Talk:Man vs. Wild

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[1][2] 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 [3]. 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)

I'm the person who created the section called, "Editing of episodes in response to criticism." If you can come up with a better title for that section, please feel free to change it. Grundle2600 05:03, 2 December 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)

Uh, no. By definition, a drama is fiction - we know they are just actors. Man vs Wild was portrayed as a documentary, not fiction. Grundle2600 04:59, 2 December 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebulousecho (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This upcoming DVD releases of "season 2" has 13 episodes! If this DVD release is accurate about the seasons, then the article here is wrong. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Man vs. Wild NPOV

Man vs. Wild seems to violate WP:NPOV. Criticism makes up most of the article. I don't even see much other information about the show, except Criticism. There should be more information on what the show is about, who airs it, and what lessons it tries to teach. Marcusmax (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm trimming it now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good it looks much better. Marcusmax (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peacocks Exinct?

The article is tagged as having peacock words. I read it over a dozen times with intent to find & replace the offending phrases, but my search yielded fewer results than Googling my own one-man Vaudeville performances from the mid-Seventies. I'm going to remove this from the article in a few days; shout at me if you think there is a remaining occurrence.

I too searched through the article to try and locate peacock words or phrases as outlined by the wikipedia guidelines and found nothing that would qualify the entry for being "peacocked". I concur that this category should be removed, but I think it fair to give the time you allotted to give anyone a chance to prove otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.197.253 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take it off. It may have gotten fixed without anyone thinking to remove it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New airdates for season 5

Why did the airdates change? 89.27.27.212 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On one day survival

Is it really necessary to kill animals on TV to feed a man who is only surviving a day out in the wilderness. I have been a fan of the discovery channel for a long time now. Me and my father have watched about everything it has to offer. But I find it hard to stay in tuned for this show. I respect Bear for his skills of survival. Does he really need to kill alligaters, lizards, or even have sheep killed for him. He is a one day survialist. Dont waste. If you dont need it dont kill it. Survivor Man is one who could use food like that. And I'm not favoring Les. Its just that I dont think its right for Bear to do those things. Most of discovery channel's fans are the type where if you're not going to eat it all, dont kill it. And yes I do hunt. I only kill what I eat. And none goes to waste. We are in a time of animal activist and certain species have reach a point in their history were they are finding survival a hard thing to do. So if you can, take it easy on the animals. That is if you dont need them. Show us how to make fire in the rain, or plants we can eat.

I agree with everything you have said, except for: "Survivor Man is one who could use food like that.". Survivorman is electing to go out into the wilderness and voluntarily enter a survival situation, just like Bear, he is not actually accidentally stranded. So I don't think he has any more right to kill the animals, since he wasn't really stranded. The only people who have the real right to take these animals' lives are the ones who have no other choice. Survivorman can just call the show off and go home, most of the time. But I agree, I would like to know more about which plants you can and cannot eat, Bear almost never talks about that. He has never mentioned that you can survive a little longer just by eating the leaves of trees. In the wild, I can figure out how to kill an animal using intuition and wit. But in a survival situation, I have no way of finding out which plants are edible other than testing them on myself. This information would be much more useful, in the show.--moeburn (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Get your Opinion section - unencyclopedic??? REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Sarugbyfan has added a section:

"Get your Opinion

Bear Grylls has been both praised and criticized. Find out more about him as well the actual show, "Man vs. Wild" to get your own, truthful opinion on him. Recommendations: Discovery.com, Youtube.com, and watch the show yourself.

Some YouTube videos that might interest you:

Promotion video of the show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tdlh4zlhjY

Bear Grylls eating gross foods: 1) Bear eating giant larva: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuB3kr3ckYE 2) Bear drinks camel poo juice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOvF4n7-5F4 3) Bear Eats A live Frog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6boGhYWOX9k 4) Short summary of what Bear Grylls has eaten on the show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSw7uwx3Mrc

Interesting survival techniques: 1) Bear meets camel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YsSINT75c 2) Bear searches for hidden water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOhL0b_YYrE

