otherwise it would contain no articles. My point of view on invasive species may not be in line with current environmental orthodoxy, but I quoted a Nature article among others, so it's surely not something scientifically or otherwise illegitimate. Can I ask how you would express a criticism of a prevailing practice that is already expressed in articles used as references? You can't criticize something without criticizing it. Orczar (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You quoted a Nature article and one U.S. state's opinion, but that's all they are, opinions. The Nature article is an editorial, not a piece of scientific literature with data. And you're combining some choice opinions to form a certain perspective which you obviously disapprove of. That's not neutrally reporting a balanced view of the facts. It's synthesizing a tiny handful of opinions into a POV. Steven Walling • talk 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It says aggressive mammals posing serious ecological, economic, aesthetic, medical and veterinary threats. I guess the damage to the landscape is the aesthetic part. Animal People News isn't a reliable site, it just a bunch of whinny rants from people who want to stop killing all animals. [2] Them calling it "cruel" to kill an animal, doesn't really carry any weight. See WP:UNDUE. If a government website or a recognized scientific website said something, that's different. Dream Focus 23:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The other point of view is already represented in the article. I'm trying to balance that and I'm being censored out because the point of view I'm trying to convey is not ecological conventional wisdom. I included two serious scientific references questioning that conventional wisdom (the first two references). This is not about pests, which is why ecologists don't call them pests, they call them invasive species. This is because of ideology: They are seen as having invaded pre-Columbian America, a presently non-existent entity. They must be dealt with ruthlessly. The issue here however is the ability to present an alternate point of view. Orczar (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the guideline WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Having a couple opinion pieces does not justify having a large section that advocates the position you're pushing. On top of that, the way you're describing the position is not neutral: you don't get to declare something is "cruel" or not just because you have sources. You have to attribute opinion where present to the source it came from. The language you're using is inappropriate, and the section is undue weight. Steven Walling • talk 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The map is fully wrong

The map confuses the Wild Boar, Sus scrofa, with other "wild boars" like the pecaris of Central and South America. There are not Wild Boars in these regions, neither in the Subsaharian Africa except feral pigs in Zanzibar and South Africa and introduced animals in Cameroon for sport hunting. Moreover, the Wild Boar became extinct in Libia and Egypt at least 100 years ago, and today it had been reintroduced in Britain. In South East Asia, the Wild Boar only occurs in Indochina, Sumatra, Java and few islands in wich it had been introduced, but not Borneo.--Menah the Great 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(by Tristram): From what I've been reading on enature.com the feral pig (at least in America) has few pure blooded colonies, but mixed bloods are all over the place.

There are wild boars in Sweden now. Update the map please. 62.119.245.98gsg

According to the map, there are no wild boars in Israel, but we have plenty of them. The map is incorrect at least in our region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.40.135 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The new map is still incorrect in our region. Wild boars are very common in northern Israel, yet that region is not painted on the map. 89.0.185.138 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There are wild boars in Canada (Saskatchewan) as well. 139.142.73.170 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The wild boars in prairie provinces of Canada inhabit suitable agricultural regions from southeast Manitoba to the Peace River region of northern Alberta. Manitoba [3] declared an open hunting season on them with no licence required but the usual big game hunting rules and reporting kills. Alberta placed the animals in the same category as rats to be destroyed. The animals dwell in rough areas along waterways and dense forests but venture onto farms and yards by night. Many of these animals are descended from escapees from wild hog farms which had inadequate (these are tough animals that dig) fencing. Population growth is high where there are few predators or hunters. Pogson (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the map is labelled reconstructed range, that is, taking into account that boars have become extinct later on in some places, or introduced into new areas.

