Talk:Bullwhip

Sonic Booms

The article text states, "When the tip of the cracker goes supersonic a minor compression wave (sonic boom) is created." This was the current thinking until 2002 when Alain Goriely showed that it was a loop in the whip travelling towards the tip and not actually the tip that causes the boom or crack. The article on whips documents this fact correctly and this article should be changed to reflect the current knowledge in the field as well. --68.195.209.181 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this has since been disproved.

Got a citation of this dis-proof?167.206.235.5 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one - Physical Review Letters 89, 011303 (18 June 2002)

Actually, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011303 is Limit on the Detectability of the Energy Scale of Inflation. I think you were referring to Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 244301, Shape of a Cracking Whip, which is the article I was referring to in the first message above. I searched Phys. Rev. Lett. from v89 - v98 for whip in the keyword and only the Goriely article showed up that mentioned whip cracking. So far, I still haven't seen any dis-proof of Goriely's article and I think the article should be changed.68.195.116.81 02:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

I removed the references to BDSM. When the broomstick and gerbil articles see fit to include such references, then I'll concede it may have a place here. DanD 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The comparison with broomsticks is at best criple: they are made for use in a broom, which is primarily for sweeping, while all whips are made for whipping, which makes BDSM and other forms of whipping artifical links in broomstick, but natural ones in flogging devices. What on earth a rodent has to do with either is beyond me, perhaps you know of some other use and would then to well to add it there. Fastifex 09:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• My humble apologies for not being more specific earlier. This is an encyclopedic article on bullwhips. References to BDSM do not enhance the description or understanding of a bullwhip, and detracts from the encyclopedic value of this article. To be fair, the article on BDSM should be updated to more accurately reflect the references in that article to whipping. I have done this by pointing the reference to 'whipping' to this article with some minor verbage changes.

