Talk:Man vs. Wild

ResurgamII's massive edits

The series shows Grylls demonstrating extreme methods of survival in harsh conditions. -- We have solid sources stating that this is not the case. This is a false statement.

Removal of 2/3 of the survival advice section: As stated in the archives, and never countered, pointing out factual inaccuracies in entertainment-related artices is essentially *standard* on Wikipedia. You're of course free to remove any original research, but there was no original research in that section; it was all referenced material. It wasn't even SYN, just a basic statement of facts, like you'll find in Invincible (2006 film), Miss Potter, World Trade Center (film), Paul Revere's Ride, How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic, A Sound of Thunder (film), Ed Wood (film), Band of Brothers, Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 film), Walking Tall, They Died with Their Boots On, Bruce Lee: The Man, The Myth, Braveheart, The_Truth_About_Hillary, Dinosaur_(film), The_Day_After_Tomorrow, Alexander_(film), and thousands of others.

Removal of caveats, such as "supposedly": These are not weasel words in this case. This is a case where we really do not know whether these things actually happened, or were made up for TV. I would be open other wordings, certainly, but the caveats need to be presented. -- Rei 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) ?

One possible alternative that I would be open to, for example, would be a single caveat at the top of the section. Something along the lines of, "The show presents the following as techniques that Bear uses to survive", or other such wording. -- Rei 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Drinking Urine

Please see wikipedia article "Drinking Urine". It will hydrate the body for a short period of time, though after multiple consumptions it will become dangerous. Nonetheless, it will help you survive for a bit longer. I would also like to point out that I have drank my own urine during a survival excercise camp a few years ago. It is pretty salty but remember that urine is 97% water. It tasted bad, but it felt like I had a drink of soda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.165.60 (talk) 21:35, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a reference.

2) Seawater is ~96% water. It'll dehydrate you, too.

Salty fluids dehydrate you. If you'd actually read the references (real references, not wikipedia links), which go to the US Army Field Manual, an interview with the head of the Texas Urological Society, and survival guides, you'd understand why. -- Rei 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Survival Advice section

There is a bullet under this section that says, "Getting wet: Being wet greatly increases the risk of hypothermia and also introduces other dangers that would not be present on dry land." The fact that it's in the inaccuracies section is either implying that Bear and the producers do not agree with this statement, or that this belief is inaccurate. I always thought this was true, so I'm assuming the implication is that Bear and the show's producers do not subscribe to this belief. This, however, is not true. Bear stresses in nearly every single cold-climate episode that getting wet is dangerous and could lead to hypothermia and that you should dry off as soon as possible. Several times, Bear has gotten wet on purpose to demonstrate the dangers (sometimes protecting his clothes from the water, sometimes stripping down to dry off), but he has never said anything that would contradict this original bullet point (at least that I've seen), so I'm not sure why it's there. Anyone? 68.198.153.243 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that someone went in and dramatically consolidated that section so that some bullet points barely make sense. I tried to go back in and make the section more readable, but my changes were removed. I'm tired of banging my head against this brick wall. The section was nearly perfect about a week ago; I see no reason for the changes that were made. I suggest it be returned to the state it was in, but I will not make any more corrections just to see them obliterated a week later. --Sm5574 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it the old college try and at least remove the getting wet part. It's ridiculous that it's there, with the suggestion being that the show actively recommends you get wet and get hypothermia. Anyone with half a brain, or who's actually seen the show (regardless of the other controversies), cannot purport that Bear or the producers ever recommended purposely getting wet in freezing climates.68.198.153.243 06:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement merely needs to be reworded. Originally it said that Bear often submerses himself in water, which introduces the risk of hypothermia and also exposes him to other dangers that are not present on dry land. It also pointed out that getting wet is generally considered something to be avoided. There's nothing wrong with that statement, which is exactly why no one had any business changing it. --Sm5574 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the times when Bear purposely jumps into freezing water, with no apparent survival purpose (i.e.: not even to make progress towards rescue), then I disagree. Neither Bear, nor the producers, ever advise anyone to submerge themselves in freezing water and get hypothermia. In these instances, Bear submerges himself in freezing water intentionally to show the audience what protective actions to take immediately afterwards to prevent hypothermia, in case they should accidentally do the same thing. There's a big difference. You can't demonstrate how to dry off if you're not wet, so Bear intentionally gets wet. Yes, jumping into freezing water is inadvisable, but the show is not suggesting that anyone do so in these instances. Now, if you're just referring to any time Bear gets into water at all, such as when he crosses a river to make progress towards rescue, then that's an entirely different issue and not what I'm specifically addressing and I apologize for the confusion; however, he still typically takes preventative measures against hypothermia, such as protecting his clothes inside a waterproof jacket before crossing and immediately changing once he reaches the other side. 68.198.153.243 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your portrayal of the situation is only accurate in, what, two episodes? And only parts of them, at that. He jumps in an ice lake in the Alps to inaccurately[1] describe how to get out of it, and warms up after landing in a lake in the Sierras. The rest of the time, in almost every episode, he deliberately beelines for the nearest source of cold water and jumps in it to "get downstream". -- Rei 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who pissed in your cornflakes? Maybe it shouldn't have been deleted, but the original entry definitely has to at least be reworded (as Sm5574 said). Barely bean 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All I was trying to say is that Bear has said multiple times that getting wet is undesirable and could lead to hypothermia. This contradicts the assertion that he recommends getting wet. The section this was in was "inaccurate survival advice". At the very least it should be reworded so that it includes the incorrect rationale for getting wet. From his "survivalist" point of view, jumping into water to get downstream is the shortest or only path to rescue in his contrived scenarios. But whatever, I understand 100% that I'm splitting hairs and clearly I just need to drop it, so I will. 68.198.153.243 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Future of the show is uncertain"

Removed this bit added by user Rei who wrote on the edit summ. "Restoring statement about the future of the show, as it is referenced.":

The future of the show is uncertain. with a link to a Dailymail article.

However, upon closer examination the article list nothing about the future of the being "uncertain". Thus removed. This was previously deleted by was Tao of tyler. Corrode 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been shortened since its original publication. It originally included a C4 executive stating, "If what has been alleged is proven to be true, I think the channel would have to think very seriously about its future relationship with him." I've replaced the article reference with a Times article.

The altered wording is fine by me. -- 70.57.222.103 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Drinking Urine / Using Wikipedia as a reference

User:64.58.165.60 has, three times in a row, added an inaccurate statement into the "drinking urine" section, providing only Wikipedia as a reference. Each time, I have removed it, noting that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."[2]. 64.58.165.60, if this continues, I'm going to ask for intervention. -- Rei 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the editor with the anonymous IP address attempted to add the following from this edit. :

Urine is about 2% salt, and can thus cause further dehydration if consumed in high amounts. However, consuming urine to stay alive has been accredited to the survival of trapped climbers and lost seamen [3]. The consumer will not feel the ill effects of urine consumption until he/she has consumed fairly large quantities of urine [www.wikipedia.org/drinking_urine].

I don't find any problems at all with the first two sentences. A quick google check brings up two reports from University of Hamburg Department of Biology and Vanderbilt Univ. stating urine is around the same percentage of salt content and one discusses why humans cannot drink urine for too long (ie kidney damage). The second sentence is also on par with this news report as well as this one from the UK Times site.

A slight rewording of the second sent. to "lost or trapped travelers" or (coal workers in this case) and reference change is simply needed. Corrode 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's called an anecdote, and it is not evidence. Otherwise, I could claim that because just before the last time I had surgery I had my photo taken, and because I survived surgery, that taking your photo in pre-op makes you survive surgery. I'm sure you see the fallacy in that, but that's exactly what you're doing here. We don't need anecdotes when we already have ample expert testimony referenced. Now, if you had similarly expert testimony or a study to back up your claims... -- Rei 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I left in the first claim (2% salt), because it was backed up, and because it coincides with the other references (US Army Field Manual says the same thing). Neither ref made the claim that it had to be "consumed in high amounts" to cause dehydration; rather, the argument presented in the first reference would argue *against* that, because it points out that your body can't concentrate salts any more than it already does in urine, and that drinking it is like drinking seawater (the already-existing expert references say the same thing). I took out the anecdotal claims, as they have no merit. I also took out the second reference, as it was a psych professor making medical claims that he has no qualifications to make in a non-reviewed paper, using geocities and similar sites as references to most of his claims that were referenced at all. There was only one solid reference in that entire page, and that was a dated reference that only supported a single one of the hundreds of claims on that site. -- Rei 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis.

