Talk:Cow tipping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Someone had put in a sentence that was grammatically incorrect stating that cows "mostly" sleep laying down. I corrected the grammar and removed the "mostly", as I have never seen a cow sleeping standing up, and though I believe it may happen occasionally, it is misleading to say they "mostly" sleep laying down. Occasionally people fall asleep standing up as well, but I would not say that humans "mostly" sleep laying down on a page where people are trying to propagate some urban legend that requires one to believe that humans frequently sleep standing up. This was then reverted by Academic Challenger with no explanation, and the reversion reintroduced a grammatical error.

Contents

[edit] Older comments

1. Cows don't sleep standing up. Horses do.

2. I grew up on a cattle-raising farm in Missouri. I never heard of cow tipping until I went to Harvard. When I asked my mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, and uncles to find out if anyone they knew had ever heard of such a thing, guess what? No one ever had. Guess what? These people ALL grew up on cattle-raising farms, too.

(If you haven't heard of cow tipping I'm not sure how you got into Harvard. See the "popular culture" section of the article.)

3. Your notion that cow tipping happens "in certain entertainment-starved rural places" confirms my suspicion that the myth of cow tipping is a corollary to the mocking superciliousness with which many hip urbanites regard farm communities. --Kelly M. Flynn

All correct, Kelly. I have edited the page to better clarify that cow tipping is an urban legend. David 21:50 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)
No, all *wrong*. Someone please undo this person's edits. You people don't know what you're talking about.
I rearranged a bit so the paragraphs make more sense, and reverted the first sentence to "mostly" urban legend, since many people have in fact attempted the act believing that it was not mythical. --LDC
Lee Daniel, I like your reorganization, and I have tried to retain it. However, cow tipping is actually considered to be an urban legend, in spite of the fact that people have attempted to do it. Read the references and see if you agree with me that cow tipping is an urban legend. Therefore, I have restored the description of cow tipping as an urban legend. I have omitted the word 'hoax'. Cow tipping is actually both an urban legend and a hoax, but I'm omitting the word in an attempt to make the article a little more NPOV and be more acceptable to you. David 22:29 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
If cow tipping is indeed an urban legend, why have farming communities passed laws against it? Don't laws tend to be enacted for problems that actually occur? (Or is this hopelessly naive?)
Possibly because farming communities don't want people coming onto private property and pestering their livestock in hopes of tipping it over? Regardless of whether or not it is actually done, prohibiting it by law is intended to prevent people from even trying it, lest they or the cattle be hurt in the attempt (a 700 kg cow is perfectly capable of hurting someone if provoked).
Having walked through pastures with herds of cows, I can confirm that, when provoked, those seemingly harmless animals are perfectly capable of attacking humans. I doubt it very much that a cow would let a group of unknown humans approach it and push on it enough to destabilize it. And I'm not even talking of bulls.
Sometimes, farmers used to dealing with cows have accidents when their cattle is nervous (which may happen because of strangers, nervosity about calves, etc...). Think of what may befall people without the same experience. David.Monniaux 20:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, does anyone else find it odd that this article states as fact that "cows are incredibly funny"? Publius 16:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to prove by algebra. I've only scanned the bovine comedy literature, but I'm not aware of a refutation. Anyone? chocolateboy 18:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's also pretty easy to prove logically that Trent Lott's haircut is Evil; that doesn't make it true. In any event, the fact that it has not been refuted is irrelevant: the burden lay on the person making the claim to prove it to be true. Something is not true because it has not been proven to be false; that's called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Publius 05:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of the theorem that cows are incredibly funny. Unfortunately, this Wiki is too narrow to contain it. chocolateboy 11:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
1. Cows *do* sleep standing up. Unlike horses they also can sleep lying down.
2. I grew up on a cattle farm in Ohio and I had heard of cow tipping by the time I was 4. I had witnessed it first hand by the time I was 5. I have never once met an individual from a rural community that had not heard of cow tipping. When I went off to college at Miami University most people didn't think cow tipping actually happened. As a result it became a popular right of passage among students to engage in cow tipping and experience it for themselves.
3. The notion that cow tipping occurs "in certain entertainment-starved rural places" is more than a notion it is a reality. (Albeit only one common example of the reality.) It is not a myth. Nor is it a means of personal attack by "hip urbanites" against ruralites. In fact, the only person engaging in personal attacks is you by suggesting that (sub)urbanites are so snobbish that they'd go so far as conspiracy to perpetuate the "myth" of cow tipping in order to blemish the respectability of ruralites. -- Stereoisomer 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged cow tipping laws

Removed:

Some farm communities have passed laws prohibiting cow tipping, as the activity is likely to result in injury to the prospective tippers and/or to the cow.

Evidence? What kind of "laws" would that be? This seems like the kind of stuff added to urban legends to make them more credible.--Eloquence* 14:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Myth v Stand-Up

I've removed most of the "stand up comedy" stuff. IMHO, this article was funnier (and more Wikipedian) when it wasn't going overboard on the whimsy and "rib-tickling" pseudoscience. It's an urban myth, after all.

In particular, I've snipped or altered:

  • "The Physics and Biology of Cow-Tipping" heading (sigh: that "routine" is done in the PDF, which is why I linked it in the first place).
  • I've reinstated the original structure. The line "Some versions of the cow tipping story attempt to evade these objections" was rendered meaningless by the reordering.

I also object to (but haven't snipped) the warning, which suggests cow tipping is some kind of Jackass-like extreme sport, rather than a joke from Heathers.