However, if this criterion is used consistently, both Norway and Sweden should be included as well, as (at least according to Norwegian Wikipedia) remains of wild boar has been found in southern Norway (granted, they were 7000 years old, but none the less), and Sweden had wild boars, hunted them to extinction, then re-introduced them.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Status in Britain

I feel this article is too UK-centric. Other countries have far more significant populations, but aren't even mentioned. I'd like to move the section 'Status in Britain' to its own page - and leave only a link in this article. Status in Germany could be moved too, but it's only briefly talked about here. Does anyone have any objection to me doing this? Obscurasky (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see an expansion on other countries before any removals, especially considering the article is still quite small. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, although I should also have said that an additional reason for moving this section out is that I believe it would benefit from expansion - something which would be inappropriate here as it would make this article even more unbalanced. Obscurasky (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't see any situation where more than what we currently have on the UK would be fitting (and a wild boar breeding section definitely not needed). If you're going to expand it, then I'd say create the new page with expansion first then reduce on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Small amounts of damage

Under feral pig "[t]hey can cause small amounts of damage to trees and other vegetation"... Yet, when looking at several US States' wildlife management reports they are in the millions of USD annually. The linked article references ecological damages, like 40 counties with nearly $2mm in a single year - and that was in 1998. The reference article also links to article which puts feral pigs as one of the "100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species". How is that "small"? replaced "small amounts" with "significant amount".207.87.238.194 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article concerns wild boar, hence the status of feral (formerly domesticated) pigs as an invasive species is irrelevant, as are any damages caused by feral pigs, rather than wild boars.

Mojowiha (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mating season"

There is no "mating season" for wild boar as referenced in the interaction with humans section. Females cycle throughout the year, have a 114 d gestation period and can potentially produce 2.5 litters per year, while 1-2 is more likely in the wild. Boars could be mating sows and gilts year round depending on the individual female's cycle. 208.25.240.202 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Stuart C.

Mixing up domestic pigs with wild boars

This section does not belong here. If we are talking about feral piga, than this section belongs in pig. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mixing up "herd of feral hogs" with peccary

The video of "A herd of feral hogs seen by a fixed camera in Scottsdale, Arizona" does not actually show feral hogs. This is a video of javelina (which are a type of peccary). These animals are related to but definitely not the same as hogs. Hogs and javelina are different species in different genus and different families but they share the same order (Artiodactyla). Perhaps this excellent video could be moved to the page "Peccary".68.104.179.115 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New article for Feral Hog/Feral Pig

It looks like Feral Pig redirects here. The colloquial name in the southeast, especially Texas, of "feral hog" doesn't seem to even get a redirect. Much of the recent attention in the United States, especially in the aforementioned areas, but rapidly spreading everywhere else, is the feral hog/pig variant. TPWD and other state agencies are putting rather dramatic efforts into controlling these invasives. Since they certainly pass the notability test, and encompass a very specific social/political aspect in the US, I think it would be a good idea to create a feral hog/feral pig separate article, and cancel the redirect here. My wholly anecdtoal guess would be that the majority of folks (in the US, anyway) who come here looking for information on feral hogs are not looking for info on the original stock of either sus scrofa or sus scrofa domestica, but ther feralized or hybrid populations that have been prevalent in the news. Potential sources would include http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs/ http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/ http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands/news/article/Feral-hogs-on-rise-in-county-5421828.php http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/ http://www.extension.org/feral_hogs http://icwdm.org/publications/pdf/feral%20pig/txferalhogs.pdf http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/feral-hog http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/ http://www.agfc.com/hunting/Pages/HuntingRegulationsFeralHog.aspx http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/mammals/land/wild-hog/ http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/wildboar.shtml http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/feral-hogs/

Hopefully this is indicative of he amount of attention being given to these specific invasive populations. I know someone has to actually go write the article, but my main concern is that I don't think the redirect should go here. I'd recommend that the article be Feral Pig, with redirects from Wild Pig, and Feral Hog as these seem to be the most common nomenclature for these specific populations among state wildife agencies and the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the wild boar & feral pig confusion

Please see Talk:Razorback#Requested move November 2014.

