Talk:Man vs. Wild

POV

As it stands, the 'criticisms' section is absolute bunk. It is a flagrant violation of the no original research policy, and is clearly written by a devoted critic of the program. Anyone can post on a forum; this is not an acceptable nor a reliable source. It also is in no way an independent source. A few anonymous posts presented as evidence for a sweeping theory of dissatisfaction fails to satisfy the synthesis of published material criterion. I see no coverage of this in a trade magazine, or newspaper, or other generally accepted media source. A Google search does not count as a citation. Until the section is drastically toned down or removed altogether, this notice will stay. --Grahamdubya 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree that it seems to violate WP:OR. as such, it is eligible for immediate deletion. those who want a criticism section should clean it up immediately. Whateley23 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section does not even remotely meet policy, seeing that everything was sourced off of forums. I have removed it. Ratagonia 06:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but where do you expect criticism to come from? Do you expect Discovery to criticize itself?

No part of this is self-published, so that claim is bunk. It's not original research, either -- I found all of this stuff mentioned by viewers on the various forums. I omitted an awful lot of what I found, too; this is just the "best" stuff I ran into.

Right, you found it. That's called original research, and it violates Wikipedia's policy on such claims. -Grahamdubya 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is finding something that's already online in finished form and reporting what it says "original research"? If that's original research, everything on Wikipedia is original research. -- Rei 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because everything on Wikipedia that is properly sourced is a fact which has been previously reported by someone else; a middleman if you will. To not violate WP:OR, there must be an intermediate source. Your finding the fact immediately qualifies it as original research. --Grahamdubya 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what I also found? I also found a paper that mentions that the maximum tensile strength for single-walled carbon nanotubes is 60GPa. Whoops! Given that "I found it", it's clearly original research, by your logic.

Finding such a paper is no different than finding others mentioning things about this show other than "reliability" of that source. Finding someone mentioning something and reporting on it is *not* original research, no matter how you cut it, unless that person was you. -- 70.57.222.103 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like selected examples of ther criticism, I can give you a google search of the discovery forum to show you how widespread it is. Barring that, what other options are there? If you don't expect fans of the show to be the ones levying criticism, who *do* you expect to be doing it? It's not like there are thousands of magazine articles out there reviewing this show. -- Rei 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Read WP:OR. on-line Forums are not reliable sources, they are by definition self-published. If criticism comes from critics, and is published in a reputable journal, newspaper or on-line edited journal or newspaper, then that could constitute a Reliable Source. But random posts on various viewer forums - perhaps interesting, but not wikifiable. Ratagonia 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC) edited typos Ratagonia 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't even know the definition of the word "self", you have no business posting here. Self-publishing would mean that I published it. I just collected what others were publishing on forums. Again of you don't know the meaning of "self", why are you even posting?

Besides, how many journals and newspapers do you think review new Discovery Channel shows? There are tens of thousands of *viewer* reviews, but you consider them all to be worthless. -- Rei 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I have spent many years exploring the concept of "self", so I am thoroughly versed in the many, many meanings of "self". A viewer FORUM is a mechanism for people to publish to the world (or, world wide web, if the distinction is important to you) with little in the way of editorial review or intervention. It is a way for people to self-publish. That someone else (friend Rei) brought these self-published quips to the wiki is rather beside the point. I do not consider the viewer reviews 'worthless', I consider them to be not citable on the wikipedia. If you would take the trouble to read WP:OR perhaps you would understand this distinction. I suggest you do so, rather than berate ME for removing this senseless, unsourced drivel from the Wiki. WHEN it is reviewed by a reputable critic and published in a reputable form, THEN please include some of the criticism in the article. Ratagonia 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So I'm "friend Rei"? I don't know any of those people. I'm not even registered on the Discovery forum, or any of the other forums (I have been posting comments at YouTube, but that's not being covered here). WP:OR bans "citing oneself". If "you would read it", you would see that. "I suggest you do so". This "unsourced drivel" is only stating what tens of thousands of people are complaining about by linking to just some of the tens of thousands of people complaining. You're strangely insistant on me finding a journal or newspaper reviewing the ethical practices of Man vs Wild. I.e., you're deliberately setting an impossible bar, because that's obviously not going to happen. Journals almost never review TV shows, and newspapers only big TV shows. -- Rei 05:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of reliable sources, tell me: how is citing a *video clip of the show* not a reliable source? It's a textbook example of a primary source. Or are you contesting what the video shows? I think you'd have to be completely blind to contest it, so I'm very curious to see if that's the case. Remember: only "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" needs a reference, so you'd have to be challenging the fact that the raft shows ropes, that he's wearing a harness on the waterfall, that he's wearing a life preserver in the Rockies river, and so forth. Do you contest them, after looking at the video? If not, then the cites are perfectly fine. -- Rei 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what the heck? The claims are that *viewers are complaining*, and *what they're complaining about*. What sort of better primary source is there to the fact that viewers are complaining than citing viewers complaining? Call the claims themselves unreliable if you want (but you're back to denying what the video shows -- do you want to contest what the referenced videos show?), but I think the fact that they're complaining is covered, as a primary source, by a reference to people complaining. Tell me how I'm wrong. -- Rei 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

you're wrong because message boards don't remotely meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, having no editorial oversight. i could go to an astronomical forum and post that the moon is made of mother-of-pearl, but no one should accept that as a "criticism" of the accepted view of the composition of the moon. as for the video clips, i watched at least one of them (the one of climbing down the waterfall) with the express interest of seeing the alleged "climbing harness". i saw no such thing, so i immediately discounted all of the other cites. to date, only the floatation vest seems verifiable (and that was admitted to by people speaking for the show, due, as i recall, to early problems with insurance providers). Whateley23 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what a climbing harness looks like? I take it the answer is "no" if you didn't see it. Hint: it goes around the waist and legs. Check images.google.com.

BTW, your "discounted all of the other cites" is a fallacy of an argument. Hell, you can see the saw-cut bamboo on the raft and the fact that it's tethered to the camera boat right off the island just by going to Bear's website and looking through the photo gallery. -- Rei 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Friend Rei. Welcome to Wikipedia. What is at dispute here is not the facts, but the Verifiability and the Notability. That the public criticises various aspects of the program is perhaps interesting, but until a professional critic does the same, it is not Notable. The Wiki is not a repository of ALL knowledge, it is a repository of all Notable and Verifiable Knowledge. Ratagonia 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest, dear friend, that you also take a lap through WP:AGF "Assume Good Faith". Your passion on the subject is engaging, but your tone and temperment are a bit over the line. We are all friends here, Rei, collaborating on building an interesting article within the guidelines set by the Wikipedia. Ratagonia 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a criticism section that only says, "Bear Grylls can clearly be seen using a climbing harness" etc. be okay, since you're citing the video rather than what people are saying about it? shoy 01:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, self-evident knowledge is not allowed on Wikipedia. All facts must have the double stamp of approval; nothing is notable unless it comes from an entity that is either rich or famous. So, if you say "this show is obviously fake for X, Y and Z reasons and here is the publicly available proof," it will not be included. However, if Keith Olberman says, "this show looks fake, but I have no evidence" it will be included. I'd cite examples of where the faulty and useless opinions of famous persons and entities have been included in Wikipedia, but then again, I'm not famous enough to present the evidence. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the rules for editing comments:[1] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So, to paraphrase what you're saying here, Wikipedia is only a warehouse for information disseminated by the rich or famous? -- ChadScott 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism (archive)

I'm pasting the section in here for posterity:

There is no need to remove the criticism section. They are widely known criticisms which, by watching the episode, can be seen. Bear has even admitted one of them for sure (when he was wearing a life vest. Criticism is the general opinion of the viewers. This section needs to be put back in the article so people get the whole picture. LightningOffense 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

While sold as a reality show where the participant receives no outside help, the show is often criticized on the Discovery Channel forums and elsewhere[2][3] not disclosing that Grylls often receives much more help than is shown and that many scenes are recreations.