I've merged most of the new material and retained (adjusted) headings.

chocolateboy 10:58, 27 May 2004

I think the warning is a good idea. I don't believe that cow-tipping really exists; still, some unwary reader may get the idea that it does and try it, and get hurt. More annoying, that person may have attorneys that will claim that it's somehow Wikipedia's fault. This is far-fetched, but I reckon that American courts have granted damages based on equally silly claims. David.Monniaux 11:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
This is far-fetched, but I reckon that American courts have granted damages based on equally silly claims.
You may be right. But let us not forget that some of those silly claims are also urban myths [1] :-) chocolateboy 12:02, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
We do not need to go that far. I can recall a few times in the news when youngsters had grievously harmed themselves trying home-made chemistry or other experiments with explosives - and of course, nowadays, they are said to have viewed the instructions "on the Internet". Then, people blame the "irresponsible" people who had written such instructions. David.Monniaux 12:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I've incorporated the warning into the 'debuking' section. If BASE jumping and free-diving don't need safety warnings, I can't see cow-tipping does.Harry R 12:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


A kid at one of the high schools in our district made thermite out of aluminum foil and rust from an abandoned car and a Mg strip he stole from school, and melted a 6 inch deep hole in the street in front of his house with it. WHile nobody was hurt, if they had been, I can see lawsuits over that kind of thing (which is why I don't give the (fairly obvious)) construction details in this comment). Pakaran. 14:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm from MS and cow tipping is basically snipe hunting. It is an excuse to get someone out in the middle of nowhere, make them look foolish, and potentially then leaving them there in the middle of nowhere. It is pretext for a prank...I've never known anyone to actually tip the cows as they usually sleep on the ground. Vaginsh 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another variety of cow tipping, instead of sneaking up on the cow, two people riding an ATV with bags of sand, or another heavy item (including the 2nd rider) and throwing it at a cow this would require significantly less effort on the part of the human. Though the cow would not be asleep the force of the heavy item would almost surely knock over the cow.~Shinny~ 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering most cows weight 1000 pounds or more, do you really think a 50 pound bag of sand (a generous amount compared to what a person could actually "throw") is going to have the slightest effect? Dukemeiser 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

Hi ChocolateBoy, I'm a little disapointed that you pretty much reverted all the work I had done on this, as I put quite some time into it. I don't think that the version you put back is as good frankly. My concern especially is over the removal of the refridgerator analogy, which is much more similar than the car, the contextualisation of the sumo wrestler statistic, the traction issue and the dismissal of the University paper with one sentence. Also, I don't think the word 'Bovodynamics' is as appropriate as Zoology and physics'. I'd like to have a go at putting some of this back in, so please let me know your concerns so as to avoid ill feeling. ;) Mark Richards 16:14, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

--

Hi, Mark.

I'm surprised to see that we're in disagreement over this. I thought I'd integrated your stuff pretty well.

The little I did actively snip, I removed for the reasons I gave above.

My concern especially is over the removal of the refridgerator analogy, which is much more similar than the car

People tip cars (for instance in the Poll Tax Riots). When do people ever go refrigerator tipping?

I fail to see the purpose of the refrigerator analogy other than as yet another attempt to enhance the would-be slapstick aspects of the article contrary to its clear import as a wry (and dry) account of an urban legend. Of course it was never altogether humourless, but I think shoe-horning knockabout (and in particular fabricated) material into the article ruins the joke.

On top of which, the analogy appears to be yet another copy of a gag from the linked Skeptic article. We've already plundered whole sentences from that piece, which, as far as I can tell, is not available under a free documentation license.

cf.

Wikipedia

Unlike horses, cows do not sleep standing and hence cannot 'lock their legs' as horses do.

Skeptic

There is no such thing as a cow “locking its legs.” They don’t have to because cows sleep lying down (people may be confusing them with horses which do sleep standing up)

Wikipedia

They also do not sleep in the same way as humans do. Most of their sleep is very light and easily disturbed - typical of herd prey animals. They take short naps at regular intervals throughout a 24 hour period, which means that at any given time, some members of the herd are aware and alert.

Skeptic

Cows don’t sleep for hours at a time like people do. [ ... ] Most of their “sleeping” is very light—more what we would consider a very relaxed state. Cows [ ... ] take [ ... ] short naps of a few minutes each spread over a 24 hour period. Because each individual cow spends so little time in deep sleep most cows in a herd are alert even at night.

Wikipedia

Cows have eyes in the sides of their heads, larege [sic], sensitive noses and ears as large as a human foot. They are not easy to sneak up on, and quickly communicate to the rest of the herd that something is amis [sic].

Skeptic

They have eyes on the side of their heads so they can see in all directions and ears as big as feet for purposes of detecting possible attackers. One alerted animal easily transfers its concern to the others in the herd.

I'm getting bored of collating these. Need I go on?

the contextualisation of the sumo wrestler statistic

I'm surprised that you chose to reject the construction of the sumo statistics that prevailed quite happily for a month before your edit i.e. that it would be near impossible for an average individual to topple a sumo wrestler whose mass amounts to a measly 140 kg; given that, imagine how much harder it would be to topple a cow! In contrast, your edit strikes me as somewhat odd:

If we make the generous assumption that the person attempting to tip the cow is a sumo wrestler

Why?

with a mass of the order of 140 kg (310 lb), prima facie [sic] it is unlikely to be budged by even the most determined human or small group, though it may be annoyed

The relative mass of the two objects says nothing about the potential for one to topple the other. That is determined by the centre of gravity and the load-bearing area [2], two things you removed from the article during the course of your edit.

the traction issue

Wikipedia

In Tommy Boy Chris Farley in the lead role at once [sic] point attempts to tip a cow, stangin [sic] ancle [sic] deep in mud and cow pies, he is unable to perform the feat because he does not have enough traction between the ground and his feet, his feet slide out from under him, and the resulting commotion causes the stampeding cows to trample him.

Again, this appears to be another uncredited "bit" [3] borrowed from another facetious (and funny) site:

Movie Physics Reviews

In another scene, Farley goes cow tipping. He is standing in deep mud and cow pies, pushing against a cow. However, the coefficient of friction is too low between his feet and the muck to provide enough force to push the cow over, so he slips and falls face first into the mud and cow pies. This is a very good example of realistic physics. [4]

All very amusing, but what does it contribute to the exegesis or debunking of the urban legend?

and the dismissal of the University paper with one sentence
  • I didn't dismiss it. I edited it.
  • The sentence now strikes me as clumsy and clunky.
  • I introduced it to prevent further acts of comedy vandalism.
  • On that last point, I'll be the first to admit: I failed.
Also, I don't think the word 'Bovodynamics' is as appropriate as Zoology and physics

Fine. But "biology of cow tipping" is meaningless even by the deadpan standards of comedy pseudoscience.

I'd like to have a go at putting some of this back in, so please let me know your concerns so as to avoid ill feeling.

You already have, without waiting for my reply...

If people want to appreciate the humourous potential of the subject they have several fine links at their disposal as well as two movies to check out. Attempting to turn this article into a comedy free-for-all is a sure way of getting it bitchslapped into Gradgrindian sobriety by someone with a smaller sense of humour (or a bigger sense of gravitas) than either of us.

