Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/Archive 1

Archive 1

2nd Hand Smoke Correction

Penn says to the audience in a video at the Amazing Meeting 3 that the third season will include a reference to the "new information" that contradicted their conclusions about the health danger in the episode on Second Hand Smoke (but not their continued opposition to smoking bans). Does anyone know what episode this "correction" is in? Obviously it's been over two seasons now since that comment was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.214.22 (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Hicks

I removed the tag regarding citation for the Bill Hicks quote. Rant in E-Minor exists, I and several million people own it, and the quote is indeed on there on Track 31.

PETA / Ingrid Newkirk & Adolf Hitler

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

This little bit toward the start seems totally biased from someone anti-PETA: " "PETA" (the first show of the second season), they illustrate the absurdity of a PETA campaign comparing the slaughter of animals with the Holocaust by cutting between shots of PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk and Hitler." TheKarasu

I got the opposite impression. To me, that part of the article seems to imply that Penn & Teller are too harsh — afterall, it's inappropriate to attack somebody by suggesting they're like Hitler. I understand what Penn & Teller's point was, and when watching the show their point is entirely obvious, but when reading the article I got the feeling that somebody wanted to suggest that Penn & Teller go too far. If anything, this whole article seems a bit POV against the show. -Eisnel 06:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swearing vs. accuarcy

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

This doesn't make any sense: "The show also makes frequent use of swearing and occasional explicit sexual references. This has led many to question the factual accuracy of the show." How is one thing related to the other? --Goblin ^›talk 10:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. Should be removed, IMO, FWIW. Mortene 10:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps by 'factual accuracy' they meant 'credibility'. Metalrobot 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Feng Shui experiment

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

In spite of its skeptical natute, this show is not without its share of flawed logics. For example, in one episode to prosecute Feng Shui, they hired three Feng Shui experts to the same house. They provided different and often very contradicting opinions. Therefore Feng Shui must be totally wrong.

But the same logic is also applicable to physics and chemistry. Take arithmetics for example, if we ask Larry, Moe, and Curly to solve 123 + 456 what will it be? Probably they will still give me three different answers? Their attack is very often not that strong. Because it's difficult to provide education on TV in just 24 minutes. -- Toytoy

• Moe, Larry, and Curly, alas for this analogy, are not experts in mathematics. So I remain convinced that mathematics is a sound tool. -- Nunh-huh 03:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If there is no school, every scientist could be a self-claimed one. I can easily find myself dozens of badly trained losers who are building space rockets, but actually no better than Moe, Larry, and Curly.

I was talking about P&T's sarcastic logics. There is not a single Feng Shui school that is teaching well-accepted Feng Shui anywhere on Earth. So every so-called Feng Shui expert is a self-claimed one. If Master Windu says this house should be flooded to add more water, maybe Master Yoda will want to burn the same house to add some fire. Every so-called Dashi (great teacher in Chinese) can disagree with the others and still be taking $500 per hour.

Pseudo sciences are unlike the science we know about. If we could find a hole in basic part, say to overthow the atomic theory, both physics and chemistry will need to be rewritten. All scientists are standing on the same common ground. But this Feng Shui joke is different. It was based on many different ancient @#$%s. You just don't know where your target is.

Pseudo science could be more like medicine. If you visit three doctors, they may give you three different answers. However, with medicine, probably three doctors will cure you. It's just with some of thm, you end up spending more time, money and pain. But with is Feng Shui, you are just wasting money.

A better way to debunk Feng Shui is to let them explain. They have to disclose their rules. Then we'll investigate if they do follow their own rules. Or they just move things around and charge by the hours. Then we'll see if different experts' rules are in conflict. Then ...

It's a waste of time. I'd rather watch Moe, Larry, and Curly and let others worry about it. -- Toytoy

The beneficial claims of Feng Shui is laughably obvious bullshit. If it did what the charlatans who sell it claim.. then why are there still poor, hungry and unhappy people in China? Dirk Diggler Jnr 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fung Shei aims to create a flowing and peaceful environment. It does not provide longer life, longer pet life, healthy children, no deaths in the family, no starvation, and constant wealth. The things that make you unhappy really aren't related to where your couch is sitting.

You mean, you THINK, that's what it does. — Mütze 11:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayeum, the benefits and origins of Feng Shei are far from mystical. At its most literal level, it is a system of advice for organizating a place. If anything, this episode is yet another example of how little the West understands the East. I mean, sure, if you choose to focus solely on the mystical tradition of feng shei and weigh 'chi' against the modern standards of science, it won't hold up. Do any amount of research, however, and you're bound to realize some wisdom in it.Yeago 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the "West" often doesn't understand the "East". But that easy aphorism glosses over the reason why Feng Shui earns so much contempt from skeptics, at least through its Western practitioners. Systems of organization that flow from logical analysis of patterns of use and from aesthetic appeal can be understood by both cultures, and are not at issue. It's the mystical explanation of why A works well and B doesn't that doesn't go down well. I certainly can't speak for whether there's any more testable logic to Feng Shui as practiced in the East, as I've never seen it, but Penn & Teller made clear that there are Western practitioners who have an unearned surety that what they're doing is useful or even sensible (although it's obviously quite profitable). Skeptics can be forgiven for expecting no better from Eastern practitioners when the same kind of mystical explanations are used for Feng Shui as for other implausible Eastern practices. In the end, proper scientific testing (not quite what P&T did) is the only thing that can demonstrate the supposed cause and effect espoused by these folks. If A is better than B, then one should be able to demonstrate the advantages through controlled tests, not just by manifestly subjective opinions from people who are motivated to justify their investment of thousands of dollars so as not to look like fools. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism

I felt the criticism of the show is a bit off the mark especially this section:

---

For example, on the episode "Environmental Hysteria" they treat one random girl at an environmental protest as some sort of official spokesperson for the environmental movement. While the long clips of her stumbling over their most basic questions can be humorous, the fact that they didn't try to find anyone more articulate doesn't inspire confidence in the show's position.

---

Penn repeatedly comments on why they are talking to Kate. Here are the relevant lines from the show.

"...and one of the main groups participating is the Rainforest Action Network, we asked the group to hook us up with someone we could spend the day with, a knowledgable representative of their enviromental ideals, they introduced us to this woman."

"...once again she is the hand picked representative of the Rainforest Action Network."

"...lets check back with Kate, remember she is a prominent member and chosen spokesperson for the Rainforest Action Network."

"...We keep saying that Kate is the chosen spokesperson for the Rainforest Action Network because if we don't keep saying that it seems like we are just picking on somebody, she is not some poor little girl, she is a woman, and she is the woman they chose to represent them. Sure we are a piddly stupid crap show so maybe they sent in the junior Varsity speaker but has no one ever asked any of these very basic questions that we asked? Has she never asked any of these god damn basic questions of the group she so fervently supports?"

"...Lets ask the spokesperson of the Rainforest Action Network."

Just a little different from one random girl.

Penn also acknowledges that the Enviroment isn't a Black & White issue right at the beginning, including the comment "...but one thing is clear, there is some bullshit here"

Totally agree. I vote for removing that part of the criticism section, for what it's worth. Mortene 12:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When will this show be back? Can't access the official web site. Not living in the U.S. Even though I can still access to most of their web materials by using google's cached copy or a proxy if I do bother to try. -- Toytoy 13:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

From these quotes, I think it's pretty clear that Penn is lying. First they ask someone for a "knowledgeable representative" then she becomes a "prominent member" and then just the "spokesperson". It seems pretty obvious that they saw a bunch of people protesting, asked them for someone they could interview, got the girl, saw she didn't know anything, and didn't bother to do anything about it.AaronSw 04:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This of course was the same show where they got all these protesters to sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide so it may not have helped who they found. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:12, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how these quotes indicate any lies. A Group is participating in some sort of enviromental protest the representatives from the show go up to the group and ask for someone to speak to. Do you not think the group would select a prominent member to represent them rather than some random member of the group. A 'knowledgable representative' is asked for, this person then becomes the 'spokesperson' of the group. He then uses 'spokesperson' three times, I don't see how those phrases indicate lies. It certainly doesn't put her comments into a better light either way. --BathTub 14:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, it is common unfortunately for the people not doing the real work to be assigned PR duties. The term 'Marketing-droid' comes to mind. Hackwrench 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the exact words used to describe the person varies is simply an aesthetic thing. They are simply avoiding being repetitive by using the same words all over again. Saying that someone must be lying just because he used "knowledgeable representative" in one sentence and "spokesperson" in the second sounds like a non-argument to me. --193.11.222.179 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The man-made contingent in the global warming debate has recently received a huge blow with according to a new study that shows that over the past 10 years, fewer and fewer scientists believe that global warming is caused by human actions. First, check out t he report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966&IsPrint=True Then, understand why the criticism leveled is 1. not accurate and 2. the way it's presented on Wiki is incorrect. There is no consensus and there never was one in the common-language sense. Consensus-opinion in science, much like the term "theory" does not mean the same thing that it does when lay-people use it. It refers to the majority held opinion - NOT to be confused with a position held by nearly all.

