Talk:War pig

Rome

Did a bit too much Rome: Total War go into the making of this article? The incident at Megara is the only record I can find of the pigs being set on fire: Aelian just says that the Romans used the squeals of pigs, without saying how they were incited, and at Edessa being suspended from the walls in a sling was frightening enough. —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys

Um... is this real? Like, legit? It seems like we're being wooshed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.145.65 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any reference anywhere to incendiary monkeys. It looks like much of the later half of this article was taken from this [1] at militaryfactory.com, and the incendiary monkey came with it. I think this is likely to either be a myth, or a whole-cloth invention, and should probably be removed unless anyone can back it up. JWAbrams (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fire Pigs

I broke this topic out separately as its historical foundation needed examination. Claudius Aelianus is a very poor source and should not be cited without providing some context for the readers to consider. Further, anyone with any familiarity with military history instantly will see the similarity of the fire pig anecdote with the long use of combustible carcasses. The latter is a much more probable interpretation than Claudius Aelianus'. 67.181.14.236 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a critical look at the subject. Are these your own conclusions, or are you drawing on the opinions of other historians? It really needs to be the latter, if the section is to meet the Wikipedia policy on original research. If you could provide some references for Aelianus's reliability and the history of incendiary hides, it'd do a lot more to improve the article. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course.

1) The comments regarding Claudius Aelianus are drawn from the Wiki entry for the same man and his works. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_Aelianus) I assume if these conclusions about his reliability on that Wiki page were adequately supported, they are considered adequate here?

2) The use of the word "carcass" or "carcase" as a name for an incendiary artillery projectile is well established, as this Britannica link illustrates: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382397/military-technology/57623/Early-use-of-artillery

3) The application of the name carcass to iron artillery shells is simply a carry over of the use of that term for earlier incendiary devices. As this Wike page documents, "carcasses" in the earlier sense (burning bundles) were used as late as the Siege of Badajoz in 1812. In addition, it cites the use of bales and sacks of incendiary materails in several other instances; obviously the wrapping for these weapons would be anything conveient at hand, which would include animal hides (the daily slaughtering of 'rations on the hoof' would produce plenty of hides in most situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_thermal_weapons

4) Now, does that mean the incendiary pig idea was definitely derived from the use of pig hides in making flaming carcasses? No like I said, it seems more plausible, that's all - certainly more probable than anything Claudius Aelianus wrote. But - and I don't mean to cause offense - given that the original war pig page was drawn mostly from a video game(!!!), I have to wonder if these revisions are being held to the same rigorous non-standards of the original entry. Again, not meaning to cause offense, but it does seem odd. 67.181.14.236 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Marine Corps Callsign

3rd Battalion 2nd Marines (3/2) Weapons Company uses the term "Warpig" as their call sign. Would that be an appropriate mention here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.178.49 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if we had any reference to an external site confirming this. filceolaire (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From: http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/from_the_field/operation_matad.html

2 paragraphs excerpted from the middle of the page use the word war pigs to refer to US Marines:

"Our two rifle companies, Kilo Company 3/2 and Lima Company 3/25, reinforced by one Warpig mobile platoon fought bravely with entrenched insurgents in the towns of Ubaydi and Ramana. Their tenacity to take the fight to the enemy resulted in a significant number of enemy kills and captures, thereby hampering enemy ability to move at will in this region.

Bravo Company, 2D LAR and Alpha Company, 4th AAV provided protection on our flanks, much need flexibility in the field of battle, as well as the ability to quickly move large numbers of our men across enemy territory. The men of India provided a blocking position in support of the operation, and also continued their fight around Camp Gannon , while the Warpigs of Weapons Company also manned the key blocking position as well as provided effective fire support during the entire operation."

The exact same text was either copied from or pasted to: http://marinechat.com/forums/showthread.php?p=74123

The phrase "The C-Square CRY HAVOC! UNLEASH THE WAR PIGS! ....AMERICA! Who's On Your Six?" appears in the header at http://thecsquare.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html this page hasa photo captioned "Delta 4thLAR 3/2/2005 on a WAR PIG run out of Quantico, Va.

wind chill set for ugh. Oh, yead.

Photo ByLine: Cpl. Enrique Saenz"

Also another photo captioned: "More Gratuitous War Pig Porn-Now with Credit Info

Favorite shot of WAR PIGs was taken by Cpl. Adam Johnston 11/30/2007 during Operation Rat Hunt out of COP TIMBERWOLF, Iraq. These are Marines of BRAVO THREE LAR. The 20-day op captured three suspicious live rats, multiple weapons cache finds and three IED's."

Form these observations it would seem that the phrase "War pig" may be more of a reference to the 8-wheeled vehicles we civilians call "Bradley Fighting Vehicles" than to the Marines themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.93.129 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of this is relevant to the article war pig. The article is about pigs used for war. Neither the marines nor their vehicles are pigs, and material about them belongs in their own articles. To include them here would make this into a dictionary definition of the phrase "war pig", not an article about a thing. Please see WP:NOTDICT. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pigs_%28disambiguation%29 perhaps then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.41.19 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suitable illustration? Comment

The current picture here would seem to have nothing to do with war pigs as such. It does have to do with war, yes, and pigs too - but not war pigs.

--Rob Cranfill (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The purpose of the lede pic in an article is to quickly assure the reader that they have the right article. This pic does the opposite, as it implies a different association of war and pig than the subject of this article. I've deleting this pic. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"War pigs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect War pigs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25 § War pigs until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)