I like the move of the "two cows" joke into Sources and Analogues by the way.

regards, chocolateboy 18:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that - I had not actually intended the revision to be a standup gag - but appreciate your concern at overplaying the comedy. Feel free to go at the revision I made, or revert it if you like, I don't want to edit war over it, and got carried away before giving you a chance to reply ;). Re the Sumo wrestler, I had not imagined that the comparison was with Sumo wrestlers as things which should be tipped over, I was envisioning a sumo wrestler using his high mass in motion to create greater momentum for cow tipping. The greater the mass of the tipper, assuming they are moving, the greater the force that will be applied to the tippee, so to speak. I thought that a refridgerator was a more appropriate analogy since it more closely approximates a cows footprint, and I for one have engaged in fridge-tipping when moving house and trying to shift furniture. It is no easy task. Your mention that the University Paper 'can be dismissed' seemed a little brief - I tried to encorporate the central thesis of the paper, that the cow does not have to be moved as a dead weight, but rather acts as a lever system - I did not see any rebuttals of this.
Anyhow, don't want to cause too much annoyance - revert it, or edit it mercilessly - it was something frivilous and lightweight to relieve stress after dealing with EnergyBone on Iraq and Sept 11. All the best, Mark Richards 19:17, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Java game

It's probably not encyclopedic, but there is an excellent java game on the subject, the awesome Udder Insanity. Worth it for the sound effects alone. -- John Fader 18:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've removed the image

It had nothing to do with cow tipping. I've replaced it with a picture of a cow. If we had a photo of people actually attempting to tip a cow, it would be best, although that would be difficult to arrange. Meelar (talk) 00:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


Thats fine - I didn't expect it to last up there as long as it did -- the only reason I liked it was that it showed the article was humourous, your version is much better --Davelane 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It isn't an urban legend

My art teacher did it while he was at university, it would be a student, wouldn't it? [[User:Differentgravy|Differentgravy]

To add to this my geography teacher also claim’s to have done it in his youth, which is likely since he was raised on a cattle farm. Bag 09:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend Cow Tipping doesn't fit the definition of an urban legend or urban myth. Among other things, it lacks the "friend of a friend" component. I know two people from Ohio who reported to me that they personally have attempted more than once to tip a cow in concert with friends. I can't remember if they claimed the cow actually tipped, but I recall they said they'd do this in the dark and that once they were chased by a bull they angered. Shouldn't the "urban myth" terminology in the article be changed to something else? JimmyTheSaint 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It very much is not. I've done it many times, along with quite a few friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.217.245 (talk • contribs) .

A common practice is to wind rope around the animal's feet to restrict movement. Anchoring the legs greatly changes the physics of tipping.

Cow tipping isn't an urban legend. It's a pastime of bored rural kids, myself included back in the day. It helps if the cows are sleeping on an inclined pasture, i.e. hills, and yes, some do sleep standing up. Anyone who doesn't think it is physically possible for a human to tip over a cow has obviously never done fifteen years of farm and garden chores everyday of their lives. Pay for a gym membership?? are you crazy...just do hard manual labor and the muscles and stamina abound...We 'farm plowboys' are very capable of tipping cows and other feats of strength thank yu very much. Cow tipping is possible and has been done. I am witness to that. klrt

My Advanced Physics teacher taught the class that women have more ribs than men. "A teacher told me this" is no defense against the idea being an urban legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.243.47.130 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Genius!

It's probably a waste of space in the talk page, but I just wanted to add that whomever added the subtitle "An unsuspecting victim" to the photo is a genius. It had me cracking for about fifteen minutes.

I agree completely!
Atlant 12:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Same here! --perelly 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Superior service. Definitely deserves a big tip. --Shirahadasha 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cow tipping is not an urban myth...it's a pasttime for really bored rural kids....myself included back in the day. it helps to have cows that graze and sleep on inclining pastures...i.e. hills, and yes, it is possible for one person to tip over a cow this way...maybe the ones who don't think it is physically possible for humans to tip over cows have never had to get their 'exercise' by doing fifteen years of farm chores everyday of their lives. that's some muscle and stamina building, my friends. We "farm plowboys" are capable of tipping over cows and I am witness to that. klrt

[edit] delusion zone

why is the article allowed to survive in this state? it apparently gets a POV pass by badly impersonating sardonic writing. most of the article is overt advocacy of a point of view (case making), beginning with an unsourced, ethereal claim that "[t]here is no evidence [for cow tipping as described,] aside from (mostly unreliable) eyewitness reports". what is a "(mostly unreliable) eyewitness" report? what about the part that is reliable? weasel words.

i don't think cows can be tipped either, but this is hardly an article that meets wikipedia policy/guidelines/standards for clarity, neutrality, or good writing. the second paragraph, for example, is badly written, pretend-intellectual humoro-babble for the sole purpose of setting up the inclusion of the cutesy, unnecessary phrase "precarious ruminants". the refrigerator example is strained, nowhere mentioning center of gravity. rather, it encourages a lower center of gravity than an honest attempt to simulate a cow would have, while making sure to reduce the lever. that's just the start. i would hack/slash my way through the thing, but i can tell from the history that it's the pet of some watching worshipers.

i hope nobody involved in creating/preserving this article ever marks anything at wikipedia as POV, original research, or unencyclopedic. wikipedia is not the farm team for the wannabe dave barry squad. and yes, that includes the useless pic caption. the prime criterion of a wikipedia article element is not how funny you think it is. SaltyPig 21:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this article is here mostly for fun (as well as being a way to document a phenomenon that people certainly talk about, even if no one actually does it). And if that doesn't please you, perhaps you should just visit any of the hundreds of thousands of other articles in the encyclopedia?
Atlant 00:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
maybe you have it the wrong way around. SaltyPig 01:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do cows sleep when standing up?

There seems to be some confusion over whether cattle sleep whilst standing up. As somebody who has grown up around cattle, it seems to me that they lie down to doze, but then again they could be taking short naps whilst standing. Does anybody know of a good source that gives the skinny on this important part of bovine behaviour?--Fergie 10:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


In Answer to the above, although i cannot completely confirm it, one of my old teachers who was brought up on a dairy farm, informs me that they do indeed actually sleep standing up, they instead lock there legs by some means, and i have no reason to disbelieve this. Although i cant be sure this is the same for all cows. Bag 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Cows do NOT sleep standing up. Growing up on a dairy farm, I can guarantee you that cows sleep lying down. Every dairy and beef farmer I've ever spoken to has never seen a cow sleep standing up. It's completely untrue. --buckeyes1186 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As a man who currently lives on a farm of Red Cross and Angus cattle, I can testify that they lie down to doze whenever possible. I have never witnessed one sleep standing up, even in corral.