So, I am going to change that chunk to say "While some scientists believe global warming is man-made" rather than say there is a consensus - which was misleading to begin with and is now flat-out incorrect. The data people used to site claiming the "consensus" in the first place came from the 1980s. A little out-dated for science don't we think?71.236.250.61 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the whole biased section on the nature of the criticism on global warming is fine, but why do I not see an edit summary or any explanation of what was changed?--Sean W. Malone 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

P&T's conclusions for the "Second Hand Smoke" episode

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

From the article: " In particular, their libertarian view often leads them to make strange arguments. For example, in "Second Hand Smoke" they close by admitting they don't like second-hand smoke and would in fact prefer if it was banned from restaurants, but they don't support such a ban because it takes away people's freedom to smoke in their faces." Whoever made this comment clearly doesn't understand the libertarian argument Penn & Teller were making; there is nothing strange about it. P&T are simply saying that although they may not like smoking, they acknowledge they don't have the right to arbitrarily interfere in the free association and actions of other people. If a restauranteur wants to allow smoking in his (or her) restaurant, any you don't like that, that is no justification to ban smoking there. No one is forcing you to go to the restaurant. -- FirstPrinciples 20:52, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

POV Check

The tone of this article seems to be following somewhat the POV of the show. For example, the word bullship is used in the article to describe the topics. Also, the topics are described as unscientific or pseudoscientific ideas, and while this phrase may apply to some topics (eg, feng shui), it is not really an appropriate description of, for example, PETA. -Rholton 00:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Season 3

Season 3 can be confirmed on their website. Someone with more editing skills should probably update the page stating so.

Added a quick reference to season 3. Brad

Episode links

I think that the links direct to the issues in general rather than articles on the specific episodes is confusing. Anyone agree that they should be delinked? --bodnotbod 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is, personally. It would probably be a bit overboard to make articles for each separate episode, especially considering that most of the linked articles have their own criticism sections which repeat many of the points made in the individual episodes by P&T. --TM ^(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Will the show be returning in 2006?

Will the show be returning next year? Perhaps this should be added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.8 (talk • contribs) .

Worst Episode?

Which one is the worst episode of Bullshit? To me it's "Exercise vs Genetics". They conclude exercising is something that will make you feel better, but not actually look better, they somehow construct it from the Interviewed folks opinion that "not everybody can be a fitness model/buns of steel". They go as far and attempt to make it look like all the sports models were just born that way, an insult to the hard, hard work they do. And it gets even worse, when they try to explain that every human is genetically of one of three physiological types... And then come the 1850 or so dated stereotypes. Otherwise, I love the show. With a 'they tone of the episode is right' quota of over 80% (personal assessment) I consider them some of the most reliable news formats. They believe in what they do and it shows. Dabljuh 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice... but what does it have to do with the article? Bgh251f2 12:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting discussion. The dumbest episode by far is "The Best", which spends 16 minutes trying to claim that a $.99 can of tomato paste can be passed off as 4-star restaurant food. Ghostal 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the premise. They never claimed nature is the only important variable. The genetic predisposition (see somatotypes, they're from the 1940s, not the 1850s) just supplies the BASIS, that is, what you can work with.

Nurture is what you do with that predisposition. Of course it requires a lot of maintenance to keep that physique a fitness model has, but the genetic predisposition determines what kind of body type you can archieve.

I can't think of any particularily bad episode, but the inherent Americanocentrism (is that even a word?) tends to show in some episodes more than others, which is why I find some episodes factually flawed (for example, their take on circumcision ignores the prevalence (or rather, especially where I live, absence of) of infant circumcision outside the US).

Considering it's not intended to be an international programme, I guess nobody can't blame them for that, though. All in all I find their shows rather informative (more so than most of the "docu-/infotainment" on TV around here) and considerably less biased than some other shows I've seen (in fact, I even think they're less biased than any other American show I've ever seen).

I think most people who hate it "because it's biased" only hate it because they have an opposing POV more so than simply because it HAS a POV. Considering it gets flames from both sides of the political spectrum, they're probably doing something right. -- Ashmodai 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the BSA episode was pretty weaksauce. Yes, the organization can kick people out for being gay or atheist, but they don't. It all comes down to whether or not the troop they want to join is a group of bigoted people or not. 97% of the troops are not, but they harped on those few cases for the whole episode.--155.246.126.73 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, it really helps convey your point when you make up bullshit statistics. Not only does the Mormon church sponsor a great deal of the troops (all of which discriminate against both atheists and homosexuals) but the BSA has specifically and repeatedly stated that gays may not serve as role models, and thus may not perform the function of scout leader. That, my friend, is bigotry. On a lighter note, I must say that the worst (but not necessarily bad) episode thus far has been "The Business of Love" from season two. Its thesis is not nearly as clear or important as any of the other shows. Still, I enjoyed it. Metalrobot 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero Lounge Reference

Seems to me the paragraph about the guy speaking at the "Ground Zero Lounge" should not exist. It is presented as if the speaker at the lounge is some how "pulling a fast one" on Penn and Teller by reciting some Bill Hicks piece. The speaker restating what Bill Hicks said does not absolve the speaker of fitting the profile of who they were 'after' in this episode (those who believe in conspiracy theories). (i.e. If someone wrote a piece stating that grass is purple, and I re-recite it, does that make it somehow less absurd?) If there is a point to be made, it should be made by someone elaborating on this "Rant in E minor", and explaining why this is somehow a 'jab' at Penn and Teller, otherwise it should be removed. The Deviant 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, at this point it's nothing more than original research and speculation. --TheMidnighters 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is very absurd. I hope someone can find some more solid evidence, but this weblog post seems to indicate the beret dude knew the rant was absurd. Presumably he knew it was from a comic routine, too. [1] The superimposed text on beret dude's portrait, "Penn & Teller Swallowed my bullshit!", would definitely indicate it was tongue-in-cheek; but the source of the image is unknown. Some credence is given by the author of the post who is apparently a regular of Ground Zero Lounge. Presumably if he knew the rants were cracked out conspiracy theories he wouldn't attend nor support them; but he attends which indicates, at least to me, that they have "whack job" rants for fun. --Kevin L'Huillier 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the readdition of this paragraph, same reasons above - irrelevant. No discussion was made about it here... The Deviant 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The original paragraph was not re-added. I agreed with your comments here. The original paragraph was POV and did not belong. The new one I added contained the information of the original paragraph without the POV parts. What did you object to in the new version? --Pascal666 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant to the article to me, since it doesn't bolster the data on the show in any meaningful way (IMO). The Deviant 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the trivia sections of Stargate SG-1, The 4400, Night Court, etc. Fits right in. If you have an objection to the wording by all means change it, but please do not remove factual NPOV material from articles. --Pascal666 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked Wikipedia is NOT A TRIVIA SOURCE. Not only is it irrelevant to the article, it lowers the overall quality of this article. Don't worry, I won't remove it, but it is opening the door for other pointless material to be put in here like, say, the names of all of the college kids in the college episode, or maybe the actual names of each individual food that was used in the "The Best" episode - all equally pointless. How does pointing out every little detail help in any way? Now, if it bolstered some point that the show is biased, or something along those lines, it would be relevant. Factual NPOV material that is *irrelevant to the article* should BE REMOVED. The Deviant 14:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would love to see a list of "the names of all of the college kids in the College episode, or maybe the actual names of each individual food that was used in the The Best episode", but that amount of information belongs in it's own article. Unfortunately we do not yet have a Wikipedia page for each individual episode of Bullshit!, and creating a stub for the Conspiracy theories episode with only that one piece of information would hardly be appropriate. Take a look at any of the individual episode pages at List of Futurama episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes (I'm sure there are many more but those are just examples off the top of my head) for the level of "trivia" normal for TV shows on Wikipedia. --Pascal666 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for trying to keep wikipedia an uncluttered tome of useless factoids... The Deviant 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism needs sources

The Criticism section is chock full of weasel words. "Some believe" and "some note" need sources without exception. Until then, people should feel free to strip down the unsourced bits to the bare minimum. --BRIAN0918 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of completely replacing all that unsourced opinion with some direct references to criticisms made my The Onion AV Club and Slate. --72.224.150.233 08:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Awkward

Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains this necessity in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes or fuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them. The show's name, Bullshit! reflects this approach.

This makes it seem as if they only use profanity - which the show is infamous for - to sidestep slander. Aside from this utilitarian purpose, Jillette also swears constantly on this show seemingly for the sheer sake of it. While it leads into a nice explaination for the title...but not really, since they also almost named the show 'Humbug!' and could have, it should be relocated and trimmed for - defensiveness? --72.224.150.233 07:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the "humbug" thing was just a joke for the profanity episode. MarcK 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nope - Penn has stated on numerous occasions that he in fact wanted to call the show "Humbug" but in the end, it wasn't found to be suitable. Teller had little to say on the matter. Churba 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Humbug! is a reference to the term Harry Houdini used to describe Bullshit. It would have been an homage to one of Penn & Teller's intellectual heroes, but the term didn't translate to modern audiences. Also, Penn uses profanity frequently in life and in pretty much all situations that aren't bound by FCC or corporate (Rio All-suites Hotel) guidelines. Furthermore, Bullshit even did an episode on the Bullshit of profanity... in which their views are very clearly expressed. Also, check out the Aristocrats--Sean W. Malone 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • At some point the cited paragraph was removed. It should be reinstated because it doesn't matter what one's interpretation of the statement is, it's clearly stated in the opening episode, therefore it's an irrefutable, verifiable source that this is P&T's attitude. 68.146.47.196 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

REAL criticism

I have some real criticism of the show (and I've read this criticism online; I wasn't the one who noticed this). In one episode (the one about tree huggers I believe), Pen and Teller interview a "typical" treehugger. In the interview, she states that she that people "shouldn't use paper to write [or paper at all, depending on how you interpret this]". In other words, the show tries to depict the tree-hugger as arrogant and basically an extremist. What the show DIDN'T show or include in the interview was her next statement; and this was not included in the show at all -- that "she feels people should use recycled paper". So, Pen & Teller basically cut off the context of what she is saying, and make their opponent look like a bulshitter; when in fact, Bullshit! are the liars. You would think this show would at least TRY to be objective and truthful in their approach. For those who want to read the evidence, simply google the search terms "pen & teller paper recycled environmentalist" or something like that. I personally haven't seen this particular episode myself; but is that what happened? Did she state that she doesn't like using paper? I kind of want someone who HAS seen this episode to confirm this.

