Jump to content

Talk:Cow tipping/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Respaldo (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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 ... [1] ---Wolfe 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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) .

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

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)


"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)


=====

Richard Benedict Replies

Cows in the field that are tipped are usually beef feeder cattle weighing between 400 to 700 pounds not 1500 pounds as was stated in the referenced article (which used a suspiciously high weight for a cow that was to be tipped as well as a center of gravity that was suspiciously low).

Using 750 pounds as a more realistic weight of the animal, (leaving the center of gravity in the same low position) the runners would only have to run at (13.4/2) or 6.7 mph (3m/s) to tip the animal. Therbey making the activity quite possible.

The real significance of this article however is not in the tipping or not tipping the cow but in the origin of the term "Urban Legend."

I therefore propose that the term "Urban Legend" refer to a consensus of intellectuals that reside in an "Urban" environment who claim to know phenomena do not exist even though it can be demonstrated by calculation and experiment to exist in reality. The term "Urban Legend" will now mean "Ignoring truth that is obtainable to maintain an illusion that is ascetically attractive or politically correct but not true." In short "to be blind to truth".

Richard Benedict November 19, 2007

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)

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.

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)

  • 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 - 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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.

Regarding the caption

I don't think "unsuspecting" belongs in the caption, myself. It's not really informative to say that the cow does not suspect - it implies that there is something to suspect (implying that someone is plotting to tip the cow in the photo, which is not indicated by anything in said photo), and that the cow has the ability to suspect. It's like saying, "President Bush did not use head asplodey powers to kill Saddam Hussein from thousands of miles away" or "Despite the fact that many male Congressmen have had children, none of them personally gave birth to any of them" or "Hillary Clinton did not eat her own head after John Kerry's loss in 2004". Why mention that some thing or action or occurence did not/does not happen when it is not remotely possible? Milto LOL pia 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this is discussed in the above header... perhaps an article RfC is in order? Although I've seen those get veeeeery nasty. Milto LOL pia 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree - "unsuspecting" isn't necessary. its just a cow, which could be tipped. Not a dog 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See above. We had an RFC on this already, and the result was keep. —Chowbok ☠ 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Look again - the result was "no consensus" Not a dog 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... must you quibble? From the conclusion: "no consensus = no change, and including the image is the default." —Chowbok ☠ 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it ain't quibbling, but the proper interpretation. There wasn't consensus to "keep", just a lack of consensus to make a change. there is a difference. Not a dog 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just silly. Not a dog 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"A potential victim of cow tipping" accurately and appropriately describes the image of the cow. Simple as that. Not a dog 02:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that there is zero chance whatsoever that the pictured cow will not be nor has it ever been tipped at night in its lifetime? ♠ SG →Talk 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a place for speculating about potentialities. Just leave it. Not a dog 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest "An untipped cow" as a caption which is entirely accurate and factual. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support the aforementioned caption. ♠ SG →Talk 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I gave it a shot. - Merzbow 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Goof grief, it's a photo of a cow. It's not clear that it belongs in the article (and the RfC isn't binding, despite the claims of those who want to keep it); if it does stay, though, it shouldn't be given a facetious caption. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if the photo remains (which I'm not entirely sold on), the caption definitely needs to not be the "unsuspecting victim" one. (i.e. Why can't people figure out this is an encyclopedia?) Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. The RfC would only be binding if it had gone the other way. —Chowbok ☠ 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, RfCs are never binding. --Ali'i 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We get it Chowbok, there was an RFC. We get it. Now we're coming up with a better alternative. To that effect, I don't think mentioning that cows are heavy and don't sleep standing up is a good caption, it's very non-sequiter. Milto LOL pia 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chowbok, how is this caption "better"? That's not even a verifiable claim! Not a dog 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chowbok, please don't revert without comment or discussion [2]. Not a dog 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this revert warring without comment is ludicrous. I for one still open to any reason why that caption is better other than "we had an RFC". Milto LOL pia 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read over the talk page. This has been discussed over and over again and the consensus was to keep it. If you want to change it, the burden of argument is on you. This whole thing is annoying me, because the whole reason the RfC was brought was so the caption could be changed. If it had went the other way, it would have been changed away, and I would have respected that. But since it went to keep, suddenly the RfC has no meaning. And still, nobody has pointed to a Wikipedia policy that says we should get rid of it. —Chowbok ☠ 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FWIW I prefer "unsuspecting" also. - Merzbow 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, while I have disagreed vehemently with Chowbok in the past, I do agree with Chowbok this time. Even before the RfC, arguments supporting the caption "An unsuspecting potential victim" seemed pretty strong. Then we had an RfC, and no consensus to change the caption emerged. In Wikipedia, if there isn't a consensus, the result is no change (that's how the AfD process works). So stop changing the caption, people. =Axlq 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Since when is an RFC the final word on an issue? Not a dog 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
As you yourself are proving (by raising this long dead issue yet again), NOTHING is ever really settled on Wikipedia, because some new person will come along and start the whole cycle over again.
Atlant 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok first off, the consensus was not to keep. It was no consensus. So enough of that foolishness.

