Talk:You have two cows

message: Granted the "two cows" jokes have been around a long time, but it seems to me that they are predated by other joke series -- if jokes that were being circulated on paper in the '80s are considered to have antedated the Internet then the same must be said about jokes that were common on Usenet.
The jokes that come to mind are first, the ever lengthening list of lightbulb jokes and second, the jokes about a string in a bar.     -- jbl
----
Why are these organized alphabetically? I seem to recall them being funnier when they were ordered as a political critique that got steadily more outrageous? 207.189.98.44 20:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In reference to "These definitions are examples of the first Internet jokes that circulated in the early days of the Internet." 

message: I can't find the article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates where it should have been. But it isn't on Wikipedia:Feature candidates/Archived nominations or Wikipedia:Featured articles either, so it seems never to have been on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page. Could the person wanting to nominate the article put it on the Wiki:FA canditates page and write there why s/he wants to nominate it? And then move the above notice as well to the article itself (where it should officially be)? Otherwise I'll remove the nominated notice. (By the way, I liked the article but I think it can still be made better.) Paul/laudaka (add me to your Y!M/AIM/etc. list if you like!) | Talk 17:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Found SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facfailed

message: I just removed a joke on Wikipedia, for the second time.  This one was funnier than the first one a few months ago, but it's not appropriate for the article space.  It's an in-joke that's unfunny to anyone but Wikipedians, it's a form of "original research" since it's presumably made up by the contributor, and it also violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.  That said, I'm going to put it on BJAODN. Isomorphic 04:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-references

message: Jimbo Wales has announced that he will be deleting the Jokebook from Wikibooks within 24 hours.  See Wikibooks:Staff lounge. Uncle G 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the Jokebook 

message: What in the nine hells of Baator are we doing citing Uncyclopedia in this article? What are we doing citing it in any article? Has anyone even LOOKED at the article on uncyclopedia? It adds nothing to the article, and it should be possible to find better, actually citable sources that help the reader understand the topic. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 19:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the infinite layers of the Abyss are you doing complaining about it on the talk page instead of editing the article? And have you tried finding those sources yet? The talk namespace is cheap... 82.92.119.11 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The You have two cows article can actually be looked at as a huge example list of you have two cows jokes. It solves the problem of having a list in here yet gives examples of You have two cows jokes. I see no reason for it's removal just because it's from a site you don't find the majority of stuff on funny.(To be honest a lot of stuff on there isn't funny sometimes to me eigther, but not always, Two cows is a Gem mostly.) at the very least, a link to this catagory of it http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows/17 fits in more with the traditional versions of the joke. -Sgore 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Sad day for citing sources 

message: User: Deltabeignet Originally deleted the giant list of jokes, then added two examples back. I do not believe a list of... forty "two cow" jokes really helps Wikipedia be an encyclopedia. I am removing them again, and upon re-addition without discussion, I will contact an admin for mediation. --DevastatorIIC 18:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but we need at least ONE cow joke.  We have the ridiculous situation of an article about a type of joke with no examples of the joke.  This is ridiculous.  TechnoFaye Kane 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a list of jokes

message: I first heard these as a political cartoon hanging in my HS history teacher's room.  The cartoon illustrated 5 or 6 political ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism) with the 2 cows.  The jokes had a cold-war slant, with capitalism being the punchline (...buy a bull!). I think one way to end constant edit wars with those wishing to add dozens of variations is to include an image illustrating the jokes.  I couldn't find a copy of the one I remember online, but it would be relatively easy to recreate it (thus also avoiding any copyvio issues).  --Alcuin 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about an image to illustrate the jokes? 