To be more clear and possibly a bit redundant, I'll explain further. Many things have many different uses. If we list all percieved uses in all articles that describe all things, wikipedia would be the most un-encyclopedic mess of irrelevant content imaginable. The article on a practice should definately include all the variations of that practice, including the use of bullwhips, broomsticks, or gerbils, so long as that content is not originated here and is verifiable and substantiated elsewhere. I do hope this helps. I am not making these edits due to some moralistic or censorship agenda, and I will continue to make these edits ad nauseam. DanD 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Fastifex - excellent point. Whips are made for whipping. This is an article on bullwhips. We'll keep the content related to whipping. Its all fixed now. DanD 03:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While broomsticks are made for brooms, they are a common instrument of sodomy. Gerbil's are purported to be used for gerbilling or felching. Both are human sexual practices, as is BDSM. This is an article on bullwhips, not on human sexual practices. I have again removed the reference to such practices. I have added a link to bullwhip in the BDSM article so that those interested in whips for that practice can better find the information they seek. DanD 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WILL YOU FINALLY STOP REVERTING THE TALK ORDER ????? It's even more childish falsification of the truth then your 'objection'. Pretending an article on a whip should be silent about whippings it's used for is like saying broomstick can't mention sweeping or only when done at home anxc not, say, as a Jain act of piety. Fastifex 09:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding reverting the talk order, but I do appreciate how you've improved the format of our discussions here. As for your retort where you contend I would claim 'broomsticks' and 'sweeping' would not belong together, I must object. Clearly they do belong together, as do whips and whipping. However, if you wish to include a section on human sexual behavior in an article about bullwhips, then you should also include a section on cruelty to animals, lesions, and trauma. The point is, the list of inclusions would be endless. This is why we work to keep things on point. As for your contention that I am engaged in a 'childish falsification of the truth', this is simply an emotional reaction on your part that is simply unwarranted and untrue. Have you clarified my edit to the BDSM page that points to this Bullwhip article? Or, have you added a BDSM section to the article on human sexuality, which is strangely lacking any mention at all of bondage. DanD 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex - your insistence on BDSM content belonging in this article is tiring. I think it time we call for a broader peer review. Wouldn't you agree? I contend that your choice of words "seems to be restricted" in the BDSM context are weasel words and are not substantiated by a the popular culture beyond BDSM circles, as well as my other arguments above. Would someone else please chime in. Thanks. DanD 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm gonna go with fastifex on this. the inclusion of a couple of words makes little difference to the article either way, but including the info does not harm the page, so it is not something to be bothered by. the association of a bullwhip with BDSM is pretty well known, much more so than broomsticks and gerbils (ick). i see no good coming from a very brief and notable inclusion of a little factoid being excluded. you may say that is not "encyclopedic", one of the most ridiculous and meaningless buzzwords used on this site, but the encyclopedic-ness is a measure of a subject itself rather than it's relevance, thus we are not to judge how "encyclopedic" something is, as this has nothing to do with writing an informative page. in the context in which it is used on wikipedia, it seems that people use it to defend the removal of anything that they feel is silly from the site, but keep in mind that silly does not mean irrelevant, and i wish that people would stop using the word in the context that you do. now, let's just leave it in and have a nice cup of tea. :)Joeyramoney 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Joeyramoney - simply because you don't like the term 'un-encylopedic' doesn't make it any less relavent for this discussion. I've presented some points here that explain why I think this content doesn't belong, and you have addressed none of them. A 'factoid' may seem harmless to you. However, numerous 'factoids' sprinkled liberally throughout this encylopedia turn it into a collection of trivia that is at best difficult to wade through, and at worst makes the work of many contributors impossible to navigate. I have expanded the BDSM article to include a link to Bullwhip. This would be a good direction for you and others to take your edits. A link to a website selling sexual toys with explicit nudity really does not belong here, and violates the principle that Wikipedia pages should for the most part be self-referencing, and not a collection of links to external advertisers. This link does nothing to further your argument that this content belongs here. Go find a reference outside of the BDSM community that says a majority of all bullwhips made or sold today are used for BDSM and I will consider myself educated. Be sure such data is verifiable and includes multiple demographics. Until then, I will continue to remove this content here. DanD 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i never said that the majority of bullwhips are used for bdsm, just that they are commonly used, which is verified by my reference. what i meant about "encyclopedic" is that you seem to be removing the content not based on it's relevancy, but rather that the fact itself seems silly. in modern america, it is very often associated with bdsm, so in my mind it seems quite relevant, at least to the extent of one freaking sentence. you seem fixated on the subject itself (maybe if you actually took into consideration what I said, i wouldn't have to go over this) rather than it's part in this article. although it may seem silly, it is true and you cannot deny that. now, i understand your concern that the articles of this wonderful site all end up as garbage, but adding one sentence to one article will not cause that. if i gave you a million links , i know that you would not let this ridiculous little thing go, but it's worth a try. quite fankly, i would appreciate it if you grew up a little and stop panicking over one bloody sentence that does nothing to the article. Joeyramoney 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) edit- one more thing; why is this any different than the indiana jones ref. which you do not dispute? as i said, "encyclopedic" is referring to the subject, not the relevance, which is equal to the former. Joeyramoney 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the BDSM content because it absolutely seemed unrelated to this subject, which is why having it here seemed silly. I take very seriously the edits and concerns of fellow Wikipedians, but having you or anyone simply state their case for material in an article without providing some sort of conforming verbage (POV) and justification (Citing sources) is nothing more than a rant. And yes, one sentence is all it takes to slide down the slippery slope to garbage. Personal attacks and criticisms aside, you have changed this one silly little sentence enough from its original form, and you have provided appropriate references (WP:EL), such that this content no longer seems silly. As for your personal remarks, please understand that not all Wikipedians hail from the same culture as you, nor do we all have the same values. What you may take for granted may seem outragous by others. Thank you for your persistence and your edits. DanD 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As both a deletionist and a reasonable person, I've shortened the name of this section. Any attempts to put it the way that it was when I got here should be regarded as a sign that the editor responsible does not have suitable judgment to address this issue, and, if I may say so, should be considered for a temporary ban from the Wiki. I mean it, Dan. We will not be spoken to in that tone of voice, and you make your inability to comprehend the matter in question apparent with stunts like that. Stuart Ravn (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that this conversation is six years old. What I said remains. I'm deeply insulted that the idea of fetish and BDSM should be so directly and callously put on the same level with what I regard as the urban myths of gerbil anal play and "felching." I came here via the Cat o' nine tails talk, where someone was convinced not to be bold enough to add the information I was looking for to that article because of the insanely prudish, and, more to the point, entirely unencyclopedic rantings of user DanD on this talk page. I came today to Wikipedia for information not on BDSM itself but on a sex toy. I can buy a cat at a sex shop; I can buy a bullwhip at the same shop. What is "outrageous" is that DanD would be so adamant about forcing this article to conform to an artificial standard of social acceptance. The goddamn object is a torture device in the first place. Who anyone thinks they are to say that sex may not be celebrated on this or other entirely relevant articles is beyond me. I will be seeing to this page at my earliest convenience; I merely wanted to express my feelings of disgust and disappointment at this utterly misguided application of deletionism before my edits were similarly bombarded with puritanical assholery. Stuart Ravn (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