Now tell me, any of you, where is the reference saying that the cow pictured is "unsuspecting"? Or that it can suspect at all, even? Milto LOL pia 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the line of argument I provided above, repeated here for your benefit:
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)
Atlant 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Yes, the picture is of a cow.
  2. An encyclopedia should not base its captions on your estimation of a "placid look" on a cow's face, nor the assessment that it "seems pretty likely". If you demand WP:RS for "suspecting," it should be needed for "unsuspecting" too. Further, the alternative is not that it is "suspecting" - this isn't binary. The point of the matter is that the psychological state of the cow is unknown.
  3. I even doubt the "potential victim" notion, since most of the article is dedicated to the fact that cow tipping isn't possible in the first place. We might as well state it is also the "potential victim" of terrorism.
  4. And who are you accusing of driving whom off? If you can't handle the fact that someone disagrees with a caption, then don't edit here. Personally, I don't see the purpose of WIkipedia to provide an outlet for the experience of joy. This is an encyclopedia. (Uncyclopedia is over there). Not a dog 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, forget about it. I'm disengaging. Not a dog 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I've made the victim apocryphal (as in, 'the apocryphal victim'). I think this caption still preserves a bit of humour, while making clear that the cow can't really be tipped. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw that, I laughed but left it alone. Someone has just changed it to "An unuspecting victim" and that's okay too. =Axlq 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia ain't for humor. I can't believe you wouldn't know that, or at least practice that. And Atlant, I'm really sorry you're feeling so bummed out by Wikipedia, but frankly, that's not my problem. I get more than a healthy share of lulz from this website, so I don't see that as a valid reason to leave what you admit is just a joke in. If you're pissed off at Wikipedia, don't take it out on articles, humor doesn't belong in mainspace. Milto LOL pia 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually amused that after such a short tenure here, you believe you kow how everything here works and that you are the arbiter and interpreter of the rules. You don't, and you aren't. And (whispering) there are other places where humo[u]r is hiding...
Atlant 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you making this about me? Don't make this about me. Make this about the caption. So far you have yet to say anything about the actual caption, and have only commented about me and about Wikipedia's dastardly attempts to drive away editors. What are your thought about the merits of the actual caption, especially regarding the problems with sourcing brought up by myself and Not a dog? Milto LOL pia
You are the one who is about to violate the Three Revert Rule trying to force your opinion upon the article, not me. There seems to be a fairly large contingent of editors who think the ever-so-slightly-humo[u]rous caption is just fine. As I've stated many times, I think the caption strikes the right note for an article about a basically-silly subject. And Not a dog has just about the same brief tenure here as you.
Atlant 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, stop talking about "tenures", we don't have "tenures" or "experience" to worry about here, this is about the caption. And don't bother with the way premature 3RR warnings. I'm asking you up front: what do you think of the unverifiability concerns brought up by myself and Not a dog? Milto LOL pia 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're both on the wrong side of WP:POINT.
I won't do it (because I'm involved here), but I think both of you are at risk of being blocked for edit warring; you don't need three reverts in 24 hours to qualify for such a sanction.
Atlant 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about the caption

Ok, time to put aside the reverts, the personal comments, the acronym fights, and the threats: what are everyone's views on the merits of the caption of "unsuspecting potential victim"? And please, no complaints about Wikipedia being no fun or referring to prior discussion: let's get our thoughts on the table here.

