Talk:Why did the chicken cross the road?: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:21, 7 February 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Why did the chicken cross the road? article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Start‑class High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poultry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of Poultry task force, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PoultryWikipedia:WikiProject PoultryTemplate:WikiProject PoultryPoultry articles

Why did the chicken cross the road? was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Origins

Shiprock Story Doubtful

I'm sorry, but the explanation provided in the article seems like a bit of bull, and far less likely than the common explanation that it's simply anti-humor.

This is the only reference I know of and what it said has been written in the article. If you have any reasons to contest the reference, please provide your reference. If there are any alternate origins according to you, they can be added, provided they are backed by verifiable sources. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that I'm not the user who commented above.) Ever hear the expression "don't believe everything you read"? That story has all the earmarks of a fanciful explanation invented after the fact for what is really a very obvious and easy-to-understand joke with no need of a complicated origin story. If we're going to keep it around because there's a printed source (which I disagree with, look at snopes.com and see how many urban legends have shown up in newspapers as true stories) then we should at least preface it with strong disclaimers. DopefishJustin 09:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even I don't believe everything I read, and snopes is a favorite destination of mine to debunk many of the hoax e-mail claims that turn up ever so often. Even if its not snopes, I use google to good effect to trace the hoaxness of any story. It is alright to say that the joke doesn't need any origin, but that doesn't mean that we ignore the reported origins. I believed Reader's Digest to be an above average source and hence included the reference. Though the reference is from a local-language edition, AFAIK, it must have been forked from the English edition, something that been a best-selling general magazine in the United States. I think you are opposing to the source because it doesn't fit your perception. Unless there is a strong reason to doubt the source mentioned, I am against placing a warning/disclaimer. If you want the readers to be aware of the source without going to the references, you may add "According to Reader's Digest" in the text, which will let the readers assess the reputation of the source. And please don't mind the copyedit, and feel free to correct the sentences, if you find any. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Reader's Digest being "an above average source", I'd say this is fanciful. It publishes mainly freelance articles; editing is hardly journalistic. Not that it isn't sourcable here, but this origin is not likely for a variety of reasons, discussed below. --Otheus 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

One such story relates to the meaning of the word chicken as a cowardly person. As the story goes, the town of Shiprock, New Mexico had problems relating to poverty. Some of the poor children would get drunk and cross the road in order to show their bravery. Many times, this resulted in serious injury because of oncoming traffic, and sometimes even death. Knowing that the injured/dead person was a coward (chicken), people asked each other "Why did the chicken cross the road?" The original answer to this question was then "Because he was drunk." [1]

This makes no sense for the following reasons:

If people crossed the road while drunk "to show their bravery", then someone who unsuccessfully crossed the road while drunk would not normally be considered a coward (chicken). By that standard, the people who would be considered cowards would be those who refused to attempt crossing the road, not those who tried to do so but failed.
Shiprock, New Mexico currently has a population less than 9,000 people. The joke as we know it today was already known, and probably old, by 1915 (as indicated by the Writing for Vaudeville text cited in the article). According to the U.S. Census, the population of Shiprock in 1910 was only 179. U.S. Census (see p. 9) How much motor vehicle traffic could there have been in Shiprock, New Mexico, in 1915? My guess would be "not much". There were only about 2.5 million registered motor vehicles in the United States in 1915 [1] for a population of about 100 million [2], so if this rural town on an Indian reservation kept up with the national car ownership rate (unlikely in itself), it would have had about 5 motor vehicles in 1915. In other words, crossing the road in Shiprock in 1915 was probably very unlike trying to walk across the Autobahn or the Santa Monica Freeway today.
The source given is a Hindi-language edition of Reader's Digest; surely there would be a source more local to Shiprock if the story were authentic.

It's possible that "... Because he was drunk" was created in later years as a sardonic version of the original non-joke, but it would then just be a non-notable variation of the original "... To get to the other side", not the origin of the original joke which is what we are looking for. --Metropolitan90 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a clear example of the joke, I think I have pushed the dating back another ten years in At the Sign of the Jack O' Lantern (1905) by Myrtle Reed [3] MeltBanana 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I added RD origin). The story I read (and reported here) is a memoir of the (living) author. This means it can't possibly go back to 1905~15. If the joke is supposed to exist as back as that time, then I think that the reported origin is mistaken. Definitely we should rely on the earliest possible mention. So should we remove the said origin? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While with the 1905 claim of origin, I am myself now unsure if RD reported it correctly and so wouldn't oppose if this said origin is removed. But per say, I don't see any logical inconsistancy with the RD claim. The children in question were considered chicken (coward) in real life by their friends. So it would be natural to ask why they crossed the road. Expanding the quote for your understanding, we have: "Why did the person (who is a chicken in real life) tried to cross the road?". The answer would be "Although the person is a coward, he tried to cross the road as he was drunk". (Note: The expanded quotes were not reported and I made them up for your understanding). Hope this resolved the inconsistancy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj, thanks for responding. Your explanation does answer my first objection, but I still tend to think that at most the Shiprock story was a version of the existing classic riddle, rather than the originator of the joke, due to the fact that the joke can be dated to a time before there was any significant motor traffic in Shiprock. Do you have the Reader's Digest article available to you to confirm exactly what the article says? I placed a notice on the notice board for India-related topics to see if anyone else could confirm the content of the article but received no response. --Metropolitan90 18:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition?