I've removed a good chunk of information from the "Inaccurate survival advice" section per WP:SYN. This is pretty much a classic case of "source A said X, source B (in this case Bear) did Y, thus Bear is wrong." The problem I had with the portion I deleted is that none of sources linked to (some of which were shoddy or not even working) had nothing to do with criticizing Bear's survival advice. This is the hallmark of inappropriate synthesis. The bit I did leave is good, because it's an actual criticism of what appears on the show. What you can't do is original research and start extrapolating. ~ UBeR 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the same problem I've had with the inaccurate survival advice section from the start, which I can assume is the problem ResurgamII had, and going back all the way to the first time I removed the bit about drinking urine. Whether drinking urine is in fact bad for you is not the issue, and I frankly couldn't care less. But its inclusion isn't encyclopedic because no credible source has criticized it. As soon as some reliable source has said something about Bear doing it, like in the case with the raft, the hotels, the bear suit, etc., THEN you can put it in. And claiming that this doesn't violate WP:SYN or WP:OR just because it is done in other articles is a Tu Quoque attempt at defense. --Tao of tyler 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a tu quoque argument; I'm not making any claims about you. It is demonstration of an existing standard. As stated previously, you're of course free to remove any original research, but there was no original research in that section; it was all referenced material. It wasn't even SYN, just a basic statement of facts, like you'll find in Invincible (2006 film), Miss Potter, World Trade Center (film), Paul Revere's Ride, How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic, A Sound of Thunder (film), Ed Wood (film), Band of Brothers, Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 film), Walking Tall, They Died with Their Boots On, Bruce Lee: The Man, The Myth, Braveheart, The_Truth_About_Hillary, Dinosaur_(film), The_Day_After_Tomorrow, Alexander_(film), and quite literally thousands of others.

How is it OR? There is no original research in that section. How is it SYN? It doesn't do any "Source A says X, source B says Y, therefore X + Y = Z". It simply does, "Source A says X". Invincible says that Leonard Tose was fashionable, not garrishly dressed; Miss Potter says that Mr. Warne died of anemia, which wouldn't have included a cough as presented; World Trade Center didn't give a fair portrayal to the actions of Dave Karnes; How Titus Pullo Brought Down The Republic points out that Mark Antony couldn't have come with armed bodyguards because weapons were banned; in Ed Wood, Dolores Fuller learns of Woods' tranvestitism earlier than she did in real life; and on, and on. All of those are far closer to SYN and OR than anything you see here, yet they're standard on Wikipedia. And unlike the vast majority of "inaccuracies" pointed out on entertainment-related articles, almost in this article all referenced. This article far exceeds the standard for entertainment-related articles, and is distinctly not OR or SYN. I challenge you to demonstrate OR or SYN, and demonstrate that we don't exceed the standard for entertainment-related articles, instead of making sweeping, unsupported claims. -- Rei 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the content again. If you re-add it, we will have to go through the dispute resolution, which I really don't feel like doing. The problem, if you're not seeing it, is that the sources in the section do not address specifically what Bear is doing. That is, they aren't criticizing Bear, so to use it to criticize Bear yourself is original research, or more specifically, inappropriate synthesis. ~ UBeR 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Take it to dispute resolution if you are unhappy - let's not have a revert war. --Fredrick day 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's as though Bear said, "a shot through the heart from an AK-47 at point-blank range won't kill you," and I provided a reference that says, "A shot through the heart from an AK-47 at point-blank range is lethal," and you remove it, stating "That's OR and SYN, since the reference doesn't say, 'Bear is incorrect in saying that a shot through the heart from an AK-47 at point-blank range is lethal'".

I welcome dispute resolution, so I'm going to go ahead and put in a request.

Lastly, thank you for *finally* bringing this to talk. Each time it's come up, I've brought this to talk, and each time, the talk page has been ignored. -- Rei 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: if you have trouble accessing a reference, or you find one to be shoddy, please point it out so it can be replaced. The appropriate response to "a dead link here, a reference I don't like there" is not "remove the entire section". Especially when there are people here who would gladly improve any set of references you think needs improving. -- Rei 16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's only secondary to the fact it violates WP:OR. ~ UBeR 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it's an improper course of action. -- Rei 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To remove content that is in violation of one of Wikipedia's most essential policies? I think not. ~ UBeR 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Original research and synthesis

Is pointing out referenced factual inaccuracies concerning a TV show WP:OR or WP:SYN when the reference unarguably addresses the claim made by the show, but does not mention the show's making of that claim? Rei 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: This issue really goes back to the section, "ResurgamII's Massive Edits", and even to the archives. So, you may want to start a bit further back than the section "Original research and synthesis". -- Rei 16:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: To see what edits are in contention, check out this diff. -- Rei 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rei's POV pushing and original research

I think it should be said that Rei's edits on the MvW article offer a manipulated view due to some sort of agenda in proving the whole show is fake. Judging from her glee of vandalism, her own comments, and her own research and analysis, her edits on the article should be taken into careful consideration for the sake of maintaining NPOV. 24.90.213.242 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Rei's agenda is irrelevant. I have made several edits to portions that were biased in an effort to make them more balanced, and I invariably received positive feedback. The question is not how such information should be presented but whether such information should be included at all. I can understand the hardline "verifiable resources" criteria, but the show has received such widespread criticism from the public that to ignore it is to leave the article incomplete. Just because a news outlet fails to report something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As an example, I would refer you to Digging for the Truth, which has been scoffed by mainstream archaeologists and historians, but they haven't bothered to publish an article about it, so by Wikipedia standards that criticism doesn't exist. So no one who researches the show on here will know that the show is not generally considered historically reliable.

I understand the need for such standards and restrictions, but when an article will be incomplete without those sources, maybe it's time to think about the interpretation of those rules. --Sm5574 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it all sums up to the following fictional scenario, presented earlier: In some future episode (let's say, "Man vs Wild: Iraq"), Bear claims that being shot in the head with an AK-47 at point blank range won't kill you. I present a reference from a good source that states, "Being shot in the head with an AK-47 is lethal at point blank range." My addition then gets reverted because the reference didn't say, "Bear's claim that being shot in the head with an AK-47 is lethal at point blank range is false." That's the sort of stuff that's been going on here, and I think any reasonable person should find it ridiculous.

As for some anon IP (User:CCorrosioNN, assumedly) badmouthing me, don't worry, I can take it. If they have a problem with me laughing at a joke (about the fact that Bear wasn't really staying in the shelters that the article says he stayed at, but in hotels, as was revealed by the Daily Mail expose), or me making a true statement that's been confirmed by the press on a talk page, or me being the system administrator for a wiki on a subject that I care about (people presenting false, dangerous information as fact), so be it. -- Rei 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the example at WP:SYN? The example is that Jones copied a reference and the Chicago MoS, a reliable source, says that wouldn't be plagiarism. However, even using the Chicago MoS, you cannot say Jones is not a plagiarizer, because the Chicago MoS does not specifically state Jones is not a plagiarizer. So this matches quite well with your example, and WP:SYN clearly states this is not allowed. You obviously understand the sources are not commenting on Bear's survival advice, so the only thing now is for you to adhere to the no original research policy. ~ UBeR 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I understand the need for such standards and restrictions, but when an article will be incomplete without those sources, maybe it's time to think about the interpretation of those rules." What's interesting about this is that you have basically just admitted that such information is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Kind of funny, actually.

