Talk:Cow tipping/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Statics of Cow Tipping

"The Statics of Cow Tipping" reference is given far too much play in the article. It assumes the cow is perfectly rigid and that its legs never move, bend or sway. See some of the posts above for variations on the calculations. PatriotSurvivor 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've had enough of the edit warring going on here. I'm fairly unconcerned about how the caption ends up (a number of acceptable alternatives have been proposed and, I'd say, gained consensus approval from all but a few editiors), but I'm now handing out warnings to EVERYONE who's been deleting text from the body of the article, and if you keep doing it, I will not hesitate to block folks for edit warring. We have at least one perfectly valid reference in there (from the London Times) so stop deleting this text claiming that it is unsourced. Stop deleting the "Parodies" section.

In fact, ...

Stop edit warring now!

Atlant 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because some idiot reporter wrote a 400 word column basically just re-telling the original research in that BC "study" doesn't make it a reliable source. All that stuff is crap, and not encyclopedic. 66.186.45.226 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Another try for consensus on the caption

Can we have some sort of vote for consensus on the caption and then keep it like that? I proposed above and changed it slightly when implementing the current caption. Does anyone want to voice their opinion AGAINST A cow in its natural upright state. Maurauth ^(...) 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That one is fine for me, too. --Ali'i 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested several vocal editors' comments on this option (Chowbok, Merzbow, Bobo the Ninja... all names are from memory and are most likely incorrect here, but I'm hoping you know to whom I am referring.) --Ali'i 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Restating for clarity because it has been changed a few times, the caption being voted on is "A cow in its natural upright state.", which was current at the time this proposal was made,[1]. The current page may be different. / edgarde 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- That version also works for me. -- Atlant 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- I like that as well as "An untipped cow". - Merzbow 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- It's encyclopedic and it fits best with the text in the article. This is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious Quartet 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Completely appropriate and also kind of amusing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose(changed from Weak Oppose) - I still think that "An unsuspecting potential victim" would be better here; however, in the interests of reaching a consensus, I would be willing to go with something somewhat more 'moderate', eg., "An untipped cow". The current caption, however, seems to dry to me. Ninja! 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- "An unsuspecting potential victim" presumes to understand the thoughts of the cow; this is unencyclopedic speculation. Also, it characterizes cows as easily and often tipped "victims"; this contradicts the text of the article which calls tipping an "urban legend". / edgarde 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I'm glad to see the edit warring is dying down. I think this caption is appropriate. My concern with "untipped" is that it usually means "without a tip" (also true for a cow, of course). --Joelmills 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- While there is a homonym here, I think the meaning will be clear from context. I like "untipped" best because is supports the article text as written in stating that cows are seldom really tipped. / edgarde 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - There was nothing wrong with the old caption. —Chowbok ☠ 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that countless editors continue to disagree over it indicates there is something wrong with it. You jsut can't deal with the fact someone disagrees with you, and you don't own this caption, anyway. 66.186.45.226 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- But sometimes a workable compromise is better than an endless edit war. -- Atlant 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- Yeah, I'm proposing this to put an end to the edit war, and to remove the completly humour-filled caption with a correct one, but still with a hint of humour. Maurauth ^(...) 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This edit war needs to be resolved as it has now reached the point where is is being considered as an addition to WT:LAME. --Quartet 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The WT:LAME proposal was not about the disagreement itself so much as the attempt to support various captions with policy. Policy could easily be worked into just about any stance on this argument; what the caption actually ends up as should be based on common sense, which, as is shown by this edit war, appears to be in short supply.Ninja! 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Pictures - Cow tipping has been there for a long time. =Axlq 04:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• support good enough. 66.186.45.226 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if IP's are allowed to vote (I know they aren't in RFA's, but this isn't quite as 'official'.) Also, two of this IP's three contributions were to this debate only. Ninja! 02:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. If the anon user has something poignant to add (which I'm not sure they did), they are able to. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. I think "An unsuspecting potential victim" is the most accurate, concise, and descriptive caption anyone has ever devised. However, any caption pertaining to the article's subject is better than a mind-numbingly obvious caption like "A cow". In fact, I kind of object to having the word "cow" in the caption at all, if it can be avoided. How about "The natural, upright, non-tipped state"? =Axlq 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There's arguments over whether a cow can be suspecting, and hence it would be even more accurate and concise to say "A potential victim", but people would argue about that. The one you proposed seems a bit too wordy for me. Maurauth ^(...) 07:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support -- A cow in its natural upright state is funny enough, perhaps a little too ironical to be encyclopedic. An untipped cow is preferable but not something I feel a need to fight for. / edgarde 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not my favorite choice, but it's better than the foolishness that was up there before. And if Atlant threatens blocks on anyone again, it needs to straight to ANI, that was immature and disgraceful. This caption is my second favorite - it's serious and accurate, and not unverifiable. Note also that Chowbok still has yet to comment on the merits of the old caption despite numerous invitations... I think the right choice is clear here. Milto LOL pia 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment': Please note that I'm still fully prepared to block edit warriors. I'm also more than willing to remind people that "immature and disgraceful" is a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF; Milto LOL pia, please consider this an official warning to you.

