Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

7th Season

According to a commercial on showtime bullshit will be back for a 7th season "next year". Does anyone know where this should be put in the article (assuming we can find a good source or a copy of that commercial)? Father Time89 (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is not a Supernatural subject

First line of the second paragraph of the introduction starts: "Supernatural subjects of episodes include alien abduction, alternative medicine, the Bible, and ESP;". Whilst the show's standpoint may be that the Bible is fiction it still isn't supernatural, just like a childrens' fiction book isn't a supernatural subject. The childrens' book may revolve around supernatural occurances (though obviously unlikely) however the book itself is not supernatural. Please make the appropriate changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.90.58 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The truth of the Bible hinges on its supernatural elements. I would say that since the Bible purports to be a history of the world that involves the supernatural, it is reasonable to call their discussion of the Bible supernatural. That said, I don't see the argument for alien abductions being considered supernatural - although belief in alien abductions is restricted to the fringes, aliens are not inherently supernatural (as Angels and other mystical beings with magical powers would be). 0x0077BE (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP's point was that the Bible itself is not supernatural; it's just a book! The topic the Bible discusses, on the other hand, is indeed supernatural. Alien abduction stories sometimes have a supernatural motif -- "science/mankind cannot explain this" -- and in some cases are openly mystical, so at least some of the stories fall in the realm of the supernatural. 201.216.245.25 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have rephrased 'supernatural' to 'paranormal' to solve the alien objection, and clarified from 'the bible' to 'literal exegesis of the bible' to make explicit that we do not regard the existence of the bible, but rather its purported contents as paranormal. Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the sentence is pertaining to the subjects discussed in the show's episodes, not the subject itself. IE they're discussing alien abduction, not aliens. Although in the case of their bible episode it pertains to both supernatural portions of the bible as well as contradictions included in the actual book, but that doesn't change that the subject of the show pertains to the supernatural. The bible may not be a supernatural object, but the show discusses supernatural elements of it. I do not think the sentence needs to be altered to clarify that, as I don't think anyone reading the sentence is going to assume that the bible is a supernatural object, but that's me. BeardedScholar (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the opening person who asked this question is nothing but a troll. To claim that the Bible isn't supernatural is nothing more than being trollish. Believe in it if you wish or don't if you prefer but to argue that it's anything but supernatural is either stupid, attention-seeking or absurd.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 19:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a Environmental skepticism section?

Bullshit is very much all about Skepticism, so, why do we need a special Environmental skepticism section? They have done like 2 episode about the environment, so I don't see the need to add this as something special.--58.158.139.201 (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That section is more about Lomborg than Penn & Teller. It also violates undue weight by devoting space to a very peripheral part of the show. The article is about the show, not Penn & Teller. I have added a POV tag. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Penn & Teller have never questioned the existence of the environment, hence cannot be said to be 'environmental skeptics.' Section is neither necessary nor cited, and should be removed. However, it may be a good idea to break out a section on the show's generally libertarian perspective, as that is a common theme spanning many topics covered on the show, and is a minority view in the skeptics movement. Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the section to stay at all? Not only does it not provide much real information, but it makes it seem like P&T have a particularly special interest in environmental issues. They've done a similar number of shows on human sexual behavior, people spending wasting money on supposedly superior quality purchases, the paranormal, etc. Penn and Teller are skeptics, period, and making a different section for any one particular subject they're skeptical of is misleading and unnecessary. I'm going to remove it for now as there seems to be complete agreement that it is unnecessary. BeardedScholar (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're doing that, I'm also going to remove the link to the environmental skepticism page. Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Skepticism