Accusations of fraud in the show: 1) A shot during the show at Kilauea Volcano three miles away from the highway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpSlpvb1is

which, to me, is very un-wikipediac. People can find this material by following the many and varied links in the article. This is not what the wiki is for. Ratagonia (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DO OTHER EDITORS THINK? PLEASE VOTE!!! Ratagonia (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unencyclopedic, un-wiki-like. Ratagonia (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• voting is also unwikipedia. Just remove it, if you get reverted discuss it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

reference to Les Stroud

WHile comparing Les Stroud to Bear, someone made the following claim... .``..Man vs. Wild is similar to a competing Discovery Channel series Survivorman. In that show, however, the survival expert (Les Stroud) is not accompanied by a camera crew, but has a significant production and safety crew nearby that he communicates with at least once each day...```. I`d like a reference for the claim that Les communicates with his safety crew at least once a day. Since I believe that he doesn`t communicate with them. From what I know, they set up camp many kilometers away from where they drop him, and perform fly overs once a day. I`m not really sure you`d call that communication, or at least it`d be more informative to say fly overs in a helicopter instread of communicate`... since that kind of implies he has a phone or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.245.11 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people compare the shows like one is better than the other. They are both great shows in their own rights. Bear makes it interesting by showing you all the cool parts, interesting facts, and important tips, while being in the actual wild as well. He doesn't pretend to be in a real survival situation, that would be ridiculous, who would actually believe that? Les's show is completely different. He's not interested in showing you all the interesting things about the location he is in, he wants to show you a documentary of his experience being alone and without many amenities. Bear's show is like "mythbusters", showing you the explosions and results while being quiet about the data and hard science. Les's show is more like "daily planet", being more in-depth with less entertainment.

It's like comparing spaghetti with milk.--moeburn (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible reference for "Background" section

I noticed that the "background" section stated that citation was needed for that claim that some situations were staged. Would this be a viable source? http://tvwatch.people.com/2008/03/20/man-vs-wild-star-apologizes-for-staged-show/ Though it is a rather short article from People Magazine, it still seems to cover the claim. --24.7.84.247 (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Camera placement

I'd really like to see a section discussing the camera placement. From what i can tell he wears one around his arm, but sometimes you'll see him climbing up a cliff or waterfall with a cameraman beneath him, then they cut to him climbing over the top and the camera man is somehow ahead of him? 128.196.196.167 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think it would be interesting (and would go under the header of "Production"), I'm not sure it's really necessary. He definitely uses a camera crew, there's no secret about that, so it's only logical that there would be more than one cameraman at some points in time (in your specific example, one below him and one above the falls). It would, I think, be a good idea to note somewhere in the article how many cameramen he typically has with him at any given time, but I'm not sure if we'd be able to find a source for that. --13² 13:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears in the credits of the episode that I just watched he only had 1 cameraman with him so we could say that the size of his camera crew varies depending on the location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.67 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be moved

Born Survivor: Bear Grylls → Man vs. Wild — While this is the "official" title, "Man vs. Wild" is what this show is far more widely known as. According to WP:NC, the name the subject is most known by is the name the article should be called. This is why "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" is titled Mark Twain. Why one user decided to go against naming conventions by moving this to a lesser known title with absolutely NO discussion remains a mystery. 13² 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd want to see some evidence that Man vs. Wild is the more common name. Pending that, I weakly oppose the move. —ras52 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Google searches (all in quotes): "Born survivor: bear grylls" (32,600 hits); Born survivor bear grylls" (933,000 hits); "Born survivor" (87,700 hits); "Man vs. Wild" (1,300,000 hits); "Man vs Wild" (3,820,000 hits). No matter how I search it (or even what search engine I use), "Man versus Wild" gets many more hits than any variation of "Born Survivor" (heck, you can add up all of the hit numbers for all of the searches for "Born survivor" and still not get even 28% of the hits "Man versus Wild" does).

Further, the burden of proof lies in showing how "Born Survivor" is the more common name, search results indicate it is and when "Man vs. Wild" was the name of the article from the very beginning, when it was created on November 10, 2006. There was no discussion about this. I really don't see why moving it back to the original title is even an issue. --13² 21:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you get this idea of where the "burden of proof" lies. Nearly always, it rests with the side wanting to make the change. You need to offer something a little more substantial than some random Google searches - in any case, your results are hardly conclusive. One seven-figure number against another seven-figure number says nothing. For what it's worth, in its country of origin, it certainly airs as "Born Survivor". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me know where I'm suggesting a change? Contrary to what you seem to think, I'm upholding the previous version of the article. Before this afternoon and for three years prior, this article was "Man vs. Wild". All of a sudden, with no discussion (and certainly no proof), someone changed it, which is why I brought it here. --13² 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC

I'm also confused as to where you're seeing one seven figure number versus another seven figure number. Both searches for "Man vs. Wild" returned over 1,000,000 hits. None of the searches for "Born Survivor" turned up a million hits (though one was close). Also, the one seven figure number versus another seven figure number claim fails because, clearly, 999,999,999 is far larger than 1,000,000. No, we aren't dealing with that large of a gap, but saying there is no difference is subjective, at best. --13² 00:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to dig deep, here's an interesting tidbit: they aren't even the same show. Yep, you read right. The episodes are not the same between the two series. Here is an episode guide for Man vs. Wild. Here is an episode guide for Born Survivor. While some of the episodes overlap, most of them do not and certainly not in the same order as the other series. Almost all references to the show and episodes are for the US series, not the UK series.