Atlant 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support more encyclopedic and verifiable than the previous attempt at humor. Not a dog 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support This has gone on long enough. Either give let it be the one suggested in this vote (which has already been implemented), or just put it as "A Cow". ĞavinŤing 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sadily, I kinda started this. This just needs to end now. I thought the caption was a little too humorus. Now, this has been placed on WP:LAME, and we are debating if it is unsuspecting. When did this switch for the edit war happen? (Can someone answer that question please?) --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I wholeheartedly support "A cow in its natural upright state," and feel honored to have taken a small part in the lamest edit war I've ever seen. Thank you all. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*Strongest support possible + 1. This is the perfect caption. Can we get a picture of a tipped cow for comparison? That wold really add a lot of clarity otherwise lacking.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus on the caption. I propose a compromise of chagning the caption on a regular basis, maybe every other day? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On "natural"

• Oppose Cows are selectively bred and thus, not natural. They don't have a "natural state." —M (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that selective breeding applies to a cow's tipped or untipped status. "Natural" reminds the reader that being tipped is not a cow's normal state; I do not believe that there are currently any breeds of cows that have been bred to be more, or less, likely to be tipped than other breeds. If I'm wrong, please feel free to produce a reliable souce in the form of a journal article about the various breeds' risk of being tipped. Frankly, this objection seems to me to be an attempt to keep an edit war going even after a reasonable consensus has been reached. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • It's an issue of semantics. Isn't this what the debate has been about all this time? "Natural" is a superfluous word in the caption. It doesn't even make sense: there's nothing natural about a cow. There's no source for whether or not said cow has been given bovine growth hormones. Cows lie down, so there's nothing inherently "normal" about a standing cow either. It should just say, "A cow in its upright state." However, there's a problem with that right there. "Upright" is a POV term. There's no source listed for the cow's supposed morality. —M (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, "natural" is superfluous and presumptive. The picture is of an untipped cow, little more. Not a dog 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it presumptive to assume that cows natural state is NOT being tipped over? Also; don't just edit the article when the consensus is clearly against your edits. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It is presumptive to state that upright is particularly "natural" - perhaps lying down is more of its "nature" - the point is, the term isn't necessary. Just say its upright, and leave it at that. No need for some qualifier.Not a dog 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's hardly presumptive to say that a cow's natural state is to not be being tipped over. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 10:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The point is that the term isn't necessary at all. Not a dog 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not superfluous and it's also been decided upon by a damn large consensus here, so please stop removing it. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Show me the consensus for using the term "natural". And stop leaving vandalism warnings when that's clearly not the case - I've been engaging in discussion and using edit summaries, while you often revert without comment. Not a dog 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "Restating for clarity because it has been changed a few times, the caption being voted on is "A cow in its natural upright state.", which was current at the time this proposal was made,[3]. The current page may be different. / edgarde 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)" This whole list of support and oppose is that actual caption that you are removing. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural is ambiguous and unnecessary, every position a cow is in is natural. IvoShandor 14:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point.Not a dog 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course it is being manipulated, the act of the tip would be unnatural but being tipped wouldn't be, it all depends on what is meant by natural, which shows the term's ambiguity. I removed it but if it's that important to the caption on this particular stub please by all means readd it. Woot. IvoShandor 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I also think that "natural" is superfluous. — MichaelLinnear 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cows sometimes stand bipedally when upright: See here. SakotGrimshine 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<image removed--no copyrighted images on talk pages, please. Chick Bowen 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)> SakotGrimshine 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to a videogame screenshot in this article. Not a dog 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to agree on a caption?

Going out on a limb here.

I'm wondering if treating this like an edit war is a mistake. This article will continue to attract amateur comics, each with a different idea of the best caption. That will be the majority of editors, so there will never be a real consensus. Can we just accept that every 4 hours another sophomore will change the caption? How broke is this really?

Some captions are more appropriate (per WP:TONE and whatnot) than others, but even the current release candidate caption (A cow in its natural upright state) is another attempt at forced humor. Perhaps this article can be considered just another WP:JOKE page, at least as far as the caption goes.

