Talk:Buttered cat paradox

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Significance of the Brazilian energy drink advert – should it remain in the article?

Hello,

I'm wondering if the sentence beginning "Brazilian energy drink brand" should remain in this article. First, the brand has no Wikipedia page. Second, I'm not sure if it's of any service to the reader – all it's saying is that a company used this concept in an advert. I'm actually not sure about most of that section – would it not be better simply to write that this concept is popular enough to have been seen in multiple different pieces of media? I'm not sure if the level of detail it currently has is necessary. What do others think? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is WP:WEIGHT. The "In humor" section makes up almost half of the article. I don't see a problem with mentioning all of the examples, but the section should be condensed with only a brief mention of each item. It may not even need to be a separate section. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose: Thank you for your response. If you can determine how to properly condense the section, please feel free to do so. I'm not sure how it could be done myself; however, I can possibly do some copyediting after it has been condensed if necessary. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is humour, so it's a bit of a non sequiter having an "In humor" section. It's really an "In popular culture" section by another name. As usual with this kind of section, there is very little discussion of the topic in humour. Rather it is an indiscrimate and unconnected list of contributors' favourite piece of media. Anyway, some of it can definitely go; so there was a discussion on Usenet – who cares, there's probably discussions on Reddit, Whatsapp and Twitter but it's not encyclopaedic. The fact that it came up as a question on QI is also marginal. The responses were funny, but unless there is some broader discussion of its relevance and meaning in humour it's just a random fact. SpinningSpark 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark: Would you be able to remove the examples which are indiscriminate? I don't feel confident trying to do it myself; I'm not exactly sure what should stay and what should go. Also, there might be references establishing some examples are not indiscriminate that I wouldn't be able to find due to being unable to visit many websites. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all indiscriminate as far as I'm concerned. I'm not seeing any encyclopaedic discussion that links these things together, at least none that is sourced. It's just a random, disconnected list. SpinningSpark 16:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark: So do you think the section itself should be removed entirely? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That was my implication. I've done it frequently on other articles. I usually try to make an effort to replace it with something encyclopaedic, but that may be difficult in this case. SpinningSpark 17:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for cat and buttered toast interaction

@Roostery123: Are you sure that there is no known interaction between cats and buttered toast? [1]. SpinningSpark 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation for the claim that toast is an inanimate object?

Are we sure that toast is both inanimate, and lacks the desire to right itself? 2600:1700:2EE0:2DD0:D1FF:EE36:EDAF:9F53 (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm also sure that anyone who believes that toast does have desires is a moron. Please read the previous discussions on this. SpinningSpark 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement clearly isn't required, and seems to be kept mostly for humour. A less strident response would be more in line with this desire. You catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar. (Hohum ^@) 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right that I did not need to be rude, and I apologise. You are not right that the statement is not necessary. If we are going to have an "in reality" section, this is needed because it is the central reason why the idea is fallacious, along with more general adages such as Murphy's law, Sod's law, and the Malice of inanimate objects. I am just so tired of people raising this on the talk page or slapping a citation needed tag on it as if it were actually a suspect claim. That is just useless, time-wasting, make-work. It is the end result of the Wikipedia little blue number disease whereby some editors think that every single scrap of text must have an inline citation. It doesn't. Further, it doesn't by policy. There comes a point when we just have to start resisting this trend, and that point is reached by utterly silly requests to cite this claim. Not that it can't be cited, Richard Dawkins in his book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True says exactly that. But we are not going to put it in as a cite because it has been repeatedly agreed on these talk pages that it is neither necessary nor desirable to have cites like this. SpinningSpark 15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Beg to differ with revert. If you look up nearly any reference to pareidolia, toast is mentioned as inanimate.

[2]

"In 2004, an online casino bought a toasted cheese sandwich for $28,000 from Diane Duyser, bearing the face of a woman. Duyser said she was taking a bite from the toast when she noticed a face in her toast staring back at her, which is a bit scary.

Duyser's sandwich is just one of the many things when people often see faces in everyday objects, from a surprised bowling ball to a grimacing apple. Some would also claim that they see Jesus on their toast, taco, and pancake or even on a banana peel just as how Dursey saw a woman on hers.

Seeing faces in inanimate objects is called the face pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon that relates to how the human brain is primed. " Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wakelamp is referring to this more recent deletion which post-dates, and is unconnected with, the earlier discussion here from July. Extracting from the source's statement that people see faces in toast, that toast is inanimate is the epitome of WP:SYNTH. Read the guideline, we don't do that here. It is not for me to "look up nearly any reference to pareidolia", the issue is that the source you put in the article does not say that. Besides which, as I said above, Richard Dawkins provides a much better citation that is directly on the subject of falling toast. It's never been used because the overwhelming consensus from the ten zillion discussions we've had on this is that no citation is needed at all. So even if you do find a good citation, it will likely still be reverted by someone. SpinningSpark 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it sufficient to say that because I think someone is a moron for believing something, that a counter-claim is forbidden? I believe there cannot be life so small I cannot see it with my eyes, only a moron would think so, therefore a claim saying such life exists is not necessary. I believe there cannot life inside the radioactive parts of a nuclear power plant, inside the ice of the Antarctic or inside rocks; anyone making such a claim is a moron. Or I may be wrong.

It might be a joke that toast lands buttered side down because the world hates us, but there is no harm in testing that theory. We might just discover that smaller or larger slices stop it happening (they do), living on a body with greater or weaker gravity or with a different atmosphere could prevent it (it could). What about rectangular crispbreads: does the orientation of fall make a difference (and might that result in learning something about evacuating bed-bound people from hospitals)? Research has been done into prayer to see if it works - imagine if that had proven prayer does work, as so many people believe it does. Just because I don't expect it to work does not make testing it invalid. Do nuns and murderers have the same toast falling experience? How about charity volunteers and traffic wardens?

Yes, in this specific instance, specifically about buttered toast and its evil tendency to turn 180° at will really does warrant research because so many lay people think, or wish, or imagine it might be the case, morons or not. Just because by observation the sun is going round the Earth, does not make it so, and a quick check might be in order, just in case. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)