Another interesting note, the UK version started airing after the US version did (found through tv.com and tvrage.com). The first episode of "Born Survivor" aired in 2007, while the first episode of "Man vs. Wild" aired in 2006. Beyond just the hits, this information points to more than just "common" use. They aren't even the same thing. --13² 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Different airing orders are nothing new. I'd also place little faith in tv.com's airdates for comparison, since they are usually unqualified and US-centric. I've certainly seen examples where the US airdates are shown even where another country has caught up, or has aired it before (programmes aired first in Canada seem to suffer from this particularly badly). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy that the current name should get priority? It sounds dubious. I support which if I remeber correctly was the name before, making thee claim it should stay where it is because that is where it is less certain. Google searches are original research and editors would be better off ALWAYS ignoring such WP:OR. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

While I would agree that it is not reliable and I considered not using it, please point me to a more reliable source than this that says it is more commonly known as "Born Survivor" (general request, not SqueakBox specific). There are different levels of reliability. This is very close to the bottom, but it is certainly better than nothing at all. I have found nothing, absolutely nothing, that says "Born Survivor" is more common than "Man vs. Wild" and its common usage among the internet seems to indicate the latter is more common. I'm more than willing to see something that shows it is more commonly known as "Born Survivor", but have yet to see anything other than "Well, it is!" which is even less reliable than the Google search. --13² 22:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On another note, thanks for moving this back. I'm not completely opposed to moving it to "Born Survivor", but not like it was earlier, without discussion, proof, or a consensus. Thanks. --13² 22:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also used the main sites, not just tv.com, which is why I removed the months from my original statement and left the years. It's not just a rearranging of episodes. There are episodes that air in the US that aren't aired in the UK (mainly US-centric episodes like the episode for the Rockies). There is also a full season less on the UK version than the US version. --13² 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the logs, it seems someone moved it earlier tonight. In which case, this should be a discussion about whether it should be moved from "Man vs. Wild", rather than to it. I'm leaning towards supporting the move that someone made earlier to "Born Survivor", for the reasons that have been mentioned: title in country of origin, no clear favourite online (given the proportions of Internet users worldwide, I'm thinking at least an order of magnitude here, not 4:1). I don't buy the argument that these are "different shows" - it's not unusual for episodes to air out-of-order or even get skipped in different markets. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't automatically mean that American titles rule. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, "commonname" does not automatically mean the US title rules. Where have I, or anyone else for that matter, said that? I'll help. No one has. The reason the US name "rules" here is because it is more common. Your arguments for naming it "Born Survivor" are weak, at best. Do you actually have any proof that "Born Survivor" is more common than "Man vs. Wild"? That would certainly be enough to get the name changed, but, so far, you're only arguing my ways of showing it isn't more common, as opposed to actually showing it is. (Edit: This article has been named "Man vs. Wild" for three years and has remained that way unchanged and unchallenged. Despite what you claimed above, the burden of proof is on you to prove that "Born Survivor" is more common than the long accepted "Man vs. Wild") --13² 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually demonstrated that the current title is "more common". As I've said, people don't generaelly buy 4:1 Google ratios, because American internet users and content vastly outnumbers most other countries (last I heard, this show doesn't air in either India or China). Anyone that does is being silly. If you had a more convincing ratio, I could accept that you have an argument under WP:COMMONNAME, but you don't. Hence, it should be at the show's original, correct, title. "People are more likely to search for it" is irrelevant for choosing the title - redirects are cheap. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, it has been at this name for three years, unchanged, which means the general consensus is that this title should be used. Because of that, you need to show why the original title would be more appropriate. Besides "original" and discounting Google searches (which still doesn't work because, if more Americans are searching for it than other countries, then it should be named with the title most people would be searching for). You need to show why it needs to be changed at all, which you haven't been able to do. Please indicate how "Born Survivor" is more common than the long-accepted "Man vs. Wild". --74.137.224.4 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