There seems to be two camps here; the anti-MvW people, who feel that it is their god-given duty to enlighten the world (through wikipedia) that it is in fact a bad idea to get wet when you're stranded in the arctic and damn the rules if they get in the way of doing that. Then on the other side is the pro-wikipedia rules people who really aren't that concerned with "the truth" as they are with facts, of which I am apart of.

And while I can't speak for everyone else, I can say that my feelings on the subject is that the article in its current form is more than balanced and idea that this article is incomplete without the inclusion of this rather clear violation of synthesis is just faulty reasoning. We have Ron Hood's statement presenting the criticism, and to attempt to list any violations is unnecessary. This ARTICLE doesn't have to dispense "the correct" survival advice just because the show might sometimes dispense "the incorrect" survival advice.--Tao of tyler 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. We're out promoting an agenda, and you're only concerned with "the facts". That's quite a curious method of promomoting "the facts" (eliminating them from the article). As for this article not having "to dispense the correct survival advice", this article should not be forced to play by different rules than the rest of Wikipedia's entertainment-related articles and be banned from listing inaccuracies. -- Rei 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a fallacy to promote your argument only hinders it. ~ UBeR 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that fallacy is? The removed section, which was far more referenced than most of the rest of Wikipedia's entertainment-related articles, is somehow deserving of harsher treatment why? In legal circles, inequitable application of a statute is always a major concern, and can be cause for nullification of a case or even, occasionally, an entire law. It's an argument that has been made, successfully at times, against death penalty cases, for example. It's not a "fallacy"; holding certain situations to a vastly stricter standard than others is inherently unfair. -- Rei 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fallacy is in assuming to because another article doesn't adhere to a Wikipedia policy, this one doesn't either. It's a poor and fallacious argument that I don't think anyone will buy. Keep in mind this is not a court of law; it's Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 03:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. We're not talking about "another article". We're talking about a demonstrable standard covering thousands of articles. Care to try your post again? -- Rei 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You did, actually. You have justified your WP:SYN numerous times to pointing out other articles that supposedly do the same, so by your logic this article doesn't violate synthesis because other articles violate it in the same way.--Tao of tyler 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, straw man. I have not "justified (my) WP:SYN numerous times", because I have argued *against* the section being WP:SYN. My argument is that either a huge chunk of WP:SYN is in violation of it, in which case it's not an enforceable policy or is a policy that is being enforced extremely inequitably (thus violating the basic principle of fairness), or (my contention) that it is not WP:SYN -- just a basic statement of well-referenced facts.

Either way, we weren't talking about "another article"; we were talking about a demonstrable standard covering thousands of articles. -- Rei 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're talking about a thousand other articles or just one other; if this one article alone violates a policy, the offending content will be removed. Period. It doesn't matter what's on other articles--those can be dealt with individually on their own. ~ UBeR 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think is more reasonable: Thousands of articles on entertainment topics (i.e., articles that tend to be contentious, with lots of editors) are wrong and nobody's caught on, or your interpretation is incorrect? I'm going to follow Occam's razor on this one. -- Rei 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are actually saying you should be allowed to break policies because other entertainment articles are not as good as this one? I do not wish to entertain your specious arguments any longer. ~ UBeR 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen, if you're not going to read what I write, please don't bother to reply. -- Rei 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, how about you WP:AGF for change? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight here:

First of all, I don't give a flying flip about telling people MvW is wrong or about upholding Wikipedia standards. What I care about is that the information available on Wikipedia is consistent, whole, and accurate. I believe the removed information added to the article, and I believe it was adequately referenced. (I cannot comment on the accuracy of it.) THAT is why I have a problem with it being removed. No one is complaining that the information was wrong, only that it didn't belong. I'm not convinced that's true, but I am convinced the public is better off having that information available to them than not.

Second, I am only complaining about two things: 1) legitimately referenced material was removed and 2) the remaining material, which was worded fairly and made perfect sense, was reworded in such a way as to make it confusing and in at least one case, to make it questionable that it should even be included. Such editing is inexcusable.

Third, my comments which you call "funny" were not ironic at all. I will state flat out that if the rules of Wikipedia prevent us from including widely known information then those rules need to be readdressed. Regardless, I have seen countless articles on Wikipedia that say, "Citation needed" on virtually every statement. Why, then, is this article damned for HAVING CITATIONS?? --Sm5574 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't uphold Wikipedia's policies and standards, then that'll be your problem alone. There are rules set in place for very good reasons. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is a very important Wikipedia concept and should not be forgotten. Also, you seem to be fine with any information, so long as it has a reference cited after it. This is a bad idea for creating accurate information, and goes against Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. I should note some, if not many, of the references from the removed material was either not working or were not reliable sources. But again, this is only secondary to the fact that the content violated WP:OR policies. It's not "legitimately referenced" if it is breaking rules. You cannot use sources not related to the specific topic to criticize something on your own. This is very clear and very important. ~ UBeR 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with the sources that were cited, but maybe I was reading the ones that later stopped working. Regardless, you have not addressed my second point, that this section was edited to the point of making it unreadable and less accurate. --Sm5574 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to mention that if you have a problem with a reference, all you have to do is say which one, and I'll get you a better one? -- Rei 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to mention the main problem is OR right now? ~ UBeR 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking you to quit citing a non-issue. -- Rei 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Violating WP:OR policies is a non-issue? This is a serious issue, and needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, do you ever stop with the non-sequiturs? I was talking about the fact that you keep bringing up dead reference or ones that you didn't like (without naming names, of course :P), even though each time you've said that I've pointed out that all you had to do was say which ones and I'd replace them with better ones. Don't take my words and pretend that they were being used in a completely different context. -- Rei 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a response saying it's a non-issue, right after I mention the fact it's in violation of WP:OR, and you expect me to assume you're not talking abut what I just stated? That's what doesn't follow. ~ UBeR 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep using as a complaint that some of the links were bad or you didn't like the sources (never mentioning which ones). I keep pointing out that you know very well that all you'd have to do is point out which ones. You always follow with something to the effect of, "Well, the real problem is OR". And then, a week later, you raise the same initial complaint again! I point out that I'm getting tired of this "duck and weave", making a complaint about something that you know is a non-issue. You again weave back to "the main problem is OR." I try not to let you change the subject, and insist that you stop citing a non-issue. Then, once again, you pretend like I'm talking about OR because you're not willing to defend your initial claim.

Let me clear this up right here, once and for all: Don't keep complaining about a point you're not willing to defend. If the only point you're willing to defend is OR, then only make that point. Complaining about something that you're not willing to defend, and then changing the topic to OR when your complaint is countered, and pretending like the thread was only about OR in the first place when you get a reply, is really, really annoying. -- Rei 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rei, you stated it's a non-issue directly after I stated there are OR problems on this page. It's clear and it's still there for anyone to read. To pretend as if I should assume you're not directly replying to something I just stated is foolish. Needless to say, the OR problems are in fact only secondary to non-functioning or unreliable sources. It would matter if the sources were working and of high reliability if it was still violating OR. So there's no point in getting in to arguments over links that should not even be in the article in the first place. It's moot. ~ UBeR 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's moot." -- Then quit bringing it up.