DanD has made some excellent points above, including some very legitimate ones for keeping the BDSM information to other, more relevant articles. Your time would be better spent linking to it from there, rather than fighting over it here. --Hetar 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

4th opinion

If I where you guys I would worry more about the accuracy of the article rather than the BDSM aspect. I mean there are some gaping holes in this definition.

First bullwhips are still used quite a bit in the midwestern U.S. by real cowboys. I know it's hard for you guys to grasp the notion that real cowboys still drive cattle and horses the old fashion way on horseback cracking real bullwhips. But I just sold 2 whips to 2 different "working" cowboys last week. The style of whip called a bullwhip originated with the Vaquero cowboys that came into America in the Spanish colonial period and landed in California and Texas. It is a distinctly American design and was originally made from rawhide. Of which the Vaquero's where master braiders. They taught their craft to the Americans cowboys and Buckaroos and they took it from there. It did not originate in Australia.

"as well as to slay predators. While a bullwhip can be used for protection against stray cattle, it would be very rare for the herdsmen to actually strike the animal due to the damage that can be inflicted."

You may be surprised to find that one does not need protection from stray cattle. What you do need is to find the stray cattle and get them back to the heard so you can get them to market. You don't "cast" a bullwhip. You cast a fly rod. You throw a bullwhip. Guns are for slaying predators. Bullwhips are for making noise. Have you ever been confronted by a angry "uncut" bull? I have. Hitting them with a bullwhip might deter them some or even make them change the track of their charge but it would not do much damage to them. Consider what was done to cattle to mark them with a brand. The cowboys did that to each and every bull and cow in the heard. Now compare that to the damage a bullwhip can do. Do you think they would hesitate to hit a charging bull with the whip? On the other hand horses do not need to be hit with the whip as they move quite easily just from the noise. So do most cattle. But not angry bulls. Why do you think they call someone that is stubborn "Bull Headed"?

"The hero, Indiana Jones uses it as a means of controlling his enemy's position while he maneuvered for advantage. He can also use it to snare handheld objects and pull them away from his enemies, while the same technique allows him to use the whip as a swing line to traverse gaps."

it's hard to know where to start with this absolute garbage. But I'll give it a try. Lets see have any of you ever tried to swing from a tree on your bullwhip. I wouldn't recommend it especially if the whip was attached to the tree or anything else for that matter via what is commonly known as a wrap. It would pull loose as soon as you tried. This stuff is fiction. Hellooooo it's a movie. The whip used in the movie for the swinging scenes was not a "working " whip I doubt it even cracked. It was made with a very strong wire cable so they could rig it to actually hold the actor's weight.

"Even city dwellers became interested in the art of whip making and whip cracking. Having little ability to drive cattle in an urban setting, the modern bullwhip is now more well known for doing target work [citation needed]"

Actually if you had done your home work on this you would know that some of the larger whip competitions have to do with routines evolving multiple cracking using two whips one in each hand. So much so in fact that the Australians are trying to get the sport in the Olympics.

"though due to the much larger size the damage inflicted from bullwhip flogging can be much more severe than that of a cat o' nine tails. Bullwhips are occasionally associated with BDSM [1] [2]."

What is "bullwhip flogging"? Take it from one who knows the size of the wound inflicted by a bullwhip is quite small and narrow. While it does often bleed the damage is quite minor as it is only a friction burn. Bullwhips are Almost always associated with BDSM. Have you ever heard the term "Whips and Chains"?

