Does it strike anyone else as weird or is it just me?
What’s wrong with it?
I see whereJojo is coming from, I guess: It does not have anything about the life cycle of pigs-- how and when they mate (do pigs have “seasons”?) how long it takes a piglet to mature, and whatnot. It’s more about the culture surrounding the pig, rather than the animal itself.
It’s mainly the quranic stuff. I went there wondering about the biology of pigs, feeding habits, mating habits etc. General stuff about pigs and then you get all this religious nonsense.
And why only give islam’s view of pigs? Judaism doesn’t get a mention. And shouldn’t islam’s view of pigs be in the Islam section? Maybe there could be one line saying that some religions disapprove of eating pork and then give links. I don’t see the need for a list of quotes from the quran in a section on pigs (and no quotes from the Old Testament.
I dunno, just all seems a bit weird to me.
And then checking back on the history of the page, it used to say something like:
“The Holy Lord in his Noble Quran forbade the eating of pork by muslims…”
I’m getting the impression that whole thing was either put in there by some religious nut or put in there to appease religious nuts. Either way it has no place in an encyclopedia, surely.
Maybe it’s just me.
There is a mention right before the Qur’anic injunctions against pig consumption, but it’s pretty short:
“Both Islam and Judaism forbid the eating of pork in any form, considering it to be an unclean animal: no form of pig meat can be kosher or halal (see taboo food and drink)”
I agree links to the articles on religions themselves would be adequate, and it’s somewhat out of place to put the actual religious injunctions there. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and change it yourself.
What’s with the faux humility? You have to know that you have a valid point.
Yeah, I’m not seeing anything odd. Maybe I don’t know enough about pigs to notice?
Wikipedia often runs into this. Somebody will insert some information that, while truthful, seems out of proportion to the overall subject of the article. For example, there might be an article on World War II with five paragraphs about the overall war and five paragraphs about the Battle of Midway. Some people when they find out of balnce articles like this suggest removing the detailed information. Other people argue that as long as the information is true and relevant to the subject, it should remain and balance should be restored by building up the rest of the article.
Some of the stuff you were looking for should maybe be in the ‘domestic pig’ article rather than the ‘pig genus’ article, (I don’t know how much pig mating habits and other life cycle info varies by species,) but the species-specific article is pretty sparse on info too, so there does seem to be a definite imbalance. Nature of wiki, as Nemo says.
Some of the stuff you were looking for should maybe be in the ‘domestic pig’ article rather than the ‘pig genus’ article, (I don’t know how much pig mating habits and other life cycle info varies by species,) but the species-specific article is pretty sparse on info too, so there does seem to be a definite imbalance. Nature of wiki, as Nemo says.
In this case I’d say that there needs to be another page with the information about why some religions forbid the eating of pork on the disambiguation page for pig. Move all the info pertaining to that to the new page, and fill out the scientific article.
Well, for all you trivia buffs out there - the pig has the easiest to remember gestational length of all the domestic animals:
Three months, three weeks, three days.
It’s not kosher.
The beauty of Wikipedia. There is an article on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork and I’ve moved the section to it.
Where is the Wikipedia Technoutopian coming in here to say “if you find something wrong, fix it!”?
ok let’s see how long it is before some religious fanatic moves it back. There’s also a line in the “pig” page, in the section headed “Cultural references to pigs”, which says:
You probably should delete the bolded bit as well, or maybe replace it with a link to the “religious restrictions against the consumption of pork” page.
(Sorry I don’t really understand how to do all that wiki editing stuff.)
:smack:
Pigged me to it.
No flipping clue where that came from. I was trying to say “Beat me to it”. I haven’t the foggiest idea what “pigged me to it” means.
Sorry; busy afternoon.
As always with Wikipedia, Jojo, when you find a problem, fix it.
–Cliffy
Hey, I was the first to say change it, way back in post #5.