"directly after I stated there are OR problems on this page." -- I very clearly stated, "I'm simply asking you to quit citing a non-issue." That phrase doesn't even make sense as a response to the OR issue; "I'm simply asking" means that I already said it (not to mention that I had just explained that your "reference" argument was a non-issue). I asked you to do something. You changed the topic. I repeated my request. End of story. -- Rei 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from WATT, my opinion is that this article is a bunch of really crappy lists and huge block-quotes that need to be cleaned up and converted to decent prose. Try not to force individual, isolated facts into what is supposed to be a general overview. Nifboy 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree fully. ~ UBeR 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag added. 24.90.213.242 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So do it. And watch your edits get undone. And they will, with no explanation, no regard for accuracy or anything else. You'll make edits, just as I did, that do nothing but make the article more balanced and readable, and they'll disappear in two days. Please, be my guest, but I'm not going to waste my time. --Sm5574 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival Advice

This section is atrocious. First off, having a section called "Survival Advice" makes it read like actual survival tactics that wikipedia is almost endorsing, and is about as far from encyclopedic as you can get. The list format as well needs to go, so at the very least someone should rewrite the section as more of a summary, if not just delete the entire thing. --Tao of tyler 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Wikipedia isn't a guide, nor should it be used to simply step-by-step describe what Bear does. At the very least, it should be converted to prose--or deleted. ~ UBeR 01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this information does not belong in this article, at least as is. I have no problem with a brief description of type survival techniques he shows in the episode guide section, but the separate section as it stands is very unencylopedic. I recommend it be deleted and any survival techniques of exceptional note rolled into the episode section. Ccscott 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

it's gone. --Fredrick day 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

convert use of cast and crew to prose

This current format bothers me. The information in it is fine, but the format is messy and and it looks amateurish in comparison, so I think it needs to be converted into prose. Anyone disagree?--Tao of tyler 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No one disagrees. ~ UBeR 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Daily Mail is a tabloid?

Are tabloids credible sources on Wikipedia now? (From Wikipedia Sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.")

I think the links to these articles should be removed immediately.

Otherwise I intend to start a few articles of my own...Alien Babies to start with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.101.87 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the true definition of a tabloid is how it is laid out in its production, not its content. However, tabloids have become rather synonymous with hokey information as of late, and since I'm American and not familiar with the Daily Mail, I can't say that it fits into the latter category.

Still, it should be looked into and examined as to whether the Daily Mail serves as an appropriate reference source, but shouldn't be removed right away. --Tao of tyler 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is one of many dozens of papers that have carried the stories. Even the NYT has carried it. And yes, it is a well-respected paper. "Tabloid" in Britain doesn't carry the connotation that it does here. As you'll note from its Wikipedia article, the Mail is the second biggest selling newspaper, and is a middle market paper (mix of entertainment news and "serious" news -- US examples are things like USA Today and the Chicago Sun-Times). -- Rei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rei (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What a collection of sources. Online forums, blogs, youtube? I'm going to work on citing references in a bit. I'll leave in the ones, that pass WP:VERIFY. The Self-published sources will probably have to go, however. I'll post them here, for discussion, and, see if I can come up with some passable sources, to replace them. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, got the references cleaned up, to use the citation templates... :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, fakeness and what they don't tell you

Well, the headline of this it's pretty bad-looking, but I just came with this "name". Of course this won't be the section name in the article.

What I want to say, is that all the allegations about Bear Grylls sleeping in hotels, faking a bear attack in a camp, ordering a pizza in the middle of an episode, saw-cutts in the bamboos, etcetera and etcera should be listed in this article. Of course with a reliabe source citing it.

This should be in the article, since it's a very concerning information about the show, that itself talks and interacts with surviving elements, that if a viewer sometime follows it may be in harm.

Some information about this can be found here and about the site here. I don't know if this is a reliable source, or if it has a neutral point of view.

I'm encouraging everyone to help with this. Please, if anyone has anything to say about what I just said, let me know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh, the irony.

2. This has been discussed a lot on this talk page already, please see above for more details.--Tao of tyler 09:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Tasco O, would you agree with my position that having an "inaccuracies" section is not SYN, as demonstrated by the precident of thousands of other pages on entertainment articles having likewise? And that the current policy of UBeR and Tao of tyler for omitting mention of serious, dangerous inaccuracies, even when referenced, because the reference says things like "Don't drink urine" instead of "Bear is wrong when he says to drink urine", seriously weakens the article and is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia? -- Rei 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the goals of Wikipedia is committing original research. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make a reliable Internet encyclopedia. There are the fundamental pillars set in place so that this may be achieved, and one of them is WP:OR. If Wikipedia is to ever become reliable and trustworthy, there can be no violations of WP:OR. Again, using other articles to demonstrate how they are wrong, and therefore we should be wrong, is a fallacy and an argument that no one will listen to.

To Tasco O, the site is not reliable, per our guidelines at WP:RS. It is both a tertiary and and a wiki, both indicators of not being reliable. ~ UBeR 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't use that site as a reference. It *isn't* a valid reference. Now, back to the earlier issue, how many times do we have to discuss the fact that you and I disagree about what constitutes SYN as per Wikipedia policy? Do we really need to rehash that same old argument once again? -- Rei 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"The whole point of Wikipedia is to make a reliable Internet encyclopedia." -- And, hence, we omit things that can kill you because they say "X is wrong" rather than "Bear is wrong when he says X". Yeah, that's sure achieving the goal of Wikipedia. -- Rei 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OR is in place for obvious reasons, if we have good refs though that the prog is more drama than real-life we can add this info, but they must be relaible sources, SqueakBox 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that part is already in the article, as it is well documented. ~ UBeR 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rei, you are beating a deadhorse, we are not going to have a section full of OR linked from your site - drop it. --Fredrick day 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, because I've been trying to link to BearWiki, right? Oh wait, that's right -- I haven't done that once. In fact, from the archives:

"As for whether BearWiki should go on here in the external links section, I recuse myself due to conflict of interest; I'll only provide information about BearWiki as needed on the talk page. -- Rei 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)"

Cut it with the straw men, will you? Whether or not Tasco wants to link an unacceptable reference (BearWiki) doesn't change the fact that there are *good*, *solid* references that can be (and were) linked. The real debate is over whether or not a solid series of references that say "X is wrong" is acceptible, or whether they have to say "Bear is wrong when he says X". My reading of Wikipedia's policy says that the former is acceptable so long as we're not "passing judgement" on Bear, and that there's ample evidence to suggest that this is the correct interpretation, based on the widespread use of "inaccuracies" sections in entertainment articles. You're free to disagree. -- Rei 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not simply saying "X is wrong," you are saying "Source A says X, Bear says Y, so therefore Bear is wrong." And that is the very definition of WP:SYN, down to the letter. Also, like I said earlier, it is not the duty of this article to attempt to dispense the "correct" advice because Bear says the "incorrect" advice. Just because this an article about a how-to survival show, this article does not and will not act as a how-to survival instruction manual.

Also, this little crusade of yours is growing very tiresome. I've attempted to assume good faith on the matter, but it is quite clear that you are about as biased as you can get and are incapable of maintaining Neutral Point of View, and I'm starting to wonder what it will take for you to understand that you can't introduce OR, period. --Tao of tyler 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're both tired of each other -- obviously. That's why I requested outside comments (but didn't get any, unfortunately).

The article *Was* simply saying "X is wrong". Here's the diff in question. You can all it OR until your face turns blue. That won't make it OR.

The entire purpose of Wikipedia is to amass correct, referenced, and relevant information on every topic. You are deliberately being an impediment to this process. -- Rei 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, first of all. Thanks everybody to speak their mind and letting me know what's wrong doing this.

Second, I wasn't trying to use BearWiki as a source, I was just simply asking if it was a reliable source to cite this information. Thanks to the user who pointed that it wasn't.

Third, to anyone who says all this things about WP:OR there are some things that I have read in Internet news site. An example is the Bear Grylls was sleeping in hotels instead of sleeping in his "shelters". But of course, this information is already in the article. What I'm trying to say is that there must be another information about all this issue with Bear Grylls in some reliable sources.

Of course that drinking your own orine is wrong, or maybe bad for your health. But actually, that particullary information wasn't in my interesting. For example, Bear Grylls "supposedly" eats all he can get from the enviroment he is. There has been some information about he ordered a pizza, and that proves that, maybe, a person could not survive if only feeds himself with animals, fruits, etcetera that he or she can find. Now, this, and I dear to say, it's a fraud. Of course it is cited with a reliable source.--Tasco 0 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe a person can survive on their own in the wilderness, then I suggest Survivorman, another great survival show on the Discovery channel. ~ UBeR 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that has anything to do with this, UBeR. We're not talking about if a person can survive in the wilderness.