In the pilot "Rocky Mountains" episode, Bear was supposedly being chased by a bear, which was never shown. Bear reaches the edge of a cliff, and because of the race to get away from the bear, leaps off instead of searching for a way around or checking the water depth (a major safety risk not mentioned in the episode). The narrative, as presented, is not only impossible (as it is filmed from the other side of the river, meaning that he waited while the crew crossed instead of being in such a rush that he had to leap), but has been widely criticized on the Discovery Channel forums for the fact that Bear is wearing a life jacket under his clothes as he swims in the river (he claims that his "knapp sack" is helping him float).[4] When the scene cuts to him getting out of the river, the jacket has been removed, but the scene is presented as a continuous narrative.

In the "Desert Island" episode, Bear claims to be lashing together bamboo poles to make his raft using hibiscus bark. While some of the raft is indeed lashed with hibiscus, the core of the raft is visibly held together by manila rope. (see 2:45 and 6:19 on the clip[5])

According to a resident who lives in the area and worked as a rafting photographer in the river that Bear rafted down, the Sierra Nevada episode is fraught with errors. He lands above the tree line (8,000'+ w/ pines, very little underbrush, no oaks, etc), scales down to the Kings River (~1,200', grape vines, underbrush, etc), then back up to the tree line, then down to a meadow before getting to Pine Flat Lake, which would involve walking right past rafting companies. The river that he rafted down, the Kings River, has a dirt road along the side (visible in a number of shots), which is driven along by rafting companies every 15 minutes, and is only a few miles from civilization. [6] The meadow scene had numerous questions raised -- a pure white rabbit in the middle of summer, abnormally tame "wild" horses, etc.[7].

In the Alps episode, Bear jumps into a "crevasse" to demonstrate how ropes can bite into the snow to save your life. He acts terrified, as though a huge fall would await him if he let go. Nonetheless, a cameraman films him from beneath, meaning that the "dropoff" extends only a few feet below him.(see 4:44 and onward in the clip [8]) After jumping in a lake, he warms up with a fire burning wood, despite the fact that he is supposedly well above the timber line. Many have additionally found his offcamera "creation" of a string of identical metal fishing hooks that look like commercial hooks without explaining how implausible.[]

In the Costa Rica episode, Bear inexplicably climbs through a waterfall instead of going around. He is visibly wearing a climbing harness during the climb.(see 5:07 on the clip[9])

Throughout the whole series, it can be widely noticed that Bear remains clean between scenes, even after getting dirty and when there is supposedly no water to be had. He remains clean-shaven throughout each episode, despite the elapsed time. He not only doesn't sunburn on the desert island episode, he doesn't even seem visibly more tan by the end of it.[10][11] In essentially every episode, things that are supposedly accidents or discoveries already have a camera crew in place to film them. As a consequence of these and other inconsistencies, the Discovery Channel forums have received numerous complaints about it being a "staged" or "hollywood" show, with some people specifically registering to complain[12]. Many feel that much of his advise borders more on stupid or suicidal than helpful.[13]

Warning

To fellow survival practitioners and seekers of survival information. Some of the practices of Bear Grylls on this show can be dangerous to your health and your life. The consumption of impure water, raw meat, swimming in water with dead animal carcases, and getting your clothing wet during cold weather can kill you. These things should only be attempted if you know that you'll be back to civilization within a week or two and only if you MUST! Otherwise you will die from salmonella, giardia, amoebas, diarrhea, hypothermia, and frostbite. You must always boil water for at least 15 minutes, not only to get rid of bacteria, parasites, and amoebas, but also protists that can resist boiling temperatures for longer periods of time than most organisms. If you cannot boil water then make certain that you retrieve your water from a fast flowing stream with no dead animals upstream or any visible pollutants or factories in or near the water. Always cook meat so it's well done. This will also kill bacteria and parasites that might be within the meat. Never eat unless you have water to consume with your meal. Never get your clothing wet if it's cold or if the temperature will become cold during the night. Discovery Channel doesn't seem to realize that some of the practices witnessed on the show may actually be emulated by somebody at one point in time. If said person's rescue doesn't come within a week or two then they will almost certainly become extremely ill unless preventative measures are adhered to. Bear Grylls does use great techniques and possesses a skill set far above the average man's. However, some of the practices in his show should be used with extreme caution. Robert Hrosc

---

Addition: It is an exageration to call the show a survival series. Often the things that would really help with survival are skipped entirely like how he built the fire or how he made that elabaorate fishing rig from parachute shrouds. On the other hand, he often does things that are simply stupid like swallowing eggshells. Loss of calcium would not be a problem after just a few days. Contrast this with the much more realistic Les Stroud who for example mentions the problem of rabbit starvation but does not actually eat the fatty parts (intestines, eyes, and brains) because it isn't necessary after only a week. Bear's "demonstration" of what to do if you fall in the freezing water was nonsense. His exit depended entirely on gripping a frozen ridge on the side near where he broke through. I was stunned when I saw this cheat since the chances of having the same ridge to grip for a viewer would be close to zero. So, rather than showing real survival skills like escaping when falling through the ice this is merely the spectacle (like a dunking booth) of seeing someone plunged into freezing water. I would characterize Man Versus Wild as the Jackass version of genuine survival shows.

The one that really got me was "jumping off a cliff into unknown depth water". That is, quite honestly, suicidal. Anyone who has ever been cliff jumping knows that the very first rule is know what you're jumping into. Not doing so is a great way to get killed. Of course, given that the camera crew was filming him from the other side, he clearly wasn't actually running away from a bear, so they undoubtedly checked it for him  :)

I love how Bear starts a fire with a "flint". What a copout. Might as well just give him a match. Who gets lost with a commercial flint but no matches? It'd be one thing if he used pyrite + natural flint, for example, but no -- a commercial flint, which produces copious hot sparks. A few real firestarting techniques: 1) a lot of work slamming hard, typically iron-bearing rocks together, 2) A large battery (say, a lantern battery) plus conductive fibers (easy), 3) a magnifying glass (near sighted eyeglasses won't work, but far-sighted can). 4) Bow drill (better be able to get or make cordage!), and 5) Hand drill (ow, ow, ow...).

Of course, even if he did a bow drill, he'd probably just skim over the most difficult parts. It's actually a rather complicated process, involving 7 parts, one of which can't be "found" in nature, two of which have to be assembled, four which involve cutting, two which involve pressure shaping, and a process that involves using three different combinations of speed and pressure (low speed/low pressure for establishing the holes, high pressure/low speed for creating charcoal shavings to catch the coal, and high pressure/high speed to create the coal). And that doesn't even consider things like wood selection, tension, how to hold things, etc. And making the rope is a whole topic on its own.

But no. He just brings a commercial flint, so fire making is a nothing task. -- Rei 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch the one where he's in the rain forest. He does start fires with a bow drill. Takes him at least an hour, too.

I don't understand all this hate for the guy. Even if you want to say the show is produced to some degree, the man has genuine skills. Discovery channel doesn't just give a show to anybody. Who the hell are you? Do YOU have a show, Rei? No. Eventually someone is going to survive a terrible event and they're going to say this show helped them. Would you be angry and jelous about this or happy that Bear saved a person's life?