message: User:Light current deleted most of the content of this article without explanation. Was it because this article refers to a joke? This article is about a joke (one that is well known and common enough to warrant an article of its own, apparently). Rather than decimating the content of the article, perhaps User:Light current would like to submit this article for AfD in its original form. I propose that the original content of this article before User:Light current's recent modifications be restored. --Ghewgill 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete article is unencyclopedic. Yes please restore it if you like, then put it up for AfD.--Light current 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. --Ghewgill 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Light current, why did you do this?  If it's "unencyclopedic", explain why- don't just remove content. Friday (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments above are none of "nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information"; your allegation of harassment is invalid. Ibanix 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of most content 

message: This article doesn't seem to actually tell us anything about the jokes - like where did they come from. By the nature of the joke, I would assume it comes from some time during the cold war, as it is essentially designed to show how bad other economic systems are, and ends with a clever bit which also shows how great capitalism is. - Matthew238 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Content

message: The final para has a sentence that doesn't end. I can't edit it because I don't know how it should have ended. How people portray different ideologies depends often, entirely on their. Any suggestions? --Rhi 14:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence without an ending

message: Bad original research. People owned (and still own) cows in communism, so the central premise of the the paragraph is false. GregorB 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a negatory, GregorB. Under actual Communism, people do not own the cows; the state does. As for theoretical communism, there are as many different versions as there are communists; but for the most part, even at its most lenient, it's not 'ownership' but sharing. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: I had always thought that the definitive "you have two cows" routine was a monologue by Pat Paulsen (think proto-Ben Stein) on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, later included on his album Pat Paulsen for President, part of his parody campaign for the US Presidency in 1968 (think proto-Stephen Colbert). Truly hilarious.
I'm stunned no one has mentioned this earlier; I figured this routine was quite well-known, even nearly four decades later. Excuse me while I go chase the kids off my lawn.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This dates from at least the late '60s - c'mon, no one remembers Pat Paulsen? 

message: Pardon me, but all but the last reference all lead to www.proquest.com.  The website has nothing to do with the actual article.  Could someone please correct this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.17.132 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proquest links were added in December 2006 in response to a nomination for deletion. Imo, the external link to Capitol.net is sufficient to illustrate that the article is about a notable topic. I visited the article and was disappointed to find that there were only three examples, a load of inaccessible references to the same subsciption only site, and no external links to any more examples. While the article should not become a repository for further examples, there should be links to other sites with more such examples. Therefore I restored the external links. Viewfinder (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is badly neglected. There are quite a few quite good refs. I will improve the page today. Once again, it needs good encyclopedic text, not links to joke repositories, which people may find easily by google. Please notice also, that wikis and other anonymous content pages are not valid references in wikipedia, therefore capitol & uncyclopedia are both solid no-go. Fortunately, like I said, there is enough books printed with "bibovineisms" `'Míkka>t 01:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I cleaned up some bullshit & gave some extra leads. I hope someone continues the improvement. `'Míkka>t 03:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: My goodness this portion is awkward; I would Be Bold, except I am unfamiliar with the source material and therefore would be concerned I had edited it incorrectly:
:Richard M. Steers and Luciara Nardon in their book about global economy use the "two cows" metaphor to illustrate the concept of cultural differences. They write that jokes of this kind:[9]
:    * Russian company: You have two cows. You drink some vodka and count them again. You have five cows. The Russian Mafia shows up and takes however many cows you have.
:    * Californian company: You have a million cows. Most of them are illegals.
:These are funny because they are realistic caricatures of various cultures, and the pervasiveness of such jokes stems from the significant cultural differences. They further say that others argue that such jokes present cultural stereotypes and must be viewed with caution.
First problem - "They write that jokes of this kind"... that jokes of this kind WHAT? This appears to be a poor phrasing, of what should actually be "They write of jokes of this kind:", but could someone please clarify?
Second problem: "These are funny..." this immediately struck me as POV, until it ocurred to me that it may be from a quote. As in - was it originally a quote? In which case it should be formatted as such; however,if the text was intended to be a paraphrase, it should read more like "They argue that these are funny..."
Third problem: even if the "these are funny" portion is a quote, "They further say that..." is clearly either a paraphrase, or a quote with lead that is also mis-formatted.
This is sloppy-looking, ungrammatical and also terribly confusing for the reader, to whom it will also come across as POV. Someone familiar with the source material NEEDS to fix this, pronto. 68.18.55.19 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED: How much of this section is quote vs. paraphrase?

