Talk:Buttered cat paradox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"and butter-side-down on the floor in 81% of cases"

errr, nowhere in the linked article does it state 81%

19. ^Slater, Chris (2013-09-05). "(-Rav)/ t = R: Manchester boffins find formula for why toast lands butter side down". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 2017-03-06.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/-rav--r-manchester-boffins-5842879

prove me wrong 92.28.159.146 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This gives the 81% figure. This points out that what this was really about was promotion for the Big Bang Theory coming out on DVD. I can't find anything about Smith actually publishing this research. I suspect that it was only ever "published" as a press release. SpinningSpark 12:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Origins, revisited

With respect to the 2015 Origins comment above: The origin is likely Douglas Adams, from his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. I distinctly remember the description of a cat with buttered toast tied to its back could "logically never reach the floor." This would have been the 1980s or early 1990s, probably. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I searched through all the HGttG books and could find no such reference. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Google for "douglas adams buttered toast cat" and you'll find plenty of mentions of Adams being the origin of the paradox. It may have been in one of his other books (Dirk Gently perhaps). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also seen a comment about how the paradox is resolved by the cat landing on its feet and then rolling over to put the butter on the carpet, thereby satisfying both. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hey, could you tell me what parts of my edits did you find unsatisfactory beside changing the title? Still new to the site. X7 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the above post here from my talk page. As I said in my edit summary, it is ironic that you wish to expunge all humour from a humorous article. I object to you doing that in general—there is no proscription against humour on Wikipedia, we should not be misleading or unencyclopaedic, but there is nothing against humour per se—and in particular I object to the removal of "Toast, being an inanimate object, lacks both the ability and the desire to right itself." Furthermore, that sentence has been the subject of much discussion here (over whether or not it needs a citation) so removing it altogether without discussing here first is obviously controversial. By the way, if the lack of a citation is your problem, you will see that I provided a citation, from Richard Dawkins no less, further up the page which says precisely that about toast. However, the consensus here seems to be that actually providing a citation would be an exceptionally dumb thing to do. You also removed "This may be one of the origins of the ascriptions of nine lives, rather than one, to cats." Perhaps lack of a cite was also the reason here? It was not hard to find one. Here's another [1] in a National Geographic video (in the last few seconds. SpinningSpark 23:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, XSevn, please read: WP:Concensus and WP:BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Major revisions to an existing article, that has developed a stable history, require by policy and Wikipedia convention for civility, a new talk page discussion (such as this) before unilaterally expecting such changes to be made without being reverted to the historical version. For a similar article, please see Tortoiseshell cat and its talk page regarding "Tortitude". I have been involved in a number of discussions on this talk page and thusly I too kindly object to your revisions. Your edits were reverted as "good faith" and established concensus in the article itself and on this talk page is for the current or similar humourous tongue-in-cheek version. We are now in the "discuss" part of the cycle, so if you wish to seek a new concensus, you may certainly comment further. All the best and welcome to Wikipedia. Fylbecatulous talk 00:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've posted my thoughts elsewhere on the talk page. X7 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know to check the talk page before editing the article. I removed it because I thought that it was an obvious statement that didn't really need to be pointed out. It seemed like it was only there because it was funny, and I assumed that Wikipedia frowned upon humor in general. As to the sentence "This may be one of the origins of the ascriptions of nine lives, rather than one, to cats", I removed this sentence because I thought it wasn't relevant to the paradox itself. As I've commented, I suggest to move the line about toast "lacking the ability and desire to right itself" to later in that section, maybe at the end of the toast paragraph, so the humor doesn't "break up" the rest of the section - I think it flows better. What do you think? X7 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the toast sentence is in exactly the right place. It first addresses the idea that toast always lands buttered side down due to the malice of inanimate objects, an implied premise of the paradox, and shows it to be wrong. The paragraph then goes on to say that there are quite objective physical reasons for the behaviour instead. That is a logical progression of ideas. SpinningSpark 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As is stated at this article top it has been named as one of the most entertaining articles by the Huffington Post:

As well, I wrote the coresponding article on Simple Wikipedia: [2]], adapting it from our version here. If you look, it is constructed in very similar fashion to this one (but in simpler wording). Although it lacks the humor paragraph because the version is for people learning English and some lack the ability to understand nuance, the content is still tongue-in-cheek. I am going to be difficult to convince that anything needs tinkering with this version. It reads in logical order and is properly constructed for the intended effect. Fylbecatulous talk 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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? [3]. 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.

[4]

"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)

@Spinningspark Possibly "Read the guideline, we don't do that here." is a bit harsh for a discussion about buttered toast and cats, but I assure you I am not at a barbarians at the gates of WP:SYNTH.

However, "toast, being an inanimate object, lacks both the ability and the desire to right itself" is also WP:SYNTH as there is definitely an implied thence and a few syllogisms going on,

Inanimate objects do not have the ability move

Toast is is an animate object

=> Toast does not move

Inanimate objects do not desires

Toast is is an inanimate object

=> Toast does not have the desure

The turning cat acutually does not have a desire, but has a need as the movement is a necessary for survival. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:47, 22 April 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.

Hence I think, just this time, a 'citation needed' is appropriate. There is clearly a need for someone to check, just in case, that buttered toast really has no free will and no self-righting desire, even if just to get it published in the Annals of Improbable Research. Humanity needs to know. And philosophy needs to know too, to expand the meaning of 'inanimate'. Just in case. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: An editor added a "cleanup" tag to this article, on the basis that it was assertedly 'dripping with satire'. I have removed the tag based on the previous discussions and consensus that the tone of the article is appropriate for the subject. BD2412 T 03:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BD2412 I think it is dripping with satire, and may also be a trap for the unwary as citation required, but no citation is deemed acceptable.

  Thinly veiled Ad hominem arguments about morons don't help the case. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, is there any other sentence in the article besides the one about toast being inanimate that is "dripping with satire"? It seems odd to label an entire article as needing cleanup on that point over a single sentence, so I would like to know what other points cited in the article are objectionable. As for toast being inanimate and therefore lacking an ability or desire to act, I have now added a reference for the general proposition that inanimate objects do not have desires. BD2412 T 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the whole section titled "In reality" has the same issue, although a "tone" tag may be more appropriate than a cleanup tag. Honestly though, if you don't know what I'm talking about here I'm somewhat at a loss to explain it to you.

  If there have been a variety of previous discussions on this topic, perhaps the "consensus" that there's nothing wrong with the article doesn't actually exist? this sounds like the kind of situation that results when the majority of editors think the article is unserious, but most of them don't want to bother with a content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Have we lost sight of the fact that this is supposed to be funny (call it satire if you wish)? That it does not try to suggest that any of the physical properties of toast are realistically described? If we want to split hairs (and thereby defeat the purpose of the humor), we could challenge whether buttered toast might actually have physical properties that could make it more likely that the buttered side will become oriented with the butter side down. That would not require any anthropomorphological assumptions about toast having a "desire". So should we expand the "In reality" section to include more detailed scientific analysis from physicists? Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

perhaps, well, I don't know, if the article is supposed to be funny, perhaps maybe it doesn't belong in article space? - car chasm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, though, I'm not *really* on a crusade to stop people from being funny on the internet, so if enough people feel strongly about this and want to keep it, I don't really feel the need to pursue this any further. - car chasm (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The article itself is not supposed to be funny. The paradox is supposed to be funny. We can write articles about funny concepts. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Further to that, it is fairly difficult to write a serious article in a clinical way about a humorous phenomenon without sounding overly earnest. Compare How much wood would a woodchuck chuck and Chicken or the egg. BD2412 T 23:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)