Ding the more aggressive editors with a WP:3RR as needed. Revert bad (uncivil, defamatory, offensive, copyvio, etc) comments. Otherwise, a revolving door. This won't be encyclopedic, but it might be the best we'll get. / edgarde 10:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that a picture of a cow standing up, unrelated to any cow tipping, adds nothing to the article and is completely worthless? If someone doesn't know what a cow looks like they can click the link to the cattle article. The cow standing up picture should be completely removed. Instead, by looking over past revisions, people have gradually removed relevant information from the article (like the trivia section which I added a small percentage back) until the article basically just became nothing but the same picture of a cow with various changing unfunny captions. SakotGrimshine 12:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Much as I like the cow, the image is probably the article's attractive nuisance. / edgarde 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the image altogether is a good idea - it adds nothing but headaches. Not a dog 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Can we start an archive ending at when this silly edit war started? Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. (and see {{sofixit}}). Not a dog 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Abuse

I don't see how cow tipping could be considered anything other than animal abuse. Knocking over an animal for (drunken) enjoyment? Certainly isn't friendly. Not a dog 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Cow Tipping?

When was the first cow tipped? Please do research on this, as wikipedia really needs it for this article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What else are we doing out there?

A friend of mine, who grew up in a rural area, has said more than once that "cow tipping" doesn't really exist. I'm not saying she's right, but one thing she said rings pretty true. She said that when they went "cow tipping," it was really just a cover to go drink beer in a field at night. (Cheap nasty cans of warm beer, I believe were her exact words, but you get the idea.) Another person commented that they took people cow tipping like others took people snipe hunting; it was a cover to get people to go out in the woods and get left. I'm not saying cow tipping is always a cover for something else, but I think mention of this should be made in the article itself. Thoughts? --Raulpascal 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a reliable source it constitutes original research which is strictly against Wikipedia policy, see original research policy. The article mentions that it is likely urban legend, that's good enough and can be sourced. IvoShandor 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

This section is getting out of control. I see little encyclopedic value of enumerating each and every time "cow tipping" is referenced in pop culture. Not a dog 11:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a trivia section. None of the entries seem particularly helpful. Deleting it entirely would work for me. / edgarde 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper you know. Without this section, basically the article is just a picture of a cow with a caption that changes every few hours. The pop culture is very useful to readers who want to learn about the subject instead of just arguing over the cow caption. SakotGrimshine 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How does its occurrence in a carton or TV show help someone "learn about the subject"? Sure, Wiki isn't paper, but it remains an encyclopedia. Not a dog 13:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, delete all the extra crap that sakot added. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that picture of the cow with the various captions help someone learn about the subject? SakotGrimshine 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, which is why I've agreed with its removal]. But its existence is irrelevant for this discussion. Not a dog 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I came along here having not seen the recent talk or history of the article, and promptly added a popular culture section, which I've now reverted for the sake of not angering the consensus. However, I disagree that the section is "unencyclopedic, unsourced and useless" as argued in the edit summary when it was removed.

First of all, an encyclopedic article on cow tipping needs at least some pop culture references to justify its notability as an "urban legend", and in fact the fact that an entire episode of a popular TV program focuses on it is an important part of the history of the cultural prominence of the activity. Of the four references that I had found to include to the list, all were sourced to notable published works, each of whose articles mentioned cow tipping in their own commentary on the work. And now that I think about it, "useless" is a subset of "unencyclopedic" so my approach as a point-by-point address breaks down here. The popular culture section is the only thing that transports the subject from "Really? Isn't that just something somebody made up?" to "Oh, and it even seems to have captured the imagination of a few prominent authors of fiction."

I agree that the original list prior to deletion is too long, but it certainly contains some additional useful work in addition to my revision. So. Am I talking nonsense here, or should some of the more pertinent references to use in popular culture be reintroduced to the article? BigBlueFish 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

External links need trimming

I don't want to do it myself as I want consensus, but there's too many unneccessary external links here and they should be trimmed to three or less. SakotGrimshine 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur, one urban legend link, one news item and one other ought to be sufficient. Should lose the picture too, it really is useless. Who doesn't know what a cow in its upright state looks like, one's first familiarization with cows is unlikely to be the Wikipedia article on cow tipping. Now a photo of a cow being tipped, that takes this article from stub class to B class awaiting GA review. Woot. IvoShandor 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with IvoShandor on all points. Not a dog 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative image

While discussing the references to cow tipping in popular culture above, I thought of this as an alternative to the rather pointless illustration currently adorning the article: how about a screen-grab from the trailer from the film Barnyard, namely at about 00:00:27? I'm not very familiar with the workings of image copyright in the context of Wikipedia, but wouldn't this come under very fair use? It's a fantastic illustration if it would. BigBlueFish 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Not a dog and WP:OWN

What does this fellow think he is doing, thinking he owns this article and pushing his preferred "non-animal abuse", completely humorless version??? Mygawd, I think I need a cheeseburger. --C.m.jones 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Not a dog 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness Wikipedia isn't Uncyclopedia and the original you research you added spoiled the article. NAD isn't WP:OWNing the article he's following Wikipedia policy. BigBlueFish 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If NAD's an owner then I'm a co-owner, he just reverts faster. :) - Merzbow 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I owned this article that image and caption would've been gone long ago. (BTW, Cmjones has been blocked) Not a dog 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Malber had the best caption idea. [2] SakotGrimshine 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this photo.

