Talk:Raining animals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] cow catapult
i once read that apparently a cow falling from the sky fell on a small boat catapulting the guy standing on the other end of the boat into the sea. apparently it had fallen from a plane carrying animals that had to drop weight because of a flight problem... would this qualify as raining animals?
- No. Mostly because Wikipedia deals with facts, not urban myths presented as facts. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
But does it ever really rain cats and dogs? *Dan T.* 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It rains => always a sign for rain?
"Some groups of Australian aborigines and Native Americans share the belief that raining frogs is a sign of incoming rain, which is in good accord with the scientific explanation." - Well: a rain of whatever is usually not only a sign of incoming, but of actual and present rain, isn't it? -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 11:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd assume that the frogs are falling from the sky without accompanying rain, doesn't make much sense any other way. ~
- Here the talk is actually about croaking, not falling from the sky. Changed it accordlingly. --Aethralis 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pic?
Is it possible to get a pic of raining animals? It seems kinda rare/hard...--[[User:Mitternacht90|Mitternacht90]] 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's some illustration of raining animals in the french's wiki. I can upload them to commons if you want.Yves-Laurent 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't there any photographs if this event is so common? There aren't even pics of the fallen animals lying on the ground...! Interesting article! Sebastian
[edit] NOTOC
Why is that there? Removing for now. - RoyBoy 800 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relatively rare?
Propose removing "relatively rare" from the article unless it is sourced. —Viriditas | Talk 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This Article Is Incomplete
Okay, this page has problems. By only explaing rain of animals as a scientific phenomenon, it completely ignores its centrality to religious texts, or its appearence in literary works.
I agree that the naturalistic view of the occurence is fundamental to the article, but this is an encyclopedia. That means the entry should cover the full scope of the subject, not just one aspect. athuberty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.45.144 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "It's Raining Men"?
In the "See also" section, there is a link to the song It's Raining Men. I don't understand how this is related to the article, so I guess it's just a joke. If anyone else can't see any relationship, I suggest that the link to the song is removed... Permanent Link --TEO64X 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)