In addition to paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims, Penn & Teller take a skeptical view of government authority. This is a minority position in the skeptical movement and perhaps ought to be highlighted as it is a running theme throughout many topics on the show. P&T are both fellows at the Cato Institute. I don't know how to code the citations, but perhaps after work I'll do some reading up on that and get this section stated. Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the title to the section. Shouldn't it be something like "libertarian bias", "libertarian affiliation" or "libertarian leaning"? They're not skeptical of libertarians or any libertarian movements that I'm aware of, and the title of the section makes it sound as if they are. Generally a word followed by skepticism/skeptic implies that the person is skeptical of it. IE "Paranormal skeptic". But I approve of the actual section as their libertarian leaning is very prominent in the show and affects pretty much every subject they discuss. BeardedScholar (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I use this term because it is what I've heard this perspective called by Shermer and other prominent skeptics when they've discussed it on various podcasts, as for the grammaticality, they don't teach parts of speech in schools these days so I'm not 100% sure, but if I understood Grammar Girl's recent show on attributive nouns correctly, the noun 'libertarian' functions as an adjective to describe what type of skepticism is being practiced. I realize this gets muddled when compared to titles like 'global warming skeptic', and I don't have a good solution. My concern with a title like 'libertarian bias' is that it would leave the impression that the show BS is peculiarly libertarian leaning, when in fact there is a schism in the skeptical community as a whole, and libertarian skepticism is itself a growing movement. Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation

On the october 31st Penn Point, Penn alludes to the fact that BS! is no longer on Showtime. This implies that it is either cancelled, or that it was moved to another network, but not necessarily cancelled. 67.176.27.46 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When Penn & Teller were in Toronto last week, Penn mentioned after the show that Bullshit is going to a new network and it was not cancelled. Obviously I don't have a source for this, but it's not cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.132.148 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

B.S. Vatican Episode Controversy

With the removal of the episode on the Vatican from the DVD and Showtime's episode listings, one wonders who sanctioned the removal and why. This sort of potential censorship seems very un-Penn & Teller-ish, to say the least, and deserves to be noted.70.185.254.116 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit's Future

When speaking to Penn after a show on January 3, 2011, I asked about Bullshit and it's status. He was busy with a lot of people, signing autographs and such, so I didn't get the chance to elaborate on his answer, but he said "we're moving to discovery." Because I didn't have a source to site I didn't edit the main article, but it would appear the discussions from November 2010 have gone through and the show is moving to Discovery, probably under the name BS or something. Again, I didn't get to elaborate with him but this is how I take it. He seemed almost disappointed when he said it, which I can understand being that you get a lot more exposure, but are obviously a lot less free on basic cable. If this is good enough source to provide, anyone is more than welcome to post it to the main article. I for one am excited to see Bullshit back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.3.70 (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit doesn't appear to be coming back... just lame-ass, clean stuff on the Discovery Channel. Think Bullshit, watered down. 24.151.113.86 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit on Netflix

The article states, under the section 'Title,' that the show can be found on Netflix, yet I cannot find the show on Netflix's website. May need edit. Ferocioustick (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw the show in a popup in one of the "example of genre" things when personalizing netflix, which launched me on a hunt to find it. It took a while, but after typing the title "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t" into the search bar I was directed to the title; only to find that it is now 'unavailable to stream'. 24.212.155.102 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move Noel Murray thing to Show Format?

In the Criticism section, there's a quote from a review saying Bullshit! isn't journalism, then explaining what it is. Not really criticism, since the show doesn't pretend to be journalism. More like saying an apple isn't an orange. In the organic food episode, Penn does a funny bit where he tries to be "the media", and quickly fails. That joke wouldn't work from a journalist (real or alleged), even less than all the other jokes journalists don't do.

Seems like it would be better suited for the section where we describe the show's general deal, but figured I should ask first. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Documentary? Bullshit!

It is much too well-edited to suit an agenda to be called a documentary. Are there enough reliable sources that allow the term to be applied indisputably? Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Documentaries are not required to be impartial, objective or tell the whole truth. Merriam-Webster says "Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

...but only if they adhere to the basic definitions stated on the same Merriam-Webster page: "a movie or television program that tells the facts about actual people and events" and "Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons." Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

They seem to. Do you know something that suggests/says the events or people in this TV program are fictional? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The real question is: do we know that they present only facts? Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No, some bullshit in a show called Bullshit! wouldn't surprise me. The way they frame the information (and their opinions of it) could certainly be seen as such. But if there are outright lies, the onus is on proving this (or at least finding a source with reasonable doubt). Virtually all of the info on Wikipedia falls under the same general "they could be lying" suspicion.