http://experts.about.com/q/Etymology-Meaning-Words-1474/Chicken.htm claims that it originated as one of a common class of jokes among US middle-schoolers during Prohibition. However it cites no references. -- Securiger 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puns

This is how I've understood the joke for some time now, and do correct me if I'm wrong... aside from the anti-humour, it could also be interpreted as a pun. 'The other side' could refer to the other side of the road or to the other side of the grave, which the chicken will probably reach if it encounters traffic.

Interesting, because I always interpreted the joke as a pun on the word "cross," since to cross something also has the meaning to curse at something. If this is the more common understanding to someone, then the joke poses a tense question (something that seems to be the equivalent of "why did the chicken curse the road?") and then resolves it with the play on the word "cross."RSimione 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a Thomas Sparrow whose family has a plantation on the Rhode River since the 1600's. Descendent Thomas Sparrow was a confederate soldier/lawyer, who, rather than surrender at the end of the war, escaped 20 miles paddling down the river, just so he could keep his sword. From the perspective of a Union Soldier, Sparrow, the chicken crossed the Rhode to get to the other side (Confederate). The unfortunate part of the pun is that he actually paddled down the Tar River. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.1.132 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real roads

I am surprised at the explanations in the article and in the thread here-above. Anyone who has some experience with chickens running loose near a road will eventually notice that when a car approaches they tend to first sit and wait at the side of the road and then start running across at the worst possible moment. Loads of chickens get killed that way (I once flattened one on a motorbike in Thailand). So people all over the world will have wondered about this and asked the question. Some of those who didn't come up with the obvious answer (it's some sort of flight behaviour that doesn't work with the speed of cars) will have come up with this funny answer (to get to the other side). So the question is not really meant as a joke. The answer is, though. I don't have any sources for this, though. It just makes a lot of sense to me. DirkvdM 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I went about searching the net for possible origins, I found an origin claim that was consistant with what you said above. Initially I added it to the article (see lawsuit origin), but later when I couldn't find any back up of the claim from reliable source, I removed those origin claims. If you find any reference for this story dated before 1905, please add it to the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of earlier comic

Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers Not Sure: When Did the Chicken Cross the Road? http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/6/prweb533809.htm

I took the liberty of removing the duplicated text of the XooxleAnswers press release, and will refrain from commenting on its claims, which do not relate to the article. The cite from Knickerbocker Magazine is most welcome. I also removed an anonymous, unsourced addition to the article that claimed an even earlier possible origin. If that editor has solid sourcing for the info, I hope s/he will add it. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Harvard Lampoon reference, which seemed garbled and may have been missing context. Also deleted a trivial reference to the use of the joke in a movie. I hope it won't be necessary to fend off a host of incidental references to the chicken joke from every corner of pop culture. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of the earliest printing of the joke is simply to the issue of the Knickerbocker with the joke in it; while this does corroborate the fact that the joke did appear there, it doesn’t actually substantiate the claim that it is the earliest printing, which is what the citation surely should do? It may be absolutely correct, but as it stands it appears to be original research. Jock123 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've reworded it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Variations

There are many variations in the form of "Why did the [insert target group here] cross the road", should the article title changed into something like Lightbulb joke? Bennylin (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chicken jokes that are associated with particular people do compare to the lightbulb joke. I inserted a phrase and wikilink. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong, or does it seem in bad taste to use a sexist joke as an example of a variation on the chicken joke (the "why did the woman cross the road" version). The point could be made without being offensive, and I think that if it were a different kind of offensive joke (i.e. racist, anti-semetic, etc.) it would create much more of a controversy. In fact I'm surprised it hasn't yet. I understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to editorialize, but removing this joke would not change or adversely affect the point being made in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.173.214 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a silly tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other variations

There's probably lots, and the problem of identifying which if any of them are notable, but I do rather like the one by David Mamet in Heist (film) "Know why the chicken crossed the road? Because the road crossed the chicken." http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020505/ANSWERMAN/205050311 Шизомби (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: "Why did the chicken cross purgatory?" "To get to the Other Side." 107.185.146.116 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I still don't get it. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC) :P It's funny because you expect a difficult answer, but instead you get a straightforward one. Like, "To get to the other side. Why else would it cross the road? Duh!." Get it?, it's so they can make fun of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.116.164 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, why did the fireman wear red suspenders? To keep his pants up! :-D --Magmagirl (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math variation

Why Did the Chicken Cross the Möbius Strip?

