Talk:Charging Bull
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Article on Charging Bull, artist, and circumstances surrounding its move
somebody use this article, it contains a brief interview with arturo with him standing in front of the statue, and the circumstances surrounding the moving of the statue (more accurate account of why it was moved). http://www.sichat.com/forum_topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=711&FORUM_ID=15&CAT_ID=8&Forum_Title=Island+News&Topic_Title=Arturo+Di+Modica%27s+Italian+Bull
Lucky dog (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
This bull was up for auction a few months ago under special conditions. Does anyone know if the auction was completed, and, if so, what the final price was?
[edit] More Pictrues
The article states that the bull "is one of the most photographed pieces of art in the city" yet, until recently, there were no pictures, and now they are being taken down. Please upload any good pictures if you have them. -Coolhandscot 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flags
Does anyone know why one of the two flagpoles behind the sculpture flies a foreign flag which seems to change from day to day (or week to week)? 208.120.84.99 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relation with the Golden Calf
I have just had to redo the addition of the reference to the golden calf. The bible mentions "Mammon" (the personification of Greed/avarice) and other such creatures. Bulls constructed from various metals to represent other pagan gods are littered throughout the old testament. The connection between this bull and the golden calf is pretty obvious (to me at least) when you consider it. I'm not equating the two per se, but it seems helpful to mention to the reader the obvious connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.15.232 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a religious reference. This article is not about religion. I removed the link. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does the fact that there are plenty of parallels not count for anything? It's not going in the main body of the article, it's going into a section that is sort of by-definition dedicated to things other than the focus of the article. By this logic there should never be a "See Also" section in any article, since they will always deviate somewhat from the topic at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.15.232 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)