In any case, like Merriam says, propaganda documentaries are still documentaries. Like the whole truth, there's no requirement for "nothing but the truth". No documentary film can be pure, unadulterated fact, even with best intentions. There will always be inherent biases in the sequencing, music, narration and camera angles. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Martial Arts episode, they try to tell us that "Martial Arts are bullshit" by attempting to show a couple of whack jobs (who are far from being authentic martial artists) as representative of martial arts as a whole. May I remind you again that Merriam describes documentaries as based on facts. Chunk5Darth (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually had this discussion on a YouTube video of that episode (though Google seems to have erased it because I didn't join Google+). In a nutshell, yes, they start with the blanket claim. But the rest of the video goes on to show which aspects of it are bullshit, while acknowledging there are positive aspects. I can't recall Penn ever claiming the guests were representative of general martial arts. Seems like something you (and other viewers) infer on your own.

Are there any specific invented facts in this episode, or are you mainly concerned by the way they pick and choose them? If the latter, it's just a matter of conflicting perspectives. Documentaries are allowed (even encouraged) to be controversial or adversarial. Again, based on facts doesn't mean absolute truth (which probably doesn't exist). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to the party here, but I'd like to chime in and say that what makes something a documentary is clearly that it's intended to be factual content. I think that by nearly any common usage accuracy and neutrality don't play a role (even if they are common features of many documentaries). Either way, shouldn't be hard to find a source that says it's a documentary series anyway. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To "quote" or not to quote.

I recently took took the quotation marks from "bullshit" in the sentence "The stated aim of the show is to apply critical thinking to misconceptions and other bullshit." Always seems Kent Brockmanesque POV to cherry-pick one word for quotes, making it seem like a dubious or unfounded word. Like saying "Big Momma's House is a 2000 American crime "comedy" film..." (the word quoted from a film site) or "Stephen Harper is..."Prime" Minister of Canada and "leader" of the Conservative Party (quoted from his website).

User:Chunk5Darth objected, saying it is inappropriate to call an idea bullshit in Wikipedia's voice. I said (summary-style) we're just relaying the stated aim of the show, not calling any particular thing bullshit, only (rightly) implying it is a form of misconception. He countered that "We do NOT use the word "bullshit" unless it is a direct quote", and hinted that I'm violating the MoS by doing so. The linked article and this one itself show the claim is bullshit, and the lack of attribution shows that this "direct quote" violates the WP:LEADCITE part of the MoS.

I thought I was clear enough in my edit summaries, but further discussion was requested. Yay? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bullshit" is about as far from encyclopedic language as you can get (as opposed to your irrelevant examples - "comedy", "prime minister" and "leader"). If we must use it, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV comes to mind. Not sure how this is even an issue. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. Very unencyclopedic language without the quotes (and possibly POV), but it's appropriate to include with the quotes as it's their own word. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, if we're using their language verbatim, we should put quotation marks around the entire thing: "The stated aim of the show is to 'apply critical thinking to misconceptions and other bullshit'". If we're not reproducing the whole thing verbatim, we should look for a neutral synonym for "bullshit". My guess is that there isn't an appropriate one, because in this case "bullshit" means "other things that Penn and Teller think are bullshit", which includes things like anti-smoking laws and religious belief. Even if you agree with them, it's hard to justify using the term in that way in "Wikipedia's voice" while maintaining a neutral point of view. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to say a particular thing is bullshit. But saying Penn and Teller aim to expose bullshit in various things isn't the same. That's just what they do in each episode. Not really their own word, or it wouldn't be so common. It'd definitely seem less slanted if the whole stated aim was in quotes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If that stated aim is their exact quote, I agree with the above proposition. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If? I'd assumed by your "direct quote" reasoning that you knew it was. Not holding it against you, but figured you'd be the one to ask where to find it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - The difference is that when we're not using their word, we're using our words. Consider the sentences: Strom Thurmond aims to get all the filthy negros out of Congress. vs Strom Thurmond aims to get all the "filthy negros" out of Congress. Would be hard to make an argument that the first is appropriate because he said that's what he wants to do. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If filthy Negro was a common English term, with a Wiki article we could link for context, it'd be OK (well, as far as usage here goes). It'd be like saying he "aimed to rid Congress of black people". The "especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous or false" part is why there are no good synonyms for bullshit, in this context, and likely why that word was chosen as the show's title. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, it uses encyclopedic language. The use of unencyclopedic language is only appropriate when directly quoting someone. I already linked to the corresponding policy. This is getting dangerously close to WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• The article, which you seem so keen to recall, clearly states that "[b]ullshit (also bullcrap) is a common English expletive (...) It is a slang profanity term". The word "fuck" also has an article here, do you believe we should use it in our own voice as well? Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends on relevance. Here, it's high. Anyway, I've hunted down the first episode and relayed the stated goal from there. Look alright? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not depend on anything. We never use such words unless they are direct quotations. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, never. Anyway, you're OK with the latest? If so, I'll also fully quote "venting" and "student diversity" using the episodes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're walking on a very fine line, my friend. As for your question, be sure to keep WP:POINT in mind. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where the incivility was, or what POINT has to do with anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You quoted me and linked "bullshit" to it (you can say that you didn't but in case administrators decide to review this here banter, no one will buy it). As for POINT, I was just making sure that you know the dangers of over-quoting in your future edits following this discussion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that like "Here is an article which uses the word without quotes". On Bullshit is another, and it's also in lie. It was meant to point out that your claim is inaccurate, but wasn't vulgarity for its own sake or an attack on your character. I'm not looking to overquote; it'll reduce the marks and add verifiability. Just didn't want to start if you seemed ready to revert. Looks like you're fine with the first one, though. Thanks for adding "[they]". I would have, but figured it'd try to link to something. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there was no incivility at all, but I should point out that "bullshit" is not actually used in that article, in an operative sense, it's only ever referred to as the subject of the article. I'm not sure that it's universally true that we never use (rather than refer to) words such as bullshit or fuck, but I'm hard pressed to think of a situation wherein it would be appropriate outside of direct quotations, example uses (which are essentially quotations of a fictional character anyway) or specific reference to the word itself. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For my argument, see the Argument section of that article. Even uses "bullshitter", in summarizing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mini edit-war