I just don't understand your agenda. Utils 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had missed that one. Still, almsot all of the rest of the eps are cheats.

Have you caught the "Copper Canyon" one? He starts a fire by rubbing two pieces of yucca together. He called it a different name, but it essentially was the "Fire Plough" method. This is one of the toughest ways to start a fire. With hard to light wood, it can take a team of people hours. With ideal wood, it takes an expert (I.e., natives who've used it their entire lives) 2-3 minutes of backbreaking labor. He does it in 15 seconds without breaking a sweat. That is quite literally impossible.

Now, even if he didn't "cheat", and they just used clever editing to cut out the hard work, it's at the very least horribly deceptive. The several million people who watched this show and didn't know any better are left with the impression that if they were stranded, they could just rub two sticks together for a few seconds and get a fire. Go ahead -- try it. Most novices could spend hours trying and still not get a fire lit with a fire plough.

This show is going to get people killed. Climbing down waterfalls, screeing, and in general encouraging people to take risky behavior, teaching some things that are just plain wrong, plus skipping over the essentials (including the most basic one: if stranded, *stay put*), he's going to get someone killed. -- 70.57.222.103 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude WTF's your problem? So what? 1 or 2 scenes every few episodes is staged, get over it, its an hour show. "Stay Put" That would kind of kill the point of the show, plus. ~Its entertainment~ Him climbing a waterfall to save a few hours of walking isnt going to get someone killed, some dumbass jumping off a waterfall is going to get THEMSELVES killed. Get over it, bear's a beast, he's done more shit then you can imagine

Outback / Drinking Urine

Once again, Bear teaches people how to get themselves killed. As Wikipedia's own article on dehydration and the article on human urine notes, drinking urine, like drinking saltwater, does nothing at best, and increases the rate of dehydration at worst. Normal urine contains about 95% water and 5% dissolved solids, much of which is salts. The more dehydrated you are, the higher the percentage of salt in the urine. Your body is only about 1% salt. Water follows a diffusion gradient, so water *leaves* your cells to dilute the urine. The kidneys can pump ions out of your blood to try and lower the salt concentration, but not *that* effectively. Just like drinking seawater to survive is stupid and nearly universally recommended against, you shouldn't survive on urine, either. And here, we're just talking about the salt, let alone the ammonia, nitrates, aldehydes, and other toxins that your body is trying to get rid of. And all of this assumes that it doesn't make you vomit outright and lose even more water.

To viewers of the show: don't do it!

Of course, we're not allowed to mention anything except for the press release blurbs on the article itself. :P -- 70.57.222.103 01:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like the Bear here, but drinking your own urine has been proven to save lives. I don't think Bear cares what some random anonymous self-appointed "experts" have to say on the subject. In fact I remember reading in the paper YEARS ago (this is the part where I sound like BEAR) about this man, his wife and his mother trapped somewhere in India. He survived by drinking his own urine. He coaxed them to drink theirs but they couldn't do it. They refused. They died and he lived.

Drinking your own urine is your LAST OPTION. I agree. But it could save your life. Utils 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indirect anecdotes without evidence of effect doesn't change the facts. Let's check what Equipped.com (a survivalist site) has to say: "Never drink blood or urine. They will only hasten dehydration."[14]. What about simplesurvival.net? "Finally, a few things you should not do. Do not drink urine. It is a waste product of a body and is just that, waste (think about that for a second…when a body passes urine, it is not longer need or useful). Drinking urine can even make you sick."[15]. Adventure Sports Online's 5 basic survival tips? "Never drink urine."[16]. USGI Canteen Group? "Also, don't drink urine or sea water. Some folks say that it's saved their lives, but there is no evidence to back this up. Both contain high levels of toxins that cannot be filtered out except by distillation or reverse osmosis."[17]. Wilderness-Survival.net? "Do not drink urine."[18] (very prominent, in the "Remember!" section). Want me to keep on going?

It's not medically sound, either. Sure, it's sterile, but it's also saline. Do you understand the concept of osmosis? We're not saltwater-adapted; we cannot survive on saline fluids. They dehydrate us. Even if they don't make you vomit.

Don't do it. It's dumb, and it's bad advice. Just like about half of Bear's advice. -- 70.57.222.103 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion, and moreover any mention of it within the article, is not appropriate for wikipedia. Attempting to rebuke any of the shows content about what is the best form of survival is editorializing. You may link the word urine to the actual page on urine where people can figure it out for themselves, but keep it out of here.--Tao of tyler 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello -- 5 references! Plus, Wikipedia itself says that on two articles. Jesus Christ, you won't allow one well-referenced word that goes against the Man vs Wild narrative, even if just to warn people, "dangerous and wrong!"? The article, as it stands, says that drinking urine can save your life. Just because this is what the show says doesn't make it true. The word "incorrectly" belongs in there. -- 70.57.222.103 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not even a LAST OPTION, it is a NON-OPTION. So says the US Army Field Manual 21-76, Chapter 6. So says Dr. Elfarr, Urologist and president of the Texas Urological Society. So says Master Sergeant Gary L. Benton, survival instructor to B-52 crews and other things. So says Tom Brown Jr., survival school founder and instructor. (a) it has waste products in it (b) it is saline. Drinking urine is like drinking seawater, a way to hasten your death. However it makes a good stunt for TV. I don't think this article should be allowed to make false claims because the TV show said so. Other articles have sections entitled "controversy" or "criticism", why is Bear holier than the rest of Wikipedia? All of those experts can be found stating their opinions with a quick google search . Is the network controlling this article? Smoopy31 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I really do not care whether it is or is not good for your health. The fact of the matter is that discussing the shows content on an encyclopedia is not appropriate. The word incorrectly is a weasel word.--Tao of tyler 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The word incorrectly, in this context, is a widely accepted fact. "Incorrectly" is an absolutely definitive word; there is no "weasling" to it. Wikipedia is not supposed to censor incorrect and dangerous content, but that doesn't mean it's supposed to report falsehoods as facts. It is an encyclopedia; it is supposed to report the truth.

Ever checked out the article on Phlogiston? Why don't you head over there and argue, "I really do not care whether it is or is not accurate. The fact of the matter is that discussing the theory's content on an encyclopedia is not appropriately. The word obsolete is a weasel word." -- 70.57.222.103 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just add a criticism section to this article, and mention some criticisms of some of what is being taught/shown in the show. A lot of articles have criticisms; so it isn't out of the ordinary to actually mention something wrong with the technique being taught -- that' the purpose. "Tao"; it isn't that we are attempting to rebuke the show and editorialize it; it's more that the criticism section would allow for the article to note some common criticisms of the show; the urine issue being one of them. 207.12.38.83 00:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First episode

I thought the first episode was in the Rocky Mountains? Evan Reyes 07:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not , but I saw on my cable box's scheduleing that this epiode will be shown at * pm Pacific time, on discovery channel. 67.172.125.13 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless there was a Rocky Mountains episode so it needs to be added. I too it was the first one aired. 71.124.220.57 16:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my post above... the episode aired on October 27th 2006. http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=284391&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=5956160 Bjfcool 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Rockies" episode was the series pilot. Hence the explanation of the show premise in the episode and some emotional baggage that didn't reach the rest of the series. I updated the episode list to include it. Navethechimp 06:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dungwater

... Wouldn't that make you pretty sick? I guess that's better than dying of thirst, but wouldn't you still die?

pay attention to the show more, he explains it. --Plankton5005 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought eating the dead zebra was bad until he drank poo water. Mr. Ham Man 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cruel and Inhumane Aspects

Eating an animal while its alive for a Television Show?

