![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed additions
editMoving these over from the body of the article. bd2412 T 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Reproductive anatomy
edit(Propose adding a section here comparable to Stallion#Anatomy.)
Behavior
editNothing more to add here
|
---|
(Propose something akin to Stallion#Herd_behavior) It is unfair to say that one should never trust a bull. In fact, when La Bete terrorized the French in the late 18th century, some of them were saved only by taking refuge with bulls! One boy clung to the tail of a bull when it fought off the attacker. I think if right to eat beef (and the flesh of every animal but man), but we must understand AGENDAS here. Those veterinarians who give the life-threatening advice "never trust a bull" are really motivated by fear that men will stop killing bulls. It is unfair to look for examples of bulls kiling men-one can do the same for dogs-which veterinarians consider to be "companion animals". There have been examples of dogs killing their owners-does that mean that dogs must not be seen as companions or trusted? One could certainly do the same for humans-humans have killed each other far more often than any animals, wild or domestic. This would be a minor point except that such remarks encourage the abuse in vogue in feedlots and factory farms.70.190.102.49 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Moreover, one finds that "never trust a bull" (at least in the English-speaking world) was never said until the late 1800s. It is not a venerable piece of wisdom, quite the contrary.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then in your intelligent and informed eyes advice that experience has shown to be life-threatening is to be accepted as "gospel", notwithstanding the potential agendas of those who espouse it.70.190.102.49 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) So cattle are tame enough to be raised for meat, but wild enough to not be "pets"? How suspiciously convenient! I suppose that God in His wisdom purposely made them aggressive when befriended, so that they would only be useful as food.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I will be making a longer response later, and will be revising the article to make it, provisionally, more balanced. I did not say "So cattle are tame enough to be raised for meat, but wild enough to not be 'pets'?" "can't be true" in the sense of being a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION, akin to speaking of a two-sided square or a married bachelor. What I said was that it was "suspiciously convenient". What I mean is this: that most of those saying that bulls can't be trusted (or cattle generally) have ALREADY MADE THE DECISION not to see them as "pets", for ECONOMIC REASONS ALONE, i.e. because befriending them would make them harder to slaughter. That leads me to suspect that such a viewpoint is a RATIONALIZATION, not a REASON, for an instrumentalist view ALREADY ARRIVED AT. By missing this point you end up proving it, for you say "that every farm animal can be dangerous". What is a "farm animal" exactly? And isn't it the case, for that matter" that every dog "can be dangerous"? Just search google and you will find EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE of dogs killing owners. Yet veterinarians will never suggest that that means that dogs should be seen as "farm animals" rather than as "companion animals" (whatever those designations even mean. I would think that you should raise every animal FOR ITS OWN SAKE first, and so treat it as a "companion animal" first, WHATEVER ELSE you might raise it for.) I might finally note that one writer (who I unfortunately cannot cite to as this article no longer seems to no longer be available), when describing why cattle cannot be trusted, said "Keep in mind that cattle are livestock, not pets". Is that not akin to saying "Thank God for making Cattle dangerous so there wouldn't be any troublesome companionship to interfere with their usefulness as food"? I know that this writing may have been POV-ridden, but that is my complaint with the article. It encourages hatred (yes, HATRED) towards one of the domestic animals that we are doomed to live with and that is doomed to live with us, like siblings I might say, and thus will cause readers to LOSE THEIR HUMANITY. It will also encourage the abuse of cattle in vogue in the Western world, whether in feedlots and other factory farms, or the killing of bulls (along with horses) in bullfights for that matter.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Even the page category reflects such POV by establishing a category of "livestock". What do the words "pet" and "livestock" mean anyway? Don't they just waste ink? Why not just say "animal"?-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You just proved my point-dangerous dogs do not prove that dogs are not human companions. So how come dangerous bulls (which undoubtedly exist) prove that bulls are not? The term "livestock" is one that describes how humans value animals, and tells us nothing about the animal (including its view of any human). So why does Wikipedia have it? Wouldn't just saying "animal" be NPOV?-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Nowhere in the dog article do we find any SPECIFIC mention of dogs killing humans as we do with the bull article. This seems inappropriate, to say the least-at least in terms of the difference. If I have missed any let me know.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Those sources are only "reliable" in so far as they describe how humans view animals ECONOMICALLY. Why not call a PETA website a "reliable" source for terms? Where is the "non sequitur" in my reasoning? Please let me know. I don't understand what you mean.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed written for humans-there are plenty of humans-including beef eaters-who see bulls as "pets" (including Charo) without any catastrophes occuring. Why shouldn't their views prevail? What I'm saying is that the term "livestock" is itself a POV term (as is "pet").-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I will make two comments-one for each users-before I shut up on this issue for some time ( I promise!). BD2412: I do not mean to be impertinent, but I have to ask-is "consensus" really the best you can argue for? Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, not majority POV. User:Cthomas3: Do you mean to deny that ALL bulls can be pets (and deserve to be regarded as such)? Or merely that dogs are MORE LIKELY to be so? Did you see what I wrote beneath about the matadora? Was the bull a "pet" or a "livestock" in that case? What is even meant by these terms? Of course in a sense we as a society (pace some anthropologists) can already be said to treat somebulls as"pets"-rodeo bulls are often spared the slaughterhouse for a good performance, so it could even be said they are treated as sacred cows! These are all POV questions, but as I have written above, my concern with the article is a POV one. I just want clarification as to what you are trying to say. -70.190.102.49 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is a video of Charo playing with her bull Manolo. Does it look like she is "taking no chances"? Why is she still alive? If she were gored to death, I suppose that all veterinarians who say a bull cannot be trusted (coincidentally generally paid supporters of factory farming) will welcome a vindication of the lack of intrinsic value of bulls, and how they are good only for food. -70.190.102.49 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC) I also want to make two points here regarding the whole pet/livestock distinction-it is useless (to say the least) in describing either the animal or the owner. Here is what I mean when I say it does not do justice to the "animal's point of view". This book quotes a matadora (a young Frenchwoman) as saying that it made her sad to kill one bull, because he gave her a "look of affection" and "warmth" that almost made her cry. Was he a "pet" or a "livestock"? Of course, if you call him the latter, you tell us nothing about him, only how humans might see him. (Note: Of course, the bulls and horses killed in bullfights are not considered "livestock" in the usual sense of the word. They are seen as dying "glorious deaths" in the ring, and any living creature, of course, achieves glory only for itself.) It is no less useless in describing how humans relate to animals. This is a point I made on Talk: Pet. It is often said people in the modern West keep animals as pets while those in the past did not, along with people in "developing" countries, and this shows that they have a less instrumentalist and more affectionate view of animals. Depending on how one defines "pet" (is an animal that is eaten a "pet"? Does a "pet" have to have a name? Does it have to live inside the house?) this claim may be true as far as it goes. But if so, it is perhaps the best example of a claim that conceals much more than it reveals. Medievals may have made dogs work and kept them outside the house, but they did not torture dogs and cats in laboratories for their whole lives the way modern "pet-keeping" Westerners do. Nor was there any factory farming of any kind, in spite of there being no laws against it. So ask yourself whether modern "pet-keeping" Westerners engage in honest assessment or projection when they speak of the "utilitarian" views other societies supposedly take of animals-70.190.102.49 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Idle thought
editThis may be Wiki-PTSD from an old edit war, but I recall some sort of fuss being raised over the fact that bulls may also be elk, moose, elephants, etc...unlike stallions, which are pretty much just horses and maybe zebras. I think this may have been why this article name got moved into a disambig in the first place. Anyway, heads up that this could come back around.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 August 2010
- Given the amount of work this will save disambiguators, I anticipate support far outstripping any opposition to this move. bd2412 T 02:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Similar discussion occurred at Calf, and the result was to keep the article to bovine calves. If you try to cover everything called "bull" (but omit male animals called something else: stallion, boar, cock etc), you are describing the word, not the thing, and you have created a dictionary definition. The point is covered well instead in List of animal names. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Material in Nose ring (animal)
editJust noticed that there is quite a bit about bull handling in Nose ring (animal), which really needs to be merged here (and mostly removed from there). I haven't time just now; is there anyone else who'd like to do it...? Richard New Forest (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg Nominated for Deletion
editAn image used in this article, File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
Incomplete castration
editI removed the recently-added claim that an incompletely castrated bull (as when one testicle is left) is called a "bull's horn," since it does not seem likely and since i could not find a ref to verify it. Apparently some folks using the rubber band method can't count to two, or they might have a bull calf with an undescended testicle which they miss. Edison (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Removing my recent talk contribution
editI take strong exception to you removing my talk contibution. I did not change the article, my contribution was intended to initiate a 'Talk Page' discussion on the suitability of an illustrative image currently in this article. Please explain, you may be mistaken about your authority to edit the contribution of others on the talk pages.--Damorbel (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment appeared to fall under WP:NOT#CHAT as you claimed the animal did not look like a bull, when it is blatently clear it's a bull, it appeared to be random "kiddie chatter," which is why I removed it. If you have a sincere question, perhaps restate it clearly and in a more mature manner. Montanabw(talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This link is to the illustration in question. It clearly is the reproductive system of a cow. There are no testicles in the illustration but ovaries, fallopian tube, a uterus and a vagina all of which correspond to the human femalehuman female, there is no part of a bull in that illustration. --Damorbel (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we move this to the cattle page?
editThat's what was done with the "Cow" page.71.92.222.170 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it is fine where it is, given the unique cultural significance attached to bulls. bd2412 T 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- bd2412 is correct; also, it was actually split from the cattle article. The original article "cow" was about cattle, it was a title move. A separate article on female cattle might be approriate somewhere down the line, but the need is not great - the section of the cattle article on females is not so large as to warrant a spinoff yet. Montanabw(talk) 04:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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/20100618112456/http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI0878.html to http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI0878.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) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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/20100511090201/http://www.itla.net/index.cfm?sec=Longhorn_Information&con=handling to http://www.itla.net/index.cfm?sec=Longhorn_Information&con=handling
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 11:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Link works. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Bulls
editBulls are stronger then cows. 2402:3A80:DCF:6891:0:46:D41A:3801 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Holstein Friesian Bull
editI'm sorry, but the animal in that picture just isn't scary-looking enough to be called a "bull". Most people would call it a "cow". May I replace it with a picture of a more masculine Holstein Friesian bull? Countryboy603 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)