Also, I was wondering, why was this following information/paragraphs deleted from the article? (THIS IS JUST A SMALL SECTION OF THE INFORMATION which was removed THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN ARTICLE!) :

- Robert (Bob) Carroll of The Skeptic's Dictionary website initially agreed with Penn and Teller's assessment of secondhand smoke. Later Carroll admitted that he made the same mistake that Penn and Teller did: "trusting the standards of risk assessment as promoted by the tobacco industry (led by Philip Morris) and their Republican generals".[2]

There's actually more to that, but I'd have to return to the past edit to see the rest. Is there a reason this was removed, or was it simply a result of vandalism / bias? If there is no one against this, I'd like to copy & re-paste a lot of the old information back into the article (the person who removed the info/paragraphs didn't give any explanations.) I won't revert to that older edit obviously, as it was erased back in the beginning of May; but I do intend to copy and paste most or all of the information regarding the Second Hand Smoking episode.

I also noticed a lot of information being deleted in this article over the months (some information that is worth keeping, or are still very encyclopedic and helpful to the community). I may try and copy and paste some of that "stuff" as well back into this article, but I'll try and ask if any one is against this first (there may be a GOOD reason the information was removed from the article in the first place). But so far, this article seems to have only gotten shorter, AND worse.24.23.51.27 10:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the environmental "tree-hugger", she WAS an extremist and was clearly presented as such. Your everyday hippie does not spend months up in a single tree. As far as her arrogance, that was pretty extreme too--but that's just my POV.24.165.147.43 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to cancer P&T were totally correct. It raises a near zero risk of contracting lung cancer by such a small amount that the risk remains near zero for non-smokers. As for heart disease and other diseases it may not be quite so straightforward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.241.108.95 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

While of course critism is allowed here on wikipedia, there is a line in this article that says:

"In edited interviews."

However, is it not already obvious these interviews are edited? After all, we never here the producers and staff talk.

Why do I bring this up? In reality shows where the contestants are interviewed, we never see the interviewer, just the interviewie.

Same on network or cable news: All the interviews are edited.

But why, specifically, is the Bullshit! article mentioning this? I think its a subtle play at undermining the show more than accuracy.

While it would indeed be accurate to note to all readers of wikipedia that all interviews seen on TV have some form of editing, I think its just subterfuge thats put it in this article, so until I begin (perhaps tommorrow?) to catalogue and then edit every article about a TV show with interviews to include that interviews are edited, I am removing it from this article for fairness.

"All TV interviews are edited," a claim that is at most a half-truth because of the fact some interviews are live, it is impossible to cut material from a live interview. Planetsconspire 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit / South Park 'Trivia'

The final bullet point in the trivia section discusses the "trapped in the closet" episode of South Park, and writes: 'That episode, after broadcast, has resulted in several disputes, including the "alleged" resignation of Isaac Hayes (the voice of Chef and which later resulted in Isaac staying on after all,) the episode's non-broadcast in the UK and the episode being pulled from circulation on Comedy Central.' I've looked in all the other related articles to the "trapped in the closet" episode and checked a few news sources and i cant find any evidence that Isaac Hayes has rejoined South Park. Can anyone shed any light on this? --81.152.181.167 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems doubtful Hayes rejoined, especially since new episodes won't be produced for some time. I'll remove it until someone provides a source. --TM 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism

As noted above, 90% of the statements in the criticism section are unsourced and fail the Original Research test. If you, as an editor have a criticism of the show, you are not permitted to enter it into the article, even if it is reasonable and provable. Only criticisms by Notable people that can be Verified are allowed. If we don't conform to this, the section will just become a back-and-forth debate forum (which has already started). Ashmoo 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As such I chopped the whole Recycling section as it seemed like pure Original Research:

This episode borrows heavily from an article from the New York Times entitled Recycling is Garbage.

The episode went on to debunk recycling as being economically profitable. However, it made no mention of the reduced external cost involved in recycling old materials versus producing new ones, such as plastic which is derived from oil. While using raw materials may generate more profit for a particular firm, the environmental impact may greatly offset this. Also, many programs are not profitable, or require great subsidies, yet have social benefits—subway systems are one example.

The episode cites a statistic claiming that the US has more trees today than it did in 1920, However, this figure makes no distinction between tree farms and old growth forests, which house complex ecosystems and never fully regenerate after logging. There is little controversy that these forests are becoming more scarce worldwide. Moreover, there are no mainstream environmental efforts to stop logging in tree farms.

Ashmoo 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that and agree to an extent. I suppose this particular episode struck me as one of the most blatantly one-sided and it was less a response and more of an example. I do believe the connection between the arguments made in this episode and the origin of those arguments in Recycling is Garbage passes the Noteworthy test, however, I think I'll write the article on that Times Article before I connect it back to this article.Yeago 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Although if you want make the connection between the BS episode and the Times article, you'll need to provide a cite for the connection to avoid WP:OR issues. Ashmoo 01:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on "David Benjamin" being a member of the Reagan Administration seems to have no more bearing on his recycling arguments than any of the other participants on the other side of the debate who may be affiliated with other administrations. No effort is made to prove that Reagan's administration was anti-environmental/conservationist, other than relying on political opinion that it was. Therefore, I am removing that section. Additionally, his funding for research by ExxonMobil has dubious effect on his statements regarding recycling, as one of the major points of the program was based on the fossil-fuel and energy consumption taken up by non-aluminum recyclables. This is very obviously original research. (note the citations do not actually support a direct affiliation with Exxon Mobil, and his position in the Reagan Admin. was in the Department of Labor).--216.227.122.72 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Awards section

Just to let everyone know, I added an awards section. James 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheist, libertarian stance

I'm reinserting the text which Lawrencewinkler (talk) removed (claiming it was an ad hominem argument):

The show reflects the atheist, libertarian stance of the duo, and inherits their characteristically blunt, aggressive presentation.

When did "atheist" become an insult? As for libertarian, Teller said in an interview with the Washington Post: "I am Libertarian".[3] The show does reflect this position, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Putte 11:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We should cite some of Penn's specific statements within the show about its non-theistic, libertarian, and aggressive attitudes. I'm sure I recall him saying citable evidence in passing in a few episodes. Just pointing out that Teller is a libertarian is not proper evidence of the show's attitudes. (I believe the statement in question is true — and I happen to favor this attitude myself, when I'm not maintaining an NPOV for Wikipedia editing purposes — but, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, mere "truth" doesn't relieve us from the need to source such extrapolations.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well; I agree that it's good to be thorough.

Regarding atheism, Teller said this when receiving an award from Atheist Alliance International:

I want to thank Penn, for bringing me out of the closet as an atheist. I was raised without god, but didn't have the words for what I was until Penn taught me.[4]

In the article I linked to previously, Teller said "I am Libertarian."[5]. In an interview on IGN.com, Penn Jillette says "I'm a hardcore libertarian"[6] (on page two). This ought to be enough to establish that they are indeed libertarians.

About two and half minutes into the 6th episode of the 2nd season, "The Bible: Fact or Fiction?", Penn says:

Bullshit! is an evangelical show. TV preachers are doing exactly what we're doing: they are telling the truth as they see it.

So TV preachers are telling the truth as they see it (according to Penn), and P&T on Bullshit! do the same. Therefore, Bullshit! reflects Penn & Teller's point of view. We have previously established that P&T are libertarian atheists. Therefore Bullshit! reflects a libertarian, atheist stance.

Is that evidence enough? :) Putte 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting down the references! I'd rephrase the text to be closer to the source; e.g., "Penn and Teller use the tactics of evangelism, rather than full debate, to counter similar tactics of their theistic opposition" (and cite the references). There's no compelling reason to stretch the text beyond what we can source (except for the inevitable POV arguments on either side; it's amusing that the current text can be seen as useful for both points of view). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm... But "theistic opposition" is only accurate for that particular episode; they attack different groups every time. Is it not reasonable to say that the show has a certain point of view, if P&T have that POV and claim that the show is about promoting their POV? Putte 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My example is more specific than it could be, but I'd want more examples to demonstrate the general aggressive and somewhat lopsided approach. I say "somewhat" because I've noticed P&T are often careful to express opposing opinions in terms that would be acceptable to the opposition, before they proceed to mock them, which is a courtesy I rarely see from their usual opponents.) All I'm really saying is that, to counter the obvious desire of anti-P&T editors to shed the worst light on them (and not incidentally to keep the pro-P&T editors honest), it's necessary to find a general set of examples to match the general statement. (If you went with the earlier wording and cited only the above examples, you'd already be ahead of the game compared to most WP articles, but when dealing with passionate controversies like skepticism vs. faith/credulity/fraud/popular cultural notions, it's a good idea to be thorough.) I wish I owned the DVDs; I could fetch some examples myself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to Google Videos copyvio or not?

I've twice removed a link to a supposed blog, bullshitlinks.blogspot.com, whose actual purpose is to, as it advertises, provide "Free full length episodes of Penn&Teller: Bullshit!". It does this by giving links to Google Video pages. The person adding this link restored it, posing this question in the edit summary:

Wouldn't google rm them if it was copvio?

