Talk:Large Black

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 The only reason I do not state these things as fact is that i only heard them from a breeder and do not quote them as fact until I have further substantiated sources.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: Perhaps some re-wording is needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Which just proves my point because it was written in the late 19th century. We're discussing what types were around 50-100 years earlier. And, in fact, Harris says "We have almost as many kinds of hogs as we have different kinds or systems of farming. We do not call them breeds, because there is little permanency of character about them. They are constantly changing, just as the management of their owners varies." So, yes, he understands the term "breed" in essentially the same way we do today, but by making this disclaimer shows that the "breeds" he discusses in later sections are more akin to types, since they are "constantly changing". I will look further to see if he has anything to add about the black pigs of the late 19th century. Dana boomer (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I wasn't, really. I was discussing the breeds that were absorbed into the Large Black when the association was formed at the end of the century, and specifically whether there more than two of them. By the way, the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the Small Black or Suffolk Black - the same Essex x Neapolitan cross that Harris calls the Improved Essex; so in 1911 it had perhaps not yet been absorbed?


 * As you'll see in Harris on the pig, there were many more than two types of black pig. I suggest rewording the two sentences in the lead "There were originally two types of black pigs, one from East Anglia and Essex and one from Devon and Cornwall. With the founding of a breed association in 1898, variations between the two types decreased" to read something like "The Large Black combined local black pig breeds from the West Country and the East of England; the Large Black Pig Society was formed in 1898."


 * I also suggest removing the sentence "During the late 19th century, the Large Black grew enormously in popularity." If the breed was established in 1899, that didn't leave it much time to get popular before 1900! The date of formation of the society is given variously as 1898 and 1899, both here and in sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are more types of black pigs then are given in the article - however, Harris doesn't state (that I can see) that all of these different types of black pigs were used to create the breed that we know today as the the "Large Black". Until we have a source that makes that direct connection, it's OR to say that all of these different black types were ancestors of today's Large Black. As to your last point, the breed association was established in 1898/9. A breed is by definition going to be fairly solidly established before an association is formed, because an association is basically a bunch of breeders getting together and going "since we're all breeding the same thing, let's get together so that we can use our pooled resources to promote our breed." So, breed association =/= breed creation or even breed popularity. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

problem encountered during GA review
I think this is an interesting article and not far from passing GA review.

But I can't understand how an editor who has never edited the article before can revert my copy editing changes and those of another editor, with the edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer". I'm the reviewer and I'm the one that made most of the edits reverted. See contributions: As can be seen from contributions, Steven Walling (35) Dana boomer (27) and Justlettersandnumbers (21) have fairly close to the same number of edits. I am next.(9)

I don't believe I can continue this review unless those actively editing the article (Justlettersandnumbers, Dana boomer, and possibly Steven Walling - tho he has not been active since January 1) come to some kind of consensus.

There is currently an active discussion on ANI that is only reducing the likelihood that this GA review can be resumed.

I'd like to hear from the active editors of this article whether some compromise can be reached. I believe this is possible if dialog takes place.

Sincerely, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mathew. Yes, the revert by Montanabw was unneeded; however, I doubt she meant to include your edits in the revert, they simply got caught up in the others. If you wish to fail the article, go ahead. I reviewed the edits made this morning and made a few tweaks of my own. The day caught up with me again, though, and I didn't get to your comments above. If you wish to leave the review open, I should be able to get to them tomorrow. I apologize for the time that this is taking, as I know your comments aren't that major - it's just that this AN/I business and JLAN's false accusations against me there are taking what wiki time I have right now. Again, I apologize - I know it's hard to step into a review and then realize you just jumped into the middle of a dispute. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning all. I've had this page on my watchlist as something I'd want to get to GA for a while, but Dana beat me to it. My fault, I'm too lazy. Also, MathewTownsend is one of my adoptees, complete coincidence - so I thought I'd just wander in. At the moment, I wouldn't fail this due to the stability, as the issue appears to be with editors rather than the article. I'm going to do a bit of reading into the backstory regarding that, and see if there's any solution.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Worm, I look forward to seeing your comments. I should be getting to Mathew's comments within the next few hours. As a general comment to anyone who may be interested, I did jut revert a series of edits by Alarbus which changed the references to list-defined. I can't stand that type of referencing, and changing the references without discussion is completely against guidelines. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my inactivity, I have been very busy at work. In any case, I still have several of the main book sources available, and if we can lay out any disputes point by point, I can help resolve them via published secondary sources. Thanks for your work reviewing this Mathew, even if it's been hectic. If there are outstanding issues other than the edit warring, I will try to help clear them up. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Steven! Anything that you could add WRT American and Australian history would be awesome - although I still plan to look for other sources tonight. Another thing is that I'm becoming concerned about the current preponderance of old sources and non-third party sources (breed associations, etc). Anything that you have that could replace some of these would be great. At this point, I think the article's sources are solid for a GA, but if we can improve them then why not do so? Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of this one. The lead editors have returned. I do think the ANI is where JLAN's behavior needs to be handled. I truly considered what I was doing to be the best way to get the article back to its nominated version so the issues could be properly discussed. But carry on. Montanabw (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, hopefully Steve Walling can get this article back on track after the recent distruction of the GA review. Montanabw, I hope your bowing out is for real, no more disruption will occur and you will let those involved in the article and its GA review to pick up the pieces. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now that both Steven and Dana are here, they can undo the damage JLAN did, and they have access to all the proper source material, so I have no reason for continued involvement. Cheers!  Montanabw (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Large Black 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227033016/http://www.britishpigs.org.uk/trad1.htm to http://www.britishpigs.org.uk/trad1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Large Black 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320163134/http://www.rarebreedscanada.ca/pigbreeds.htm to http://www.rarebreedscanada.ca/pigbreeds.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)