The problem with the photo is not so much the caption (which does read better as "An unsuspecting victim?"), as with the image itself. This is an article on cow tipping. We need a picture either of a cow is the process of being tipped (aparrently a rare event to catch on film) or a tipped cow. Since a tipped cow photo may be hard to find, I propose that we flip this photo vertically 180 degrees. An upside down cow is at least quasi-tipped. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, I agree with the suggestion to remove the image & caption altogether. Not a dog 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What about my suggested alternative in the section above? BigBlueFish 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that unless we are critiquing that particular screenshot, it would not be fair use to use it here merely for descriptive purposes. But I'm not a fair use expert. Not a dog 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}} Reference #3 is irretrievable. Navou 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Riana ⁂ 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the AFD template. I'll complete the nomination once this is done. Thanks in advance. Navou 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article goes on AFD, it will have to be unprotected. Riana ⁂ 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, if you think its a good idea to unprotect at this juncture. AFD is not exigent at this point in time. What do you think about unprotecting? Navou 03:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would consider holding off an AFD until the people involved in the edit war come to the talk page, but that's just my opinion. Could you perhaps leave a note on the talkpages of the people involved, inviting them to this conversation? Riana ⁂ 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can. I'm about to go to bed, so tomorrow I'll add a note on the talk pages. AFD can wait a few days. I more than likely address my issues here before then also, perhaps someone with more knowledge of this, idea, can help improve this article. Navou 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability

The topic itself, urban legend or no, seems notable enough for an article, I don't think edit warring is really a criteria for deletion, even if it is the lamest thing ever. Maybe merger is appropriate because of its length, but surely someone, somewhere has written reliably about this topic. Just my two cents, I don't really care if it gets deleted. IvoShandor 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that I prefer to fix the issues below rather than AFD. My rationale, if I chose to nominate for AFD, is not edit warring. Best regards, Navou 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I regretted that part of my comment after I made it, sorry. But I think something can be done to make this more encyclopedic, obviously this concept exists and I think we can probably find something about it out there, I will do some searching as I have time. I think an AfD would be inappropriate because sources, at this juncture, are likely to be found. Now, say we search for those sources for a couple weeks and come up empty handed, then AfD it all day long, just my two cents and you have expressed your willingness to fix the article, so we shall see what we can do. IvoShandor 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm done. Yeah, I'm going to do a little searching myself. I think we need to give this article a more solid base. I'm also going to check the library system here to see if I can't find anything published on this subject. Navou 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question now is what kind of sources are we looking for. I am finding some stuff in magazines and newspapers and the news stuff that is or was linked here could be useful, at least one scientist has looked at this from a scientific perspective. Or are we looking for academic sources, which I don't see at a cursory glance through a couple databases from EBSCO and then also JSTOR. IvoShandor 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate having to go to work when something like this is happening, this is fun. Actually, I think perhaps a documented case, or maybe has the phrase been used in a movie. I mean, the prospective of a scientist of how it could be done, it just theory until it is actually done. I tend to lean more towards documented events outside the scope of a newspaper or mag, but in this case, if we could find one anywhere, I think that would give the article a good base. And if not, if somehow we could assert why the phrase is notable, perhaps document a particular wide usage, or the likes. I'll try more when I get home today. I'm glad your on this also. I've left notes with some recent editors, perhaps they have some information we could use. Navou 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Navou, I apologise if my comments below made early this morning seem bitey. The phrase "cow tipping" is very notable and has been used repeatedly in verifiable pop-culture references, movies, etc. I do not think that an AfD would be productive, although you would be well within your editorial rights to nominate. Whether or not cow-tipping is possible is part of the articles charm. You might also like to check out Snipe hunt. Best regards, —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm, you can also strike them if you wish. Navou 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Article OR and other things

This article does not seem to assert any actual instances of cow tipping, only how it can be done, and some discussion of the status of the idea, myth or reality. I believe these two need to be taken care of for this article to be good for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Any thoughts? Navou 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (note that I have left a comment on the talk page of recent editors to this talk page) Navou