Television networks should not allow shows to demonstrate how to eat a living animal for a television show. Whether truly surviving or simply making a television show, quickly killing the fish by hitting it over the head with a stone would be just as easy and humane. After all, this IS a television show with millions of impressionable people watching. There are many people out there who will try this and cause undue suffering with pet fish. Where do we draw the line? Are we also going to also watch him to tear into a struggling rabbit because he is hungry and "showing" us how to survive or an undomesticated cat? Those animals are also fair game to a hungry man trying to survive.

He's unlikely to come across a domesticated cat in the middle of the Rockies. Biting through the spine of a fish is a tried and tested humane way of eating fish. SemperFideliS81 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So because he's a human being, he's not allowed to eat the fish the same way a bear would or some other predator in the wild? How does that make sense to you? Utils 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing cruel or inhumane about what he does - in fact he specifically states that when killing prey, you need to do so quickly and efficiently. In the recent Everglades episode he explained the first bite should kill when eating the frog, and he explained that he needed to kill the turtle quickly with a single jab of the knife. Had he wanted to be cruel, I suppose he could have just cooked the turtle alive - but that isn't how he operates.

You will also note he doesn't eat animals that are protected or endangered, and he explains as such when he comes across them. The fact is, he appears to be more humane than the average non-human predator that these animals come across, and the entire point of the show is to demonstrate what someone may have to do in order to survive. If you had went three days with no food and came across a turtle....I'm guessing the humane way of killing it wouldn't be on the top of your priority list - if it sickens you that a human could actually kill an animal for food I'd suggest becoming a vegan and not watching the show, because his actions are fare more civilized than those found in your local slaughterhouse. Costner 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The guy also does it for effect. In the rockies episode, he kills the first fish by bashing his head but bites into the second fish ripping it apart. Half the stuff he eats provides marginal nutrition, especially the way he shows it. That sheep he "luckily" found in the iceland episode offered a lot more nutrition that a thin strip of meat and an eyeball. The guy does it for effect...just like your classmate in gradeschool used to eat bugs for attention. The truth of the matter is that the guy is not in a survival situation and doesn't need to any of the animals that he does. MvW is to survival as Jerry Springer is to psychiatry...its unfortunate animals have to be killed for ratings. LostCause 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from fishing, where you kill and hunt fish for sport? Or what about hunting deer where it is legal? Or better yet, eating some nice roasted pork when you know that you can easilly afford vegetables, other forms of food where "killing" and "pain" isn't caused -- aren't these things for "entertainment"? You can argue that we need the meat for nutrition -- do we? We don't live in a third world country; we can easilly find nutrition elsewhere -- fact is, we like the taste. I would argue Bear Grylls needs the nutrition out in the wild more than the average person who eats meat for supper. He's also using it often times as a teaching tool (as well as for shock value). This is what humans do. If you criticize the show for being "inhumane"; than criticize the rest of these issues and be a vegetarian (I'm not against vegetarians; I'm against hypocrites). 207.12.38.83 00:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"...its unfortunate animals have to be killed for ratings." - I assume you are not a very big fan of Food Network. Dalf | Talk 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wild == Stage?

Is this series staged?

Can we assume that Bear's being stranded is actully just a hypothetical and that every situation that he finds himself in in succession thereafter within each episode is merely arranged for demonstrating his knowledge of survival?

-MrBucket 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It rather appears that way. It's much more organized around relating survival tips than really surviving. The show is clearly divided into neat segments which seem pre-prepared. If this is a reality series, so are fishing or cooking shows. –  Anþony  talk  08:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The show is most definitely staged. Apart from doing things that wouldn't work, there are several instances where the camera shots contradict the premise of the show and several bad editing mistakes such as when Bear is supposedly swimming down a river, but you can see he has a life vest on in several shots, "making" fishing hooks which magically turn into the store bought kind once the fish is actually caught and other such silly stuff. Cereal Box Conspiracy 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they help Bear out with things that he could hypothetically do, but for the sake of repetition and time, they help him out. He probably could make fishing hooks, but why bother when the people watching can't really tell the difference. They also probably give him flint so they don't have to show him making a fire every single time- but again, he probably could.

yes, http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2161971848/m/8881930168

A producer who would willingly produce a show that is actually putting it's one and only star in extreme danger without safety precautions is a stupid producer. But of course, if these precautions were more visible and obvious than the show would not have it's selling points. Also, I imagine Discovery channel has legal obligations, standards, and such to follow. It's really all the final product that matters in Hollywood and in this case the final product it's quite enjoyable.Navethechimp 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

According to a chat transcript[19], he did use a life preserver in the first episode "Moab Desert," as the insurance/safety people required him to. After that show, though, he insisted on his way - potential death. Also, according to the same, roughly 90% of what actually happens is edited out, so there's a lot that we're not shown. Grahamdubya 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Every episode I find myself smacking my head at how fake the whole thing is. Example: He's being "chased by a bear" (which we never see), and flees like his life depends upon it. He comes to a cliff. Time is so important that he has to just jump off the cliff; no time to go around. This is normally a really stupid thing to do because you never know how deep the water is at the bottom. But there's a bear coming, right? So he leaps off, lands, and swims to "safety".

Only problem is, the jump is filmed from the other side of the river.

In other words, he stood up on top of that cliff (you know, with "the bear" that he had to run from) while his crew went around, probably checked the depth of the river, etc. They set up their cameras on the other side, then signaled to him to jump. There was no rush. That probably took at least an hour, probably several, to set up.

Every episode has dumb things like this; you just have to pay attention. Another example: he jumps into a snowy crevase, acting like he's jumping off a cliff to try his life saving technique... but they're filming from underneath him? Yeah, real danger there. Or how about how he's stranded for days in remote areas, he has "no water" (say, the Africa one), and he gets filthy-dirty (say, drinking water from dung).... but then next scene, still "thirsting for water", his face is spotlessly clean. His clothes are clean, he's always shaven. An "accident" on his overly convenient boat happens and he falls in the icy water, "struggling"... but the camera crew is already there to film him from underneath? Then, he cures his hypothermia with pushups? Give me a freakin break.

The show is such a fraud. Everything is planned, rigged, etc.

Survivorman is much better. He screws up. He suffers the consequences of screwing up. He doesn't always have the storybook ending -- walking to safety -- and often has to be rescued. There's nobody around, even for psychological support (with the notable exception of the "survival at sea" episode -- probably the worst one). Things even happen that are definitely not optimal for filmmaking and certainly not planned (for example, the "plane crash" episode where he decided to simulate having a broken arm, but had so much trouble just trying to survive that he gave up on it.)

Just my take and observations. -- Rei 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 2?