"During trick shots, or target work the fall is usually the portion of the whip used to cut, strike, or tie the target. The fall can also be a continuation of one of the strands used in plating the overlay. Further, the fall can be an extension of the core of the whip, with the strands from the overlay tied off, and the core continuing on as the fall."

OMGLMAO OK the fall is on the whip for one thing and one thing only and that is to take the wear of the ground and the popper/cracker. It is much cheaper to replace the fall than it is to replace the braided thong and a lot less work I might add. That is why you will not see a fall made from the core of the whip. At least not a "working" leather whip. The only place you might see this is on a nylon whip. As for target cutting the only guys that use the fall for cutting re hacks that can't hit the target with the popper/cracker. I wonder what would happen if one tried to put a candle out with the fall. A ball of fire comes to mind or at least a flying candle.

"In Australia, where whipmaking still thrives."

Australians make mostly Stock Whips not bullwhips yes they make some but they mostly use stock whips. But as I have said before the bullwhip is an Spanish/American original. Not Australian. As a side note the stock whip is a hybrid of the English Hunt whip. They dropped the hook on the handle because there aren't many gates in the outback.

"Whip making is still alive and well in the United States which has a number of whip makers including the maker of the whips featured in the Indiana Jones movies, David Morgan"

While David did make the whips for the movie he rarely makes whips himself anymore as he is pretty old now. Most of the "David Morgan" whips are made by aprentaces. Before that he made his living primarily from the sale of "Dog / Signal Whips" for dogsled racing.

I suggest you guys do some research.

Victor Tella

Firstly, you seem to know what you're talking about; why not add your knowledge to the page? Be bold. Secondly, it is customary to 'sign' edits made on a talk page by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) after your comments. This will expand to your username and the current time, like this: -Shai-kun 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Victor Tella's advertisements from the main article. Optrirominiluikus (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

5th Opinion

I have carried out a major revision of the 'history' section of this article, so that it really is about the bullwhip's history, taking note of some of Victor's comments ref the spurious claims about killing predators etc and avoided detailed discussion of the physics of the 'crack' or whip construction, because these should be in a different section. I hope you all think it's an improvement!

--11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)EnglishwhipmakerDave

Neutral Point of View and other edits

I have re-edited the 'history' section after changes were made.

1) Re-instated comment that bullwhips were traditionally used in open country. Bullwhips were traditionally used to control livestock in open country - usually from horseback. This doesn't mean that the bullwhip doesn't come out in enclosed land, but the more confined the area in which wielder is operating, the less useful a long whip becomes. In areas where stock control did not usually take place on horseback other styles of whip are traditional - or goads, sticks, etc. This, necessarily, is a generalisation, and exactly what implements were used where, and in what circumstances, varied from country to country, region to region and person to person but, as a generalisation, it is broadly correct.

2) Removed intentionally from paragraph one. Tautology. If a thing is used, it's used is intentional.

3)Reinstated 'types of whip', rather than 'types of whips', in para 3. The bullwhip is a type of whip, not a type of whips. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that, when talking about more than one type, the correct plural is 'types of whip', because you are talking about a number of types rather than a number of whips. You may only have one of each type.

4)Para 5. The most recent revision is not only grammatically incorrect but it contravenes the Wiki Neutral Point of View Policy. As this policy is a requirement, and not a guideline, I have deleted the words perversion, and unfortunate . I have also deleted the sentence, However, traditional-styled whipmakers .....still produce whips that are suitable for controlling stock. This is because many whip makers supply whips suitable for controlling livestock, regardless of whether or not they also sell to the BDSM community. In addition, 'traditional-styled' implies that those whip makers who supply to BDSM'ers are non-traditional. This is a matter of opinion. All whip makers producing a decent product use traditional methods to some degree, and can therefore be described as 'traditional-style'. Furthermore, there is no historical evidence to indicate that past generations of whip makers refused, as a matter of policy, to supply whips for SM use; whereas the the use of the bullwhip has been current in SM circles for many years - to the extent that it has become an icon of BDSM in the eyes of the public - and the bullwhips used in previous generations pre-date modern designs, so were certainly often of a 'traditional' American style. I have inserted a new final paragraph with a neutral comment to the effect that some whip makers refuse to supply to BDSM'ers.