It's main worth in an encyclopedia is the popular culture references, but people always delete those. SakotGrimshine 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the cow-tpping article is deleted, which is what Navou seems to be suggesting, well...I guess I am not going to worry to much about that idea, because it is completely absurd. Go ahead Navou, nominate it for deletion! There is not a chance that this article will be deleted. The article even states "urban legend." I agree with SakotGrimghine, that the pop-culture references belong. Also, what is up with getting all the other stuff from the article deleted then having it protected in its trimmed down format, with the current caption? —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment inserted - To address the latter question about protection, I requested the protection due to the back and forth changes to the article. It can be a tool to move disputes to the talk page. The current version is of no consequence, see m:The Wrong Version on the meta project. Navou 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references are trivia and thus don't belong in an encyclopedia article. They add nothing to anyone's knowledge on cow tipping. The many thousands of references in pop culture can be summed in one sentence for our purposes, there have been many references to cow tipping throughout popular culture. The stuff being deleted is unreferenced and was probably original research which is against Wikipedia policy. The deletion that Navou brought up has obviously not happened and if you read the above you would likely have realized this. In fact we are trying to reference and expand this article to include more than references to cow tipping in Barnyard or whatever other popular culture mention it has recieved. Stay tuned. IvoShandor 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with "They add nothing to anyone's knowledge on cow tipping," in reference to pop-culture references. On the contrary, they inform one's knowledge of pop-cutlure references to cow tipping. Perhaps there is bias here, because this is a humorous topic. It is not a new topic or an internet fad, as is much of the pop-culture fluff on Wikipedia. I would be intrested in knowing the first 'verified reference to cow-tipping. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While the article is protected

Self-tipped cow

Please think and seriously consider that a picture of a cow laying down (it's in the cattle article) is the best picture. Basically it proves cows don't have to stand up all the time and that they can get up after being tipped over. SakotGrimshine 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Who would believe that a cow stands all the time. This is patently absurd, anyone who believes that is unlikely to have the ability to use Wikipedia. IvoShandor 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the ENTIRE premise behind cow tipping. SakotGrimshine 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire premise behind cow tipping, I believe, is that cows sleep standing up, perhaps not. A glance at any heard herd of cattle would show anyone that they lie down, I don't think there is any dispute over this fact. IvoShandor 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent)What you would need is a picture of a cow sleeping while lying down, that should actually be the lead picture and replace that useless picture of a cow. IvoShandor 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, both pictures may be able to co-exist. Navou 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More References

I can't believe that I am spending more morning researching cow tipping, but here are a few more references we can add when the article is unprotected (add any that you find):—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• How professionals tip cows (video)

• This has nothing to do with cow tipping. IvoShandor 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Physics of Cow Tipping

• This one is in there but shouldn't be given undue weight. IvoShandor 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How professionals tip cows (video) was very funny, especially when the cow was lifted up. It was also disturbing to see the infection in the cow's foot. SakotGrimshine 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't enjoy the video, though it was more a collection of stills really. IvoShandor 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the spirit of collaboration, I will apologise for my mis-statement and avoid a debate over the definition of videos. You are correct: its a photographic montage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaff (talk • contribs).

We can probably contact the author and get him to release the stills to the public domain for use in the article as one method to tip cows. Navou 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, those Vermonters sure have cow tipping down to a science! —M (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This video would be more useful as a link to one of the other cow articles as it shows about how cows feet can get infected and how they can loose 200 to 300 pounds (Damn!!!!!) in a few days from this. SakotGrimshine 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

lexis-nexus has lots of articles on this http://rapidshare.com/files/34739480/Picture_1.png.html

New picture and caption

I propose this new fair use version with a modified caption:

[[:Image:Diablo 2, Secret Cow Level.jpg|thumb|left|Several cows in their natural upright state preparing their revenge on a paladin for being tipped in a previous level. Moo.]]

:-) —M (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. It'll unfortunately get removed by a bot for fair use in talk. SakotGrimshine 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can get more and better screenshots from the game if you like. SakotGrimshine 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Completely opposed, as this has less than zero to do with cow tipping. I have played this game (my little brother has it). You kill these cows, not tip them. Take your image to the Possessed evil cow killing page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lets remember to stay calm during these discussions. I however must agree that this image does not seem germane to the article proper. Navou 02:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• was somebody here other than calm? i'm so calm, i'm actually bored...i think i am going to "peace-out" from discussing anything about this article. i'm not making a "non-calm" statement about killing these cows...that is what happens to them in the game. this photo is a non-sequitir. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea. So bad, I am unwatching this page. Have fun, it's clear there are many editors here who don't really care about this encyclopedia. IvoShandor 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumb idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.7.166.38 (talk • contribs).