I'm sorry Tao of tyler but Rei did not creat this discussion. In addition, this is a discussion to work this issue out. I'm going to have to say that the way you acted saying "Oh, the irony", and the "little crusade" you are mocking of this discussion and the users in it.--Tasco 0 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe not. But you asked (or rather, awkwardly stated), "and that proves that, maybe, a person could not survive if only feeds himself with animals, fruits, etcetera that he or she can find." I was replying to this. ~ UBeR 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you people have to say about WP:OR on the article 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Tasco 0 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a different article that has no relation to this one. I don't know why you are bringing it up. If you have a specific problem with it, then list it on that talk page, not here. ~ UBeR 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it's possible to post WP:OR in some articles and in other it's not. Actually, it does has a relation to this. This is just unfair, what you are saying, at least how I interpreted it, it's that you agree with posting original search in that particullary article and in this one you just won't let it happen. I do agree in that, but with no exception.

Is it just me, or it seems that natinoal security related articles are beeing an exception here?. Come on, if we are under certain rules, just follow it. And no, I'm not saying that you broke any.--Tasco 0 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with this article. If you don't even have specific complaints, what are you doing bringing it up? It's not possible to post WP:OR in one article but not another. It's against the rules, regardless. But like I said, if you have no specific example, you're doing absolutely no good bringing it up. If you do however have a specific example, it belongs in that talk page, not here. What you are doing is simply a red herring. You are simply wasting time and making fallacious arguments. ~ UBeR 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fallacious arguments", what the hell? What I just pointed out it is nothing but the truth. You can clearly see how WP:OR is being shown in that article. If you have a problem to see that, buddy, then you clearly have a problem. It may have no connection at all to the discussion but don't tell me I'm making fallacious arguments. Come on, I can clearly see that you are in that position just because you probably had this conversation with Rei before. This is just childish.--Tasco 0 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fallacious arguments. Obviously you have no real argument here, and nothing you have to say even pertains to this article. I suggest you take your quarrels to the article you have in mind. ~ UBeR 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can point to literally thousands of other entertainment articles with "inaccuracies" sections or the like, all of which are like the one that you removed. Now, when looking at the possibilities -- either they're all wrong and nobody noticed, or that my interpretation of Wikipedia's policy is correct and they're not wrong -- Occam's Razor clearly is on my side of the issue. -- Rei 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

em no it isn't - the dirty secret about wikipedia is the majority of articles don't meet our rules,policies and guidelines - it's why many people would like to stop article creation for a while so we can improve the quality of what currently exists. --Fredrick day 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Occam's Razor would suggest the easiest explanation, that this article violated WP:OR (as do many others), makes me right. Again, WP:SYN is unambiguous. It's a matter if you listening and adhering to it. By all means, remove original research from other articles, but do not introduce it to another because others have it. ~ UBeR 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Riiiiiight. In the case of "Your interpretation is wrong" versus "Thousands of articles representing tens of thousands of peoples interpretations are wrong", you think the simplest answer is the later. Sure. -- Rei 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about people's interpretation of the policy; it's about people not adhering to it. ~ UBeR 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tina Sjogren's comments on not wanting to strip wet clothes off are untrue. The wet clothes will suck heat out of you about 20 times faster than air on bare skin. If I can find a source for that, should that whole quote be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.227.107 (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, even if that was true, it's irrelevant; Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Secondly, that's not true at all. Some natural insulators (such as down) lose all of their insulative value when they get wet, although they don't make you *colder*[4] (they basically turn into a soggy mass that loses all of its loft). Other natural insulators, such as wool, still insulate when wet[5]; sopping wet wool insulates better than dry cotton[6]. Almost all synthetic insulation still insulates when wet.[7] I can only assume that you haven't spent much time camping and backpacking, because this is all pretty basic stuff that you typically learn right off the bat.

Here's a study on wool and nylon insulation when wet vs. dry[8].

"Overall thermal insulation (Rc) was significantly lower by 15% in wet clothing compared to dry clothing at rest. Rc was significantly reduced by 30-40% during walking and by 50-60% during running in comparison with resting in dry clothing. Reduction was partly explained by reduced insulation of surface air layer, but predominantly by ventilation of clothing due to the pumping effect."

I.e., both still insulate when wet, retaining 85% of their initial insulative value if you're standing still, 60-70% of their insulative value if you're walking, and 40-50% if you're running. -- Rei 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rei is soliciting offsite for meatpuppets to engage in an edit war see here and Still, with just two people -- I think we'd need one more before I'd be comfortable against the prospect of a revert war against them. --Fredrick day 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, I think that the comment of Tao of tyler "Oh, the irony" can be applied to the Fredrick day's.

In no way the words "edit" and "war" were mencioned there. This it's getting really stupid. Seems like everyone in this discussion is trying to attemp in any way against Rei.

Besides, what other users talk in another web site, wiki, forum, etcetera has nothing to do with this discussion. Think, if someone would be asking or "recruiting" users to make an edit war, it won't be public.--Tasco 0 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He said revert war, which is the same as edit war, so don't play silly games like that. It's a good find, Fredrick day (seriously, no irony here; understand the word). I'll be inquiring about this with administrators, as canvassing for editors to edit war on Wikipedia via other wikis is highly inappropriate. ~ UBeR 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Report anything you want. If I wanted an edit/revert war I'd have started it days ago. Myself, creating this discussion is to prevent any problemas like that. You're asking me not be silly? You better check what you're typing, buddy. This is beyond stupidity.--Tasco 0 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Slander me once more, and I'll seek administrative action against you. First you falsely accuse me of trying to link BearWiki into the article, and now you falsely accuse me of trying to solicit meatpuppets. I have *never* tried to solicit people to make edits. Tasco O came to me wanting to get information into the article that happened to be the same sort of information that I had been trying to get in (the sort of information that you have been trying to keep out). And now you're trying to use the fact that I was trying to avoid an edit war (since there were only two people) against me by making up completely false allegations that I *solicited* Tasco O?

This better stop. Now. You're not only assuming bad faith, but you're *lying* in the process. -- Rei 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And come to think of it, what the hell? Someone starts a conversation with me on my talk page on another wiki, and, same day, you're writing about it here. You follow me around to other websites? That often? Are you cyberstalking me or something? This really, really bothers me. Am I going to find out that you're digging up my phone number and address next? -- Rei 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get drawn into a lengthy conversation about this, the community has been alerted to your actions which was my intention. How do I find the comment? Your site is linked twice in this discussion. I popped across last night and as it is very small wiki and you had made the last edit, I popped across to your talkpage to see what is being discussed because in 9/10 when dealing with small wikis, soliciting of meatpuppets occurs (or so my experience of 40,000 edits here tells me) to push a POV. If you have a complaint about my actions take it to an admin. --Fredrick day 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how creepy it is to find out that someone has been following you from website to website, and apparently often enough that what you write gets reported (incorrectly) the same day. What other sites are you following me around to? Seriously, this really bugs the heck out of me. How far are you taking your spying on me? -- Rei 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Like he said, the site was linked on this very talk page twice. Seeing as how you actually made the Web site (and that your comments are among the most recently made), it should be of no surprise that he came across your comments. Regardless, stating that you want to edit war on Wikipedia through a different site is inappropriate behavior. It doesn't matter who started the discussion, you can't say things like "we'd need one more before I'd be comfortable against the prospect of a revert war against them," and not expect to face ramification here. ~ UBeR 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I stated that I wanted to *avoid* an edit war because I knew you would *start one*. And in no way was Tasco a "meatpuppet", nor was I trying to "recruit" Tasco, nor did I even seek Tasco out. Tasco came to me wanting to get something in the article, and I briefly discussed the unfortunate state of this article. I'm getting sick of the defamation here.

