Talk:Burnt toast theory

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that burnt toast could save you from a car accident? Source: Bakshi, Pema (2023-09-07). "Lessons From The Algorithm: What We Could All Learn From TikTok's 'Burnt Toast Theory'". Grazia. Retrieved 2024-07-30.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/About People
  • Comment: Thanks for the review!

Created by Bsoyka (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 20 past nominations.

Bsoyka (t • c • g) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC).

• Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Interesting hook and article, thank you! Cunard (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Pulled per the discussion at WT:DYK#Burnt toast theory; a new hook is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Bringing the alt hooks suggested by Cunard over here:
    • ALT1: ... that according to a theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
    • ALT2: ... that according to a TikTok theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
    • ALT3: ... that a theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
    • ALT4: ... that a TikTok theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?

Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm approving all four hooks, but I'm leaning towards ALT1/ALT3 which attribute the theory to TikTok given the theory's unusual nature. The PopSugar ref is tagged unreliable, but what Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#PopSugar? the linked discussion doesn't disclose is that it has an editorial staff and public editorial guidelines and a separate health reporting policy, and that it's published by Vox Media (known for such WP:GRELs as Vox, Polygon, and the Verge), so I'm giving that source the greenlight. ALT1-4 ミラP@Miraclepine 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Equally, having to remake the toast could ensure that you DO get into an accident that you would otherwise have escaped; and equally, those few extra minutes in the coffee shop could allow you to come into contact with a person who decides to kill you on the spot.

If a thing happens, another thing might also happen. That is the deepest lesson available from this so-called theory. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's a very rigorous theory. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not just that though. It's not the lack of rigor. It's the lack of ... well, I guess it might sound harsh, but the lack of basic first-grader-type thinking skills. (I mean that quite literally.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this even worth keeping on Wikipedia? Even if you're an inclusionist, a minor TikTok trend based on a braindead understanding of philosophy hardly deserves its own page. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It barely constitutes a theory. It's more like the thin edge of the wedge for adding every half-baked observation by a fully-baked individual to Wikipedia. 24.79.52.162 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Luck, Good Fortune or Silver lining?

I'm appalled that random Tik Tok ramblings are are now being treated as such (There goes the Roman empire...)

This should be redirected to luck (of the dumb kind) or good fortune.

Sherlock Holmes observed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

Now, in 2024, claiming that there's a direct correlation between burning your toast and not dying apparently requires no evidence.

If all it takes to get referenced on Wikipedia now is making a random comment on Tik Tok, challenge accepted. 24.79.52.162 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It would also make sense to redirect this page to Butterfly Effect if it is not deleted entirely. 2601:281:8281:B720:48FF:FBB4:7ECB:9887 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is old wine in a new bottle. Folk wisdom which conveys much the same idea includes:

1. It's no use crying over split milk
2. It's an ill wind that blows no-one any good
3. Every cloud has a silver lining
4. Blessing in disguise

The latter two are existing Wikipedia articles and seem to be a good fit. I shall therefore propose merger.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"It's no use crying over spilt milk" is perfectly reasonable advice: "Don't waste your energy on something that's obviously impossible to fix". The others, you're right. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I've found another one which seems to be an even better fit – blessing in disguise. I've added it to the list. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: are there any sources that actually link these topics? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like your average TikTok sewerage is based on careful scholarship. Qwirkle (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, see here,

It’s not always easy to see the silver lining in life when we're faced with challenges. But one woman has come up with an interesting way to view life's little setbacks.
Karishma Fernandez has gone viral after sharing her 'burnt toast' theory.
In a video that has amassed over 80,000 likes on TikTok, the Dubai-based podcaster explained that the theory can actually be a blessing in disguise.

This uses both phrases, "silver lining" and "blessing in disguise". Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, so TikTokBSxLadBibleBS=scholarly wisdom! Is this kinda like multiplying negative numbers?

The phrase that scholars seem to like most is "silver lining" and there's enough papers to make more of that topic. Burnt toast – not so much. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I vote deletion!

I posted this elsewhere, this may be a better forum.

This "theory" or whatever you want to call it is logically bogus. Yes, burning your toast could prevent you from being in a serious car accident on the way to work by delaying you. BUT, it is JUST AS LIKELY that the burnt toast delays you INTO a serious car accident and away from an otherwise safe trip to work. So there is NO advantage to burning your toast. Assuming of course that the probability of having a serious car accident is independent of your departure time. And this would be true if the delay was just a few minutes, because rush hour traffic is equally dangerous throughout rush hour. And if the "theory" comes from a single tiktok posting, that is also pretty indicative. There is a lot of garbage on the net, and tiktok in particular. One person's single post on tiktok is an extremely poor indicator of good logic or intelligence, especially given the above argument. I vote DELETION!!! Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you. I think merging this one is pointless, and simply deleting it is better. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support deletion as a short-lived social media fad of unclear popularity. If the article's references are any indication, the "theory" seems to have faded from public attention after the beginning of the year. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with deletion and prefer it to merging/redirecting the page. 2601:281:8281:B720:D0D3:1727:847E:A0B1 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)