Image:Ploughmen Fac simile of a Miniature in a very ancient Anglo Saxon Manuscript published by Shaw with legend God Spede ye Plough and send us Korne enow.png Hmmm. SakotGrimshine 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think this article may be more appropriately merged into the Cow article. Navou 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can {{mergeto|Cattle}} be added to the article? Navou 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; there is sufficient content and notability for a good article (note every article has to have a TOC and lots of references), and it's not sufficiently significant to the overall subject of cattle. I would argue that it's at least less notable than bullfighting, rodeo, bull-baiting and bull-leaping, and these are only given passing references in the form of links, not their own sections. Merging would be a great way to clutter a fairly nicely formed article. BigBlueFish 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disbled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Keep

1. Keep. Per BigBlueFish. The only reason I'm seeing to eliminate Cow tipping as a separate article is to make the edit warring go away, which isn't sufficient reason. I would agree to eliminate the picture (tho I would wish it could be kept), but not the entire article. / edgarde 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

With your edit I gather you assume my rationale to be an end run around AFD or to end edit warring. I assure you, its not. I do think it may be appropiate to include this article as a section into Cattle as that would be more clear in my opinion. It does not appear that consensus is to merge, so I'm not pressing the issue. Also I strongly recommend debolding and desectioning this discussion so it does not appear like a voting process. Regards, Navou 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Keep Initially, I was in favor of a merge. I've thought about this more and agree that it should be kept here. Its kind of a drag that there has been this bickering over the page and over the image caption...Bigbluefish makes a good argument, with some nice comparisons. I created Frog jumping this morning, which fits in the same category. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• It does not appear there is likely to be consensus for a merge, I have removed the {{tl:Mergefrom|Cow tipping|date=June 2007}} template from Cattle. Navou 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

I have re added the image of the cow lying down as I believe it adds context to the article. What are your thoughts? Navou 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is idiotic. It is a cow lying down. so what. there's no reason to suspect it was "tipped" - and the caption with a cleverly placed "or" is juvenile. the first image is dumb too; its like having an article about a slaughterhouse, and then having a picture of a cow with a caption "and unslaughtered cow" -- an anti-example is not helpful.

I believe it adds comparison and contrast to the article subject. The caption does not appear juvenile to me given the context of the article contains a hint of humor. I believe the caption appears more blunt than juvenile, however, expressive of the "myth" of cow tipping, given the absence of sourcing to the otherwise. Perhaps a third opinion regarding this, what are your thoughts? Navou 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of it is to show that cows can get up and lie down and they don't have to sleep standing up. It contrasts with the idea behind cow tipping that cows have to sleep standing up and they can't lie down or they'll be stuck and can't get up. SakotGrimshine 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that cows are capable of lying down - we don't need a picture to show that. The ONLY picture that would have ANY value here is one showing a cow being tipped. Anything else is superfulous. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.7.166.38 (talk • contribs).

You forget about the dispute of whether a cow can get up again after being tipped. SakotGrimshine 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw Malber changed the image. I think this other image Malber uploaded Image:Single-emc-cow.jpg is better. SakotGrimshine 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

moo moo farm

Image:Cow.jpg (cow standing up) -- I think "A cow standing naturally upright." is better than "A cow in its natural upright position" purely for grammar reasons as its an active and not a passive sentence. Also I think combining the disputed caption of that with "An unsuspecting potential victim?" or whatever is the best idea to have both.

Image:Surabhi Cow Vrindavan.jpg (cow lying down) -- It doesn't have to be this exact pic, but a cow lying down is important because, and feel free to revise this caption: The concept of cow-tipping is based on that cows sleep standing up and always have to stand up. The idea of cow-tipping is that if a cow is tipped over it cannot get back up, however this picture shows that cows can lay down and get up of their own ability.

Also if someone is against one of the stub tags, please explain it here. SakotGrimshine 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're kinda doing all this on your own against consensus. / edgarde 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not been any consensus in the article. Just arguments. By the way I won't edit it for the rest of at least today. SakotGrimshine 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. See Talk:Cow_tipping#Another_try_for_consensus_on_the_caption. 12-2 is a consensus. - Merzbow 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder, consensus is not voting. Regards, Navou 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's a useful page. Until now I always thought based on what I've heard, consensus is winning an edit war. SakotGrimshine 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cow laying down picture.

Comment Why do I find it of dubious distinction that there is a section on the cow tipping talk page named after me? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaff, why do you say a picture showing evidence cows are able to lie down (rather than getting stuck if they lie down like cow tipping claims) is offtopic whereas an irrelevant picture of a cow standing up that has nothing to do with the article is on topic? SakotGrimshine 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From where are you sourcing your claim that anyone has said cows cannot lie down? Is this original research or something that you have heard or can you source it? Secondly, the picture of the upright cow is in my opinion irrelevant, but should be kept for a few reasons: consensus (plus fact that it has been there a long time) and that we have no better picture to illustrate the article. Its a drag that there is so much bickering over the caption. Anything funny is deemed unencyclopedic. Anything else feels stiff. The picture of the cow laying down is cute. I posted it here on the talk page so feel partially responsible for bringing it. Its kind of funny to have the contrast of cow up vs cow down. But it really is not about cow tipping...—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the ONLY picture that has encyclopedic value would be one showing a cowing being tipped. Anything else is frivolous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.38 (talk • contribs)

