Talk:Charging Bull

Auction

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.162.90 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2005

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)

Still no pics of the famed testicles discussed in the article. Orthotox (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As the bull is not in the public domain, only a limited number of images can be used in the article. United States does not allow for Freedom of Panorama for publicly-displayed sculpture that is copyrighted. If you're an American citizen, write your Senator or Congressman and ask that the law be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Find a connection between this bull and the Golden Calf in a reliable source (where the source makes the connection, not you), and you should then add it to the article. If you are the one making the connection, that's original research forbidden under WP:OR. Noroton (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep your eyes open: that connection may be closer than you think. 205.167.180.132 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read in ancient time Ba'al was re-represented as the God of of prosperity, representing wealth, gain, and profit. Both Baʿal and El are associated with the bull in Ugaritic texts. The symbol for Ba'al is the moon crescent which can also be depicted as the horns of a bull. Some traders will invest during a full moon which could show a link between Ba'al a moon deity. 82.1.172.39 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The connection is made with this blog post though it doesn't specify WHEN it occurred and WHO was doing the praying. (It may be the incident described below.) - Nhprman 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There should at least be a "controversy" part in this article mentioning the similarity with the biblical Golden Calf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.169.72 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least that blog post makes it clear that some people do associate the Charging Bull with Golden calf. I find it very plausible that Di Modica actually intended such an ironic connection and in any case, it is quite obvious that a golden bull near the world famous stock exchange reminds people of that biblical story.62.78.227.13 (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

How can someone own it?

If they aren't allowed to move or make copies of it? Vyroglyph (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prayer rally

I am obviously not alone in thinking the prayer rally is of a noteworthy nature, but some people like to delete more than they like to add. We shall leave it here in the talk page. Because, yes, it is relevant. Skotte (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In early 2008, noted evangelist Cindy Jacobs claims to have had a vision from God, who instructed her to lead a prayer rally in New York City, at the Charging Bull statue.

A crowd assembled on 2008-10-29, the 79th anniversary of Black Tuesday. The date was to be called The Day of Prayer for the World's Economies. Several participants at the rally were seen to be waving American flags, and many erupted in a rousing chorus of God Bless America. A number of pictures and a video were taken to record the event.

The event, which undoubtedly seemed like a good idea at the time, was noted by pundits for it's irony of Christians praying to a golden bull.

References

Article needs some perspective: Market Trend Symbology NOT mentioned

This article needs some context regarding the symbology of the Finantial Market's Trends, namely, the bull represents upwards trends (the optimism and positive movements in the financial markets), while the BEAR represents downwards trends (negativity and pesimism, its influence in the markets). In my opinion, this is very important and should be included here, this explains also why other important financial centers (like Frankfurt in Germany) have also sculptures of the bear and the bull in their stock market places. A charging bull in Wall Street, therefore, without the presence of the bear (I've never been in USA so please correct me if I'm wrong), would symbolize the positive vision of the markets, always expecting the upward trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.24.97 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

possible link to the Golden Calf?

Whenever I see the image of the Charging Bull, it always rises in me the association with the biblical story of the Golden Calf. Does anyone know of any such connection between the two? --Jjulio Milagros Ccesar (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

'Arthur'

The upcoming movie 'Arthur' features a scene, at least in the previews, of the bull being uprooted in a car crash. Lots42 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Footage used in previews does not always make it into the film, and there's no way to know if the appearance is significant and notable without seeing the film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

Beyond My Ken, I think you should know - having edited Wikipedia for years - that the fact that a particular edit was not discussed on the talk page does not by itself automatically place you in a good position to revert it. At present, there appear to be two editors - myself and Harizotoh9 - who think the "in popular culture" section should be removed and only one - you - who thinks it should stay. Is it proper for you to be reverting multiple editors who have removed the section when no one thus far agrees with you that it should stay? The answer is no, Beyond My Ken - a very definite no. You cannot use "it was not discussed on the talk page" as an excuse for your poor behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And you should know that there is no community-wide consensus for removing "in popular culture" sections wholesale, and that when such an edit is made, it must be discussed, just like every other edit, and that reverting to restore a revert of an IPC section is not immune from 3RR. You must also know that the convention is that while discussions are ongoing, the article remains in the previous state until a consensus is reached. Please follow these practices:

So, now that we are here, please discuss, with specificity about each item why they should be removed. I will response accordingly, and if I think you are correct, I will join in your consensus to remove that item. What I am not willing to do is to agree that the entire section should be removed without any discussion. So... please discuss. BMK (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about a particular article. The lack of a consensus for removing all "in popular culture" sections does not mean that every such section must be retained no matter what. It means that the issue is discussed on an article-by-article basis. Your comments show that you just aren't willing to face the fact that a lack of discussion on the talk page does not give you the right to revert multiple other editors in a situation where no one agrees with you. That's really too bad. It shows that you are not willing at this stage to work within Wikipedia's normal editing procedures. You are in the wrong here, Beyond My Ken - and it's overwhelmingly obvious. "They didn't discuss it on the talk page" is lame excuse for edit warring, and will be viewed as such. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Each item should be removed because each item is trivial, obviously. There's no evidence any has really affected the image or reputation of the monument. That's sufficient reason to remove them all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not sufficient at all, you're simply waving your hands and assuming what you want to prove. Please discuss each item. BMK (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To echo your own comment back to you, "Sorry, that's not sufficient at all, you're simply waving your hands and assuming what you want to prove." You need evidence that each of these appearances of the monument in a movie actually matters. Your evidence consists of nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So in other words, when it was written in an edit summary that they were "mere mentions" , you really have no idea, it's simply the thing you have to say in order to delete the section, right? Let's take a look: the dance in arabesque on top of the statue - that's not significant? Yes, it is, because it's making a political and social point. The film entries do not say that it is "mentioned", they say that it is "featured". Do you know differently? Some of these could well be ripe for removal, but we won't know until they're discussed. Why are you reticent to do so, and simply make broad statements without any actual knowledge behind them? BMK (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

When I asked for evidence that any of these appearances in a movie matter, I meant evidence in the form of properly sourced commentary on those appearances, showing that reliable sources think they matter. That you personally think they are incredibly important doesn't matter to me, as I have no interest in discussing your personal evaluation of movies. You are arguing on an "I like it" basis that is not based in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you cannot differentiate between a personal opinion and a statement presenting normative social facts, but such a problem really has no relevance to the issue at question -- and you still haven't present a scintilla of evidence to support your contention that these are all "mere mentions". Since you have no knowledge of the media items involved, there's no way you can know that, and your edit summary comment is simply wikilawyering to get the result you want. Please don't do that, we don't operate by using "magic words". BMK (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you are the user who thinks that these appearances of the monument in a movie matter, so it is up to you to present real evidence in the form of reliable sources that they do, indeed, matter. Your pretentious reference to "normative social facts" counts for nothing. Again, it's your personal opinion about a movie, and it is not worth discussing. As for editing behavior, let me note that there is no rule that each edit must be discussed and can be reverted if it is not, as you seem to think. Harizotoh9, do you have any comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a limited number of times I will repeat myself, so I think this will be the last time I will pont this out:

In this edit you removed the "In popular culture" section from the article in its entirety -- an action for which there is no community consensus per se -- with the edit summary "A brief appearance in some movie is not important for any reason." So, it is you who is making a claim about these items, that they are "brief appearances". I ask you again to provide evidence to support your deletion on that basis. Without evidence that these are ""brief appearances", your deletion of the long-standing section from the article (which, by the way, you had never edited before, but presumably found your way to by examining my contributions list after our disagreement on Talk:Lights of New York (1928 film)#Revert, in potential violation of WP:Harassment#Wikihounding -- having already followed me to revert me on The Bob Newhart Show, another article you had never edited before) has no basis, and is therefore not legitimate.

Were I you, I would carefully examine my position at this moment, in order to decide what is the best thing to do. I suggest that if you actually feel strongly about this issue, and aren't simply reverting for the sake of trying to "get" to me, that you provide the evidence necessary to back up your positive contention that these are simply "brief appearances." Absence of your willingness to provide that evidence could well be construed as evidence that your motivation is not quite as pure as you wish to portray it. I'd think it over. BMK (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of fanning the flames, I'm with BMK here. You can't remove that whole section without adequate justification. —ajf (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think what would be most fruitful at this point, from any participant (including my lecturing self) would be to examine more closely how the bull's use in "popular culture" has been reported. I don't think having "really affected the image or reputation of the monument" is a necessary criterion, but familiarizing oneself with the listed items and then perhaps seeking secondary sources might help keep the section, but maybe in a more relevant form. BMK has made a start with the iconic ballet dancer photograph.

Just so my comment isn't totally useless: I found a description of a scene from Oliver Stone's World Trade Center with the camera lingering on the "famed" sculpture, pronouncedly symbolizing "a robust American economy" and accompanied by radio broadcasts on rising stock prices in "Ideology, Authenticy, and Reception in World Trade Center" by Ryan Dorr, published in Ideological Battlegrounds – Constructions of Us and Them Before and After 9/11 Volume 1: Perspectives in Literatures and Cultures, Joanna Witkowska, Uwe Zagratzki, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, ISBN:9781443869171. Whether this means it needs to be included or not, I don't know, but I think the discussion should take off from there and other concrete examples, not in circular discussions about burden of proof. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sluzzelin: Thank you, stuff like that is very helpful,and is very much what I was hoping FKC would provide. BMK (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To Beyond My Ken and ajf, I will simply point out that it is users who want to include the material who need to explain why it should be included. Absent any special reason to include something in an article, it should not be there. Beyond My Ken's reasons for including that content appear to be, basically, that he really likes it and personally thinks it's really important. I find that inadequate. As far as harassment is concerned, I have challenged Beyond My Ken to take the issue to ANI if he honestly believes I am guilty of harassing him. That he has not done so suggests to me that Beyond My Ken knows that he does not have a good case (I notice that Beyond My Ken is already under discussion at ANI over an unrelated issue, so presumably this is not the best time for him to be making accusations against another user anyway). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

