Cows, Cows AND Bulls, Or Bovine in popular culture?
What say you? Stephen Ewen 19:57, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I think it's cows, cattle and bulls. Bulls are only used for breeding and breaking bones at rodeos. Greg Woodhouse 08:47, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- What about Ferdinand the Bull? I remember that being an animated story.--Robert W King 09:18, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Bulls should be a separate article, I think. The biological creatures may be the same species, but the bull in poular culture is an entirely different animal than the cow in popular culture.Nancy Sculerati 09:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Having studied this issue out last night, I need to agree cows and bulls need to be separate, even for practical reasons of length. Stephen Ewen 14:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I've left the category blank while checklisting this as I have absolutly no idea where it should be. Derek Harkness 09:55, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
Another subpage type?
I have mixed feelings about this sort ("in popular culture") of page, which Wikipedia is so full of. On the one hand, they're very entertaining, and interesting in about the same way that the scads of junk information on the Internet is interesting. No doubt this sort of page is also useful to certain researchers, as well.
What the page tends to become, however, is not an extended piece of prose about "X in popular culture," but instead a list of references in popular culture. (Atom Heart Mother for christ's sake. I remember that album cover.) Indeed, it really, one might say, ruins the page if it is made into a narrative, because narratives are necessarily selective, and part of the fun is making the list of pop culture references exhaustive.
Well, why don't we just make a new subpage type: Pop Culture. So this page would live at Cow/Pop Culture. In the instructions for this type of page, we define exactly how this sort of page should be constructed, what pop culture reference types to list, what information to give about them, etc.
This is something I can get behind, I think. It relegates the information to a subpage, but then allows people interested in collecting this sort of information full rein to collect the trivial, silly, etc.
Cf. the lists constructed now on Butler.
Please comment at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1140.0.html --Larry Sanger 11:35, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
Removal suggested by David Finn 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Editorial Council: Case 2011-011
- Opened: Peter Schmitt 16:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Closed: Dropped (as removal, will be moved). --Peter Schmitt 11:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Joke page that should be deleted entirely. David Finn 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- This page is, indeed, not suitable for mainspace. It should be moved to a subpage (of the same name) of Cow or a Catalog of this page.
- Otherwise it could be moved to a talk page archive of Cow. There is no reason to delete it "entirely" from the (visible) history.
- --Peter Schmitt 16:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- 'Popular Culture' is an integral part of human society, and so '...in popular culture' articles have a place; our job is to decide where. Wikipedia puts '...in popular culture' articles in mainspace because it has no other way of dealing with them. We have 'clusters', and one important argument in favour of clusters was that they could be used to handle these sorts of situations easily.
- Therefore, I agree with Peter: this should be a subpage of either cattle or cow. I'm leaning towards cattle, as the species, ('cow' being the female of cattle and informally used to refer to the species, but also the female of many different specicies (elephant cow, e.g.). Our current cow article is a lemma - another can of worms, and will probably describe cows more generally the fullness of time, perhaps with photos of the cows of different species.
- Aleta Curry 23:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This "article" is probably racist
This isn't an article about cows in popular culture, it is an unresearched list of some examples of the word cow appearing in other places.
This isn't a list about cows in popular culture, it goes on to state clearly it is only about cows in Western popular culture, a sweeping racism that disenfranchises most of the worlds population.
The article says that cows only entered popular culture in the 1800s - so what was invented in the 1800s, cows or popular culture? Any research shows this to be untrue.
Our cows article doesn't even have a section on cows in popular culture, so why on earth do we need an ethnocentric list of disparate items whose only links are the word cow and the fact that a Citizen has heard of them? If anything this concept deserves a section of the main article and nothing more - and only then after it has been made less racist and far more encyclopedic.
This joke article represents absolutely no research. It is untrue on many levels. Removing it would take nothing away from Citizendium. Nobody has professed a desire to work on the list to make it encyclopedic. Open lists with no research connecting them can never be encyclopedic. This list shouldn't be moved, it should be deleted. If anyone wants to actually write about cows in popular culture they should do so on the cows page and not just add their favourite nursery rhymes to a pointless list. David Finn 07:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of David Starkey's point that our drug laws are racist, permitting those drugs that have become customary in Western culture but banning Indian hemp, Chinese opium and Latin American coca. Peter Jackson 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)