I lived on a beef farm when I was a kid, and never saw a cow sleep standing up. They lie down. (I've never seen one sleep leaning against the side of a barn, a tree or any other vertical structure either.) A Google image search for "Sleeping cow" also results in page after page of recumbent cows for those without a family cow to check on ;). Squeezeweasel 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics of Cow Tipping

Perhaps you should eliminate the link to the physics calculations done at UBC. The calculations make no sense at all. Here is the correct calculation based on the data from the article: mass of cow = 700 kg = m_c

width of stance = 0.63 m. = w

height of cow = 1.43 m. = h

mass of person = 67 kg = m_p

number of people = unknown = n

The sum of the torques about one side must be zero. There is a torque exerted by the weight force of the earth on the cow and a torque exerted by the person or people on the cow. There is no torque exerted by the normal force of the ground on one side of the cow because it acts at the pivot point, while the normal force exerted on the other side goes to zero as the cow begins to tip so it exerts no torque.

We assume that the people exert forces equal to their weight. The lever arm for the weight force is half the width of the cow while the maximum lever arm for the person can be obtained from the pythagorean theorem. We assume that the people exert forces at a location and direction to maximize torque.

(m_c*g)*(w/2) = n(m_p*g)*sqrt(w^2 + h^2)

n = (m_c*g)*(w/2)/[(m_p*g)*sqrt(w^2 + h^2)]

n = (m_c)*(w/2)/[(m_p)*sqrt(w^2 + h^2)]

n = (700)*(0.63/2)/[67*sqrt(0.63^2 + 1.43^2)]

n = 2

-Erik Jensen

[edit] Refer to The Heathers

At the risk of rushing in where fools etc...

Added reference to the cow tipping scene in the film 'The Heathers'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.178.125 (talk • contribs).

It's Heathers, not The Heathers. And it's where "angels" fear to tread, not "fools"; and it's already been discussed. Ctrl-F "Heathers".
chocolateboy 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility that cow tipping may be achievable

Added reference to the letters in today's London Times, which I found of interest in that: a) They do not consider the cow itself to be a passive object (which seems to be a potential flaw in some of the previous arguments); and, b) They seem to indicate that the impossible may be possible.

If somebody can find an on-line link to these letters then that would be a useful addition!

-Pete M


[edit] BC link

I removed this becasue it was 404. If it coumes back, or an alternatie location is found, then relink, natch.

I also removed the reference to "lead" weights - POV! Rich Farmbrough 10:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture is bad. Read why

1) Cow is awake. Caption claims "unsuspecting victim"
2) Cow is looking at you
3) It is daytime and not night time. It's not even dark. No sneaking up.
4) I feel that the caption should have "MOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" of some sort in it. I wish I had a good argument, but it just feels right.
5) http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=cow%20tipping&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi Find a better picture from google image search. Many good pictures. I'm not logged in so I can't upload them now -- not at home or I would.

Ideas:
http://www.cowtowncollectibles.com/images/No%20Cow%20Tipping.jpg
http://www.kerncountyinquisitor.com/cow%20tipping.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/23/24286308_381cdcf9f1.jpg

(Logging in and signing my name for what I posted from a different computer) DyslexicEditor 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption makes no claim that tipping is imminent, only that this cow does not suspect anything.
Atlant 01:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Still, it's facing you so it just doesn't seem like you can catch it offguard. -- Original poster and poster of chi thing in article (not starter of chi thread).
(Logging in and signing my name for what I posted from a different computer) DyslexicEditor 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that you get your humo(u)r detector checked? It seems to be malfunctioning. :-)
Atlant 13:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another low point for Wikipedia. This isn't collegehumor.com, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Captions should not be cute or sarcastic; change it or I'll delete it. Haizum 06:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That picture is freaking hillarious! I love the caption. I vote it stays 12.183.203.184 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's funny, but obviously not right, for all the reasons mentioned above. - Matthew238 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically though, the caption is correct: "An unsuspecting potential victim"
1) "Unsuspecting" - being a cow, it (probably) has no knowledge of cow tipping activities, therefore it would not expect to be tipped over at any point in the near future.
2) "Potential victim" - there is nothing in the photograph to suggest that this cow is immune to being tipped over, therefore it is a "potential victim" of cow tipping. Psychonaut3000 01:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is about time the picture, or at least the caption, was removed - we can half-seriously debate whether or not the caption is correct, but we all know it is a joke, fairly amusing, but not really appropriate. - Matthew238 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Others on the talk page obviously disagree with you.
Atlant 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (One of at least several)
Really. I'd like to know how many people seriously think it should stay. 12.183.203.184 thinks it's freaking hilarious, and Psychonaut3000 says it's technically correct, but it's hard to know if he is serious about it staying. DyslexicEditor and Haizum seem to not want it. It would be good if some people could post here what they actually think about it staying or going, and a proper decision can be made. I don't know where, as you said in your revert, "This has been decided over and over again". I don't see any consensus on the talk page to keep, or any consensus for it to go - but probably more of the later. It would be good if this could be really decided upon.
It's not just what has been discussed here on the talk page. Every so often, someone comes along and says something like "There's no place for humo[u]r in this Encyclopedia!" and removes the picture. And someone else, who sees the value of a little leavening/levity, puts the picture back.
The joke is subtle enough that most people seem to enjoy it and think it appropriate. And there isn't any Wiki policy that bars humor or light-heartedness. But if you want to go through the whole rigamarole of staging a vote, then I guess there's no one stopping you.
Atlant 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's precisely because every so often someone comes along and removes the image that I thought we should have a clear statement of whether it should be here ore not - personaly, I'm not to bothered either way, and have not made any attempts to remove it, and won't. But if someone else wants to, they should probably say something here on the discussion page first, so a general conclusion can be reached, rather than having this constant removing and reverting. - Matthew238 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This picture is bloody funny and definitely should stay. People should really recalibrate their sense of humor. Just one example: in the 'Pschyrembel', one of the most famous German medical enycyclopedias, there's an article about a fictional animal, which had been created by Loriot, a popular German comedian. Of course, it has no medical relevance to be in that book, yet when the editors decided to delete the item, they caused an uproar, received letters from outraged medics and decided to put the article back in in an extended version. After all, this is an article about Cow Tipping and not about war in the Middle East or whatever serious stuff is going on. People really need to relax!
I personally think that the caption is just fine. Makes the joke work actually! --perelly 11:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
Atlant 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is wholly unencyclopedic to have such an image with a caption as a (poor) attempt at humor. This is an encyclopedia - not a place for silly little jokes. ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the caption of the image interfere with the mission of the encyclopedia?—Chowbok ☠ 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:TONE, for starters. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for cute little jokes (perhaps you want to visit the Uncyclopedia). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I heard you the first time. I don't see how WP:TONE applies here; it was certainly written in a formal tone. If it had said "Oh no, Mr. Human! Don't tip me!", then WP:TONE would be appropriate. Formal != humorless. See also the third paragraph of Year 2038 problem#Solutions, which similarly presents a tongue-in-cheek joke in encyclopedic style. —Chowbok ☠ 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be enough disagreement here, so I started an RFC. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chi?