I disagree with this being frivolous, i.e. needs to be taken down. It is not ideal and if a better illustration were available, great. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the entire reason why people tip cows because they think the cow can't get back up. SakotGrimshine 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, people don't actually tip cows. 64.7.166.38 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vampires and werewolves aren't real, but there's articles about them. SakotGrimshine 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised :) Alex Pankratov 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprised about vampires & werewolves, tipped cows, or both? ;) —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cows primarily :) Alex Pankratov 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DO TELL...—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Idaho, early 90s, around the spring break, early morning hours. I personally participated in a cow tipping "expedition", the results of which are kind of hazy as participants' accounts differ :) The point being is that cow tipping is a notable subject. Alex Pankratov 04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. My initial post was in response to "people don't actually tip cows". They actually do. It's the result that is uncertain. Alex Pankratov 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard that the motivation of cow tipping is that they can't get back up. I must admit, that I was more likely doing a keg stand while you were cow tipping. Either way, what is the source of your claim behind the motivation of the cow tipper? I always thought it was kind of like a snipe hunt or just a reason to get drunk in a field with your homies. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably in the media references that others don't want. So look here. It's just common knowledge. SakotGrimshine 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that google search really helpful. All I see is one about halfway down saying cows can get back up. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the idea that cows sleep standing up when the picture shows cows can sleep lying down? SakotGrimshine 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they do BOTH! (duh) 64.7.166.38 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind cow tipping is that you tip them over and they can't get back up (e.g. to chase you). SakotGrimshine 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that, without any sources. Repetition is not sourcing. And I disagree with what you are saying, so we're sort of stuck until you can find a source... —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's like finding a source to say water is wet. The water article doesn't say have the word by the way, only wetlands. I think the cow tipping sources for this obvious thing I keep mentioning might have been in the removed pop culture references. SakotGrimshine 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Malber, stop adding "porn"

Malber (talk · contribs) must stop adding the childish "cow porn" - it is not of encyclopedic value, and at least one of the images (the movie poster) is not fair use. I can't leave a message on the user's talk page (it is protected), so I'm leaving it here. 64.7.166.38 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Porn? Malber's motto says, "Good things come in small packages." What's more, I appreciate that Malber is coming up with new ways to improve the article rather than the old way. SakotGrimshine 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By adding nonsense captions and non-fair use images? You have an odd definition for "improvement". Might I remind EVERYONE that this is an encyclopedia, not uncyclopedia. Please stop with all this nonsense! 64.7.166.38 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He had some problem captions, such as "supine" whatever that word meant and the porn thing. SakotGrimshine 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but it was a reference to Supine position, the opposite of prone. I'm a little concerned that somebody finds these images titillating enough to call 'em porn, but hey...it takes all kinds. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, prone. Should have known. I had trouble finding the antonym of supine. I do like that word and the other connotations it brings to mind. —M (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Florida thing?

Is a proposed law in Florida from 3 years ago really worth mentioning? Did it even pass? 65.31.143.47 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's some law against roping cows in rodeos. Even before it was described in detail, it was the sole source the first paragraph of this article, which was most of the article. SakotGrimshine 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones caption

I think the C.m.jones caption would work better on the cow laying down then the plain cow standing up. SakotGrimshine 11:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean this? That caption has no relation to the image itself. Consnsus was arrived at above for the existing caption. --65.31.143.47 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do people keep restoring to the caption voted on with the grammar error of a passive voice sentence? I fixed the grammar by making it an active voice sentence yet people always revert to the version with lower quality grammar. SakotGrimshine 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The "lower-quality" sentence is in fact superior. The cow is not standing "naturally", that makes no sense. However, his upright state is indeed "natural". - Merzbow 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do people think that prior consensus means it's written in stone? It's a wiki dammit! —M (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's best to remember that consensus can change. IvoShandor 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, but not by brute force.