If you don't understand the difference between checking out another site, and following a person around online daily, and how that can be more than a little unnerving, I don't know what to say. -- Rei 01:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If your only support for your argument that Fredrick Day is following around is that he found your easily-found discussion, then perhaps it's best you don't know. ~ UBeR 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how visiting a website, once, becomes me following Rei around 'Daily' - but I guess he/she wants to muddy the waters now they have been caught out. Here's a hint - if you don't want people to read your comments on a public wiki that you use the same username on, you run and has been discussed here multiple times... well it speaks for itself,no? Let me state again, I visited the site once. If you repeat the slander that I am stalking you online and following you around "daily", I will move to have you blocked for personal attacks. Fredrick day 08:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned the conversation a day after it happened. That is one impressive coincidence for a first-time visit.

In the interests of WP:Assume good faith, and despite the lack of it you've ever shown me, I'm going to accept your explanation. -- Rei 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not very impressive once you consider the discussion was at the top of recent changes when it was viewed. ~ UBeR 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, this discussion has gotten ridicules. It's meandered way off point. Lets summaries the key points in this discussion and how they relate to policy:

1. WP:OR does not permit synthesis. (i.e.: "A says X. B says Y. Since B doesn't say X, B must be wrong")
2. WP:V requires verifiability not truth - and I see no WP:RS that suggest that there is a controversy. ("A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate.")
3. WP:NOT advises that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." We require, of our best articles, that everything in the article has been discussed previously by secondary sources. Thats the same reason why we don't create a list of "things bear got right."
4. Wikipedia does not operate on precedence. The fact that crappy articles exist does not mean we are lowering our standards to match. Every article is an independent project at various degrees of completeness.

Have I missed anything? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the part about you not seeing any WP:RS about there being a controversy about MvW serious? There have been newspapers running an entire series of exposes about the show, and that they're linked in the article. -- Rei 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As an outside opinion, I have some issues with the way the current "Controversy" section is presented. For one, I think it would be better titled as "Criticism" since there have been no reliable sources labeling these matters as a "controversy". Second, it is written very much in a "Gotcha" sort of expose tone. While for the purpose of NPOV there should be due mention of criticisms that have been brought up by reliable sources, the purpose of this section should not be to dispel or critique the show but rather to let the reader know that there have been some criticisms on the format and events portrayed on the show. The former is more POV-driven active voice while the later is taking a more passive voice which I think this article should better maintain. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording changes are quite welcome; I would endorse anything that you think will help get rid of a "gotcha" tone. Concerning "Controversy" versus "Criticism", I would prefer (but not insist on) "Controversy". From a quick serach of news stories about it, the first I come to is Reuters calling it "brouhaha"[9]. I've seen other articles include all sorts of phrases to describe it like "scandal", "controversy", etc. -- Rei 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question Rei, I was referring to the disputed sections... for example: "In the 'Mount Kilauea' episode, Grylls claims to cross a deep crevasse on an unsteady lava bridge. However, it can be seen that the bridge is quite steady, the crevasse itself ends a few feet to the left so that Grylls could have easily walked around, and a busy highway is close by." - That statement has/had no source other then a youtube video. While the video is likely true, there is no reliable secondary source to back up the assertion that this is a "controversy" (or criticism if you prefer). Some of the other parts of that section are sourced with reliable secondary source (such as daily mail, etc) and I am not protesting those sections... just the above example and the urine thing from a while back and anything else that falls under this category. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing that part is fine by me; I didn't add that one (it was sort of getting carried along by the block inserts/reverts of both sides), and I agree with your position. Could you clarify as to whether you dispute the other parts of the section that were in contest before? -- Rei —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I've been trying to sort out the crazy history of this article and I'm not entirely sure what else was under dispute. If you have some diffs I'll happily review them.

As for whats in the article right now. Well, the only part I currently have a problem with is the first section of the "Survival advice" area. It seems to me that since it was not covered by a secondary media source giving it more then a passing mention would be a violation of the "Undue Weight" clause of WP:NPOV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit, minus the YouTube video part.[10] The issue of contention was whether or not a section that references claims made by the show with many solid references, but does not make the claim "Show is wrong" (or at least tries not to; wording could probably be improved). Outside opinion (which we're finally getting a little of, thankfully) seems to be weighing in against it overall, and if that continues to be the case, I will drop the issue. The problem here seems to be that we have great references weighing in on this issue but not mentioning the show (since the references that are WP:V don't specifically damn the show, I've tried to make the text in question not do so either), and literally tens of thousands of posts/comments by upset viewers (many of whom are credentialed), but on sources that aren't reliable (forums, blogs, etc). Because of a lack of the combination of these to things, it seems we're forced to omit.

If you'll check the talk history, there have been lots of editors complaining about the section's removal -- often on the basis of, "Wikipedia is awash in articles without any references, with few references, and with spotty references; why, then, is this article damned for having references?" While I sympathize, I recognize that policies and regulations exist for a reason, and that while following the letter of the law can damn people in good circumstances and the lack of "law enforcement" lets 98% of cases off the hook without any references at all, if nobody followed the letter of the law, it would be chaos.

That said, if you do consider this SYN, I would appreciate it if you could clarify where SYN ends. For example: if I have a reference that says a cobra is a snake, and another that says that a cobra is venomous, may I write, "A cobra is a venomous snake?" By the letter of the law, if the section of this article in contention is SYN under it, it seems that would be SYN as well. But that would also be completely ridiculous. Imagine if such a policy were applied across all of Wikipedia. There'd be essentially nothing left. So, I am awfully curious where the cutoff is, if you consider this to be SYN.

Thanks! -- Rei 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great question, Rei. I'm glad you asked. As I stated before, I have been involved in discussing the WP:SYN policy with administrators and lay editors alike. One of the questions I have asked, similar to your cobra example, is whether we could use formal logic to make deductions or connections between sets of information. The example I used is quite similar to yours. I brought my inquiry to the policy's talk page, which you may read here. The discussion is continued at length here. The conclusion was that, no, you may not synthesize material, even if it follows from a deductively valid argument form. In cases that quite solid and non-controversial, such as "1+1 = 2, 2+1 = 3, therefore (1+1)+1=3," (i.e. that follow common knowledge) it is OK. I hope that you read through the discussions and come to see how the policy works and see people's views on the policy. ~ UBeR 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was talking to J.S, as you probably noticed when you decided to respond. However, since you brought new information up to bear (namely, a conversation I wasn't involved in), it certainly appears worth taking a look at. Your question addresses the latter hypothetical pretty well (the cobra=snake, cobra=venomous, => cobra=venomous snake). And, as you note, the answer comes down to yes, if the sources are solid and there's no controversy over the conclusion.

However, your question does not exactly cover the other issue (the one that most directly concerns the edit in contention: whether, in an article about Entity A, if source B says "X is wrong", but not "Entity A is wrong when it claims X", whether you can say "Source B says X is wrong" so long as you don't specifically fault entity A. That is the issue that I've been trying to get outside input on the whole time.