--Englishwhipmaker 10:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible, slight, error.

Hello. Sorry to bother everyone, but has anyone noticed that the Category Box at the bottom of the Bullwhip page is, in fact, the "Catwoman" box? Just thought I'd say something.

                            Chinbo (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Indy" image?

This looks like the hat is the main focus of the image since it is covering a good part of the whip. Anyone have a better image of a whip and less of a Look-how-cool-Indy-is image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Carters whips in 16th-century London

I thought the citation for carters using whips that made "cracking noises" in 16th-century London was pertinent for a couple of reasons: 1. the 3rd-century citations refer to images that look like whips, but give no indication of how they were used or if they made a noise; 2. it shows use of the whips by carters (teamsters) in an urban setting, and not just in the countryside, as stated in the top of the article.

I wish we had more definitive sources on the early use of bullwhips, but, like much ancient and medieval technology, I suspect little will be found about them in the written or visual record. They citation I gave implies that bullwhips were in common use by at least the 16th century, and they appear in the historical record then only because they were a novelty to a visitor from Venice, which did not have vehicles pulled by draft animals or herds/flocks driven through its streets (unlike almost all other cities and towns). -- Donald Albury 10:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It would have made more sense if you had added that transitional language...essentially the critique of the 3rd century stuff and then an introductory phrase to the effect that the first (if it is the first) definitive evidence of the bullwhip being used as a bullwhip in the 16th century. As it sat, it read like random trivia. So maybe try again, and lead us from point A to point B!  ;-)

Bulls I noticed in the introduction on the topic of whether cow herders used the whip on bulls was mentioned as being debatable. Why is it debatable? The after cut from a bullwhip crack does have the capacity to cut flesh and, in some cases, even the potential to break a bone, so I do not understand why cow herders would even use the whip on their stock cattle. If a cowboy was to hit a bull with the crack of the whip, he has the potential to severely injure the bull. Not only would this make it more difficult for the cowboys to drive the cattle with an injured bull, but the quality of the meat would also be affected and, therefore, the price as well. Individual bulls were too costly to injure with any weapon, including a bullwhip. I have worked with some Holstein cows in the east and I had to sometimes hit the cows with a shovel to get them to move, but I and the farmer I worked with never would use a weapon capable of cutting to move the cows as it would severely injure them. I am pretty sure the the cowboy may had to smack a stray cow with the whip without needing to use a crack, but getting smacked by a whip is not the same as getting hit by the crack of a whip (I actually smacked myself many times with a whip, but I never, and I do not want to, get hit by the cut created by the bullwhip crack). From the reading I have done on the west and talking with various farmers, cowboys took good care of the cattle as it was their essential trade and any damage done to any individual bulls could affect the quality and price of the beef. I just do not understand why wikipedia would even suggest that cowboys would use the whips on cattle as the affect would have been costly to the rancher and herders and it certainly doesn't make sense with how cowboys were expected to care for the cattle during the cattle drive. Is it possible to remove this statement from the introduction? LOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.161.130 (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Inuit Whips

The article describes Inuit hunter Simon Tookoome as an "expert bullwhip handler" who used a bullwhip to bring down large game. However the types of whip used by Inuit hunters such as Tookoome are much larger, more formidable whips that have a separate history and very different construction from what is normally called a bullwhip in Western culture. Inuit whips are normally made of seal-skin or the skin of other polar animals and have a long handle, usually made from bone. The main portion of the whip is made of, often ubraided, strips of leather and, while Inuit whips can be cracked, they generally do not include the separate stages of the "fall" and "cracker" on Western whips. Instead, the crack is directly produced by the tapered end of the leather lash/thong. Cracking an Inuit whip is performed by throwing out and quickly pulling back the whip, like cracking a towel; something not possible with Western bullwhips. Western bullwhips are actually far more similar in construction and operation to other types of Western non-bullwhip whips, such as stock whips, cow whips, snake whips, English hunting whips, and even coach whips, as they all share a common history. Inuit whips, such as those used by Simon Tookoome, have a separate history altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.135.214 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)