Is there any word as to whether or not there will be a second season? I guess they could do somewhere in China or something, but I don't know if they could pull off another ten episodes. 69.149.226.40 19:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, being filmed now. --Ira-welkin 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a source?69.148.177.179 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"

Look, you may not believe the show is real. However, weasel words, non-NPOV, and plain falsities ('a boat in excellent condition' - it sank) are not only a poor way to make an argument, but do not adhere to Wikipedia policy. Grahamdubya 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen the premise of this show is how to get yourself killed if stranded in the wildernes. Its basically a series of ridiculous stunts and and pure hogwash. Any genuine survival skills are purely acidental. If you don't believe this stuff is staged then I am sure you also believe professional wresting is an authentic athletic competition.--64.252.6.149

That's completely besides the point. You're entitled to your opinion, too, but until you can find me proof of the staged nature of the show, don't talk about it like it's a fact. Grahamdubya 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should be sufficient to raise serious questions about the reality of the show. Where do you expect a siting? Its a TV show. If you search on the net on almost any forum on outdoor survival you will read scathing criticisms of what is portrayed - look at the forum on survival.com for example

also, survival experts recommend not engaging in risky behavior especially if your alone. Particularly when Bear climbs up trees and cliffs looking for food, or scales down cliffs and waterfalls when he can easily go around. A broken limb in the wilderness could cost you your life.

Can we just agree that he is a showman that has been caught twice "cheating" with help from the camera crew(rope in the island episode and life jacket in the rockies episode) and that the claim that it is true could be either the fault of discovery or Bear or both with no known evidence as to which. At the very least it should serve as indication of the reliability of the shows information. As far as the source for this information anyone may view thies episodes and see it for themselves though it would be preferable if someone would take a good screen capture and post it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.30.41 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC).Effilcdar

Look, what the h is the deal here? He never claims anything but to show you some survival skills as he works his way back to civilization. I know nothing about this topic, but me and my girlfriend realize as we watch this show that he doesn't intend people to do the extravagant things he does. It is highly entertaining to watch him do what he does, as he is clearly quite skilled in doing things. And I am not stupid enough to think I should jump down a mountain or climb a waterfall if I am lost in the woods, but it is cool to watch him do it since he can. I can't believe everybody is up in arms about this. If you looked up interviews with Bear, you would know that these 'catches' "cheating" are bull, and that he talks about it. --Ira-welkin 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here seems to be that people hold the misconception that this is reality tv and is intented to depict a 'real' attempt for someone to survive these situations. Although Bear Grylls does make his way through the show living 24 hours a day in these situations, it's not a survival game show or reality tv show it's a documentry in which Bear Grylls shows the viewer different skills and techniques that could be used in various scenarios, not just him doing the easiest things he can do to stay alive. Any other fieldcraft or survival personality from Ray Mears to survivorman will have online forums full of people shouting "FAKE!" & "CHEAT!" or saying that the techniques they use can be dangerous, but the thing is almost all possible techniques you can use in many of these situations are dangerous in some way that's why people generally only use them in a survival situation e.g. drinking elephant poop water. Elmo 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

People are just jealous of what he has accomplished... climbing everest at 23 is pretty impressive. 72.24.246.21 07:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's just jealousy. We don't care that the show is clearly staged, yet tries to convince people that it's not. We don't care that it encourages behavior that's near suicidal at times, stunts that even Bear isn't willing to do without protective gear and with a crew standing by to have him rescued if he's injured (unlike a stranded person for whom an injury can mean death), when there are far better (but less photogenic) options available. Or the fact that they go to great lengths not show his protective gear. We don't care that he skips over the most important survival skills (firestarting without tools, cutting without tools, cordage making, cooking water without a pot, etc) in order to show off these dangerous stunts and present a fake survival narrative. We don't care that his show may end up getting people killed. No, you're dead right -- it's just jealousy. We don't care about deception and encouraging dangerous behavior; all we give a damn about is that the guy climbed Everest, and because of this fact, we want to ruin his career. I wish I was as perceptive as you. -- Rei 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rei you are a fucking bitch, shut up, quite bitching already, its a fucking show! Bear jumps into some shithole, lives there for 3 (or whatever) days and shows us some things you MIGHT have to do. Its not like hes scampering around trying to find the easy way out. Ever notice how he rarely takes the parachute with him? anyway, he gets himself into shit to tell you how to get out. And so what? he got help on 2 or 3 scenes, get over it, its a show, its enertainment. Quite acting like a pussy over it. read the synopsis for survivorman, in half the episodes he can take parts off of a truck, snowmobile, or bike not like everyones going to be able to do that. Look every survival show has some things that just arent going to happen, its an hour show fucking get over it. Its not like bear needs to prove himself with all the cool shit he did in his life. (and i know you're all gonna bitch at me because i sweared quite a lot)69.115.46.242 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 2

On Bear's official website it is listed that the second season of "Man Vs. Wild" will premiere on June 15th. I know how to add but I don't know how to add the source at the bottom. So I was hoping someone could help me and add it with the source since I don't want it to get deleted. If you go to Bear's official site it's on the homepage down near the bottom of the news. Thanks a lot. (Tekkodbz 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

I swear I saw the Florida episode at least a month ago (May), so how come it starts on June 15th?Sweeper77 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

survival techniques

Many of the things listed in the Survival Techniques section aren't really survival techniques as much as things Bear did on the show. As the list is quite big, I think we should remove the ones that aren't actually novel techniques. For instance: "Jumping 60+ feet into water of unknown depth" isn't really a survival technique, nor are "Ripping the flesh from a dead zebra with his teeth and eating it raw" or "Biting into a live salmon for nourishment"--eating animals seems pretty obvious to be called a "technique." On the other hand, making scrambled eggs on a hot rock or making a torch from kukui nuts seem more like what I would consider a survival technique. At they very least, they are not completely obvious or trivial. digfarenough (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

do it! be bold! Whateley23 02:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling the show 'fake'

I know you people (and you know who you are) are going out of your way and tripping over your own feet to use the word fake, but it really doesn't apply. Fake would mean the show is on computers in CG or it's with blue screen or something like that. I know you all envy this guy but he actually goes on location and does these, let's call them, "stunts." Even if he does use a life jacket or ropes, the man has a lot of training. And in ideal conditions, he's going to have that equipment. But that's not my point.

My point is, for all you guys calling the show fake, let's see YOU emulate what he does. Go to the desert and have two of your fellow "fake" forum buddies go out there and do what he does. Tell you what, we'll give YOU ropes and a flint. Are you willing to drink elephant poo water? are you going to eat grubs? Are you going to sleep in dirt? Are you going to swim in putrid disgusting water? Are you going to climb rocks with your bear hands? Are you even CAPABLE of any of it? And can you narrate and explain WHY you are doing all this and be clearly knowledgeable about it? Or are you just going to continue to sit on your couch all day at home and point at the screen after watching every episode and call it fake, then troll every single web avenue that discusses the show, like you've BEEN doing?

Listen, I have nothing against people pointing stuff out but calling it fake is probably the wrong word for it. I mean, wrestling isn't fake. It's scripted. If I were to try professional wrestling, I would seriously injure myself without training. There is an athletic component to it. There are skills. And people do get hurt. If it was fake, people would never get injured. But is it a performance? Sure. But I could not do that.

So come on nerds, stop trolling. Learn to stop woory and accept the show for what it is. The man is giving advice about extreme conitions. He even says himself there are things he doesn't need to do but demonstrates for the viewer and DOES give warning. But I guess you can't hear him over the loud tapping of your keyboards. Utils 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this argument, but please be civil and mature. No name calling. digfarenough (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Justification for calling the show 'partially' fake

Have you noticed many times that you might see a camera right in front of his face at one point, but then you head to another camera which focuses on the guy at the exact same time from a completely different angle and distance, yet you don't see the camera at all! Like the episode that took place in the Pacific Ocean (the part I'm talking about is Bear on the boat, you see the cameras right on the man-made raft but then where's the cameras and the crew when you go out to a different camera looking down on the raft??). POSSIBILITIES MAY BE that Bear actually carries the cameras on his own at certain times and is real careful on where he puts them and making sure that they focus on him, like when the boat sank in Alaska, and the cameras are under water as mentioned earlier. 131.191.64.130 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re, the raft in the pacific: you don't have to guess at where the cameras were. Check out this photo from his official gallery[20]. Oh, let's see, what's my favorite part of this pic? The soundman keeping him company? The manilla rope bindings? The clearly saw-cut bamboo, not burned as presented in the show? Nah, it's the fact that he's tethered to a boat just off the coast of the island.