On another note, if you Google "born suvivor" (no quotes), you get 834,000 hits. If you Google "man vs wild" (no quotes), you get 20,300,000 hits. Are you really going to keep arguing that more people are going to be searching for "Born Survivor" and that "Born Survivor" is the more common name (which you still have not shown proof of)? --74.137.224.4 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Those last two anon comments were from me. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Also, since you seem to be pushing it, I'd also like to see some proof that "Born Survivor" actually was the original title. There are currently no references in the article indicating it as such and I can't find anything online saying this either. In fact, the intro to the article indicates that "Man vs. Wild" was the original, as it talks about the first episode aired, which was "The Rockies", which was not an episode in the UK version. Thank you. --13² 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Those figures from Google are enough for me to change my mind. Man vs. Wild seems marginally the better choice, unless there's a policy that I'm not aware of saying we should prefer the original title. —ras52 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, WP:COMMONNAME trumps original titles except in some very rare cases (legal issues, for instance). The reason being is because more people are going to be searching for information on the common title, not the original title. It gets unnecessarily confusing. Typically a common title with a notation saying that the original title is something else in the first sentence is sufficient. --13² 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was totally confused when I read 'Born Survivor' because I've always heard it called 'Man vs. Wild'. Reverting to an old name is almost as foolish as writing backgrounds based off pilot episodes. Regardless, the fact that the user changed it without calling any sort of vote means he/she was trying to ram it through on personal sentiment and not actual consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.203 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were confused. But the article (when it was located at Born Survivor) did start with the sentence "Born Survivor: Bear Grylls, also called Man vs. Wild or Ultimate Survival". I'm not sure how it could have been any clearer. I vaguely support the move (back) to Man vs. Wild, but only because it seems probable that this is the more common name for the series. It is not the case that the Born Survivor is an old name for it -- it is the name used (currently) in the United Kingdom in just the same way that Man vs. Wild is the name currently used in the United States. And perhaps you should assume good faith about the motives behind the move? It's possible to disagree with someone without accusing them of "trying to ram it through on personal sentiment and not actual consensus". --ras52 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that there is so much discussion here about which title to use make it clear that there is no one title by which it is generally known, and does that then not invalidate the argument that the show is far more widely known as 'Man vs. Wild'? Actually, I suppose it is mostly watched on Discovery, where it is called 'Ultimate Survival' everywhere except the US and Australia. So by that reasoning, one might argue that that is the title that most people know it by. Such as me (being Dutch). So, following 13²'s reasoning, that's what the article should be called. Maybe it's a close call, but that would then really invalidate the reasoning. So it makes most sense to use the original name. DirkvdM (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly old discussion but I'd just like to chime in and reference WP:ENGVAR. Looking at these guidelines, I don't think anyone could disagree that the article should be written in British English as opposed to American English due to the programme's "strong national ties" (the show is produced in Britain and is presented by a British person). With that in mind, it would therefore make more sense to use the 'Born Survivor' title to match the language that the article should be written in. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that he's British and the production company is British, that's about where the ties end. You then go on to say that, because you personally feel we should be using British English, the title should be "Born Survivor". However, the first episode aired, was aired in the US as "Man vs Wild", not Born Survivor. It appears that, while he's British and the company is British, it was originally made for an American audience, which breaks the "national ties" argument and gives no reason to change the English or the title. "Strong national ties" the way you're using it is subjective and biased. The examples listed on that page are British, through and through, with virtually no argument from anybody. You're going to need to justify changing the language better than you have.