Ivo is right! If only he didn't get drunk do an outburst like Mel Gibson, he could have been an administrator and fixed this article with bad captions and bad pictures. SakotGrimshine

Not sure what's going on with the font though. IvoShandor 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Malber has bad code in his sig, an unclosed span tag that includes CSS font-munging stuff. Took it out for here, but he needs to fix it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Expert tag

Please stop adding nonsense expert tags - this is a (humours) article about an urban legend, and there aren't experts in cow tipping (nor is it a historical article). Thank you very much. Whydoesthisexist 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones made the improved tag. I added the regular one because there's been all these problems in the article because nobody can find references so we need experts. SakotGrimshine 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You do understand there are no such thing as "experts" for an activity with doesn't exist/isn't possible, right? Whydoesthisexist 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a historian or someone from Project History can assist with this article. Why is such a tag necessary? Whydoesthisexist 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After contemplation, I removed the expert tag. There are sufficient citations to support the current claims in teh article, and the only dispute seems to be over some editors who want a more humerous image/caption. History experts can't help with that. Whydoesthisexist 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. Like the tag was saying, Several have already been chased away by this page's amateurs, but it is remotely possible you [as an expert] might have better luck. The chasing continues, and the latter phrase was speaking much too confidently. CyberAnth 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop the "amateur vs. expert" crap. This is cow tipping, not nuclear physics. I went online and found a citation - it ain't that hard. perhaps Jones should work on improving the article, and not creating silly projects and tags. Whydoesthisexist 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Cow Tipping

Would it be alright to move Cow tipping to Cow Tipping? I was just thinking since most articles have all their words capitalized. Thanks.--ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the manual of style says the opposite. --MichaelLinnear 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ML is correct. Only article titles that are/inlcude proper nouns are capitalized as such. Compare History of baseball in the United States with Major League Baseball. Whydoesthisexist 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you try such a move, it will get reverted quickly. When you see an article having anything but proper nouns and acronyms capitalized, you should move the article to the proper title without capitalization, and ensure that the old title contains a redirect link. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) for details. =Axlq 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Straight Dope

I've just spent a lot more time than I should have going over this funny article. Nice to see so much effort going into getting the facts :) In a 1990 article on cow tipping in The Straight Dope, Cecil Adams first said that it really existed, quoting a friend of his who had allegedly seen it. He was later bombarded with evidence saying the opposite; he did a little further digging and was told by "a couple of farmers and an animal science expert" that it can't happen: cows sleep lying down and only lightly doze standing, and are easily startled awake; and cows typically weigh 1200 pounds, meaning you'd surely wake the cow with the required tipping force.

I don't know if any of this information would help one way or another, but I thought I'd add it here rather than in the article so I don't prompt any more craziness. -- Mike Blackney 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, add it. You barely even have to change what you just wrote above, and it would add some interesting material. Grandmasterka 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Debunked? I don't think so

All those who say they "debunked" cow tiping made the same mistake - they count with cows as they would be solid objects. ("Tipping a cow would be like toppling a low-built piece of concrete statuary." etc.) This is of course not true, cows are not solid. Fact that cows are able to move proves it. So in order to tip a cow, all what is needed is to evercome strength of it's muscles. And I assume that dozing cow's muscles are quite relaxed.

Cow's statue:        
******           **\ <--- push
|    |        \**   \
|    |         \   * *
******          * *   \     =Considerable force required
|    |           \     \
|    |            \

Real cow:

******        ****** <--- push
|    |        |    |
|    |        |    |
******        ******         =Much less force required
|    |        \     \
|    |         \     \

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk)

Problem with your rationale...

Real sleeping cow:

               zzzzz
   ******  zzzz     
   |    |        
   |    |      
 --******--      <---- Cows do not sleep while standing up.

the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Find "sleeping" in my previous post. I wrote dozing. Or it can be just unprepared, or it can be in any imaginable or unimaginable state of mind in which it will be unable to react quickly enough.14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't doze standing up either, you can call being asleep whatever you want still won't change what it is. Also, good luck with that, you let us know how it goes. IvoShandor 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You did say dozing. By the way, I forgot to mention that my drawing was not to scale. :P Looks like I've got something to do tonite...the_undertow ^talk 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, upaddated "picture":

Cow's statue:        
******           **\ <--- push
|    |        \**   \
|    |         \   * *
******          * *   \     =Considerable force required
|    |           \     \
|    |            \


Real cow, which is aware of you:

******        ****** <--- push
|    |        |    |
|    |        |    |
******        ******         =Enormous force required
|    |       /     |
|    |      /      |

Real cow, which is not aware of you:(that means your sneaking skills are good enough to avoid detection by average cow)

******        ****** <--- push
|    |        |    |
|    |        |    |
******        ******         =Not much force needed
|    |        \     \
|    |         \     \

Are you happy now? Position in which cows doze is irrelevent, because dozing is not required.

Someone please explain to me how a bunch of ASCII art (read:original research) is relevant or appropriate here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not, but I reverted your archival because you choose to arbitrarily archive one section in particular - which is not how archival works. If you wish to archive the talk page, it would be best to archive using a method, such as by date. I really think it would be to everyone's advantage to keep a sense of humor. We are, in fact, talking about the talk page of cow-tipping here. Things like this are bound to happen. the_undertow ^talk 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.164.251 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)