In the interim, we must stop mis-categorizating Wild boar in Category:Feral pigs; that's a factual error, as the term "feral" only applies to domesticates. I've also fixed the problem of Feral pig and Feral pigs wrongly redirecting to Wild boar#Feral pigs, a section that does not even exist, and which should not exist at this article anyway (any more than feral dog would be a redirect to a nonsense target like "Coyote#Feral dogs" or "Wolf#Feral dogs". We do not mix-and-match unrelated topics this way just because some people confuse them. Use {{Distinguish}} or some other WP:Hatnote to disambiguate them. PS: If people were really paying attention, they might have noticed that Wild boars did not redirect to Wild boar until I fixed it just now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is correct to use the term feral for wild boar for the following reasons.

The biological name for the feral pig is Sus scrofa, the same as described in the Wild boar article. This name is commonly used by the media and by government agencies.

The Wild boar article shows them introduced to Australia, New Guinea, and the USA. The only way a European animal could be in any of those geographically remote places is if they were brought there by humans and escaped or were released later, hence making them feral.

The "Feral pigs" article redirected to the Wild boar article. This was recently changed to direct to Razorback, (also sus scrofa) but I feel this is demonstrably wrong and is only about the North American pigs. (BTW, contrary to the article's claim, the term razorback is not used in Australia.)

Just another thought, should Feral Pigs have its own article.--Dmol (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Boy with his boar, 1930s

I found this to be an extraordinary photo, and thought I'd present it here for whatever purpose, image- or information-wise, it could serve (not sure of the photo's copyright status but that should be easy enough to figure out for people skilled at that). Anyway, here it is: https://twitter.com/HistoryInPix/status/548376668264730624. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pig, not a boar.Mariomassone (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Misleading European bias

This article is full of factually incorrect comments stemming from editor's assumptions that wild boar only live in Europe. For example, "Acorns and beechnuts are invariably its most important food items". It's more than a little unlikely that a boar living in rainforest in Malaysia will be "invariably" eating more beech nuts and acorns than anything else, considering neither genus exists in rainforest. This is only one example, there are numerous similar incorrect statments caused by this European bias.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit was not reverted, it was clarified with the qualifier "Temperate zones" (where the vast majority of wild boar populations reside, as shown on the range map). Furthermore, as far as I know, the standard of inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. The preponderance of acorns etc. in the animal's diet is confirmed in two sources, one from Italy, another from Russia (which does not only encompass Europe, but far eastern Asia too). If the user is truly worried about a "European bias" (despite the presence of info regarding the diet of boars in Java and an image of a feeding Indian boar), then why not actually find a source detailing the diet of Malaysian boars and add it? Or better yet, accept the rephrasing of the disputed sentence concerning temperate zones? Mariomassone (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. One of the standards for inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Other standards require that material added accurately represent the source. An article on mammals in Central Australia may contain a statement that in winter the diet of grazing animals consists mostly of Eucalyptus leaves. That does mean that we can include a sentence in the Wikipedia article on cattle that they mostly eat Eucalyptus leaves in winter. While the sentence in the original article is perfectly accurate because the context, it is an utterly inaccurate misrepresentation in an article about cattle generally. You have done exactly this once on this article, and I strongly suspect that this is exactly what you are still doing with this information: a sentence article on pigs in one small area of Russia that states the diet invariably consists mostly of acorns has been included as "All pigs, everywhere, invariably eat mostly acorns". Of course that phrasing was a load of bollocks, yet it was immediately reverted with a claim that it was sourced. It has now been altered because you concede that it grossly misrepresented the original source. Now I just need information to see whether it is still being misrepresented. I have requested a quotation of where the source makes such a claim. None has been forthcoming to date. If it can't be provided I will shortly ask for a reference verification and if it still can't be verified I will remove the material altogether on the grounds that it has failed a reference check. The fact that the source was so badly misrepresented once, and then automatically reinstated when challenged, doesn't give me much confidence that it is being accurately represented now. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Le ghiande e le faggiole sono elementi molto importanti nella dieta; ricche di carboidrati, servono a creare riserve di grasso per i periodi più difficili dell'anno; la scarsità di amminoacidi in esse contenuti spinge però il cinghiale ad integrare con erbe e piccoli invertebrati.
"Acorns and beechnuts are very important elements in its diet; rich in carbohyrdates, they serve to form fat reserves during the most trying times of the year; their lack of amino acids however force the boar to supplement with herbs and small invertebrates." -Marsan & Mattioli 2013, pp. 70–72.
I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase it. Mariomassone (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the source online, and anyway I don't read Italian to any usable extent. A Google translation of a review tells me that this source "includes a series of monographs scientifically updated and written by the most experienced Italian zoologist" and concerns "the treatment of the ungulate most widespread in Italy: behavior... feeding..." and that it deals with "its operations in different contexts of our country and what should be done to get a comprehensive picture on the status of the Italian population."