message: The following sources linked to pro quest where I have a subscription. "Guevarra, Argee", "Melnick, Rick", and "Insider Column. Thailand,"  I have tried searching the Authors name, tried to find the journal, and tried the Proquest document ID and nothing.
I did find the enronism avenue of the americas article, but it is just a telling of a joke in an editorial page, not a discussion of the joke.  The "Texan Bull" is a re-telling of the same Enron joke in the same Financial Times publication.  Again, no discussion of the joke, on a joke. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Sources 

message: * 1892 math primer - possible example of satire source? First Steps in Number: A Primary ... - Google Book Search
* 1938-39, mentioned in numerous periodicals as "doing the rounds currently". eg. Commercial Telegraphers' Journal. - Google Book Search, and The China monthly review - Google Book Search which suggests it was originally published by The Sun (New York).
* 1952 - The art of communicating ideas - Google Book Search
* British Parliamentary debates (Hansard). - Google Book Search - 
**House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Feb 1990, found at : House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Feb 1990
**Possibly in 1967 too: "You have two cows" hansard - Google Book Search
brief mentions from google scholar:
*Atlas: Second International Conference on Smarandache Type Notions In Mathematics and Quantum Physics - Abstracts
*Beyond the laboratory: scientists as ... - Google Book Search
Mostly historical uses, but might help. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Some explanatory text was deleted from this article in 2006 (as noted far above). It might be helpful to restore this, if supporting citations can be found, rather than rewriting from scratch. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just been watching The Plane Makers, an ATV drama from 1963. One character uses the 'two cows' political definitions in the episode 'Don't Stick Your Head Out', TX 14 October 1963. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential further sources

message: The full relevant excerpt of the 1944 article, reads:
:"Isms Isolated. [section title]
:The following definitions of isms, used in a political campaign in Chicago some years ago, are obviously unorthodox, but they are unusually specific, anything but abstract, and of telegraphic brevity. The objection to them is simply that they have something to "sell," something else to condemn, and that volumes pro and con have been written about these things. The definitions are: Socialism-If you have two cows, you give one to your neighbor. Communism-If you have two cows, you give them to the Government and the Government then gives you some milk. Fascism-If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the Government; then the Government sells you some milk. New Dealism-If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain. Naziism-If you have two cows, the Government shoots you and keeps the cows. Capitalism-If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull."
For future reference. (Also, our sentence introducing these examples, from this source, needs to be improved.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Modern Language Journal

message: Currently it reads "Two bovine animals possibly grazing what may be a field". Anyone want to propose a more reasonable one? 198.179.147.171 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's just 'Two cows' but the French article has a much better caption: "Voici vos deux vaches…" "Here are your two cows..." (Tout sonne mieux en français.) Snezzy (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually, in my quest to appease that one IP who seems to be very picky, gave it a more serious and relevant caption. ViperSnake151  Talk   14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: I found this, maybe you could use it? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.162.61 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Ideas 

message: The text in question has nothing about extension. It is an explanation of the meaning of these jokes, refernced from a scholarly book. YOu cannot dismiss serious boooks lightly.  - Altenmann >talk 17:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt call authors nonnotable: "Dr. Luciara Nardon is a Professor of International Business and Co-Director of the Centre for Research on Inclusion at Work (CRIW) at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business", i.e., has relevant expertise. - Altenmann >talk 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

text: , - well, you are splitting hairs, colleague. The "pece of satire" in question is the "metaphor  itself". And regardless how you describe it, the book in question explains why these jokes look funny and that they a not necessarily a faithful depiction of the mocked subjects. I.e., it is a nontrivial contribution to the article I added "a lifetime ago" (BTW, what relation this sniggering comment would have to the subject?).- Altenmann >talk 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yes, but as i said earlier, "establishing that this extension is worth noting here requires a secondary source")"