Anyone who believes the narrative presented in these episodes is seriously deluding themselves. -- 70.57.222.103 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the show is 100% real, how can you justify the camera crew lugging their cameras threw dangerous situatins. Liek the episode in the savanah where he scales the cliff, and next thing you know the camera crew is up there with him...How does that happen. Or when they climbed up the rough waterfall...same thing. Basically its a tad sketchy to say this is 100% real without thinking twice about it.--EveryDayJoe45 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever proof you can dredge up for why you think the show is partially fake, unless you can back up your sources through references, it does not belong here. I will make sure to delete any reference to the show being fake unless there is credible citations.--Tao of tyler 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Videos and photographs are primary sources. We have, right above in this thread alone, a photograph that you'd be *extremely* hard pressed to say matches the narrative presented in the episode, with its clean-cut ends, its tie to the boat, and so on. I can post a picture of a sheep and state "this is a sheep"; that's not research, by Wikipedia's rules. Go on -- find someone who will claim that the ends of the bamboo in that picture are all burned, and they burned *that clean*. Go ahead. If you can't, well, a sheep is a sheep.

The section which was removed to talk cited people who would qualify as experts (for example, a person who was a rafting photographer on the river in the Sierras that Bear went down).

In short, you have no right to dictate that we cannot cite primary sources or experts. The only reason that the article is a glowing review of the show that doesn't mention *any* of this is simply because you "nothing to see here, move along!" people slightly outnumber the rest of us. -- 70.57.222.103 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just an observation: you people *aren't* the majority. Judging from registered users, I see Grahamdubya, Ratagonia, Whateley23, Utils, and Tao of tyler on one side, and Rei (me), Shoy, LightningOffense, MrBucket, Ampony, Cereal Box Conspiracy, Nave the chimp, and EveryDayJoe45 on the other side. Why is *your side* getting its way on this argument? Just because you're more aggressive? I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but really, when it comes down to it, without the intervention of moderators, these discussions often come down to little more than which side has more people willing to revert. -- 70.57.222.103 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not me standing up in defense of the show or attempting to cast one light in dominance over another is not me taking a dictatorial view over content, it's wikipedia policy. A video or image is not a primary source because it still relies on analysis in an non-encyclopedic way, and for you to look at an image and make a judgement is not being an enclycopedian, its critiquing. Unless there is a completely verifiable, it will be deleted, no matter how many people are on "your side." As the first line of that policy states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."--Tao of tyler 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia policy on primary sources: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The standard example is along the lines of, if someone posts a picture of a sheep, there should be nobody who would reasonably contest that it's a sheep. So, once again, I challenge you: find someone who could possibly believe that those clean-cut bamboo poles are fire-burned. If not, then "a sheep is a sheep", and "anyone-without specialist knowledge-who (reads) the primary source (would) be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

If you cannot find anyone who would contest this stance, then it meets Wikipedia's primary source guidelines. So, I'll *again* challenge you (just in case you missed it) to find someone who would claim that the clean-cut ends on that raft were burned. Just for one example point -- once we get past this one, we'll move onto the next one. -- 70.57.222.103 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That particular line refers to something that is already an existing, verifiable, and most importantly external source. This issue is not so clean cut as your analogy would like to frame it. To look at that picture and make any judgment call on it is editorializing and original research, both of which is %100 not allowed. I suggest you read up on what Wikipedia is not.--Tao of tyler 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Already existing: The picture already exists. Verifiable: the picture is from Bear's own website, for Christ's sake. External: Once again, Bear's own website. That's a primary source -- 100% clean cut. And no, "sheep is a sheep" comments are not "original research". If they were, every sentence on wikipedia would be "original research" if it didn't have a cite. You couldn't post a picture of a fire hydrant on an article about fire hydrants if you subscribed to that belief.

Wikipedia relies on on people being able to state things that are not subject to debate. "Hydrogen is a chemical element represented by the symbol H and an atomic number of 1". "The lion (Panthera leo) is an Old World mammal of the family Felidae and one of four "big cats" in the genus Panthera." "The Golden Gate Bridge is a suspension bridge spanning the Golden Gate, the opening into the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean.". Going to go ahead and put a "fact" tag on every sentence in Wikipedia? No? Then you accept this principle. The same applies to pictures. Going to go ahead and tag "Golden Gate Bridge and the fog as seen from Twin Peaks", "Air show over Golden Gate Bridge", or "The sun and the bridge" on the latter article as needing verification? No? Then, once again, you accept the principle: things that no reasonable person could dispute, from a primary source (picture, video, etc) are valid for inclusion. Find *anyone* who would argue with good faith that the clean ends of that raft are burned. Anyone.

Lastly, once again, I'll restate the policy on primary sources: ""For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." And, just in case you need it, the definition of a primary source (which includes pictures and videos of the subject in question): " Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Seriously -- do you think you can spin that photo, straight from Bear's blog, straight from the filming of Man vs Wild, as not being a primary source? If your answer is "yes, it is a primary source", then do you think that it takes "specialist knowledge" to tell that the bamboo was cut by means other than fire, or that there is anyone who would disagree with that claim?

May I remind you that if, by some strange means, you find someone who is nutty enough to think that fire makes clean saw cuts, I have a whole host of other ones for you -- the tether tying the raft to the boat, for example. Or, from the video, manilla cordage holding the raft together. And hey, we're just talking about one scene from one episode right now. -- 70.57.222.103 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall restate again, a picture is not a primary source because it relies on someone to make a judgement call. Unless a verifiable source, as in something written by a 3rd party with credibility which you have cited, then it is original research. It is you looking at something and attempting to make a claim about it. So I will repeat, unless there is 3rd party CITATION, with a credible source directly making a claim about the content of the show, then any mention of the show being staged will be deleted. And I shall remind you that this is not me defending personal beliefs, simply me complying with wikipedia standards and policies.--Tao of tyler 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to just make up Wikipedia definitions. Read the definition of a primary source. Primary sources do not have any restriction about being something that requires "someone to make a judgement call". You are making up that definition; it is not part of wikipedia's definition, nor is it part of virtually any definition of a "primary source" you'll find on the net. A "primary source" is exactly what it states: an original source of information. A photo, a video, an eyewitness report, and so on. That is what a primary source is. Now, if you want to argue about whether we are allowed to reference primary sources. According to Wikipedia's policies, we *can* if there is nobody who would reasonably disagree with the interpretation.

I'll restate once more. YOU do not get to make up Wikipedia policies and then try and force us to follow them. A photo IS a primary source, and primary sources CAN be referenced if there is nobody who would reasonably dispute the interpretation and the interpretation doesn't require technical knowledge. -- Rei 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research, as stated by wikipedia policy, if you have read the article on WP:OR, is anything that "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." A self-analysis of a picture is not a citation and since it is you that is making the analysis, it is you making a judgement call, as I had put it in my own words. And right above the definition of a primary source that is the foundation of your argument is the line that I have continually attempted to explain to you: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." You have no reputable secondary source. You have no verifiable citation. Your argument is moot.--Tao of tyler 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of the policy for citing primary sources -- "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" -- do you not understand? Stating what is obvious, so long as "anyone without specialist knowledge" who reads it will agree, is fundamental to the existence of wikipedia. Otherwise, you need a fact tag on every sentence in Wikipedia. As soon as you start dedicating yourself to marking every sentence on Wikipedia with a fact tag, I'll let this one go. Until then, you're arguing against Wikipedia's policy on citing primary sources, and pursuing a policy that leads to ridiculous ends. The sort of ends that people parody -- "The human hand has five fingers."