From this, it seems like the book primarily deals with the Italian population. Is that correct? If so, then the wording will need to reflect that. Something to the effect that "In Italy acorns and beechnuts are invariably its most important food items". If this section doesn't deal mostly with the Italian population then can you quote the section that leads you to conclude that this information applies to all temperate populations, and not just those in Italy?Mark Marathon (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What does it taste like?

Same as pig?, i wonder.

Not quite... the same way that hare doesn't taste like rabbit. I'd say it tastes like boar. ;) portugal 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really like Pork, it's less fatty. Overall, it's quite a lot like Beef but, IMO, tastier. (You get it in a lot of restaurants in this part of France!). Marcus22 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Wild Boar Ham and bacon taste like ham from Farm pigs? I can see how the loin cuts, and the chops might be different. The ham and bacon are my favorite pork cuts. I eat pork chops with less frequency. There a fat from Pork roast that lays on me, leaves me with a little indigestion. In Turkey, its triptophane; It might be a similar chemical in Pork. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

According to my experience, it tastes kind of like pork, but less fatty, more meaty, more game-like. Nothing like beef or lamb though. JIP | Talk 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussion about what material should be included in the article. It is not a forum for what wild boar tastes like.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And you mention this only now, after almost nine years? JIP | Talk 07:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My reply was in response to your posting made approx 1.25 hrs previously to mine. Despite my editing of the page, this was the first time I had read this thread, and this was as a consequence of your posting made on November 16, 2015 which pinged my watchlist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Asterix

These days, most European people know about wild boar primarily from the Asterix comics, where the Gauls feast on wild boar at the end of every album. Should this be mentioned? After all, I remember reading news about how people who visit Parc Asterix in France are disappointed that they're only served a cut of wild boar, not the whole animal, as customarily depicted in the comics. JIP | Talk 21:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead?

Could someone explain the entry in the table of the terminology section where it indicates that the "age" of a "solitary boar" is "dead"? 2601:47:4201:C8FF:F522:6AF0:4007:324E (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

There are a few inconsistencies in this article:

• First it says It lives in woodland in northern Europe and then it talks about ..in the southern United States. I also believe they can be found in Asia. So, what's the real distribution of the wild boar? See also Pig and Suidae.
• The article starts with They are capable of causing serious injury and are best avoided and ends with Wild boars are large but rarely dangerous. One of these statements needs to be clarified.

Nyh 12:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They're rarely dangerous. But if you mess with them or they somehow feel threatened, you're in for a large hospital bill. If they have piglets, they'll see you as a threat too fast. I think this is what the sentence meant: they're capable of damage, but it's not common that they'll do it. Like most other non-hunter animals, i guess. :) portugal 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this entry at issg.org has some good information about wild pigs/ boars. It also notes that adult boars tend to be solitary. Suppafly 22:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Asterix comics give the Latin name of the boar as Singularis porcus, this article gives it as Sus scrofa. Where did the Asterix version come from? — JIP | Talk 09:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The Asterix version is dog Latin, i.e. a joke. -- Securiger 5 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

The pun comes from "porc" (meaning pork in French) and "sanglier" (meaning boar in French). The French writers of Asterix, never dry of humor, created the pseudo scientific term "porcus singularis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Anyone working on this article and able to translate German or French might like to have a look at the much more complete German and French articles. -- Securiger 5 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

In the physical description lots of claims on size and weight are made which are often inconsistent with each other. All is based on one somewhat outdated source. I'll try to clean it up soon.Brouwer michiel (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wild boar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101192450/http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf to http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Stuffed at Calafia

This stuffed boar is on display at Calafia Café in Palo Alto.