Personally, I don't care what the article is called, but I think I can argue that although the show is produced in Britain and is presented by a British person, the dialogue is obviously all done in "American". All weights and measures are given in U.S Customary whereas if it was "made for Britain" chances are that it would mostly or entirely be in metric. In the Louisiana episode, Grylls makes reference to someone whose boat hit a tree and ruptured the gas line. That would have been the "petrol pipe" or something similar if it had been intended for British audiences. The copyright info on the end-credits of each shop claims that it is (c) Discovery Channel MMVIII or whatever. Looks like a show commissioned by the U.S Discovery Channel from a British production house. So using the U.S name of the series as the article name would seem fair enough.
Having said that, the UK release of the "Born Survivor" DVD set that includes the "Marooned on an island off Panama" episode seems to have a different voiceover from what I remember of the same show off-air on Discovery UK. The DVD voiceover is all or mostly metric (mostly references to litres of water collected) whereas the Discovery UK version was (AFAIR) in pints (U.S ones we assume). The live sound seemed always to be using U.S Customary units - presumably too hard to go and over-dub that. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been many UK fans trying to get it changed. I must admit, this is one of the better attempts, but it still fails as the ties you are claiming are strong are actually rather weak given other facts. To be blunt, if this were made by an American company with an American host, there would be zero arguments that the show is American. It was first aired in the US and it is geared toward a US audience. Will Ferrell, a popular American actor, was a guest. Also, not including the other seasons, there are more locations within season 1 that are in the US (and they're specific locations, not vague) than in all of Europe through all of the seasons. These reasons, and others, are why your argument about strong national ties is weak. If you remove the only two factors that are British, the house of cards falls. --13² 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to get so defensive. My comments were not driven by some sense of patriotism or national pride. You won't find me on the 24 talk page demanding that it be re-written in British English because Kiefer was born in England! I'm just saying that in my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, the article should be in British English. Chillax everyone! :) Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Don't worry, I wasn't getting defensive. :P Similar topics have come up in the past here and on other articles and I've found it's better to be thorough (even if that means wordy) so there's not a lot of wiggle room. It's also good for people who wander to the page later with similar queries. --13² 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its better known as "M vs W". for example, in Hungarian broadcasts the title screen shows Ultimate Survival. I think this Man vs. Wild doesn't represent international perspective, only US perspective. Villy (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is already addressed in the article with the very first sentence which states the following: "Man vs. Wild, also called Born Survivor: Bear Grylls or Ultimate Survival..." We clarify in the beginning that it is known under other names in other places and then refer to it through the rest of the article under the name it is most widely known by (otherwise, repeating all the names every time it comes up would be unnecessarily repetitive and make the article overly cluttered and confusing). --13² 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but the title of this section is this "Needs to be moved" and not "we need to mention every title every time". :))) Villy (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not about that issue though. It shouldn't be moved to "Born Survivor" for the many reasons given above or "Ultimate Survival" for the same and similar reasons. It's not a country-centric issue. It's a common name issue. This section was originally created because a UK fan of the show moved it to "Born Survivor" after the article was here for years with zero discussion and no consensus. --13² 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding an episode synopsis section

I'm particularly annoyed that the criticism section of this article is longer than all the other parts combined. While it could no doubt be countered with a "praise" blurb or two, I'd be more interested in seeing some 1 sentence episode summaries (similar to movie wiki pages). Right now it just seems like it's too much quoted bashing and not enough about the actual show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.203 (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section does need to be trimmed down, but we shouldn't start adding in summaries for each episode just to balance it out, especially since we already have an article devoted to that at List of Man vs. Wild episodes. What we should be doing is trimming the criticism section down to the bare information, expanding the other sections of this article, creating new sections for things like production, filming, regional variations (pointing out the differences between the US and the UK), reception, and future plans. --13² 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tagging of article with {{Peacock}} and {{Cleanup-rewrite}}

I have removed the {{Peacock}} and {{Cleanup-rewrite}} tags from the article. I read the article twice and found no weasel words. Also, {{Cleanup-rewrite}} is not necessary and somewhat extreme for this article, which currently is of promising quality. Needs some expansion and copyediting perhaps, but a rewrite is definitely unwarranted. Open to any opinions. Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

I think that this page should be semi-protected as looking at the history there have been numerous vandalism edits by unregistered users. Colinmotox11 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been an edit in three days, there is no recent activity at all, let alone vandalism. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for info on when pages should be protected. Anyway, requests for page protection should be done at WP:RFPP, not the article's talk page. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, snce 17th of January there have been 5 reverts that have had to be done by other users because unregistered users have been making inapropriate edits. These have been identified as vandalisms by other users to - see history of page. This is why I think it should be semi-protected! Colinmotox11 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pages are only protected for recent vandalism, which is not the case here, see Wikipedia:Protection policy for more info. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested it to be protected and it has been protected for 3 days too try and stop the vandalism. Colinmotox11 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But there is no vandalism now. So there is nothing to "stop". This protection is entirely pointless and I've requested it to be removed. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

His shows?

In his official twitter proffile he wrote that He is the host of Man Vs Wild, Born Survivor and Ultimate Survival by separating each of them as each of them unique. But the wikipage the main name is Man vs Wild but Born Survivor and Ultimate Survival and others are alternative names? Why? Can anybody explain? --Gentthaqi (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why American "Man vs Wild" and not British "Born Survivor"?

The show is made by a British company. Why is the US title used instead of the 'native' British title of "Born Survivor: Bear Grylls"?

Yeah I wondered that too. Just like Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone, country of origin should take presidency. --Nutthida (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)