The whole part about Chi seems a little out of place. Sure, tipping would be possibble with Chi, but so would the ability to lift trucks over one's head. Absurd, questionable and extranneous.


Leave chi in as a possibility, but edit it. - Person who posted the chi bit. (My general accont is User:DyslexicEditor, but I don't log in and am not using my home computer so I might not receive a message.)
signing my name for doing the message DyslexicEditor 11:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dead link

Dead link in article The Most Urban of All Urban Legends If anyone knows where it goes, please fix. DyslexicEditor 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to the Internet Archive's most recently saved version. —Chowbok 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Nebraska article is very poorly written

The Wikipedia cow tipping article is excellent overall, and I applaud and thank all contributors.

I am removing the University of Nebraska article link removed because it is so very poorly written.

"...to tip an average cow by them self."

In three of five points, the word "it's" is mistakenly used where "its" would be correct:

"The force of friction is not important here because it's force vector runs through the point A."

A sentence begins:

"After taken a counter-clockwise moment about the point A,..."

I suppose the author means "...taking..." but it still doesn't make sense.

The poor writing alone should disqualify the article from having a Wikipedia link. Even if we accept the article's assumptions and find the premises and physical explanations worthy of study, the awful writing style and incorrect English usage should be enough. I'm going to remove it and see what happens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Respaldo (talk • contribs).

[edit] Pop culture

It seems that there is ample precedent for verified pop culture references in articles such as this, which really is a creation primarily of pop culture. Ziggurat 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the movie Cars, they go "tractor tipping." CyberAnth 13:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tractor Tipping

In the movie, Cars, a "rural" tow truck apparently takes an "urban" racecar to do some "tractor tipping." This is clearly a reference to Cow Tipping, as the world the movie is set in has no human or animal life. -AndromedaRoach 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's a snipe hunt!

I used to live in Woodstock Ontario (Canada), it was a common practise to take new commers to the country in high school cow tipping. There is a fictional version of this in the TV show Cheers ... [5] ---Wolfe 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't do it!

Macmor Farms 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC) wrote in the article (and I've moved to here):

All joking aside, tipping cows is serious business and quite often fatal for the victim. Cows are ruminants , with large quanitities of undigested feed , water and assorted digestive fluids and gases within. They are meant to lie upright by nature and a cow on her back is invariably a dead cow within a few hours. Farmers even carry insurance to protect against this happening, falling under the same category as lightning strikes.Even a "cast cow", as those in the industry call them, will suffer from respiratory problems after only a short while on her back. Hopefully this will remain as urban legend and not become a prank to be played on the farmer. Finding a dead cow in one's pasture will certainly not advance rural / urban relations.

Perhaps we can adapt some of this text back into the article (presuming it's all true, of course)?

Atlant 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true, coming from my experience from a lifetime of raising cows. Ask any Vet or perhaps rural insurance company that insures Bossy for "casting". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.78.117.209 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Calves

It is possible to "tip" a calf, however this is generally considered animal cruelty and can cause serious injury to the animal. It is often difficult as many calves run from contact, and many cows will not let a human near a calf small enough to tip. Occasionally there are tame enough animals that they may be approached and tipped, while expecting food or a pat. The urban legend holds that they sleep upright with locked legs. Calves do not sleep upright, in fact they spend fairly little time upright, but they will stand quietly near their mothers. They also do not lock their legs, except occasionally when first attempting to walk. An adult cow, if somehow on its side, will pause a fraction of a second before moving, but calves' legs will flail the moment they are upset.

Calf tipping may be prosecuted as animal creulty, trespassing, and livestock damage,and is even more dangerous than cow tipping. Don't do it.

I have done this. One of the saddest things I've ever done - small calves are fairly helpless. Went home and donated to the animal hospital. -dazzlewater 00:31, 26 Nov 2006

[edit] Cow tipping is EASY if you know the trick

Who cares if the cow weighs 1500 pounds? Your goal isn't to pick it up, it's simply to make it lose its balance and fall. Actual cow tipping does not involve PUSHING, so all the stats in the article about how cows are too heavy to push is meaningless. What you do is get on one side of the cow (we'll say the right side for this example), then reach under the cow and grab the opposite-side legs (left in this case). You really should have one person grabbing the left-front leg and another person grabbing the left-hind leg. Then you just simultaniously pull the legs towards you, pulling the cow's legs out from under it and making it fall over. Remember, you're on the cow's RIGHT side, and you and your partner pull the cow's LEFT legs toward you. This way, the cow falls away from you instead of falling onto you. It's even easier if the cow is standing on a hill, as they often do. Of course, you'll want to stand on the uphill side and snatch the cow's downhill-side legs. The cow WILL fall over, I promise. The cow does NOT have to be asleep, assuming it's somewhat tame and used to being touched by humans. 4.253.47.186 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on this one. I come from a rural area and I have so far tipped 3 cows. Although we use 3 people to tip, one for either leg and one person to give extra push on the tippers' side. It's fairly easy, providing the cows are not too disturbed upon approach.
Aside, I love the photo for comedy value but it is not an accurate depiction of a potential victim. I'm half thinking of photographing the whole thing myself now, were it not of course for the potential liabilities! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronko3 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
So this is what rednecks do in their spare time, is it? I guess it sounds like fun if you've got the mental age of a nine-year-old. 172.200.237.248 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "e-mail"

Dear Editors of Wikipedia,

Regarding your article on Cow Tipping. The possibility of cow tipping can be show by the calculations below. These calculations have been confirmed by field observations but not in a controlled environment as of the writing of this email.