This is a rather naive assumption. From Google Video's Terms of Service:

Google disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the GOOGLE SERVICES results. [emphasis mine]

This is not a forum to go into how companies routinely dodge responsibility for illegal acts committed using their resources, as this is a complex and evolving issue that will take years to be worked out in the law and courts. My basic point is that the failure of copyright holders to stem the tide of illegal distribution of their works does not excuse responsible editors from the need to avoid promoting this behavior. My position is that, by adding links to such information, Wikipedia is supporting this, even though the link presented on one of our pages is not itself a copyright violation. I invite discussion on this issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification: my own 2nd reversion somehow got lost, but Phil Sandifer did the honors in reverting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I do not see any reason for WP to take a stance until these issues you illustrate are worked out. My position is that WP doesn't support anything, but serves as a repository for resources regardless of your particular ethical dilemma with them. There are plenty of clips--particularly by Comedy Central--who's works appear extensively on Google Video without their doing yet who effectively allow it by their inaction. Until there's reason to suspect Penn and Teller have a problem with it, I do not see why anyone else should.

Oh, and I did not add that link, initially. Why would you think that?Yeago 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We CAN'T know if a video on Google Video is there because the owner of the copyrights wants it to be there or not - so should we just completely stopp linking to videos on GoogleVideo or other video sites??! Of course NOT! Video hosting sites and their users (people who upload the videos) are responsible for possible CR violations - NOT THE PEOPLE WHO LINK TO THOSE VIDEOS! Amen. :-)

My apologies to Yeago for the assumption. But for the poster who hides behind his unsigned comment, I'd point out that we actually can be sure about the provenance of videos on Google and YouTube — they're prerty much all copyvios unless they (A) are posted by the original creator; (B) include a license statement from the copyright holders, or (C) are cited as insubstantial samples for fair-use purposes. Were I a copyright holder, I would be faced with thousands of violations of my rights by thousands of people. Am I supposed take each and every one to court? This is nothing more than the shameless acceptance of criminal behavior because you know you won't get caught. If ethics are too high-falutin' to consider, remember that this is the crime of theft, made possible by technology.

That "all" of them are copyvios (unless yadda yadda) is, once again, your opinion. This is all your speculation, conjecture and hypothetical musings.Yeago 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that Wikipedia does take a position on copyright violations — it expects its readers not to commit them. What kind of moral abyss must we sink to that we gleefully incorporate material that someone else broke the law in posting on the Internet? "I was just following orders" has now become "I was just following popular practice." The real story behind this is we're just too lazy to do the hard work of scrupulous sourcing and responsible referencing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one taking the position, not WP. It "expects" (though I don't understand you so naturally interpret the wants and needs of a thousand-faced collaborative super-entity) them not to commit them on their servers for its own well-being and in keeping with law—the policy certainly isn't taken to the extent that you take it in expecting users to avoid potential copyright infringement.

You obviously feel no need to discuss your views beyond, essentially, "YOUR WRONG", or you would have responded to my post instead of this latest one. You clearly represent a valid faction of thought when it comes to these matters, but like most people, you attempt to codify your opinion before actually coming to a central collaboration on this point (your whole "lazy" spiel, while you reflect it at everyone else strangely, applies here). There are bigger things in my world than this silly little link, or we'd do the whole 3RR nonsense game for a few weeks, arbitrators would come in, yadda yadda....

I suppose at this point my basic message to you doesn't concern this link at all but your general method. I've seen it before. I know it personally and deal with it consciously. It is ugly.Yeago 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I could not help but notice that you are being completely wrong about everything you are saying. May I suggest m:Don't be dense as a useful page to consult? Phil Sandifer 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fasten your seatbelts, folks. We're in for a bumpy (and long) ride here.

First of all, I don't appreciate Yeago's insertion of a comment in the middle of my response. I try to be thorough in my posts, and I don't want to have to choose between cramming everything into a page-long indivisible paragraph and making it readable. Per Help:Talk page, "Do not edit other user's comments."

There you go mis-citing policy to make your position appear more favorable. It is a style of response.Yeago 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a style of response, one that is often considered rude, especially for lenghty discussions. From Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages:

Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

I quote these policies not to annoy you, Yeago, but to inform you. I am already familiar with these practices, but you seem not to be. I've asked for mediation on this article, and the mess that this discussion has become because of your interspersed comments is going to complicate things. Please add your comments to the end of the discussion from here on, paraphrasing or quoting (with appropriate distinguishing markup, as I've done) to make clear what point(s) you are responding to. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Yeago wants policies and citations? Here they are. From the very first line of WP:COPYVIO:

Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in our encyclopedia, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find.

This is a firm, unambiguous stance. The only real questions here are (A) whether this policy applies to linking to sites that are copyright violators, and (B) if the site in question is participating in copyright violation. "A" is not a direct consequence of Wikipedia's official policy, but it is the height of hypocrisy to encourage the use of others' copyright violations by linking to them, while not tolerating our own. It should not be difficult to see this as analogous to someone saying, "We don't fence stolen goods in this house. If you want something illegal, you should go three houses down on the left and ask for Joe Blog. He's got a full inventory of goods that Victor Google is ready to give you for nuthin'." This is exactly the situation that this external link puts us in. We are knowingly abetting a crime. If someone complains, as happened to fr:Wikiquote (which was shut down over copyright issues and has yet to be restored), I will happily point to the edit history that documents who the abettors were. (I'm sure that doesn't scare Yeago or the anons at all, because they know no one is likely to coming knocking specifically here over specifically this issue. In other words, as I said above, they know this is a crime they can get away with. QED.)

You've taken to repeating yourself in hopes I'll mistake something new. There's nothing new here, friend. I've already validated your stance; I explained to you that you exist on a spectrum and that you are at an extreme end of it. You can choose to call all else the "height of hypocrisy" (or even "moral abyss" below). When you call a monster a monster, he becomes even more monstrous. QED.Yeago 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As for "B", U.S. copyright law, while unclear on many issues, is very clear about the origin of copyrights. From "Copyright in General", U.S Copyright Office:

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration."

It should be obvious that both television broadcasts and DVDs are "perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". Thus, Bullshit! is copyrighted. You don't need to see the copyright message that always appears at the end of any show's credits, or the FBI warning that everyone ignores when playing the DVDs, although in true American legal fashion, they're plastered on everything to reinforce the point. In short, every episode of Bullshit! is copyrighted by the entities displayed in these telecast and DVD-based materials unless and until they say they aren't. They don't need to go to court to assert their copyright; court is only for prosecuting people who may be violating it, which they are unless they can justify their distribution under "fair use".

Are these Google videos "fair use"? Check out Fair use#Fair use under United States law. A key component of the 4-part test for fair use — the one that is likely to result in big fines if violated — is the consideration of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". It doesn't take a lawyer to see that free copies of entire episodes, downloadable by anyone, anywhere in the world, 24x7x365, will signficantly undermine the market for DVD sales, rentals, rebroadcasts, syndication, etc.

Ultimately, there is no excuse for insisting on having this questionable link, or anything like it. Its only benefit is to allow people to avoid paying the copyright holder to access material well beyond the bounds of fair use. We can't pretend we are ignorant of this activity. (And anyone who tries can be pointed to this argument.) I don't ordinarily countenance the use of loaded terms, but in this case, I'm afraid Phil Sandifer has a point by referring Yeago to m:Don't be dense. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"I'm afraid" your sense of self is deluded when you say you don't countenance the use of loaded terms. I wholeheartedly agree: there is no use for insisting on having this questionable link—and nobody has. Watching you embarass yourself is far more valuable. Nobody ever suggested the work is not copyrighted—such a suggestion could only be drummed up in your mind, which in the desperate struggle to defend itself is reinterpreting all other viewpoints to become even more simple-minded than your own, on this matter.Yeago 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of those Penn&Teller:Bullshit! episodes were uploaded by "Showtime" (this is the premium cable channel which is running this show). E.g. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6789340038877644331&q=Bullshit%21&hl=en So I guess those videos are there because THEY want them to be there.

There's lots of good stuff on Google Video because it has become a great tool for promoting a tv show, a film or a music clip. Anyway, you can't violate copy rights just by linking to Google Video or YouTube, the one who is responsible for the content is the person who uploads the videos. Further I don't understand what should be wrong with a webpage which is collecting links to Google Video for a special tv series - anybody could go to Google Video, search for Bullshit! and would find exactly the same episodes. The blog we are discussing about just makes it a bit more convenient - NOTHING is wrong with that!

Actually, the legal status of linking to material that infringes copyright is far from clear (c.f. the shutdown of BitTorrent sites). Phil Sandifer 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? We're discussing about Bullshit! one of the most libertarian tv shows ever and some on this site try to be holier than the pope when it comes to copyvio. Removing this link just doen't make any sense in my opinion.

I'll tell you what - I'll create policy now. Anyone who wants to add links to illegal material to Wikipedia may do so upon a $200,000 payment to Wikipedia's legal defense fund. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's stupid, Phil. All that could be done if it were a copyright violation is a C&D. The fact that this debate continues after the anon poster illustrated that the uploader of these videos is quite probably showtime itself reveales the ego-centric nature of this entire argument. Oh wait, I forgot, this is Wikipedia the internet.Yeago 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that anonymous poster raises an interesting point. There are Google Videos that have been uploaded by a user named "Showtime". Again, it would be very naive to assume this is someone officially connected to the Showtime Network. (I'd be surprised if our own User:Showtime has any connection to the network; I'd expect GV to be as open on usernames.) On the other hand, it's not impossible. I didn't see a convenient way to find information on this user (like a user page), so I checked out Bullshit! on the Showtime website. Showtime offers some of their programming for download through iTunes. It wasn't obvious to me whether it would charge for these downloads (which is, I believe, the usual practice), but that may be moot, as Bullshit! did not seem to be on their list of downloadable programs. I didn't find anything else in a cursory search that suggested whether Showtime had relinquished its rights or licensed distribution under GFDL, CCL, or some other "free" license.