It was a good lunch. Anyone know anything about this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

natural enemies

Does the boar have any natural enemies besides man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.225.72 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not. Perhaps they were once threatened by wolf or bear and, no doubt, the very young could still be taken by some predators if ill or weak and abandoned... but, overall, no, they have no natural predator today. The car. The rifle. (And even the car can come a poor second!) Marcus22 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Korean wild boar absolutely had natural predators - the Korean tiger, the Amur (Korean) leopard, and the Korean wolf. Mostly gone, so wild boars are running around everywhere being a nuisance in Korea. --Snow (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wild pig (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Corsico-Sardinian wild pig

Not enough referenced material to justify a separate page, sub-species better listed here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I didn't want it to be deleted, but I certainly wouldn't object to it being merged. Subspecies are often better off that way, and this one seems to fit the pattern. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Done. Only reason the article was even a separate thing (with a far less common name for the animal, btw) was a wholly non-collaborative set of actions last August. Frankly, I don't think there much of a need for many of the subspecies articles. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Rename article title "Wild boar" to "Boar"

Calling the boar as wild boar is pleonasm. Its like calling grandma, old grandma.

Of course they are wild, it is obvious to everyone and a unspoken rule, only if there was a domestic boar, it would be justifiable to call this wild boar.

I would understand if there were more than one species of boar, like gray wolves are called gray wolves because there is more than one species of wolves, that way the word wild boar is also justifiable, if the word wild refered to the aggressive nature of the boar.

But there is only one species that is called boar, so its unnecessary.

I have never heard anyone call this animal wild boar, except on Wikipedia.

I would not be so extremely politically correct to avoid calling them boars just because a few countryside locals from US apply this to badgers and raccoons. Maybe some Americans apply this to badgers and raccoons, YES Americans are influential, but Americans should note that they are not the center of the world, the most common name is not neccessarily American, the Moose is adopted as the most common name not because it is American but because it is the most common name, British watched American wildlife documentaries and cartoons and adopted the word moose instead of elk, thus making the word elk far less common in Britain.

Just because it applies somewhere, it does not mean it applies to the whole world.

Wikipedia promotes that article names should be the most common one, so cuttles are called cuttlefish even though they are not fish. I am sure that the most common name for this animal is boar and not wild boar.

In collective thought, I am sure that almost all people think of this wild swine when they hear the word boar.

I highly agree with your explanation. Even more, domestic pigs aren't called "domestic boars". In my opinion, this page should be simply "pig" or "common pig" to distinguish it from the other pigs in the genus Sus. The word "wild" is an adjective and there is no way to distinguish it from the domesticated forms. Of course, we all know that "wild boars" came out before the domestic pigs and animals without humans are all wild. You can only apply the "wild" if it's in a sentence that includes their domestic descendants and to compare each other especially when the main subjects are the domestic pigs. "More" even more, the word "boar" is the males of the pigs, which if someone describes a picture of a male wild boar, "A wild boar boar" (as opposed to the wild boar sow), which looks like a repeated word and is wrong and makes it rather complicated and confusing. Though it can be described as, "A male wild boar", but limiting the choices of the sentence types, unlike the female wild boar as, "A wild boar sow", which is rather correct. I'm highly disappointed with the common name so I renamed it in my page as simple as "pig" or "common pig" to distinguish it from the other species of pig. It also happens in the other animals, though not the proper one. For example, "cow" is the most common name for the cattle, but it is considered a colloquial term for the cattle. And that's because of what I said before that when referring to the females of that type of animal, it would be rather complicated and confusing. Jaspergeli (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be incorrect and misleading to rename this article as simply Boar. As you yourself note, Jaspergeli, boar is the male pig, (more specifically, a full-grown, sexually functioning male). Makes no difference if it's wild, domesticated, or feral. "Wild boar" is itself a colloquialism, much like calling all cattle cows, we've come to call all wild pigs boars. Really, the most accurate name for the article would be Wild Pig (or perhaps Wild Swine). True, many people think that any pig not living on a farm is a boar, but they'll often apply that term to both wild pigs and feral pigs equally. Feral pigs aren't the same as the wild pigs (the topic of this article) And, of course, the term boar is used by people who raise domesticated pigs to refer to their sexually mature, uncastrated, yet very much domesticated males