I'm not going to sit here and let you make up a new Wikipedia policy on citing primary sources that overrides the actual policy. -- Rei

I find your interpretation of that singular sentence to be borderline ridiculous, in that the definition you continually reference is the exact opposite of what you purport it to be. In full context, the full definition reads: "primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."

This means that a primary source is acceptable if the interpretation presented has been already published by a reliable source. And as the definition of secondary states, in bold mind you, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. You dont have any. You have only your unpublished opinion and is a clear and simple violation of WP:OR. And as this has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, I will refrain from attempting to get you to see reason, which I had hoped would be possible. But if you make any attempt to submit your opinion as fact again, then I will be sure to remove it. My side is the side of the clearly stated wikipedia policy, and if you attempt to violate it then I shall bring it before the arbitration committee. --Tao of tyler 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Because I disagree with you (and more people agree with me on this thread), clearly it is me who isn't seeing reason. For some reason, you think that stating what the picture shows is "interpretation". If you honestly believe that, then stating "a sheep is a sheep" is interpretation, and needs a reference. Once again, I must remind you that you are not God here. Your inaccurate opinion is not absolute. In fact, it's even a minority opinion. -- 70.57.222.103 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. If you do have something like an interview, why dont you use that? I dont think anyone would have a problem with that.

2. 3. Your accusations of me attempting to somehow bias the previous editors comments secion (which is a requested aspect of a request for comment protocol and should be reinstated) had two qoutes from you that were merged into one by grahamdubya.

3. I let your first questionable slight at my age slide (especially after you edited it away), but you have become increasingly discourteous, such as making wild accusations of me attempting to have article ownership, which would be a grounds for deletion, is a form of character assassination. I simply ask you to refrain, as I have most certainly not done so with you. --Tao of tyler 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure that Man vs. Wild, isn't the one where he's supposed to be out alone. They make mention of the camera crew, more than a few times, the camera moves with him, he directly told the camera man to stay back or some such, when he ran into wild elephants, etc etc etc. I beleive that the camera crew being with him is even in the opening credits. They make no secret of there being a camera crew with him. I think you guys are thinking of Survivorman, probably... That's the one where the host is completely alone, IIRC. Very similar shows, same network... BTW, the episode with the rafts in the ocean, that was described earlier IS an episode of survivorman. Season 1, "Lost at Sea", FWIW. Either way, hope this helps! --SXT40 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's probably pretty evident that I like the show. I'll admit that. At the risk of sounding stupid, though, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between clean and fire cut bamboo. That's just one area completely out of my realm of expertise. You also do deserve some credit. I now watch the show with a more skeptical eye than I ever did. I even think Grylls himself has taken notice; the introduction to each episode now adds the line "a camera crew will travel with me." I thank you for making me think twice about what's really going on.

However, there is a point to be made that video, audio, etc. requires the viewer/listener/whatever to make a judgment call, to perform their own analysis of what they're seeing. That's the problem with that kind of media source. The other problem is verifiable sources. I would agree that video can hardly be called unverifiable, but the analysis potentially could be, unless it's made by a reliable third-party. That's really all I have to say on this matter, though. I'm about to watch Bear tackle the Australian outback. --Grahamdubya 03:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you're going to say that you can't tell that a fire doesn't make smooth, vertical, even, uncharred lines? I'll do my best to force myself to take you seriously (really, can you take yourself seriously with such a claim?). Next: are you going to claim that that's not a taut (hovering over the water) rope (clearly not bark; closeups of it on the video) attaching his raft (clearly not adrift; ropes don't just decide to hover) to something in the direction of where the photo was taken, just off the coast of the island (visible in the background)? We'll go down the list. -- Rei 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I restarted the indents on purpose, the page was getting hard to read... --SXT40 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, SXT. And Rei, if you're referring to this picture, I'm pretty sure the caption reads "at the end of the Desert Island show, heading home." As in, the show's over, the raft's now been tied up, and that's not being filmed. --Grahamdubya 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the clean-cut ends of the raft, or the fact that the same rope is clearly visible in the show on two occasions (I can show you clips). -- Rei 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that it didn't used to have that caption! A forum mentions that they changed it after people started linking to the picture[21]. Besides, in case you think that the boat *wasn't* there the whole time, read what Graham Strong, one of his crew, says about the shark attack [22]. They actually had a diver enter the water first to check for sharks. The diver counted 25 sand bar sharks and then gave the go-ahead for Bear to get in the water. The diver missed finding the tigers, though. Even if you want to pretend that the raft *wasn't* tied off the whole time, you have to accept that they were standing there discussing his options, having divers check out the scene, and then giving the go-ahead. Meanwhile, what did they present to the public? Bear, alone and adrift, not a boat in sight, just "deciding" that he needed to take a dip to cool off. -- Rei 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Dispute over a criticisms section

This is a 2 month long debate over the acceptability of the inclusion of a criticisms section on this page.

Comments

• Remove I am persuaded by Ratagonia. A forum is typically a collection of un-reviewed and unsubstantiated opinions, which are not properly citable. A forum is a dynamic thing, that is, the citation today might lead to a forum of the opposite opinion tomorrow. This may not be likely in this case, but as a matter of policy, a citation should be something fixed so that it reliably supports statements which cite it. Any similarly dynamic entity is therefore unsuitable as a citation. - superβεεcat  22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the non-forum references -- Bear's producer stating that they had divers check for sharks before Bear went in, Bear admitting to using a life jacket, a photo showing clean-cut bamboo ends, screenshots from the episode showing the raft held together by rope, and so on? -- 70.57.222.103 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Concur with Superbeecat and Ratagonia. Forum posts and Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Criticism sections should contain information which is verifiable by reference to reliable sources. PubliusFL 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how the episodes themselves (the aforementioned "Youtube videos") aren't reliable references as to what happens in the episodes? Is that not the very definition of a primary source? -- 70.57.222.103 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the video clips of the show itself is that they would constitute a primary source, and Wikipedia editors examining them to conduct an independent analysis on which to base criticism of the show is the essence of original research (WP:OR). There may be some very simple descriptive claims you could make based on video clips, but "interpretation" must be kept to a minimum. PubliusFL 13:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Very simple descriptive claims" -- like, for example, if the video shows a rope, and nobody will dispute that it shows a rope, we can say that it shows a rope, right? Because that is the crux of what this argument is about. Am I correct in understanding that the standard is if there's any technical knowledge needed to interpret the source, or there is anyone who would reasonably disagree with the interpretation, then it's WP:OR; otherwise, it's like saying "there are five digits on the human hand" or posting a picture of a fire hydrant and labeling it "Fire hydrant". Am I correct in this understanding? -- 70.57.222.103 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using the primary shorce should be ok if you can refrence the episode number and the time offset into the episode that you are refering to and then stick to thinkgs like "there is a rope". Dalf | Talk 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue Largely Becoming Moot