If it can be verified that the Showtime Network is officially behind the free distributions — not an ordinary person or even a rogue employee — I'll shut up. But the burden of proof remains on the folks who support ostensibly illegal practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote:"There are Google Videos that have been uploaded by a user named "Showtime". Again, it would be very naive to assume this is someone officially connected to the Showtime Network."

I'm not defending or promoting copyvio and don't "support ostensibly illegal practices", but I really don't get why a site that links to Google Videos should be a problem. We are talking about GOOGLE video (we are not talking about BitTorrent, Kazaa, etc.), they have a strict policy on copyright infringement.

Quote: "Google respects the rights of copyright holders and publishers and is only accepting video uploads from persons who hold all necessary rights to the uploaded material. Our policy is to respond to any notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). If we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that content you submitted infringes another party's copyright, your account may be terminated and the video removed from Google Video. More information about our DMCA process is available at http://www.google.com/video_dmca.html."

So my point is that we can be quite sure that the material on Google Video is kosher - and if not, that it would be removed quickly (especially if it's a popular tv show like Bullshit!). [Do no evil!] 09:27 (GMT), 23 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.224.99 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 23 August 2006

I agree that you don't get why this is a problem. What I can't figure out is whether you are deliberately ignoring the impossibility of a company filing thousands of complaints against every instance of illegally copied material with every Google Video or YouTube-like website, or if it's just incredible naivete about the reality of copyright enforcement. (It doesn't take much thought to recognize that there are, worldwide, tens of millions of illegal copies of music, and yet only thousands of reported prosecutions. Most people who illegally copy music will get away with it, just like most highway speeders do. The same goes for videos now.) As I pointed out above, even as they offer to investigate copyright violations, their fine print specifically disclaims responsibility for the material while it's on their site, and will only remove if told to do so. Google's official statement is backed up by a process that requires a copyright holder to (A) discover the problem, (B) file a form, and (C) wait for an investigation. In the time it takes them to go from (A) to (B), thousands of downloads can be performed, now in the hands of people with no legal right to the material. The material harm is already done.) Yes, it isn't an automated system like BitTorrent, but that doesn't make it legal. You simply refuses to acknowledge copyright law, pretending that not getting caught is the same thing as doing right. That's what I meant by a "moral abyss". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear statement in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us — see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.

From what I see above, it appears that efforts have been made to determine whether the material is copyrighted, but that the issue has not been resolved - the fact that Google says it will take action if copyright violations are reported does not in any way imply that materials hosted by them are not infringements of copyright. I would remove the link pending confirmation of the copyright status.

The simplest solution would be to report the content to Google as a possible copyright infringement and allow them to resolve the status. Yomangani^talk 10:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would make sense, except that the process that Google Videos provides is clearly intended for the copyright holder to perform, not just anyone who can observe the bleedin' obvious fact that entire copies of TV shows are being uploaded and downloaded for free. What's more, Google Video prefaces the instructions with scary text about how a person can actually be sued for misrepresentation if they don't make their case. (They specifically cite a $100,000 penalty.) Even though this appears to be primarily to prevent companies from their own use of scare tactics to stop legitimate "fair use" applications (like illustrative excerpts from shows), it's got to have a chilling effect any concerned honest citizen. I know I certainly don't want to file a complaint I can be sued about unless I can confirm this situation either with Penn & Teller or Showtime beforehand, and if I knew how to do that, I wouldn't have to file the complaint. Catch-22. In the end, it's not in Google's business interests to discourage any activity, as long as they are legally protected by their disclaimer. While the courts take years to thrash out the legal issues, Google and YouTube will pull a Microsoft on the marketplace and rake in ad money. By the time they're called to court on it, they'll be able to afford the best defense our 1-lawyer-per-268-citizens legal system can buy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that's going beyond what could reasonably be expected from an "uninterested" party, but the important thing here is not whether the content should be removed from Google, but whether the link to it should be removed from the article. Clearly, when the copyright status is in serious doubt the link should not exist. Yomangani^talk 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

We need to back away from the insults here, folks. I'll start by apologizing for my unnecessarily passionate and pointed arguments about the "height of hypocrisy" and a "moral abyss". However, the meat of my arguments is backed up by citations of both Wikipedia policy and U.S copyright law and guidelines. These citations specifically refute Yeago's unsupported statement that my statements about automatic copyright are "speculation, conjecture and hypothetical musings". Yeago, on the other hand, has provided nothing but unsupported opinions. (This lack of sourcing of statements is what motivated my use of the word "lazy", for which also apologize. One should let the evidence, or lack thereof, speak for itself.)

I also specifically reject Yeago's statement above, where he says: "I wholeheartedly agree: there is no use for insisting on having this questionable link—and nobody has". 85.5.224.99 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored this link and has made numerous unsigned postings to support including this link. Yomangani has now pointed out that Wikipedia policy specifically advises against links that involve it in possible "contributory infringement" situations. That policy allows fair use, but I have already made the case (again, supported by facts, not opinion or conjecture) that demonstrate why full episodes of Bullshit! cannot be considered fair use. Neither Yeago nor the anon editor have provided any evidence that the Google Video users "Showtime" and now "Penn and Teller" are who their names imply, any more than a Wikipedia username can be assumed to represent the implied legal identity. Unless this evidence is provided, those users have no legal standing to void Showtime's automatic copyrights (as defined by U.S. law).

The anon's argument that "we can be quite sure that the material on Google Video is kosher" is supported only by a self-protecting legal statement from Google that is manifestly self-contradicting. If Google truly was "only accepting video uploads from persons who hold all necessary rights", there would be no need for removing infringing videos, because they would never get uploaded. Clearly, this is nothing but policy — not a representation of actual fact. The anon's argument is akin to saying, "the law says that drug use is illegal, and the schools have a zero tolerance for drug use, therefore students cannot be taking drugs". There is a world of difference between policy and practice, and Wikipedia's position on this issue is that we err on the side of caution, per Yomangani's citation of WP:COPY above.

In summary, I apologize for my own heated words, but I will continue to respond to misleading and mistaken statements by anyone who claims that this link is perfectly acceptable, or who misrepresents my own statements. And I will continue to ask for evidence to the contrary, and point out any time when it fails to accompany the arguments. Wikipedians are full of opinions (and often full of themselves, as Yeago appears to suggest of me), but what counts in decision-making is sourced facts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to prove their identity through public means because it would be a violation of privacy. Do you think your lowering of the limbo bar is fooling me? Just as nobody suggested that these videos are not copyrighted, nobody suggested that it would be fair use to post episodes in their entirety. In acknowledging and "repenting" for being a monster, you've just become a more subtle monster. Your argument is valid: these videos are potential copyright violations. Your overzealous opinion that WP is somehow "morally" responsible for this mere potential violation is hard to watch. You should simply say "I am proud of my opinion to the point of defeating all others!" I could appreciate that honesty. Rather you play mock consensus and warp all manner of citations to your own arbitrary aims of removing this link. Yeago

We cannot be aware of the vital "sourced facts" unless someone wants to get ahold of Showtime and ask their opinion or involvement in the uploading of those videos—all other rantings and ravings are premature. Just as these are potential violations, you are only potentially representing the wishes of Showtime (and some higher moral stratusphere, apparently, by the sound of your very bizarre (but telling) borderline-religious comments.

That you're calling in mediation over a vandal is one fact among many that, to me, betrays your overinflated sense of this situation and your own actions.Yeago 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: As I warned in an HTML comment embedded in my previous post, I have moved the above reply from Yeago[7] after he deliberately interspersed it among my post paragraphs, against my stated wishes and the advice of Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages. As I am not supposed to edit his posts (any more than he should mine), I did not uncomment his snarky HTML-comment reply to mine, but I have copied it here to demonstrate his commmitment to attacking me rather than responding to the issue of this topic with evidence:

<!-- I agree it is generally to be avoided, however, your lengthy Discourses make it Economical, IMHO. Mis-citation once again—but your free to move comments to wherever you choose, as its clear by your velocity in this matter that being the mother hen of this article is really quite important to you, and such housework as tidying comments is rather becoming. --> original edit

I apologize to readers of this discussion, who presumably are here to resolve content issues for this article, not meander through personal attacks. I invite other interested editors to assist me in asking Yeago, on his talk page, to stop this behavior and focus on resolving the content issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

People who are not lawyers

The prior discussion looks, unfortunately, a bit like navel gazing to me. A bunch of non-lawyers with no deep access to the underlying facts have speculated on whether Google video may or may not have violated copyright. It is not our job to appoint ourselves as Google's lawyers (I guarantee that they retain quite good ones already). If these possibly copyvio videos were uploaded to Wikipedia itself, that would be a real concern: but it is no concern at all that some third party is conceivably in violation. None of us really know who holds the copyright on these videos, and none of use knows what sort of contract Google might (or might not) have with that copyright holder, and moreover none of us is in a legal position to judge fair use on these external materials.

That said, while the copyvio argument against including links to external sites that might violate copyrights is bunk, I'm not sure I see the need for the link on WP's external linking policy. It would seem to me that a rather generic comment on their availability is perfectly sufficient here; WP isn't a link farm, after all. For example, perhaps the article could state something like "Episodes of Bullshit! have been widely distributed on popular video syndication websites". LotLE×talk 01:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

anonymous poster

The reason why I'm posting anonymous is, that I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't have a profile on Wikipedia (I don't need one and I don't want one anyway). I'm not going to add the link again - I thought it would be a valuable contribution, but if some people really, really don't want to have it here, I'm not going to insist.

What pisses me off is that this whole discussion has the title "Links to copyright-violating webpages". The site with the links to Bullshit episodes on GoogleVideo http://bullshitlinks.blogspot.com/ certainly doesn't violate any copyrights, otherwise the millions of weblogs which are linking to or even embedding Google Videos would all be violating copyrights - this is absurd!