I don't know how this is so hard, but I've noticed Chunk5Darth and Moriori are having a mini edit-war over whether to change "we" to "[they]" in the quote. @Moriori: - your assertion that we "never change direct quotations" is directly contradicted by MOS:QUOTE. Do you have an actual grammar issue here? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, you need to read MOS:QUOTE yourself. The first sentence says "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." (My emphasis). There is no good case to not faithfully reproduce Penn's quote by replacing "we" with "[they]" because it did not improve the message.

The words "we" and "they" are not synonymous.

The word "we" unambiguously says who will do the hunting. Penn would never (and didn't) refer to himself and Teller by the ambiguous "they". Beats me why anyone would prefer Wikipedia contain a contested phrase rather than faithfully reproduce the verbatim quote it is based on.

Edit war insinuations here are laughable. I have made two explained edits, and only one was a revert. But, we live and learn. I too have been here longer than 10 years but only occasionally edit because of the bullshit these days. Moriori (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The words "we" and "they" can be synonymous in that they can be replaced without changing the meaning of the sentence, as has been done in this quote. My reference to MOS:QUOTE was not to say you should change things willy-nilly, but to indicate that on that page there are obvious contradictions to your assertion that we "never" change the wording of quoted text. It is standard editorial practice to do things like change pronouns to provide context or to improve the flow of a sentence. There's probably a preference for wording the sentence in such a way that this is not necessary, but I think it's clear that we're faithfully reproducing the quote in this situation, with or without the we/they switch. There may be an argument for keeping it as "we", but you've won no one over with your arguments so far, so I suggest trying a different tack.

I also find the insuation of edit warring a bit laughable. I called it a "mini edit war" for lack of a better term, I find Guy's reaction somewhat ridiculous, as you can see below. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, the quote went from unambiguous, to ambiguous -- the meaning changed despite your claim. Secondly, no-one has yet given a good reason why "we" became "[they]" and how it improved the article. So we agree to disagree. I must say though that I think Guy Macon's reading of the entire situation leaves a bit to be desired.Moriori (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We might even agree to agree! I was mainly concerned with the specious reasoning and was neutral to start. I was neutral to weakly in favor of "[they]" before. Reading it again, I think the "Penn has said" wording is actually causing me to lean closer to the "we" camp, honestly. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I like "they". It inspired me to edit They Live. Thanks. It also helps the grammar flow, and is such a simple substitution, it's clear to the reader what was replaced. But change it to [bullpooey], and it'll turn into a maxi-war! Wait, that doesn't sound fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree (except for the thing about They live), so I've reverted to the Chunk5Darth version, at least until Moriori makes a stronger case for the "we" wording. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chunk5Darth reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Locked).