To get to the same side.

This is a (math oriented) variation of the joke, which keeps the chicken, but discards the road. Since there is a "Some variants do away with the chicken all together, retaining only the road motif:" part of the article, maybe something such as this could be added too? Darth Vader (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim for longevity

I simply find it not creditable at all that there wouldn't be older riddles still in use, or at least a lack of clear proof that this is one of the oldest. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are many older riddles. The Riddle of the Sphinx, is one much older example. I've removed this claim from the article. - SimonP (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Can anyone with an acct pls correct the main article sentence from "it was probably running for it's life" to "it was probably running for its life" Its hurts my eyes to see its misused. :p 82.181.244.242 (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've cut the self-described "seldom used" punchline entirely, given that the section is more usefully about the broader classes of the joke, rather than people's individual favourites. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another take

I haven't read the discussion completely, but my take on the joke is: The "chicken" is a cowardly person and the "other side" is the post death. Hence the cowardly person is committing suicide as an easy means to get to the after life. This may just be over analysis like when one stares at a blank canvas in a modern art museum; there's really nothing there. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This punchline makes the joke actually funny! The joke isn't a not-humor joke, the other side means the afterlife. I'm surprised the wiki page is wrong. --24.176.10.66 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of punchlines make the joke actually funny, but given sources suggest that the riddle was originally intended as a type of nonsensical anti-humor. The 1847 magazine article says "There are 'quips and quillets' which seem actual conundrums, but yet are none.", not "there is a quip that seems like a conundrum, but which is actually a clever joke about the afterlife". --McGeddon (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not the only one who gets the joke then! What a relief. It only took me 19 years to figure it out myself.

1847 intro as afterlife interpretation

After citing the 1847 version of the joke, the article currently states "In this context it seems most likely that the joke was of dark humor..." but this seems to me entirely at odds with the text quoted, which says "There are 'quips and quillets' which seem actual conundrums, but yet are none." That seems pretty clearly to be saying "there is no good reason for the answer to this, it's just a silly quip".

The phrase "seems most likely" seems rather like an opinion with no very good backing - I'd hesitate to call it "Original Research", but it certainly seems a jump from "possible" to "most likely" based on the evidence given. - IMSoP (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but this seems like clear original research - the joke dates to the 1840s, and "crossing the road" would hardly have been regarded as a method of suicide fifty years before the invention of the car. I've reverted it to frame it as "anti-humor" and restored the 1890s "fowl proceeding" gag. --McGeddon (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: In 1878, 237 people were killed and 3,961 injured by carriage horses on the streets of London,^[1] and in 1900, more people died per capita in New York than do on the city's roads today.^[2] Obviously, roads were deadly, though to a lesser extent in towns and smaller cities, and I'm sure the death toll would have been higher for chickens. I'm going to stick my neck out and say it's a pun. The chicken was trying to get to the other side [of a busy road], but ended up on "the other side" (was killed). Firebrace (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put the suicide interpretation back in the article

Not me, though. --173.77.222.19 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lede was claiming "others contend that it is in fact a misunderstood pun" and a new "Explanation" section presenting the anti-humor and suicide pun as equally plausible theories (with some sources showing that calling the afterlife "the other side" was not unknown in the 19th century, but nothing beyond that). I've cut it back to a single "here is another punning interpretation", in the absence of any sources explicitly describing the joke as a suicide pun. --McGeddon (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Scots Magazine. Vol. 96. D.C. Thomson. 1971. p. 385.
^ Eric Morris (2007). "From Horse Power to Horsepower". ACCESS. 30. University of California Transportation Center: 2–9.

Alternate meaning

I have always interpreted the "other side" part as a double entenddre, the other side means "Heaven" (As in "see you on the other side"), since I doubt chickens stop and look both ways. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most simple and profound keeping to the nature of riddle. 174.52.1.132 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

double entendre, from the French verb entendre, only one d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide theory?

There is a Theory that says the chicken had a bad life so it crossed the road full of deadly cars to get to "the other side"

Why did the elephant cross the road ? It was tied to the chicken.

Illustrations

The illustrations are superb. I had no idea so much fun could be had with Wikipedia illustrations. Velocipedus (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an equivalent of this joke in other languages?

This joke is hard to understand when you are not a native English speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a suicide joke

And it's very dark 36.85.223.220 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slime

Why did the chicken cross the road the answer is how to get to the other side 2600:1006:B05A:53FA:141C:3B0:2F49:103 (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Scots Magazine. Vol. 96. D.C. Thomson. 1971. p. 385.

[2] Eric Morris (2007). "From Horse Power to Horsepower". ACCESS. 30. University of California Transportation Center: 2–9.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{talk
+{{talk page}}
+{{WPBS |collapsed=yes |1=
+{{Comedy|class=start|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Poultry}}
+}}
+{{annual readership}}
+{{WikiWorld|Image:Mike wikiworld Headless.jpg}}
 == Origins ==