I'm not a suspicious person so if I see that some videos were uploaded by Showtime (the producer of the show) I tend to believe that this really is Showtime (In my opinion I don't have the obligation to doubt this - if Google offers this video service, they have to take care of any copyvio issues themselves).

If you would like to be 100% sure, that the material you are linking to on Google Video doesn't violate any copyrights, you would have to contact Google (or the producer of the video) for every single video, because you never know if CNN, ABC, AOL, Sony Pictures etc., really are CNN, ABC, AOL etc. or just somebody using it as a nick.

My English is not very good so it's quite a pain for me to argue with you guys - my chances to convince you don't seem to be very good anyway - but I'm quite sure, that half a year from now this internet fladiscussion will look rather absurd, because it will be so normal to link to GoogleVideos. Regards, Anonymous 25 August 2006

You are correct that my title isn't quite accurate, in that the actual link is to a pseudo-blog that serves as an index for the Google videos. I couldn't come up with a succinct way of saying that in a heading, but I felt that the indirection was irrelevant because that page was not a blog or other discussion that just happened to mention the videos; it was created specifically for the purpose of providing easy access to them. As for being sure, I filed a question with Showtime two days ago, asking if they either released or gave permission to release the full Bullshit! episodes through Google Video. I don't know if they'll bother to get back to me, but I would hope that this will call some attention to the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Call attention to the problem, be it copyright infringement or egomaniacal webwars.Yeago 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, if the videos were not uploaded by Showtime, linking to them and embedding them would be contributory infringement, which is illegal in the US. Absurd and crazy? Very possible, but still true. Phil Sandifer 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no proof the copyright owners approve which policy strictly forbids. Can we please stop wasting time? If you really want the videos linked, get proof of consent. Write or call Penn or Showtime and get it in writing. Username and Google policies are not proof. Thanks. --Kevin L'Huillier 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's acually an eccelent idea. Somebody from the US please do that and clear this up, so we can end this. — Mütze 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent a request on 23 August to Showtime (via their contact webform) to confirm or deny that the Google Video uploads are theirs and/or are legal. I wouldn't be surprised if they never respond, but I'll report here if they do. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Final resolution

I received the following response from Showtime Customer Service 3 days ago about my inquiry about the legality of the Google video uploads:

I believe that the legal department is now beginning the process of having these episodes removed from the internet. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. — "Tony"

Indeed, NoahWolfe has already removed a Google Video search link that had been added, because the link now displays the message "We're sorry, but this video may not be available." I also checked the former "Episode Guide" blog link that was the original subject of this dispute. Quel surprise — it's been removed by Blogspot. Clearly Showtime didn't appreciate its name being used to illegally upload its copyrighted material. I hope this puts to rest the unsupported, rather naive claims that just because something is uploaded to a free video service by "Showtime" or another user name intended to imply legality, it doesn't mean the upload is, in fact, legal. The default assumption should be, as it is in U.S. copyright law, that such materials are always illegally uploaded unless there is a specific license statement backed up by a responsible website, like Internet Archive does with some — but not all — of its movie uploads. (That's also why Wikipedia authorizes and encourages its editors to remove images without explicit, detailed license statements.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good to have this cleared up, thank you. But I bet you have made some enemies with this. — Mütze 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism"

Hate to be a bugbear, but in the grand scheme of things, sourcing a reference from "The Onion"; a tiny little site compared to other sites who have commented on it, seems to just be adding personal criticism and referencing it with one step up from a blog. If thise can be verified by say, opposing societies, then fine, but the onion? I'd never heard of it before, so you can imagine other people's surprise. James S 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, The Onion is a quite popular, well-known satirical news group, not completely unlike The Daily Show in some ways, in that it satirizes newsmakers and is (on very rare occasions) taken seriously by people who don't know any better (I recall there being a big thing a few years ago, for instance, with panicked people forwarding an Onion article about how children were turning to Satanism after reading Harry Potter, without realizing that the article itself was satire) - the main difference between it and TDS is that The Onion is print-based and internet-based as opposed to TV-based, and isn't nearly as famous or influential as TDS is at the moment. Still, it's not completely unknown, and contrary to what you say about it, its website is not "a tiny little site"; it's quite massive, actually, if you'd actually take a good long look at it. Furthermore, The Onion is a well-known comedic entity that has been around for almost two decades, and which is devoted to doing an awful lot of the kind of thing that Penn & Teller do an awful lot on their show, except The Onion does it through hugely exaggerated satire only - hardly what I'd call "one step up from a blog", since they know the business of bullshit quite well, having made a living off of it for ages. They've also got one or more books in print (I don't think self-published, but I'm not entirely sure), because I've seen them at Barnes & Noble before. You know, if you had actually looked up The Onion on Wikipedia, you would know why it's somewhat notable. ;) Though this should prove it enough:

The nationally syndicated Onion Radio News, a brief audio clip read by anchor Doyle Redland, became a daily feature. In early 2006, Onion Radio News podcast was launched, and quickly shot to #1 on the iTunes list of top podcasts.

Don't feel bad, though, James. It wasn't until the 2000 elections in the U.S. that I had even heard of The Daily Show, either. ;) (Not to mention I hadn't heard of The Colbert Report until a couple of montsh into its run, or Bullshit! until about the past year, either, until a friend brought over some of the DVDs)4.238.17.28 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"criticism" on episodes

I want to provide some explanation on why I removed a whole sub-section from the criticism. The section is quoted below.

I'm mostly against removing information of any kind. But I spend almost half an hour trying to make this fits into the criticism, and I just couldn't. It is about a critic made 2 or 3 years after the episode release and using information out-of-range of the episode itself.

More than that, it is focusing on the episode's subject rather than criticising the show as a whole. Maybe someone could use something like that to say "look, Penn & Teller are pointing out things today that may be wrong 3 years from now". But I couldn't be sure about that after digging up on this subject. And, anyway, that's already done on the other subsection, in a much stronger way.

If we were to add criticism in such way, there could safely be someone arguing against every single episode of the show, and that would be too big and ultimately irrelevant to the article.

--Caue (T | C) 21:58, Wednesday 2006-09-13 (UTC)

quoting

Environmental Hysteria

An article on the Logical Science web site criticized the Environmental Hysteria episode on the following grounds:

• It “puts Tobacco and Oil funded lobbyists against hippie college protesters.” * criticizing on the base of position is not real criticism

• It presents Bjørn Lomborg as an expert without pointing out the controversial nature of his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. * controversy does not have anything to do with fact ** was not presented as an expert at all

• Penn says that the peak global temperature was in 1998, whereas according to NASA it was in 2005. * this was not Penn's conclusion ** This episode was aired in 2003

• The program ignores evidence from the hockey stick graph. * only a 22 min show, some evidence must be excluded

• Penn says "they must remember we are still gathering information..... we are not sure yet", ignoring the scientific consensus. * ignoring Penn's point

• They vastly underestimate the current and projected levels of species extinction. * personal opinion

Well, that sounds perfectly reasonable. You have at least my full support. :-) Great that you justified your position, it was after all quite a bit of text. — Mütze 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the article. Apparently it's against the rules for me to add it to wikipedia as I'm the author. Some user thought it wasn't appropriate in the "external links" section although I'm not sure why as there are certainly links to other reviews. So if an opinion based review is allowed certainly a fact based review should be allowed as well. He also thought my page was a strawman argument even though it's little more than a series of time stamped quotes that were are debunked by links to peer review journals. So if somebody else can add the link I would be grateful. If you feel there is something that needs to be changed or improved please comment in the blog linked at the bottom of the page. Wacki 05:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it might be legal for me to add it:

6 If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.

I will let others decide if it's relevant.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer

Wacki 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that, in spite of the idea that Wikipedia be as impartial as possible, the continuing representaiton of those who question Global Warming simply based on their affiliation with oil companies is permitted. This is fallacious logic. It is a possible explanation for the motives of bad science, but in and of itself it is simply an indictment based on guilt by association. It has no place in the determination of which side of a debate is correct. --Brett Orlob

• maybe you should read up on the history of big tobacco and the coalition for the advancement of sound science. I agree that industrial links should not be used to debunk any single person but the general trend among think tanks is undeniable. Pointing out a possible conflict of interest is something that every responsible reporter (and encyclopedia) should do. Wacki 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Video redux

I've just removed a "Trivia" item about Bullshit! episodes being available on Google Video. This is true, and it's even verifiable if we include a link either to the user(s) posting these videos or to the blog indexing them (as described above in "Links to Google Videos copyvio or not?"), but they appear to be copyright violations, as I discussed above.

The information alone, of course, is perfectly legitimate, and I won't take a stand against it if someone insists we mention it right now. But I'd like a few more weeks to see if my Showtime query bears fruit. (I'd emailed them to request the copyright status and legitimacy of these uploaded videos.) Somewhat to my surprise, I recently received a response from an employee of Showtime who said they would check with their management on this issue. I'm hoping that this dialog will result either in (A) the removal of the copyrighted material, or (B) the endorsement of it in a medium that we can cite as a reliable source, so that Wikipedia readers can feel comfortable using GV to watch this entertaining series. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Per #Final resolution above, the removed information is no longer true. Showtime is actively pursuing the removal of copies of Bullshit! illegally uploaded to Google Video. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bjørn Lomborg

Why is Bjørn Lomborg referred to as simply a "statistician"? He was the director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, a governmental institute! This must at least earn him the moniker of "environmetal expert". - Mark Hau

Profanity avoidance trivia

I've removed the following trivia item for the moment:

• During the "Profanity" episode, Penn and Teller themselves did not use any profanity, even changing the name of the show to "Humbug!" for that episode. However, at one point Penn exclaims "Jesus Christ!" (althought the intention is ambiguous, he was about to say it in a proper way, but Teller dropped a heavy object on his feet, causing Penn to scream it).