I think the above ANI posting by @Guy Macon: was premature (or, I guess, what's the opposite of premature, where you wait until the fire's gone out before you pull the fire alarm?), and the result is that the page has been protected for 5 days, apparently. Hardly seems appropriate since the "edit war" was actually over inconsequential content (minor formatting differences), and the problem has likely been resolved by now (depending on how Moriori feels about it). Not much harm done, though, the show was cancelled years ago and the article's in reasonably good shape. Still, poor form. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction: WP:ANEW is not WP:ANI. I gave Chunk5Darth two warnings for edit warring, and his only response was to revert two more times. Alas, Chunk5Darth's edit summaries and this thread at User talk:Moriori#February 2014 indicates that multiple editors of this page are under the mistaken impression that they are allowed to edit war if there is a content dispute and they are in the right. Every valid exemption to Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is listed at Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, and winning in a content dispute -- even if the other fellow is violating a Wikipedia policy -- is not on the list. There are ways of dealing with an editor who does not follow policy. Reverting him multiple times is not one of them. This may be ("may be", not "is") true even if each individual editor only reverts once or twice; see Wikipedia:Tag team. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you even talking about. No one is saying that edit warring was OK because he was right in the end. I don't know about the reversions that were happening >24 hours ago, but we built a consensus above on the content that had been reverted twice, Chunk5Darth did a copyedit on the implementation thereof, was reverted with a specious reason, so he assumed good faith and restored his previous version, and was then reverted again with the same reason, at which point he dropped it. I took the initiative to try and build a consensus on this incredibly minor point, and things seem to have been resolved with a minimum of controversy. And then you reported the page and had it protected. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

He reverted three times, I warned him twice, and his only response was reverting two more times. And you know that he has "dropped it"...how? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

He reverted one time on totally different content, reverting a totally different user, after you warned him once. I agree that I don't know that he's dropped it, but he didn't seem to attempt to revert again, so I don't see why you would assume he hasn't dropped it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that sure (cordially) blew up. Guess those other quotes will have to wait. For what it's worth, I don't mind "we" or [they]. Lean a little toward [they], just for flow. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that the page protection has expired...

Now that the page protection has expired, (and one would hope that those who were edit warring will now pay attention top our WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy and WP:BRD advice page) can we talk about which version we prefer? WP:MOSQUOTE says:

"The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose it within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context identifying "him" is not included in the quotation: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important.

Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. When a vulgarity or obscenity is quoted, it should appear exactly as it does in the cited source; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. In carrying over such an alteration from a quoted source, [sic] may be used to indicate that the transcription is exact."

So we can safely dismiss the claim that one edit warrior made ("We NEVER change quoted statements attributed to anyone. NEVER") as being a made-up rule, not the actual rule. That being said, we don't have to replace "Penn said the aim of the show is to 'hunt down as many purveyors of bullshit as we can.'" with "Penn said the aim of the show is to 'hunt down as many purveyors of bullshit as [they] can.'" I personally find the [they] version to be awkward, but I would like to hear what other editors think. Which version is better? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"[they]" is simply third person for "we", and since we are referring to Penn in third person, the partial quote needs to remain consistent. If retaining "we" is an absolute must, it should be done in a slightly different way:

Penn said: "The aim of the show is to hunt down as many purveyors of bullshit as we can."

Personally, I still prefer the version with "they", as it maintains a better flow. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the "they" version sounds a bit awkward. I don't think that the colon is necessary, but it doesn't hurt. Seems fine to me that way. (Though I still resent Guy's patronizing attitude, given that his accusations of edit warring still seem wholly ridiculous.) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that this page was temporarily protected because of edit warring. Feel free to take it up with the admin who protected the page. Meanwhile, I suggest that you spend less time complaining and more time following WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. Also, try not to be so quite so thin-skinned. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I already took it up on ANEW and received no response, I've made it clear (and it seems all the editors actually involved in the "edit war" agree with me) that I think your report was inappropriate and that your skewed account of what occurred is what led to the page being protected. Now that it's over it's over, I just don't want this to be an ongoing problem, where you continue to patronize people and disrupt the editing of the page.