Anyways, honestly, I think that this debate has gone on long enough. I'll go with whatever J.S says on this issue. -- Rei 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am having a hard time agreeing that the Mt. Kilauea/crevasse section be removed due to an unverifiable second source. The atmosphere has become so politically charged that we're now requiring two people to turn the key to launch the nuke. I understand (Wikipedian) "laws" are meant to serve as guidelines for (Wiki) society, but steadfast adherence seems to have dulled people's common sense. Essentially, you are saying that the many users on this talk page who are convinced the video is true are less credible than one employed newspaper writer who has less interest and less original research into the series than everyone here. This is like the OJ Simpson trial...there is very little doubt the man is guilty, but steadfastness to the law is working against the truth. Sometimes it feels like we need Jackie Cochran to sift through Wikipedia bylaws, clauses, and subsections to insure we don't step on any toes. :/ LostCause 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't like some new little policy... this is one of the founding principles of wikipedia. If you don't like it, seek the consensus to change it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. That video is created by "Volcanochaser" (Lupe), who I've had direct correspondence with, and who has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my opinion, that he is who he says he is: a volcano photographer and volunteer for the USGS Hawaii Volcano Observatory (mentioned in this article; also, four of his photographs are featured here). That video is original research by Lupe, and I think Lupe could be considered an expert. However, it is not peer-reviewed material, which makes it self-published material. According to WP:V, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is my interpretation that, given the cited article and the use of his pictures, Lupe would be considered an expert published by reliable third-party publications if you consider the USGS website to be a reliable third-party publication, which I would. However, as I'm already involved in another dispute, I don't want to stick my neck out on this one. Other opinions on my interpretation of the situation? -- Rei 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the crux of that policy is "established expert" - according to the link you provide and in his own words The electronics team is a great group of people to work with. Hats off to Ken, Bruce, and Steven for making my experience everything that it could be and more. They know a lot about seismology/electronics and have been very patient and supportive during my volunteer experience. I have learned a great deal of information from all of them and the rest of the HVO staff. If anyone out there who may be reading this is looking for an internship or practicum for their education, or if you just want to have an incredible experience working on a volcano, this is definitely a place to expand your knowledge and learn about volcanism, seismology, and electronics.. It's clear from his own words that he was attempting to get experience as an undergraduate on a degree program (his program is resource management, not a course that would make him an expert in this area - his work as a volunteer seems to be around electronics) - in no way would that represent an established expert. In addition, the publication represents him talking about his experiences as a volunteer not as an expert, so it fails on that count as well. In addition, within that context, he is writing about his experiences within the context of being connected to HVO and it is hosted by HVO, so it would not represent a third-party publication because for the purposes of publication, he can be considered part of the organisation. Therefore it fails WP:V on all counts. --Fredrick day 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, you misread the link. The person writing is not Lupe. The person writing is Robert Squire -- check the top of the page. The quote you cited is not something Lupe said. Robert worked with Lupe on the project, and mentioned him. Robert is working on resource management. Robert is an undergrad student. Lupe graduated in 1967, and is 64 years old.

Secondly, I don't follow -- where does he say he's not an expert in what the video is about (the local terrain)? Yes, he was doing electronics -- on seismographs. On site. He hikes the area weekly, in areas generally not accessible to tourists.

Lupe has had his photography published and his work on seismographs in the region in the area published by USGS. USGS is a verifiable source. "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We have, to sum up:

Relevant field: The terrain of Mauna Loa. Can you think of a better description for what field would be relevant for proving that a person wasn't where they say they were than being an expert in the local terrain?

Work in the relevant field: Weekly hikes into restricted areas, work on seismographs in the areas, and photography (once again) from said areas. How many people do you think there are in the world who have better credentials for what the local terrain is like than that?

Published: His work and photography, both from the area, have been published by the USGS on their website.

Reliable third-party publication: USGS. Government sources are generally regarded highly. It is a third party, as Lupe did not write the article discussing his work, nor did he write the article involving the use of his photography. Even if he had written the articles, it would be unreasonable to assume that the USGS lets random strangers post articles to their website without review.

Looks like the requirements are met to me. -- Rei 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

right you are, I assumed you linked because it rob was this lupe chap. Can you presented published writings of this "lupe" fellow that establish his expertise? where are his writings on the USGS site? can you link to them? Who are they cited by? What other experts in the field refer to him as an expert? --Fredrick day 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Already did. May 15th (2 photos and caption) and May 30th (2 photos and caption). USGS uses volunteers with knowledge of the region to photograph, make observations, help deal with equipment, etc. Lupe is one of those people.

Who are they cited by? Sorry, but that's not part of the standard. The standard is "published by reliable third-party publications". "What other experts in the field refer to him as an expert?" Undue burden of proof not required by the standards. Where do you expect to see people rating expertise on the subject of Mauna Loa's terrain -- MaunaLoaExpertsRating.com? Demonstrating his expertise on the local terrain, we have the USGS relying on him for his knowledge of the local terrain. I think that a reasonable person would find that good enough. -- Rei 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation is a accepted way of establishing expertise. Ok... moving on, can you link to his writings or provide a bio of his writings. Your current claim is that he's an expert because he is published by the USGC - so let's see the writings or some source provided by them that states they consider him an expert. The link you provide, links to a page of photos with no attibution - either under the name "lupe" or any other name I can see. So at the moment, we have a page of photos - that does not establish expertise, it establishes that at some time, someone took some photos. --Fredrick day 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is; however, as per my point, it is also not the only way of establishing expertise. Being cited mainly applies to scientific fields, of which "being an expert on the terrain of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park" is not one.

Attribution: for starters, you can click on the photos and you see his name in the URL. If you need more, I can email the USGS so we can get a record for verification. We also have him mentioned by name in reference to doing field seismograph work for the USGS. If an email record isn't enough, I could talk to Lupe, perhaps we could get HVO to put an author credit under the photo instead of just the URL (not sure if they'd want to edit their website, though).

Oh, also forgot to mention: the person who filmed the video with Lupe is Brian Lowry -- a professional photographer who runs lavapix.com which, as you can guess by the name, sells photographs taken from all over Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. I.e., also a person who spends a great deal of time exploring the park. However, I mainly focused on Lupe, as he has the USGS cite, and I figured that would be a better expertise cred than professional photographer who's main subject matter is the park (I can ask him for examples of publications that have purchased pictures from him if so desired). But some may find the latter better, so I mention it as well. -- Rei 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see any evidence of expertise and oppose inclusion (for the moment) - at the moment, we have you reaching from "takes photos and knows about the park" to "is an expert" - that in itself is OR, I don't see that linkage and you have failed to provide sources that satify me that he is. Contacting lupe himself is not much help as personal testimony is not an acceptable source, however if he has a list of his writings or something that points towards him being considered an established expert, then he's (or you) is welcome to post it for consideration. --Fredrick day 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is a challenge for you: If you won't consider a person who walks the park weekly and does photography and seismograph work for the HVO, as well as a professional photographer who sells pics from the region, as experts on "knowing the terrain of the region", what would you consider to be expertise on knowing the terrain of the region?

Since when is establishing credentials WP:OR? -- Rei 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That you haven't established credentials? you have made a series of claims backed up by a couple of photos? If he is an established Expert, then he will be quoted, cited or mentioned by other organisations than the HVO. So where are they? The original research is in your claims - "person X does tasks 1,2 and 3, this makes him an expert". Your claim rests on him being an established expert because you say he's an established expert - it's circular. You have presented no sources beyond photos to back such a claim. --Fredrick day 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with fredrick on the point that for someone to be an established expert on a subject, things like being cited (being interviewed at least), or publishing in peer reviewed magazines/newspapers or maybe attending conferences as a speaker would be needed. Nevertheless, in this case, I wouldn't set the standards very high if it is very specialized knowledge, as for example, knowing a certain region. Generally I would focus on using third party material in this article.. Things like false claims made by the show could be summarized. That there is a public dispute regarding the show is well documented, don't focus too much on each issue but deliver the WP reader a general picture, keeping in mind Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight and WP:ATTRIB. Good luck on resolving your conflicts folks, contact me if you'd like an opinion on a certain issue. Although I enjoy seeing the show, I believe I am not biased and can mediate if needed. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Johnnyw. Outside opinions are always quite appreciated. A few more opinions, and we can probably resolve this one either way. -- Rei 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this is that it's a self-published You-tube video and we are forced to draw conclusion to make any use of the video. Also... it's a freaking Google video. With exception of your personal knowledge, anyone can claim to be anyone on you tube. Everything is uploaded anonymously and there is no fact-checking or peer review possess to weed out fraudulent videos. I'm not trying to claim the video was manipulated - I'm just pointing out the inherent problems in using primary sources.

We need to very careful of undue weight when dealing with sections only supported by primary sources. Has the secondary media ever picked up on this? Is there any reliable sources to show that anyone other then a single person holds this viewpoint? I think giving voices to criticisms unpublished in reliable secondary sources violates our WP:NPOV#Undue_weight policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

supposedly...