This text, both before and after someone added the ungrammatical parenthetical clause, fails to make its point properly. What it should be communicating is that the only instance of possible profanity in the episode was when Penn was saying something that might logically end in the phrase "Jesus Christ", but Teller's drop made his yelp ambiguously profane. (My phrasing isn't satisfactory, either, but it comes from being unable to fill in Penn's prefacing words.) If I could remember what Penn was saying, I'd have fixed it myself. Perhaps someone who has the DVD can rewrite this to make the point clear? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now restored (and somewhat rewritten) the item after nailing down the scene where the ambiguous profanity occurs. I've also added to q:Bullshit! the actual quote, which is a bit lengthy because Penn takes a while to get to the point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Salience of CATO funding Information

The snippet about CATO getting funds from Exxon Mobil is a pretty clear ad hominem attack. CATO gets funding from lots of sources, and as they are very free market it is not surprising that businesses would support them. Many environmentalist groups recieve funding from organizations that would directly benefit from the continued spread of global warming legislation. Does that invalidate THEIR argument?

I'm tempted to delete that snippet or to present a caveat, but I'll let the author of that point think about it for a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.208.9.10 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

• I came here to argue the same point. Since Cato is coming from a Libertarian POV, they see Global Warming as a vehicle for various groups to argue for the vast expansion of government powers, something that Libertarians are intellectually opposed to. They don't need corporate funds to arrive at this position. "Attack the Funding" is a favored tactic of those who try to silence the global warming debate. It's a logical fallacy. It doesn't belong here. --208.204.155.241 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming criticism not NPOV

The paragraph on Global Warming reads like a blog entry from someone who firmly believes in man-made global warming. Well, nice, but not particularly encyclopedic. Apparently in response to complaints about non-sourced criticism, notes have been added which don't address the fact that this is a controversial topic. For instance, there's the sentence:

"Every single scientific "fact" presented by the experts during the show is at odds with the current scientific consensus."

This links to a blog entry which simply states that there is a consensus in favour of man-made global warming. That's not good enough; you could easily find a source that stated the opposite. There are also several ad hominems whose "sources" constitute original research; for instance, the statement that "Penn Jillette is a research fellow of the Cato Institute" doesn't refer to any off-Wikipedia debate on the topic, but just points to the Cato Institute contact pages. You don't need a particular opinion on the subject to think that this whole paragraph should be reworked or removed. --Kaffedrake 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the paragraph a bit. I added many more sources and quotes. There are dozens of sources, time stamps, and references on this website: Environmental Hysteria review. It just takes time entering everything.Wacki 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The research is appreciated, but so much information overwhelms the article, which is about an entire series, not just this one episode/issue. Can't we boil this done to a few sourced sentences that make the point? (By the way, I removed the blogspot.com citation because blogs are not reliable sources.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I updated the text Wacki added, in an attempt to explain who "William Connelly" is that we should be interested in his refutation. I found a page on his website (mentioned in the text of the cited article) that says he works "for BAS as a climate modeller", so I added the linked British Antarctic Survey website as his credential. However, their staff directory does not list him, so I'm confused. Can anyone shed light on this? (That's assuming someone doesn't just replace the whole detailed discussion with the more succinct version I requested above.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve cut down this section considerably. A lot of it was general stuff about GW, which is interesting but covered elsewhere. I kept the criticism that relates to the program itself, since that was all that was relevant here. There are plenty of links to other pages where readers can research if they want to find out more! But I really think this section needs to stay focused on the program. Fionah 09:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Jeffq. William Connelley is a moderator at wikipedia. He is also a contributer to Realclimate.org and the IPCC. His work is displayed here link The blog belongs to Coby Beck who writes for Grist magazine and has been referenced by climatologists at NASA when explaining concepts to laymen. ---@all, I like the shorter version. It doesn't convey how bad the episode was but it certainly gives them a good heads up.Wacki 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, but I find the statement that "William Connelley is a moderator at wikipedia" to be quite troubling. What the heck is a "moderator", and how would it confer any kind of in-article authority on any subject but Wikipedia? And being a contributor is rather vague. I would recommend describing him as "Dr. William Connelley, BAS climate modeller", based on his BAS bio, to clarify his scientific credentials, which are what matter here. As far as citing a blog, I'd say the least we would have to do is make an explicit, sourced reference to how NASA uses the blog in order to give it more credence than other blogs. It skates a thin line of wiki source reliability, but is perhaps arguable. I raise these issues in case someone wants to re-use Wacki's conscientious work on this subject here or elsewhere. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The new version is much better, thanks. I was concerned not just with the sources but the whole "Never fear, we at Wikipedia are here to tell you that this show is wrong" tone. "No mainstream scientist from the area of climatology" certainly gives a different impression than "no mainstream scientist". --Kaffedrake 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

@Kaffedrake you said "No mainstream scientist from the area of climatology" certainly gives a different impression than "no mainstream scientist". The problem is that statement is misleading. They didn't have a single mainstream scientist. The only person that isn't an obvious industry lobbyist is Bjorn Lomborg and even that is debatable. Bjorn is by far the most respected of Penn & Teller's experts. Despite this, National Academy of Science member Norman Myers says Lomborg has not done "a fraction of the homework that could give him a preliminary understanding of the science in question." There have been articles in Science which state Lomborg 'employs the strategy of those who argue that... Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis'. Both of those criticisms were from people who are not involved in climatology. So to limit the 'controversy' to just climate scientists is severely misrepresenting the situation. And to merely imply that Lomborg (or anyone on that show) is mainstream, or even an accomplished scientist, is also very misleading. Nobody on that show has even managed to get a research paper published in Science or Nature.

I've tried to sort out this particular issue once and for all (I bet I've failed!). Rather than convey any judgement about Lomborg or Moore, I've simply said what they are and will leave the reader to judge. The sentence now ends "instead relies on figures such as the statistician Bjorn Lomborg and Greenpeace founder-member and now critic Patrick Moore." To say that Lomborg is not an 'accomplished scientist' is a rather large claim - he may not be a research scientist but he is a professor of statistics, a theoretical discipline on which climatology rests very heavily. His criticism of some climatological research was that the mathematics and statistics were poor or flawed; his critics may not have been solely climatologists, but were they statisticians? The best thing here (as elsewhere) would be to let the reader judge.

As regards his not having things published, this is partly because some journals have refused to publish his rebuttals of attacks on his work, which suggests a bias among the scientific establishment in favour of the "consensus". That point equating Lomborg's work to holocaust denial should signal to any intelligent observer that the controversy is beginning to generate more heat than light and that it has moved beyond criticism and debate to an attempt to besmirch Lomborg's name. It would not be the first time that scientists exhibited bias against critics in their ranks; nor, sadly, will it be the last.

@Jeffq I only said Connelley is a mod at wiki incase you wanted to talk to him. His credentials are at the site I linked to.Wacki 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For those that asked for credentials of Coby Becks "skeptics guide" I suggest you read this Endorsement. I'm not sure how much better of an endorsement you can get. As for the lack of papers from Patrick Moore, Jerry Taylor and Lomborg, how do I cite that? I mean it's common knowledge and I'm sure I can find it on some blog but it takes 3 seconds to search pubmed. Bjorn Lomborg is the only person to get anything published in a Science/Nature and those were editorials and not peer-review research.Wacki 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wacki, "common knowledge" is what any Wikipedia reader can be expected to know before reading an article. The year is 2006 AD/CE. The Earth is round. English is read left-to-right and top-to-bottom. These are common knowledge. The names of the people above are not "common knowledge". If these people are not mentioned in any wiki-reliable sources that can be cited, they probably won't be useful as sources for information. You cannot assume someone reading an article about a TV show would have any knowledge whatsoever of scientist bloggers covering a particular topic discussed in that show, any more than I could expect readers of Mystery Science Theater 3000 to know the origin of "Hi-keeba!", which is "common knowledge" among fans of that show. That's why we write articles — to explain these things — and that's why we need proper citations of reliable sources. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and their associated documents, you really should. It should answer some of your questions, even if they were meant rhetorically. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I used "common knowledge" in the sense it's common knowledge for anyone who is either in the scientific community or follows these topics. As for reading the reliable sources wiki says: Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.. I would think that somebody that writes for Grist, has had those specific blog entries endorsed by the scientists at Real Climate/NASA, and sources every sentence/fact he claims, is a reliable source. The only reason I linked to the entry is because it was far easier than entering 20 sources by hand. A lot of the best scientific literature is currently on blogs. If you don't believe me just go to SEED and read the science blogs there. Good luck finding that kind of coverage in popular press. Mass media tends to do a horrible job at covering science. Coby Beck will republish that specific entry on Gristmill shortly. When he does so will that be considered a source I can put on wiki? Wacki 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia addition?

• "In the episode on abstinence; one women giving a demonstration burning a heart shaped piece of paper saying "this is what happens when you give into the flames of love". This association between sexuality & flame in addition to abstinence is a Freudian example of sexual dysfunctions and/or sever psychological illness. is this worth listing in the trivia section or is it not relevant enough?" Roxanne Edits 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me, and is only tangentially related to the episode, let alone the article subject. Trivia sections are a plague in Wikipedia because they encourage people to free-associate and extrapolate without any attempt to source their musings. If we fail to observe Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, we should at least follow the recommendations in Wikipedia:Trivia. And we should always ask ourselves if the material is pertinent to discussing the article subject, not just some loosely connected side issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspect References

1. 10 From the climate change criticism links to a comment attacking the scientific consensus on global warming, and should probably be deleted. Since I do not know if another link is needed to replace it, I'm leaving this edit for someone else with more time and experience on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.239.254 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Lacks References

"The series has achieved worldwide success, being shown in countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Colombia, Ireland and the United Kingdom."