Using the dimensions and weight of the cow given in the times online article dated November 05, 2005 

"Cow-tipping myth hasn't got a leg to stand on"

article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858246,00.html

Times Online. Retrieved on 2006-10-28.

The calculations below show that the cow in the above article can be tipped by one or two people with a total weight of 300 pounds running at 13.4 mph.

--


Two people running at 13.4 mph (6 meters/second) one weighing 160 pounds (72 kg) and the other 140 pounds (64 kg) for a total mass 300 pounds (136 kg) can tip a cow (such as the one in your example) weighing 1500 pounds (682 kg).



The cow's center of gravity must be raised .07 meters (2.76 inches) [0.79m-0.72m] (see diagram above) in order to tip the cow.

Distance from obstruction (hoof) to center of cow’s mass=0.79m

Distance center of mass of cow must be raised to tip cow=0.79m-0.72m = 0.07m



As shown in the calculations below, the minimum momentum required to tip the cow is 798 kg-m/s.

While the momentum supplied by the two people is 816(kg)(m)/s.

--

Because of the law of conservation of momentum

          M1xV1 = M2xV2

[McowVcow =MpeopleVpeople]


and the fact that the momentum supplied by the two people (816 (kg)(m)/s) is greater than the momentum required (798 (kg)(m)/s) to tip the cow, the cow is tipped!!


--


Masses, Velocities, and Momentum:

Mc= mass of cow=682 kg (1500 lbs) g=acceleration due to gravity=9.80m/s2

Cm=center of mass=center of cow =0.32m (x-coordinate) 0.72m (y-coordinate)

Weight of Cow = Mc´g = 682kg x 9.8 m/s2

Wcow=6684 (kg)(m)/(s2)


Mass of persons (takes two people):

Hypothetical values

Mp1=72 kg Mp2=64 kg

Total mass of people=136 kg (300 lbs)


Velocity of people (running together):

Vp1=Vp2=6m/s (13.4mph)


Momentum of people:

Total mass of people=136kg

Velocity of people=6m/s


Minimum Velocity (and momentum required) for Cow Tipping:


M=682kg

Vo=1.2m/s

Vf=0m/s

q=24°

g=9.8m/s2


Distance from obstruction (hoof) to center of cow’s mass=0.79m

Distance center of mass of cow must be raised to tip cow =0.79m-0.72m=0.07m


KEcow=1/2mv


PEcow=mgh


PEcow=(682kg)(9.8m/s2)(0.07m)=467.9(kg)(m2)/s2

KE required to tip cow=467.9(kg)(m2)/s2

KEcow=1/2mv2


Minimum Velocity of cow required to tip


Vcow min = Square root of (KEcow)x(mass of cow)

                 = square root of (2)x(467.9kg´m/s2)/(682kg)

                 =1.17m/s



Minimum momentum required to tip cow = (Mcow)(Vcow min)

= (682kg) (1.17m/s) = 798 (kg)(m)/s


Momentum of people=m1v1+m2v2

(72kg)(6m/s)+(64 kg)(6m/s)=816(kg)(m)/s


Since 816 (kg)(m)/s > 798 (kg)(m)/s the cow tips!!


We hope you find this information helpful.


Richard and Suzanne Benedict

509-784-2859


rlb4651@yahoo.com

and

suzannelbenedict@yahoo.com


Bibliography:


1) UNL college of Engineering and mechanics. The Statistics of Cow Tipping. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved on October 28, 2006.

2) Malvern, Jack. Cow-tipping myth hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Times Online. Retreived October 28, 2006.

3) The Mechanics of Cow Tipping (PDF). University of British Colombia (April 9, 2003).

4) Cutnell, John E. and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons Inc., 2005.

Wilson, Jerry D. and Cecilia A. Hernandez. Physics Laboratory Experiments. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.

Whilst this is a believable calculation - the data fed into it is suspect. 6 m/s is a rather fast running speed. Olympic sprinters manage around 9m/sec - but that's on a smooth running track with a racing start and specialised shoes, etc - not a couple of untrained kids in a cowpat-littered uneven field in the dark! If you back your speed down to a more reasonable 4 or even 5 m/s, the conclusion becomes that two humans cannot tip a cow. 66.137.234.217 15:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP needs a new award criteria for this article

I don't know what it'd be called, but this article is just a scream to read. I'd love to see it expand into a great level of detail, if it could be verified and all. I loved the caption. Definitely needs a highly detailed section on the physics of cow tipping. :D CyberAnth 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cows sleep standing up.

In the document cited for cows sleeping lying down, it clearly states on page four that cows sleep standing up:

"Cows are normally found standing in the basic stance, feet hook bone width apart, (0.625m) while grazing or asleep. The hook bones are also known as the hip bones of the cow."

Also, on the Straight Dope page listed under external links:

"The cow is easy prey for pranksters since it's one of a number of critters (the horse is another) that sleeps standing up with its knees locked."

So, like horses, cows sleep standing up with their feet spread hip-width apart.