Also, not that it matters, but it's bizarre for you to insinuate that I was not following WP:TALKDONTREVERT given that I was a neutral party trying to build consensus. If you'll notice, I gave my suggestions for the page - I'm not complaining about your nonconstructive attitude in lieu of making suggestions, I'm trying to get the discussion on track without you throwing inappropriate warnings and reports on the administrator's noticeboard. I'm hoping to cut that unproductive nonsense off at the knees. Hopefully you'll take that to heart. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Because as we all know, Wikipedia administrators regularly protect pages just because Guy says so, never bothering to examine the actual edit history. Riiiiiight.

You are the one who derailed a conversation about whether to use "we" or "[they]" with personal attacks. It was already on track before you derailed it. It says at the top of this page;

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! article."

So could you PLEASE stop complaining about me and start discussing improvements to the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! article. Just stop. Let it go. If you really dislike getting warnings for edit warring so much, simply follow WP:BRD and there will be no reason to warn you.

I am now going to simply ignore any further comments by you that do not discuss improvements to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify to any future readers who do not want to wade through the whole conversation in the future, I have not been accused of edit warring at all and have gotten no warnings about it. I, like Guy, was a neutral party in the "edit warring" discussion, but my position was that there was no edit war and that Guy's report on it was misleading. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By my count we have one editor who prefers "we", one who prefers "[they]" and one (that would be me) with a very slight preference for "we". The editor who made up the new rule instead of following the actual rule found in WP:MOSQUOTE appears to have withdrawn from the discussion. So, gentlemen. which version do we choose? --Guy Macon (talk)

The more I think about it, the more I think "we" is the right wording. The problem is that the subject of the sentence is "Penn" and without knowing that he said, "they" you're expecting him to use a first person singular, not a first person plural. I think the reason it feels awkward is that when it undergoes the transformation from singular to plural it does become slightly more ambiguous, because "we" refers to a group of people, but only one that includes Penn, which means it's either Penn & Teller or the entire production staff of the show. When you go to "they", it could be any group of people, and because it doesn't say "he", you sort of need to think about what other possible groups Penn could be referring to. Obviously it only takes a few milliseconds to figure out what it means, but if you're reading along at full speed it can break the flow to have that happen.

Regarding the colon wording (Penn said: "the aim of the show is to .."), I understand what Chunk5Darth is going for there, but I don't like the way it sounds in that paragraph. When you do it that way, it seems like a non-sequitur. When you have it the other way, it's clear that we, the editors of the encyclopedia, are trying to convey to the readers what the aim of the show is, and we're using Penn's words. When you just say that Penn said something, and the thing that he said is about the aim of the show, the role of that sentence in the paragraph becomes a bit more ambiguous, because it could be that we are trying to convey that this is how Penn thinks about the show, or that we're trying to convey something about Penn himself. I think the way it's written now and where the quote starts removes nearly all that ambiguity. But of course, I could be reading into things way too much. I think it feels natural with the "we" being included in the quote, but maybe Chunk5Darth has a better compromise wording that addresses my concerns about non-sequitur. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't really care, but lean toward "they". Penn & Teller are basically indivisible, most of the time. He speaks for both of them. Don't think it'll confuse anyone. Attributing "the aim of the show" to Penn wouldn't be cool, though. He didn't use those words. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe substituting [they] for [he and Teller] is the middle ground that will put an end to all of this? Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That might work. One problem with that is that it's not clear that that's who he was referring to. I'm guessing he was referring to at least himself and Teller, but likely also producer Michael Goudeau and possibly the entire production staff. I'm still in favor of "we" for reasons above. I'm guessing that for such a small change if we do something that "feels" weird to new eyes it'll be a perennial problem as people stumble across it, find it to be awkwardly phrased, then change it to something else. We could probably just leave it as is and see if it eventually gets reverted to "we" again and if so, take that as the more natural wording. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the suggestions above are good. I am fine with whatever version the rest of you choose. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, my suggestion, as it is worded, would not leave any doubts as for the fact that "he" refers to Penn. The assumption that the reader might get confused by thinking that "he and Teller", almost right after "Penn said", would refer to anyone other than Penn, is pretty far fetched. My problem with "we", with the absence of a colon, is the first person phrasing (in that suggested grammatical context) that would lean towards POV, as we discussed earlier regarding the sensitivity of using profanities on Wikipedia. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we can assume that any reader particularly sensitive to the word "bullshit" would either be acclimatized or scared off by the time they've read the article title and lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: I'm really not concerned with the "he", I'm saying that "[he and Teller]" is likely an inaccurate assessment of who he is talking about when he says "we". I really don't think that we have to worry about any POV concerns, as it's very clearly a quote from Penn and in no way in the "voice of the encyclopedia". The question isn't about the sensitivity to using profanity in the article, it's a question of the tone, which is alleviated by the use of a direct quotation attributed to Penn. I think the profanity is a red herring here, as we could be having the same discussion if someone were trying to use "thingamabob" or "whatchamacallit" without it being a direct quotation.