FKC, don't get your hopes up, I've been brought to AN/I on a number of occasions and it's never amounted to anything, because I follow the rules and know what I'm doing. Other editors The original deleter has removed the section again, without explanation, so you might want to restore the section, since I'm at 3RR, so that discussion can continue. BMK (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any particular interest in the outcome of the current discussion of you at ANI. This matter is barely relevant at this page in any case and further discussion of it would be out of place. Regarding content issues here, please consider that even if the monument plays a significant role in a particular film, that does not automatically make the film important to an article about the monument. The White House figures prominently in Olympus Has Fallen, but the film is not especially relevant to the White House. Furthermore, you should not be encouraging other users to continue an edit war. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street and the Bull Idea to juxtapose the capitalist symbol of the Bull with the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Focus on the original meaning of the Bull with the meaning and outcome of the movement. Johannaaguilera (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Dunlap, David W. 2008 "Downtown's Bull, No Longer Emblematic but Still Popular.(Metropolitan Desk)(Antoni Di Modica's 'Charging Bull' Sculpture in Bowling Green, Lower Manhattan)."The New York Times, September 17.

Inter-university Consortium for Political Social Research. 1999 Crash of '87 Was It Expected? The Evidence from Options Markets. ICPSR (Series) ; 1187. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] (October 20, 2016)

Jackson, Kenneth T., and Keller, Lisa, eds 2010. The Encyclopedia of New York City (2). New Haven, US: Yale University Press. Accessed October 20, 2016. ProQuest ebrary.

Klein, Jennifer. 2013. "Class Power, Democracy, and the Market: Reflections on David Montgomery." Labor: Studies In Working Class History Of The Americas 10, no. 1: 73-80. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (October 20, 2016).

Shaer, Matthew. 2003 "Bull's Best Friend" New York 45, no. 2 (January 16, 2012): 13-14. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (October 20, 2016).

Tufekci, Zeynep, Freelon, Deen, and Gleason, Benjamin. 2013. "#Occupy Wall Street." American Behavioral Scientist 57, no. 7 966-82.

Van Gelder, Sarah. 2011 This Changes Everything : Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement. Maxine Greene Collection. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Wall street's charging bull. (2012, Spring). Italian America, 17, 11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018538242?accountid=27495 Johannaaguilera (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charging Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201021625/http://www.tribecatrib.com/archives/newssept07/Bull.htm to http://www.tribecatrib.com/archives/newssept07/Bull.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1998/05/31/1998-05-31_rock_solid.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

More references about origins of sculpture, and 'fearless girl'

This article has some information and some references that might be helpful: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/nyregion/fearless-girl-statue-de-blasio.html

It is primarily about the fearless girl statue that was recently added, but includes information about the original bull, and the artist's (of the bull) reaction to the fearless girl statue.Benthatsme (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism (IRL, not Wikipedia)

I've added more incidents to the "Incidents of Vandalism" subsection, and it's got me wondering if it that content would be better included under "Criticism" rather than "History".

My rationale is that much of the vandalism has been intended as political/economic commentary, generally in opposition to what the Bull is intended to represent. There are also shared references and content overlap discussing Occupy Wall Street.Cosmocatalano (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess so? This might fit under either section, as some of the vandalism is a critical response to the bull itself, but it's also history. Great work on this section, by the way. I added a little more. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

PLease add the recent Harambe banana vandalism to the page. I'm too lazy to do it. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7C00:EAAF:D5DD:4786:4149:1C0C (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Copy editing"

@Twofingered typist: Please note that MOS is not a policy, it is a guideline, and it is not mandatory. Every single page of MOS says at the very top: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Being a copy editor is more than just mechanically applying a onunch of hard-and-fast rules to a text, without any consideration for the quality of the writing. A good copy editor can help a text immensely, but a bad one can ruin it entirely. It requires intelligence and a light touch, not a cudgel.

Now, if you have an argument you want to make, aside from "It's not bad writing", please make it here, but do not continue to edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Fixing ping. See previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

epicgenius, you requested a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Two experienced copy editors have attempted to make changes to the article, and those copy-edits have been reverted by Beyond My Ken, who has also reverted corrections of indisputable errors. Unless the two of you can work something out, I'm afraid that we will have to decline your copy-edit request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I thought it was already declined. In any case, if Beyond My Ken disagrees with the GOCE's copy edits, I don't think we should proceed. There is evidently disagreement over style and wording, and I think it would be better discussed on this talk page. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken You might be wikilawyering if you point out that WP:ACRONYM1 is a policy (/guideline/essay), while WP:ACRONYM2 is only a guideline (/essay/policy). OK then, you want it that way. You cited It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow.... That is exactly what it says on WP:GUIDES, a policy in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but it appears you are contradicting yourself.

Epicgenius requested a copyedit for a GAN. Look at Good article criteria #1: the prose is clear and concise; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The MOS is also critical for FA.

So all you are doing here is preventing a GAN. Please, it's 1AM, I'm exhuasted, let the copyedits stand so we can see a GAN, and then hopefully, the article becomes a GA. Can I Log In (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, I won't get in your way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charging Bull statue as seen from behind.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 13.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)