[edit] Request for Comment: Inclusion of image of cow & related caption

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was no consensus. "It's funny" isn't a good reason to keep something around because being funny isn't the goal of Wikipedia, but "we shouldn't be funny" is just as bad... I mean, this is the article on cow tipping. It's not The Holocaust, where humor would really be inappropriate. The image has existed here for two years, so I think that's the result: no consensus = no change, and including the image is the default. Mangojuicetalk 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether the image of a cow & related caption - as presented in this version - should remain in this article. Please express either support or oppose of its inclusion, or feel free to leave a comment. ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose While, cute, this is an encyclopedia, and we should strive to maintain encyclopedic standards. Arguments that it is "freaking hillarious!" or "bloody funny" are irrelevant. And while some think the "joke is subtle enough that most people seem to enjoy it", jokes shouldn't be subtly embedded into articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't believe that this bothers someone enough to open an RFC on it. If you're going to argue that this violates encyclopedic standards, then you need to support that assertion. It's hardly self-evident that because something is amusing it is prima facie unencyclopedic. I keep asking where it says we can't write something mildly humorous and have yet to get a relevant response. —Chowbok ☠ 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ITSFUNNY. There are more appropriate places on Wikipedia for attempts at subtle humor. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's not relevant here. That only applies to whether or not to keep an article on that basis. Read it again. You have yet to point to a relevant policy concerning the caption. —Chowbok ☠ 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please use common sense - a policy that applies for entire articles can certainly be extended to particular content within an article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not "common sense" simply because it's your view. An appeal to "common sense" only suggests you cannot defend your assumption with arguments. I don't think it's all clear that all rules that apply to articles apply to captions; in fact, it seems absurd. Why should we believe this?—Chowbok ☠ 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and an appeal to absurdity equally "suggests you cannot defend your assumption with arguments" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but you're the one who feels so strongly about removing any trace of anything amusing from Wikipedia that you opened an RFC on this. The burden of proof is on you. —Chowbok ☠ 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here: There are no verifiable or reliable sources to confirm that the caption "An unsuspecting potential victim" is indeed true, and unverifiable claims have no place in our encyclopedia. And if you look at the vandalism policy you'll see that WP:BJAODN is invoked when describing a common form of vandalism as "the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense" - which is what we have here. (Dude, really, go start a website or something if you want to create humor. That's not our goal here). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see what claims the caption makes and whether or not they can be refuted:
  1. By suggesting that the object pictured can be a victim of "cow tipping", the caption suggests that the object pictured is a cow. This seems like a pretty straight-forward claim to me, and I don't really think we need a WP:RS to confirm that.
  2. The caption suggests that said cow is "unsuspecting". Based on the placid look on the cow's face, this seems pretty likely as well. And to allege the alternate (that the cow might be "suspecting") seems to me to suggest that the cow thinks deeply, something I think you'll have a harder time proving via WP:RS than the caption's claim that the cow is "unsuspecting".
  3. The caption suggests that the cow is a "potential victim". As we've already established pretty reliably that the object in the photo is a cow, we certainly don't need to go any farther to prove that the cow would fall into the category of animals which can be cow tipped, assuming cow tipping is, in fact possible at all.
And with regard to what our goal is here, lately, it seems as though Wikipedia's goal is to drive off many off many of its most-productive editors; one of the ways that that is accomplished is to make the editors' experiences here completely joyless.
Atlant 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I did find the caption amusing when I first saw it, I can't seriously claim that it is encyclopedic, or imparts any information - in fact, if it is imparting information, it would seem that that information is false. - Matthew238 08:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose caption in the earlier version was innacurate. It still is somewhat now. SakotGrimshine 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have been having a disscussion with Chowbok on my talk page. I have been thinking that the caption is humorus and should be gotten rid of, since this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Chowbok has been adamant over keeping it and reverting any change made to the caption. I have been trying not to start an edit war over this caption. Gracenotes had a pretty good idea for a caption, which was A potential object of a cow tipping. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's pretty sweet, but "victim" strikes me as a bit POV - like someone is trying to rally us on the side of the poor cows. We must be neutral regarding our attitude towards cows. I also like my idea for the caption, but then again, I came up with it :) GracenotesT § 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create a Wikipedia:Biography of living bovines policy to ensure cattle-neutrality. :) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (the caption in the form in which it has existed in the article for about two years now) -- While I realize there's a cadre of editors here who believe that we can only be taken seriously if we're deadly dull and dry as dust, one need only look at some taken-entirely-seriously publications such as New Scientist to learn that a proper leavening of humor is entirely appropriate, even in "serious" publications. -- Atlant 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We have places for the "proper leavening of humor," do we not? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Turning again to my example, New Scientist doesn't make you go to some hidden website on their discussion page to find the humo[u]r. Not only are there columns in the (article space) of the magazine that are deliberately, overtly humorous, humor often finds its way into ordinary articles as well.
Atlant 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Atlant, there is nothing wrong with a little humor in a serious work. And I mean in the Wikipedia mainspace, not just areas a casual user would have to go out of their way to find. If there is a serious concern over the verifiability of the caption, I'm sure an alternative could be found. Something like A cow in its natural state, but better. --Joelmills 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest "A cow in its natural upright state" then?
Atlant 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The image is appropriate but the caption is inaccurate. The cow is awake, looking directly at the photographer, and her ears are raised to monitor the photographer's actions. This may be a potential victim in the sense of being a cow, but an awakened and alert cow is an unlikely target and it's difficult to characterize this cow as unsuspecting. Now please do something sensible before this gets into WP:LAME. I can hardly believe I'm offering detailed analysis about this. DurovaCharge! 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As someone said above, no claim is made that tipping is imminent, only that the cow is unsuspecting. The photographer could be scoping out potential victims for a later tipping run. —Chowbok ☠ 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Heaven help me for responding again, but this is cow is definitely alert. If you wish to represent an unsuspecting cow, go find or create a picture of one. DurovaCharge! 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Wait a minute. You're actually arguing that this cow suspects it may be tipped? That's one smart cow! —Chowbok ☠ 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • A more appropriate image would be of a cow that demonstrates no awareness of the photographer's presence, hence demonstrably unsuspicious. Without interpolating too much, it seems fair to say that this cow recognizes the photographer as an outsider to the herd and as doing something unusual. I doubt it would be possible to tip a cow that sees the would-be tippers coming (if the practice is anything more than an urban legend). DurovaCharge! 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
            • But, again, you're assuming the photographer is about to tip the cow. That's your inference; nothing is suggesting that. It's just saying that the cow is a potential victim, someday, of tipping. —Chowbok ☠ 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The article also seems to suggest that cow tipping is an urban legend - can you be a "potential" victim of something which doesn't exist?
      • You can't be a potential victim of something which doesn't exist, but you can be a potential victim of something that potentially exists. GracenotesT § 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Which gets down to the meaning of "potential". Am I a potential olympian? Am I a potential inventor of a perpetual motion machine? Am I a potential inventor of a triangle with four sides? - Matthew238 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's face it, this article is not in the uber-serious core of Wikipedia, and a little tounge-in-cheek humour is certainly appropriate. Bluap 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wikipedia shouldn't compromise its standards for sake of teh funny; next we're going to be compromising sourcing so beloved webcomics won't have their unsourced articles deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Humor is sometimes appropriate even in as humorless an encyclopedia as ours. I think whoever coined the phrase deserves a really big tip -- hopefully to be raised by a large group of friends. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is an article on a funny, non-academic, popular culture subject. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the style to be somewhat lighter than on more serious and academic subjects. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia written for a general reader, and as long as we're accurate and informative there is no reaon not to be occassionally engaging, particularly on lighter topics. I don't understand why any absolute policy against wit, even on an article like this, would benefit Wikipedia or our readers. Do we really want to disinterest our readers? I wouldn't use this tone for most of the articles I tend to work on, but I think both our editors and our readers would benefit from permitting a little bit of wry wit to slip in occassionally, in appropriate articles. Ultimately all human language, all human forms of communication, have subjective components. Seekers of ideologically pure objectivity might be better off sticking with machine language and avoiding human forms of communication entirely, as such goals cannot be satisfied humanly -- although human beings can be turned off in their pursuit. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The picture made me laugh, and a part of me wants to say "keep it", especially considering the inherently amusing topic of the article. However, I must concur with the other opposing comments in that it can set a precedent for other articles. While it has its many faults, Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia -- in all its humorless glory. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The image and caption are rather funny, and I've had a few good laughs reading this section of the talk page, but I keep thinking of the person who needs to do serious research in this serious encyclopedia on the subject of cow tipping. Wodup 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, it's hilarious, but this sort of thing belongs on our (distant) cousin project, Uncylopedia. Having this on Wikipedia encourages people to not take us seriously. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It's wrong to put content in simply because it's funny - but if the content could be justified for reasons other than that it is funny - then I don't think there is a problem. I think it's also vital to consider the nature of the article. This one is about a topic of humor and this very light touch definitely helps it be more compelling reading. It wouldn't be appropriate to use humor in a very serious topic. So - is it wrong to put a photo of a cow into an article about cow tipping? No! It's entirely appropriate. Is it wrong to add that caption? Well - it does make it clear that in the area of cow tipping, the cow is the victim. It makes it clear that you aren't giving the cow a small amount of money as thanks for it's service. Yeah - it's somewhat amusing - but that is not a reason to remove it if there is other good reason to keep it. SteveBaker 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Topics on concepts which are humorous can and should be covered objectively and encyclopedically. (See flatulence humor, the dozens, etc.) Humor is subjective, therefore presumption and inclusion of humor in a non-illustrative form is NPOV. Joke articles become BJAODN. Joke articles are non-encyclopedic. Articles should remain encyclopedic, not adopt the air of their topics, otherwise this is not an encyclopedia. If this article can't be covered encyclopedically (which it can be), it should be deleted. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If I'm being honest with myself I have to admit that the caption, as much as I like it, seems not to fit in with the idea behind Wikipedia. Even if there's no fundamental policy that is squarely on target, I'd suggest that what underlies the core policies is a purpose: to drive Wikipedia in the direction of dependability, communality, and objectivity. Humour doesn't fit that bill. Personally I think cow tipping is inherently funny ... but just look at the contributors to the talk page who see it as a dangerous, cruel practice. I'm sure that someone in this debate could throw in a good joke out of the blue, but if everyone decided to do it, we'd all wander off elsewhere before too long. Tt 225 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A bit of wit is often what sets a great Wikipedia article off from a merely good one. I also think we have a degree of leeway in captioning images beyond what we have in the main text, especially for images that are not directly representational with respect to the topic. This particular example is only middling-funny, but on principle, I think it's important to keep room for the occasional bit of levity.--ragesoss 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (a) why do you think policies are less applicable to caption text? (b) your acknowledgement that the image is "not directly representational with respect to the topic" is a pretty good argument for its full removal. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wish you'd stop acting like it's a settled question that there are policies against this. So far you've pointed to three policies, none of which were applicable and were all soundly refuted. The fact is that there's no policy against having a small and obvious joke in a caption; it just annoys you.—Chowbok ☠ 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It was a general question to a general statement about having more leeway in captions. The fact that there is not explicit policy about XYZ doesn't mean that XYZ is automatically acceptable and appropriate. And this isn't about whether or not I am "annoyed" - its about building the best possible encyclopedia. It seems that the majority of comments here oppose the photo/caption... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no precedent or good reason for including humor or levity in an encyclopedia article. Captions do not fall under separate standards. Meanwhile, the Manual of Style section WP:BETTER states "Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles. the tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." (bold mine.)

