delusion zone 

why is the article allowed to survive in this state? it apparently gets a POV pass by badly impersonating sardonic writing. most of the article is overt advocacy of a point of view (case making), beginning with an unsourced, ethereal claim that "[t]here is no evidence [for cow tipping as described,] aside from (mostly unreliable) eyewitness reports". what is a "(mostly unreliable) eyewitness" report? what about the part that is reliable? weasel words.

i don't think cows can be tipped either, but this is hardly an article that meets wikipedia policy/guidelines/standards for clarity, neutrality, or good writing. the second paragraph, for example, is badly written, pretend-intellectual humoro-babble for the sole purpose of setting up the inclusion of the cutesy, unnecessary phrase "precarious ruminants". the refrigerator example is strained, nowhere mentioning center of gravity. rather, it encourages a lower center of gravity than an honest attempt to simulate a cow would have, while making sure to reduce the lever. that's just the start. i would hack/slash my way through the thing, but i can tell from the history that it's the pet of some watching worshipers.

i hope nobody involved in creating/preserving this article ever marks anything at wikipedia as POV, original research, or unencyclopedic. wikipedia is not the farm team for the wannabe dave barry squad. and yes, that includes the useless pic caption. the prime criterion of a wikipedia article element is not how funny you think it is.