Now, I know on one hand the use of language changes with time, and maybe we're seeing a change in action. At the same time, this is an encyclopedia, and correct terminology should be used and explained. If you don't want to call this article Wild Pig because "Wild Boar" is more popular in the general parlance to refer to all wild swine regardless of age or gender, that's fine. But dropping the wild from the colloquial 'Wild Boar' drifts into inaccurate and encyclopedic territory. The original poster incorrectly assumed boar = wild pig, and that all boars were thus wild. This is inaccurate. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wild boar name

Prescript: I'm not complaining, I'm just curious. Why wild boars are named as "wild boars" if boars itself can be distinguished from pigs and why its name contains "boars" if the males of this animals are also called boars? If I've given the privilege to name this animal as "pig". Very simple as domestic pigs can be distinguished from my wild pigs. And also my males are called boars while my females are called sows so there is no confusion in the names. Why would it be so complicated? Jaspergeli (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Yes, in domestic pigs "boat" is a term for an adult male. In their wild ancestors it's the name for the entire species regardless of sex. English is weird like that. The article is correctly titled. oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Colloquially, they're called "wild boars," but it is indeed a misnomer. They're wild pigs, as opposed to domestic pigs, as opposed to feral pigs. Since "wild boar" is such a common term, the article takes that name, but more accurately speaking, the species is wild pig, the ancestors of domestic pigs. Like wild turkey vs. domesticated turkey. They're still both turkeys. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Middle Asian boar.jpg
• Ryukyu boar.jpg
• Sanglier maroc.jpg
• Trans-baikal boar.jpg
• Ussuri boar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Search keyword

Help. This is my first time editing. How do you correct the search keyword? This article appears under "Sus scofa", not "Sus scrofa".Cathymichaud13 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cathymichaud13. Sus scofa is a deliberate redirect from mispelling, so that if anyone tries to link it it will be flagged. Note that "sus scofa" is amazingly common[4], including in documents where "sus scrofa" is also used... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Raised at WP:VPT once I understood the problem properly. 04:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

A young boar is commonly known as a boarlet but it makes no mention of this:

Sources

https://newforestwildlifepark.co.uk/animals/mammals/wild-boar#funfact

http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/?Coats.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2020/0505/1136581-boarlets-donegal/

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/boarlet.html

https://forvo.com/word/boarlet/

(Even https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/48847/11-lesser-known-names-baby-animals notes farrows and shoats as more obscure and boarlet as 'more obvious' and on wiki on key Irish events on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2020_in_Ireland)

The hesitance to include I suspect stems from the same reason it's called 'wild boar' ie that boar is the male of multiple species - but in common parlance and usage it's a piglet for a pig and a boarlet for a wild boar and it should be referenced on this page.. If I search "what is a baby boar called" the first link says piglet and boarlet. Seems very odd to not have it referenced here even if it's generally accepted that piglet is the 'definitive' answer and boarlet is just a less common alternative..? 146.198.245.122 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your suggestion. Added it with the rte source do to the others being of limited reliability. 15 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Remove reference to wild boars beeing used in germany for drug searches. This is misinformtion. 1. It was a trained house swine 2. It was only one animal "used" by one police station 3. It was meant as a publicity stunt 2A02:908:3611:69BC:ADC3:85B8:9987:B35F (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TGHL ↗ 🍁 23:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)