The argument that an encyclopedia article should abandon formality because its topic is informal is without merit. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing formality with humorlessness. They are not the same thing. The caption absolutely is in a formal tone.—Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - there seems to be some broader community consensus on refraining from extraneous humor and jokes in articles, since there is a series of warnings dedicated to the topic: {{Uw-joke1}}, etc. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the existence of warnings against inappropriate behavior in any way implies that all behavior is inappropriate. I don't believe that anything in Wikipedia policy prohibits wit where sound judgment warrants. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I, by no means, am suggesting that this is an absolute policy that has to be applied absolutely. Just pointing out that there is some consensus on the general role of jokes/humor, which might apply here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Unless you can prove the cow suspects she's about to be tipped, I see no reason the caption could be considered unencyclopedic. As stated above, something being amusing does not automatically preclude it from encyclopedic merit. --NEMT 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you prove it the other way? Strictly speaking, "Unsuspecting" is original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There has been prior discussion on this topic, and the consensus then was to keep it as is. A picture of a cow is highly appropriate in an article about an activity pertaining to cows. The caption is the most accurate caption possible to describe the cow in the context of the article. In short, it's encyclopedic. I find it ridiculous that someone thought it appropriate to propose an RFC. =Axlq 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments Many of the arguments above concern the inaccuracy of the current caption — The cow has noticed the photographer, and that's about as passionate as cows get.
    I suggest a list of possible alternatives would be more fruitful than arguing about the current caption.
    There is plenty of humour in the writing of Wikipedia, from content to context. Two examples I can think of offhand are the longstanding selflink at Recursion, and the caption at Homestar Runner#Collaborations with artists.
    I believe it should read, "The untipped cow". --Quiddity 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support on two grounds. Firstly because deadpan humour is acceptable in an encyclopedia and in any case 'an unsuspecting potential victim' is not necessarily an attempt at humour. Secondly because this picture and caption are famous within wikipedia. --Fergie 08:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

Given that the above is a discussion as well as an expression of opinions, please don't split the comments. It removes context and makes it harder to follow threads of discussion. That sort of refactoring has destroyed and invalidated debates in the past. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an RFC on it. —Chowbok ☠ 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew this was getting a little ridiculous. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't split the comments. I took pains to keep sub-threads together. Now it is a meandering mess and it is impossible to gauge consensus. Maybe that was the idea? Regardless, the form of the poll was poor. Wikipedia:Straw poll clearly advocates for sectionalization with all prolonged comments at the bottom. Instead of that, we have here just a big mess. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 08:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You use straw polls with sections when the goal is a quick gauge of opinion. This is obviously more of a discussion than a mere poll. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/w/Talk%7ECow_tipping_844d.html"