Regarding this edit... Are you saying it is possible that he didn't survive? I'm fairly sure he hasn't died so calling it "supposedly" is a bit too presumptuous. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree. the word supposedly can either imply that he didnt survive, or didnt survive in harsh conditions. so, this is either saying he is dead, or didnt actually film the show. its entirely unnecessary. Krispykorn 05:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition my computer gives for survive is to "continue to live or exist in spite of (an accident or ordeal)", not just "continue to live". It is therefore correct to say someone didn't "survive" if they avoid the ordeal completely but remain alive. You do not take "survivial training" to merely continue to live - you do not pack "survivial equipment" merely so that you do not die. You do these things to not die specifically in the face of adversity. For example, if two people are on two different tropical islands, one trapped after a plane crash but rescued, and one on vacation, you might say that only the first person "survived" their time on the island, even though both are alive at the end. The sentence is clear to me, implying that what is purported to be survival (i.e. dealing with unexpected adversity, not just continue to live) in the show has been contested. Ccscott 06:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies a point of view that is not supported with citations in the article. It is clear (and cited) that he had "help" in a number of cases but the way the sentence is constructed it implies that he staged everything.

In addition to that, the way the word it used would clearly confuse someone who takes the meaning of "survive" and "supposedly" literally

So on one hand, it's an unclear sentence and on the other is supplies a mild pov. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Supposedly endured" might work better. I don't know. ~ UBeR 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That would clear up the ambiguity. I'm still a little worried that it implies more then it talked about in the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I've removed the sentence entirely. Anyone object? The previous paragraph seemed to get the point across better without actually implying anything. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem removing it. I was just pointing out the meaning was clear. Ccscott 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the sentence is fine by me. My only issue is that claiming that he was "surviving" is not supported by the exposes on the show, which indicate a show that was run entirely based on scripts with staged scenes and essentially run out of hotels. -- Rei 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proper spelling of Bear Grylls?

on several occasions, i recall seeing in the credits a different spelling for 'bear' than the one that has been used in articles and the talk page, it being Behr or something different like that. does anyone else think this is an incorrect spelling of bear's name? im not sure about it at all, so no edits have been made on the article.

Mr. Grylls seems to spell it "Bear" - according to his website at least: "http://www.beargrylls.com/". I'm fairly sure Bear is a stage name... he might have spent some time playing around with the spelling. Who knows? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed, his name is Edward. --Fredrick day 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. According to Hood, Mr. Grylls goes by "Ed" or "Eddie" off the set, but in all official publications, he is "Bear", spelled like the animal. -- Rei 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping Roug

Anyone know the date or episode number that that show aired on? We need a cite for that material (and no, a link to you tube does not cut it!) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a site containing a violation of copyright

Linking to the Jimmy Kimmel Live clip on YouTube can be considered contributory copyright infringement under US law. More importantly, it is against Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Copyrights. Please note the following section from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works carefully:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. 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). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine.

. Unless someone has evidence that Jimmy Kimmel Live has provided permission for this clip to be on YouTube, it is in copyright violation and a link to it has no place on Wikipedia according to policy. I will remove it only one more time to avoid the WP:3R but I suggest that any editor that sees it reappear remove it immediately. Ccscott 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have not heard about the deal YouTube and ABC have. So you need some evidence that a copyvio has taken place because given that ABC and YouTube have a deal you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that permission has not been obtained leaving me to wonder if you are actually being anti-YouTube, see here though this is a well known deal, SqueakBox 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of such a deal! But if it is true, and I assume you know what you are talking about, there is no problem with the link from a WP:Copyrights perspective. Please my friend, assume good faith. There is still the undesirable fact that this reference is a link to a primary source, but I will let some other editor argue that point. Thanks for enlightening me on the arrangement with YouTube and ABC. Ccscott 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded like I wasn't assuming good faith. Google are having to protectt hemselves as a business model based on theft from such a big company is unacceptable. I agree a better ref would be great, SqueakBox 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Get a better ref. Some anonymous unloader to YouTube is not a reliable source. Also, the section you reference talks about "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" and not the "American_Broadcasting_Company" that owns this show. The crap is copyvio, it's not a reliable source and a depreciated way to cite something. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some "anonymous uploader" put Hamlet on Project Gutenburg. By your logic, I can't cite it. Unless you think there's a soul in the world who would dispute that this is Bear Grylls on Jimmy Kimmell Live, it's a primary source, and primary sources can be cited for "obvious" purposes, like use as transcripts. This isn't the anonymous uploader's content; they didn't create it, so it doesn't matter who they are.

However, as for the contributory infringement issue, given that it seems to be a different ABC than signed the YouTube deal, I will agree to that claim, and advise that the link not be included. -- Rei 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the same fair use rationale for still photos would apply. Also if ABC found that it violated fair use at Youtube, they would have issue a cease and desist as Viacom did for their shows. Also the lying in the clip, makes it newsworthy, which would expand fair use for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard, while that logic might work in a court of law, it is currently a violation of wikipedia's policy to link to copyright violations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Richard's ref is excellent and much better than the YouTube copy of it, I should have done it myself, doh. I hope this can now be closed, SqueakBox 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• But I wish I had the date for the airing! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Write to the programme and ask? SqueakBox 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation is a bit incomplete until we can get that information. I've done some searches though some Jimmy Kimmel live episode lists but I can't find any reference to Bear being on the show. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This took sixty seconds to find[11][12] July 13th, 2007, Season 5, Episode 86. -- Rei 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I must be blind. I thought I checked that page, but I see now that it's broken up by season. Doh. Good find! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How much does Bear Grylls make for Man vs Wild?

How much does Bear Grylls make for Man vs Wild? I have been wondering that, is it in the area of $1 million USD per year or what? ~~R.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.204.123 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen it disclosed anywhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor have I. I ran into how much he charges for his speaking engagements (it's now in the article on Bear Grylls), but not how much he makes for the show. -- Rei 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Editing of episodes in response to criticism

Where can we cite this to? Is this something that is mentioned in the beginning of each show or something? If thats the case can we add a bit of prose makes it clear. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of each episode now has a disclaimer, and they've changed the dialog. Where before Bear would say things like, "I caught a rabbit," now he says things like, "I didn't catch a rabbit, but I brought one along to demonstrate."

Let's do a quick check (google news search) for cites. Yep, looks like the press is indeed covering this a good bit. Ah, here we go -- of the ones I checked, this one is probably the most thorough. It covers the rabbit issue, shooting close to civilization, use of a harness in Copper Canyon, cutting of the ecuador sleeping scene because he didn't sleep out there, his being aided on the bamboo bridge, and the construction of his swamp platform in Florida [13]. It's, of course, just scratching the surface, but it should be enough for this article, I'd think. -- Rei 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section (in the main article) is unnecessarily cumbersome. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone double-check me, but I beleive that also at the end of the Alaska episode, an edit was made about the boat being sent for Grylls, rather than him simply stumbling upon a fisherman or somesuch. 68.209.116.39 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hoaxes

Isn't it a hoax to pretend you doing things as they occur, that are staged. I think the Hoax category is valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking it could be said that parts of the show could be qualify as hoaxes... but to classify the entirety of the show as a hoax is, to me, a bit silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If they tell you that some events are staged, then it isn't a hoax. Simple logic. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... the first airing they didn't tell you it was staged. It was a big deal when it came out and they ended up editing those episodes over it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so when you watch a television drama and it turns out everyone on the show is an actor, it is a hoax? It isn't. I'm just assuming we're using a dictionary definition of what "hoax" means (something intended to deceive or defraud) and not some evolving language, magical, Wikipedia definition of what "hoax" means. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over number of seasons?

I was reading Bear's blog and he says in it that the new episodes that have begun airing in November 2007 are a continuation of season 2. In the Wikipedia article though, they are listed as a third season. Should this be changed? Also mentioned is that the episodes are now two hours long to allow for more detail in the shows and to do the exotic locations justice. That probably should be added to the article?