I am also not convinced that it's ungrammatical to say "we" there, because the subject of the dependent clause doesn't need to match the subject of the independent clause. The fact that it's a direct quote, that it's very clear who is saying it and that it's not ungrammatical to keep it that way in the sentence makes me think that the "we" wording is best. It's obvious if you think about it for a millisecond that "they" is replacing "we", but I think you actually do have to think about it, because "we" is not the only thing that that could be replacing, and as a result it breaks the "flow" of the reading. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Partial quotes should make perfect grammatical sense even if you remove the quotation marks. This is the reason "we" doesn't work. As far as the profanity is concerned, this is an ongoing misunderstanding. I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but this is an issue of clear attribution, as I already explained. As for the last comment, "we" only replaces "they", nothing beyond that. Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what is confusing me about your grammatical point is that the partial quotation is grammatically sound, it just has a different meaning. "He said that we are going to the store" is a well-formed sentence, but it implies that the person saying the sentence was included by whoever "he" is. If I add partial quotes to the sentence I think it just changes the meaning a bit - "He said that 'we are going to the store.'" I dunno, the second way sounds awkward. As for the second point, I'm just saying that the attribution is very clear already so I don't think we need to worry about that part of it. And the third thing, I'm aware what role the word is playing in the sentence, I'm saying the reason that it might "feel" awkward when you run across it is that it actually does create some ambiguity because "we" can refer to fewer groups of people than "they" can, and there's no obvious plural antecedent in the sentence. If it was, "Penn and the producers said ...", then there wouldn't be a disconnect because the subject of the sentence was plural, but since the subject was singular you in some sense change the meaning of "we" from "Penn and an unspecified group containing at least one other person" to "an unspecified group containing at least two people" (discounting the neutral-gender interpretation of the word "they"). Anyway, I think either way it's a bit of a bind because I think most people won't find that "we" reads as awkward, but your point is taken about how it would change things if you were to remove the quotations. I think the bigger problem is that people might read it and have to process who "they" might refer to, which breaks the flow.

I propose we leave it as [they] for now, and if we find that it's getting changed to "we" then just leave it as "we", taking it as a sign that that's the more natural-feeling wording. The only other option I see is to try to request feedback from people who haven't seen the sentence before and see what the consensus is on "fresh eyes", but I think that everyone will agree with me that that seems like a bit much for something so unbelievably inconsequential.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the point: because it is a partial quotation, it is much easier to lean towards the different meaning, which implies the speaker (Wikipedia), and you yourself agreed that merely adding quotation marks would turn the sentence awkward. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528040406/http://www.libertarianism.com/pop_celebrity/penn-and-teller to http://www.libertarianism.com/pop_celebrity/penn-and-teller
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123163614/http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/news-and-views/cover-story/No-Bullshit-Penn-and-Teller-106638604.html to http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/news-and-views/cover-story/No-Bullshit-Penn-and-Teller-106638604.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Topics in Ethics Calling Bullshit

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaylaPen246, FanOfAll2024 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zachscillia.

— Assignment last updated by Zachscillia (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Criticism" section

The end of the Criticism section is not neutral, or encyclopedic, and assumes an opinionated point of view that aims to downplay the criticism. It is also unsourced. Criticism section is not the right place for a direct rebuttal of said criticisms. DommageCritique (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Topics in Ethics C Calling Bullshit

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abby713 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Okigbov.

— Assignment last updated by Okigbov (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)