I live in Canada and know of no network that airs this show, references please.

Same here. I live in New Zealand and I've never heard of it being aired. I'm be bold and remove them both until someone can correct us wrong. - 203.100.216.187 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In Canada Bullshit! is aired on The Movie Network --142.68.189.28 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly long criticism sections

While it is quite reasonable — even necessary — to include criticisms of Bullshit!, it is absurd to have sections that discuss criticisms in such detail that they exceed the material in the subject's article. The information in the current "Apollonius of Tyana" section is nearly as long as the text of the article on Apollonius of Tyana, even though the Bullshit! episode was not about Apollonius, but about Jesus. I hate to delete information that someone took the trouble to research and cite sources for, but it's ridiculous to have more than a few lines of well-sourced criticism on any single episode. (In fact, one could make the argument that the criticism section should be kept to a few specific instances that amply demonstrate the biases and other problems presented in the show. In any case, the criticisms shouldn't overwhelm the subject itself, any more than they should be ignored.) Wikipedia provides links to other articles for folks who wish to know more about the subject, so it's not necessary to make entire cases for a single point here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the main article should be extended. ~ UBeR 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair criticism that there's an absolutely massive section on a complete tangent to the episode in question, little yet to the show at large. That's a straightforward violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV, especially since there's no evidence in the section that anyone other than the author has levied this criticism against the show, rendering it probable WP:OR as well, albeit well-cited OR. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow that argument, Phil. Citations should only be of reliable sources. If they are, then the editor is doing a proper sourcing job of others' work; if they aren't, they're not proper sources and should be deleted or replaced with {{fact}} tags. Either way, it's not original research, just a sourcing issue. I feel that the undue-weight situation is the real problem here. But to address the reliable-source issue, I did what I should have earlier and examined the sources. The article currently cites information from the following six websites:

• Tektonics ("Tekton Apologetics Ministries"): Alexa rank = 215,391
• Livius ("Article and photographs on sites, cities, civilizations, and empires): Alexa = 91,935
• The Mystica ("Encyclopedia of the occult, mysticism, and the paranormal"): Alexa = 161,038
• The Alchemy Lab ("Alchemy resources"): Alexa = 394,997
• Answers in Action ("The ministry of Bob and Gretchen Passantino"): Alexa = 687,005
• Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: Alexa = 4,489, but we hardly need that to know it's reliable

Except for the Britannica citation, not one of these qualifies as a reliable source, leaving most of the section improperly sourced, anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings don't determine reliability, and I don't know the field well enough to make a good judgment of those sources without looking at them in detail. But the major problem here isn't the reliability of the sources - remember that WP:NOR also forbids original synthesis. Even if I accept that the sources are good, unless this information has been synthesized by someone else as a criticism of the television show, it's original research to include it as a criticism in this article. It may well be a flaw in the show, but if the criticism is just being made on Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced it is, it's OR. Phil Sandifer 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings don't solely determine reliability, but really low rankings (large numbers) are generally considered evidence of non-reliability (in Wikimedia terms) of a web source. But I do see your point now. In any case, together we have two solid reasons to remove this section, so I have done so. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet More Criticism of the Criticism

In the Criticism section, there's this:

"Still, some critics sympathetic with the duo's over-arching message have expressed regret that they can occasionally slip into the same sensationalism as their targets, including validating their points with pundits who possess dubious qualifications, such as controversial rock star Ted Nugent."

This does not sit right with me. I can't pull out the DVD right now so I'm not sure of the exact wording, but in the context of the episode Penn remarks that PETA seems to think its going to win because they're fanatical, and introduces Ted Nugent by saying something along the lines of "You want fucking nuts? I'll show you fucking nuts...", the only point they intended to validate by introducing Ted Nugent is to show that he's anti-PETA, and "fucking nuts". :) Ultimately the whole point was in fact to show that he *isn't* a qualified, sane and reasonable source. Thus I feel he's a bad example to back up that statement. I've decided to be bold and delete it. Someone may want to revise the whole section, its wording seems kind of awkward. 71.87.55.36 09:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had the appropriate episode(s) handy for sourcing, I'd like to add the following preface:

Penn and Teller freely admit their show uses the same tactics of sensationalism as many of their ideological opponents, in order to stimulate thinking and discussion while entertaining. But even critics sympathetic with the duo's over-arching message sometimes express regret this slide into sensationalism…, etc.

My point would be to make clear that they aren't trying to be precisely scientific, but rather to add a showman's flair for making their points, as this kind of non-rigorous but greatly entertaining presentation gets the messages out more effectively in some ways than dry scientific explanations. Some of that is said elsewhere in the article, but I think the point needs to preface the very real discomfort the skeptic and scientific communities may feel with these shows. Anyway, that's my 2¢ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The official website

The website marked as official website of the show can only be accessed from within the United States. Because of that I don’t really thing it warrants to be included. Is there any precedent? -- User:G913 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A large amount of Wikipedia readers are American and that is the official site even if it can't be accessed by all so it should stay. --TM 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

a.... it is the official page so it should stay duh by the way does anyone know why it can only be accessed in the us

I am not sure that it matters who can or cannot view a site if it is the official site. Besides, you can do an end-run around the restrictions by looking at any internet archive like the Wayback machine if you are not in the USA.--CokeBear 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

Section on Trivia, bullet on Scientology contradicts List of Bullshit! episodes article in stating the reasons why the episode on Scientology was shelved. Which is it? Diego001 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The List of Bullshit! episodes text states exactly what the reference says; the cite for the paragraph in Bullshit! is a dead link. Therefore we either need to find the story cited here, or modify this page to use the same cite as the list. --Tjsynkral 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Penn discussed the idea of doing a B.S. episode covering Scientology on an episode of his radio show. As I recall, they never actually had any plans to cover it, because he didn't think anyone outside of Scientology actually took it seriously. For some reason, Parker and Stone thought B.S. ought to cover Scientology, so Penn just made up the "Showtime wouldn't let us" excuse, prompting Parker and Stone to creat their famous "Trapped in the Closet" episode. My memory is probably off a little--I'll try to find the episode in which Penn says this, but there's a lot of them to go through. Cafink 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Penn talks about this in the radio show from 2006-01-31, starting around the half hour mark. --Iceheart3910 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Official title of article

Is there a particular reason why this show is not titled "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" instead of just "Bullshit!", when the former is the official name of the show? --AEMoreira042281 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself. What are our sources for the "official" name? Showtime says Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Independent source IMDb agrees. It also cites Penn & Teller: BS! and Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t! as alternatives, but doesn't include just Bullshit!. Commercial source Amazon.com says Penn & Teller - Bullsh*t!, although based on the DVD cover they display (which agrees with Showtime, unsurprisingly), I deduce this is more for the sensibilities of their audience than factual. Unless we have more compelling contrary evidence or naming policy, I think we should go with Showtime's version. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And what's more, the tile appears as Penn & Teller [line break] Bullshit! during every opening sequence, and Penn said "The name of the show is: Penn and Teller, Bullshit!" when Teller was spitting pennies in an overextended metaphor (can't remember the episode). I vote for a move, too. :) — Mütze 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be specific, in "Abstinence" [4.08], Teller supposedly made an "arbitrary promise" to swing upside-down and spit pennies into a bucket until Penn said the name of the show. When Penn said sexual abstinence is "also bullshit", he quickly cautioned Teller, "Not yet! No, no! Keep your promise! The title of the show is — wait for it, wait for it — Penn & Teller: Bullshit!". Although one can't read too much into this, it does agree with all the other sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As this seems to be an uncontroversial change with no opposing reliable sources, I have been bold and made the move to Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

quote from reference #13 appears to have a typo

looking at the Criticism section, the quote from reference #13 appears to have a typo. the quote reads

"Penn and Teller showily throw this notion out the window"

shouldn't this read:

"Penn and Teller throw this notion out the window"

can someone verify the quote? --72.54.56.210 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Season 6 in 2008

In case anyone wants to add the reference: http://www.network54.com/Forum/106337/thread/1184638592/last-1187320785/Is+There+Gonna+Be+A+B.S.+Season+6- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnuspik (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD Release Section

They have released seasons 1-4 on DVD, and more (possibly) in the future, may I suggest a section for DVD releases and upcoming DVD releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.147.70 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of expletives

Not sure how to complete this edit - have removed all expletives from the article to the best of my knowledge (was a find/replace so not hand checked) - but cannot seem to modify the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.3.231 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This user did not create the correct heading so i did it for them, their original edit can be found Here. I would like to point out Wikipedia is not censored, not even for minors. Kingpomba (talk)

The nuclear power episode criticism

I haven't watched this episode for a while, but I remember they had a massive fault in it. They claimed that 50 nuclear power stations could supply the entire US's power supply. I did some research and concluded that the figure would actually be thousands of nuclear power stations. I want to add this to the article, but would this be classed as original research or what? Plus how do I cite a source for their claim without linking directly to a video of the episode (which probably wouldn't be all too legal)? Haddock420 15:53 3 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.253.170 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find some reliable source saying they need hundreds it WOULD qualify as original research. Oh and how did you come up with that figure, did you take into account modern power stations which could supposedly produce more power and did you take into account the solar power wind power and dams we all ready use?

Although even if the answer to both of this is yes it would still qualiofy as original research.Father Time89 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I just watched the episode again and Penn said we would need 400 new stations not 50.Father Time89 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

global warming / environmentalism

Who deleted the criticism on their episode on global warming? ~ UBeR (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid the removal as I have not seen any consensus as to why it should be removed.Father Time89 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)