I've brought up the point that it's redundant to say it's "unsuspecting", as I don't think a cow can really "suspect" cow tipping. Similar to how the cow is not flying, and not doing algebra, and a host of other things. Surely a caption of "an unarmed cow" or "a naked cow" would be unacceptable for similar reasons, so why is it being noted that the cow is not suspecting?

Not a dog has brought up the point that it's not supported by any sort of citation or evidence that the cow is not suspecting. Clearly the picture is of a cow, and clearly as a cow, it is a potential victim. I think we're all somewhat agreed on that. Now, who's to say the cow is unsuspecting? Where is the evidence to back this up? I think he has a very good point.

Now, a reply to these concerns or other comments on the merits of keeping this caption would be appreciated, instead of references to older comments or comments regarding me as an editor. PLEASE let's keep focused here. Now, go wild. Milto LOL pia 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we've already had this discussion several times, why are we not allowed to refer to previous comments? The only reason I can see is that the previous discussions didn't go your way. —Chowbok ☠ 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, great. So, what are your thoughts on the caption, specifically regarding the above concerns? Milto LOL pia 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'unsuspecting' doesn't work. Because it's unverifiable, as we can't read the cow's mind, and have no idea whether it suspects that we're thinking of tipping it. I've already gone on record for 'an untipped cow,' which is factually accurate and still kind of funny. But since I'm the only person who likes my idea, I'll just go on record that "a potential victim" is better than "an unsuspecting potential victim" in terms of verifiability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I don't think "unsuspecting" is unverifiable, but I've also edited-in your caption ('An untipped cow') at least once. The humo[u]r police promptly reverted that too ;-).
Atlant 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean this? 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". That's full of assumptions and suppositions. You stating something "seems pretty likely" is not the standard of truth and verifiability for an encyclopedia, IMO? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.112.23.172 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Of course I meant it; I've said it twice so far.
Atlant 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that An untipped cow. would be a better caption, who also agrees? Maurauth (...) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always liked that. - Merzbow 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Anyone else? --Ali'i 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative image?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tracy_n_brandon/346828878/ seems to be under the Creative Commons license, and clearly more relevant. Would that get more support than the current image? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Also, I would find it better if there was a picture of a tipped cow (bless her poor soul)--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, how dare you try to introduce humor into this article, especially with something as serious as the image! Shame, shame... GracenotesT § 16:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

References are self-published original research

2 of the 3 references are self-published original research by students without any peer review (and the third simply reports on one of the others):

Are these reliable sources for an encyclopedia article? Not a dog 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe saying that a study was done and found such and such results would be better? I don't know if that sort of thing is considered acceptable article material or not though. Milto LOL pia 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
yeah, but I could walk out behind my house and look at a bunch of cows, put it up on a web page, and then claim that "a study was done" - that's against the very notion of WP:RS. Not a dog 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol! Good point. Milto LOL pia 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm proposing that this section should be removed, leaving essentially the lead paragraph, and the links to the various urban legend sites. Not a dog 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More caption absurdity...

I was just told it is "absurd" to claim the caption "an unsuspecting potential victim" is unverifiable. So prove it then. Prove that the cow is "unsuspecting". The onus is on the person making the claim to either prove that it is true or that it can be attributed somewhere. Yes, it's very funny, but is it verifiable? If it cannot be attributed or verified, it should be removed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

its not verifiable. its a cow. no one here can claim to know what it suspects or what it does not suspect. this is idiotic. 81.169.155.229 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cow_tipping/Archive_2&oldid=1136640567"