Talk:List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Contradictory statements

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

As long as both are referenced to differant legit sources they can actually be differant. If one isn't then the one that is referenced properly is 'correct' until the other gets a source to verify their view. If BOTH are unreferenced they should of course both be removed as hearsay until one or both can be properly cited outside.
The only "proper" primary source for this is/was Penn's radio show, as it is the only time Penn has been heard discussing it. Secondary source would be the official P&T messageboard. The only truly reliable source for P&T info is Penn himself, of course, and as he always says... even that is suspect. Even properly referenced, there can only be one correct bit of info - two contradictory statements cannot coexist.

[edit] Links to topics not shows

Shouldn't the links link to pages for the *episodes*, not the topic? I know there may not be pages for the individual episodes, but thats what I would expect to find if I clicked on one of those links - NOT a link to ESP or a link to Sex. If I wanted to look those up, I wouldn't have started with a penn and teller episode list. Fresheneesz 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The links to actual topic articles is helpful, but should be secondary. The episode links should be linked to episode summary articles like it usually is with TV Show articles. DemonWeb 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I also agreeHighInBC 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Per the principle of least astonishment, I have removed all the links from the episode titles, as suggested above. Where possible (and relatively easy), I've moved non-redundant links into the episode descriptions, tweaking some wording as needed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little help

I´m writing the Bullshit! article in the portuguese wikipedia. I used most of the article here, including the episodes table, but with little changes, including some images. If you like it, it could be done here to. [1] -- Stefano

[edit] Should we list who the guests on each program are?

It'd only be a line or two extra for each show. Good idea/bad idea? --Havermayer 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say bad... the show isn't an actual factual debunking (though it sometimes is) or debate style in any real way, it's mainly for entertainment (albiet it often factual or common senseical, though I think I made that last word up!). It would probably be excessive, and not really neccisary since the topic in general is really more what's being discussed then the individuals they choose (which are usually just stated as being representatives of a much larger group). Still I don't think it would be inappropriate, maybe just excessive.

[edit] Name for episode 2-07

Both tv.com and imdb.com report this episode's name as "Yoga / Tantric Sex" instead of "New Age". Which of those names is the correct one? LuizBalloti 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Showtime lists it as "Yoga, Tantric Sex, Etc." I would think this would be the correct title. Errorlesss 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Changed word in ep3-02 from polygamy to polyamory as Penn actually uses the phrase 'these polyamorous bastards' in the show.Improbcat 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis issues

The synopsis for season 5 and part of season 1 are problematic. They use 1st person "we", and lack neutral, encyclopedic writing. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the synopsis found on the official BS website (and that brings up copyright concerns). Would someone mind taking a look at them and consider rewording/revising? Thanks.-Andrew c 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I had {{tone}}-tagged this article because of those inappropriately worded synopses, not to mention the outrageous POV in places. (It's fine for P&T to call people "crackpot", but that's neither necessary nor desirable in an NPOV encyclopedia article.) The tone tag was supposedly removed because "this is the same style as just about every 'list of X episodes' page", which even if it were true (which I don't believe) is completely irrelevant. One of the worst errors with editing Wikipedia is the belief that bad writing in one place justifies bad writing in other places. Each and every article that includes POV and chatty text must be individually fixed, even if there are 10,000 of them. (After all, there are several million of us editors, eh?) I have restored the tone tag. It should not be removed without discussion and/or fixing of the problems identified here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done some work, probably still some more to go. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That was some pretty impressive boiling down to neutral essences in a single edit. Thanks for tackling this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vague position on surveillance?

It didn't seem vague to me; the episode seemed very much anti-surveillance. Am I missing something? Earfetish1 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you said it yourself. It didn't seem vague to YOU. That would make it personel opinion and thus inappropriate to wikipedia. Find someplace to reference, or somewhere were PnT actually say their view to support yours, and you're good to go. Otherwise you countered your own point as at best being no more valid then the other. (that being the case you are of course welcomed to change it if you feel they don't validate their view either, but that can lead to an edit war which just locks threads or closes them... so much better to take the high ground and get a source!)
The episode was anti-surveillance, and I'd think Penn's position on government surveillance of private citizens would make this obvious. Saying that the episode had a "vague position on surveillance" is like saying that Penn has a "vague position on religion."

[edit] Naming?

As the official name of the show is Penn & Teller: Bullshit! should this page be at List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes not List of Bullshit! episodes? GoodnightmushTalk 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and move it since no one has any objections. GoodnightmushTalk 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new

Is there gonig to be another series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.193.40 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

thank god yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.111.198 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Attacks," "examines," "debunks," etc.

I'm leaning towards these show descriptions under "Focus and synopsis" being POV. Perhaps instead of "Focus and synopsis," it could simply be "Topic(s)" and descriptions like "Attacks something or other," they could be changed to simply "Something or other." As a specific example, take the first episode. "Attacks psychics claiming to be able to talk to the dead, alleging their techniques are little more than cold reading" could simply read "Psychics' claims of being able to talk to the dead." 67.135.49.211 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Debunks" or "Examines" is appropriate. "Attacks" is the style, but the former two are far more accurate descriptions of the show. "Attacks..." in this context is a weasel-word used whenever a charlatan wishes to wriggle out from under the eye of skepticism.

[edit] Season 6

Who got rid of the Season 6 information?Father Time89 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Season 6 Episodes

Ok where is the source that gave the information about what the episodes of season 6 will be? I can't find it in any of the sources listed.22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)