CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Monster Pig

2007 media controversy

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 4, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

Monster Pig was the subject of a controversial 2007 story that initially ran in the news media as a report of an 11-year-old boy shooting a massive feral pig. The pig was claimed to have been shot during a hunt on May 3, 2007, by an 11-year-old boy named Jamison Stone. The location of the shooting was the Lost Creek Plantation, a commercial hunting preserve outside Anniston, Alabama, US. According to the hunters, the pig weighed 1,051 pounds (477 kg) and measured 9 feet 4 inches (2.84 m) in length.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Monster Pig” as 2007 media controversy. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2007—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Monster, media and controversy can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 2007 media controversy. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 4, 2026. The first chronological checks are 2007.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Monster Pig”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Monster Pig primary sources, Monster Pig archive and Monster research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Monster Pig”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Monster Pig” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.