Talk:Bull

Proposed additions

Moving these over from the body of the article. bd2412 T 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reproductive anatomy

(Propose adding a section here comparable to Stallion#Anatomy.)

Behavior

(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)

The article (at least the current version) says nothing about "never trusting a bull". The closest it comes is to reference an article saying that a farmer's death prompted "comments from experts ranging from 'never trust a bull' to 'always take a dog with you when handling a bull'," but neither of those quotes made it into the article itself. If you actually read the passage you continue to remove, it merely states that bulls are "capable of aggressive behavior and require careful handling". This position is backed up by statistics as well. Saying that some people "were saved only by taking refuge with bulls" is fine, but translating that into "bulls are as trustworthy as dogs" is akin to saying that seatbelts are harmful and should be banned because there have been a few cases of people surviving automobile accidents because they weren't wearing them. Pointing out exceptions doesn't disprove the rule. CThomas³ (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I spent a number of years of my childhood on a cattle ranch. "Never trust a bull" is gospel; they are quite unpredictable and very territorial. I also must point out that bulls are seldom found in feedlots, it is steers that are fattened for meat. This content is sourced and well-documented. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 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)

If you disagree with the information provided by the sources in the article, offer equally reliable sources with different information. Then we can present both and let the readers weigh them. bd2412 T 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not following your reasoning as to why So cattle are tame enough to be raised for meat, but wild enough to not be "pets"? can't be true. Check out this article on dangerous farm animals as an example. It points out that every farm animal can be dangerous (though it goes on to say that 50% of fatal and non-fatal farm accidents are caused by bulls). Just because something is raised for food doesn't make it safe; raising mushrooms is a great example. An animal raised by professionals taking proper safety precautions will likely be perfectly harmless, but that same animal around untrained people, especially children, is a recipe for disaster. CThomas³ (talk) 06:16, 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)

This line of reasoning is a non sequitur. Dogs can also be very dangerous - there is an entire section in the "Dog" article about this - without implying that they can't be pets. As for the "livestock" category, it is trivially easy to find literally tens of thousands of reliable sources describing bulls as livestock. bd2412 T 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Idle thought

This 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)

Just 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

	An 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 What should I do?
	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

I 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

I 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?

That'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

Hello 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

Hello 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.

Y 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)