Let's keep up the above discussion, but this issue is largely becoming moot. I'm finding solid reference after solid reference for each of the claims that have been made. For example? Was the raft tied up by rope? It sure was! And it wasn't even built by bear -- it was built by a woman named Celeste Cole, a survival instructor and consultant of the show[23]

"These amazing voyagers have become an inspiration to me for a humble challenge I was given while in Hawaii. This challenge was to design and construct a primitive vessel by hand, using primitive techniques that could travel at least 50 miles in open ocean, in a week, complete with sail, no less! I did meet the challenge though it was not completely accomplished in one week, it took a few more days, and of course I did cheat using rope instead of natural cordage on most of the raft. But it was an incredible experience, and the best part of the whole thing is that the raft floated, was self-bailing, and rode easily in the wave not bouncing and yawing like traditional watercraft will. It held together in some very rough and nasty weather including heavy ocean swell, and withstood the challenge of Princess, a 16′ Tiger Shark, who became curious of the raft and to get a sense of what this object might be, gummed the aft section of the raft with her massive jaws! Wow! This can be a problem with Tigers, if they don’t know what you are, they may gum you to see if you are food, while it really didn’t damage the raft, this gumming could very easily damage or cause one to bleed profusely and quickly end our fun. (I highly recommend Jimmy & Stephanie of hawaiisharkencounters.com for a shark encounter experience, their super folks and Stephanie is very informative regarding shark behavior.) I had great help in building the raft as well, (which was christened lovingly the “Celeste”, complete with champagne and hurrahs.) and I would like to thank Mike and Jennifer of Kualoa Ranch, also Brian, and Frank for working so hard on the project. I hope to have pictures of the “Celeste” available in a few weeks to view, along with Princess the Tiger Shark!"

I've found all sorts of other references. The Mustangs Bear found in the Sierras, for example? They were shipped in from Nevada[24]. And so on, and so on. So, these people who are insistant that you can't report what anyone can see with their eyes won't be able to complain. -- Rei

Added a replacement criticisms section. Hopefully, this time the references should be seen as impeccable. To help keep track of all of the claims and which ones had been confirmed, I had to start a wiki ;) -- Rei 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant see any problem with that section, although the last sentence seemed lacking in NPOV and I've removed it. Other than that, I dont think anyone can have any objection to that.--Tao of tyler 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that we have something that we can agree on.  :) I think everybody should be satisfied with how this worked out. -- Rei 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section = Troll Magnet

As the criticism section has only been up for a few days and already has had some really atrocious additions and subtractions to it. Before I edited it this afternoon the criticism section had seemingly gone through an edit war and was the longest part of the article by far, and was, if nothing else, messy.

So Im wondering if there is a better way to put the information from the criticism section into the article. Like the WP page on criticism says here, a criticism section in itself is a haven for vandalism and trolling, not to mention creating a "hierarchy of fact" by making the contents of that section seeming less valid than any other aspect, and therefore creation of these sections are discouraged.

So Im wondering if a better way to do it is to make a "reception" section, which in addition to being more balanced would probably be less likely to be so "hot button." Anyone have any major objections to that? --Tao of tyler 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is renamed to "Reception", it feels more "weaselish"; as if the criticisms are played down. But the term is used often for movie-wiki pages, so it COULD work here. The problem is, reception more refers to what critics have to say; how good of a show it is; rather than a Criticism section, which specifically mentions criticisms which usually deal with the actual material itself (the real meat of why people criticize the show: the stunts, etc.). 207.12.38.83 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed -- why has the criticism section been completely removed? 207.12.38.83 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

An unregistered user has apparently removed it in the midst of an edit war a few days ago. I've reinstated it.

Sort of highlights the problem I was talking about; a section that is labeled criticism will invariably be subjected to constant vandalism. A more balanced and less hostile-type section might be better suited.--Tao of tyler 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Different take on the Fake issue

I think the issue is that some people are getting hung up on the idea of the show being "fake". But you must define fake, and also, what level of "fakeness" are you willing to put up with? It's a little annoying that Bear MAY be getting some help (like with building the raft, etc.); but part of the entertainment of the show is the educational aspect of it -- once he's taught you the technique, to him, it doesn't matter if he did it himself, as long as he taught you how to build the raft, it's over with, it doesn't matter who actually built what's seen on TV. Would you rather him explain that the only way to cut these bamboo is to burn them; and then explain that instead, since he has a crew with a bunch of tools, he will be able to cut them without burning them? No, he simply says, since YOU don't have a crew in the wild, YOU must burn them.

Of course, another issue is, they lie when they tell you there is no outside interference or help (at least, based on the assumptions and educated guesses made); this is a different issue -- some people are offended by the reality aspect of this show not being as real as they'd like it to be. It's completely understandeable; I can see why one would be bothered. You find out that the show isn't real, and the entertainment value is taken away (part of the reason they lied in the first place; which is still up for debate). In this case; go watch Survivorman. I see it as a tradeoff -- there is less action in Survivorman; part of the appeal is the more realistic aspect of it. Part of the appeal of MvW is the drama and action. Both are equally valid forms of entertainment.

Now, would you rather have Grylls risk his life and energy doing all these stunts for your entertainment? I hope not -- it's wrong for them to lie, but without outside help, none of the things seen in the show could be achieved; without outside interference, this show would be a duplicate of Survivorman. I know that lying and decieving the audience is wrong, but there's no other way; unless they're willing to tell the audience that there IS SOME help provided by the crew.

Another thing you need to recognize is the LEVEL of fakeness seen in the stunts -- for example, in the picture where Bear is with the soundman... Perhaps they shot this AFTER Bear had built his raft? Then, they decided, "well, he's built the raft; let's just make it more safe and rebuild it looking exactly the same." This way, when they're on the ocean, they don't have to worry about drowning or anything like that. So you have to be aware of the level of reality presented in MvW, and how much ammount of fakeness you are willing to take -- just because it's "fake" at all shouldn't necessarilly weaken your enjoyment, if at all.

Here are some examples: Bear climbs a mountain, with a camera crew behind him filming all of this. Would it be okay for the first camera man to tell Bear to wait until he himself is done climbing first; so that they could get a camera angle from in front of Bear as he is climbing? I'd be okay with it -- they're only telling Bear to wait so that a better camera angle is achieved. What about a camera man deciding; hey, how about I climb another mountain, and get a shot of you climbing, this time, as an extreme-Wide-shot. But Bear has already climbed the mountain. I'd STILL be okay with this, even if Bear has to RECLIMB the mountain; this doesn't really take away from the reallity of the show. A lot of the "fake" evidence people provide aren't really that big of an issue -- there is some interference, so what? One poster from above mentioned a scene, where the first shot shows grylls is walking, and then the shot right after from the opposite angle shows there is no camera man from the opposite shot; meaning, these two shots were taken at different times. Is it really that bad that Bear is asked to retread certain trails so that more dynamic camera angles are achieved? Not in my eyes. Be aware of what you're calling fake, and the level of fakeness you're willing to put up with; does it really take away from the reallity of what's on screen? Is Bear still suffering as much, and is it even okay for him to suffer, or if it matters? 207.12.38.83 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a cheater, and you know it!!! Here's a list of things he has done on the show that proves my point:

• He used a life jacket in the pilot.
• He built the raft a week before the island episode (not to mention destroying bamboo trees for nothing!), and used actual rope to keep his premade raft in place.
• He has 32 camera men that follow him, as opposed to the 0 SurvivorMan has.
• Had someone check for sharks before he went in the shark infested waters.

He has also given nonsense survival advice like drinking your own urine, along with having everything planned out like the camera crew knows that he'll fall into a crevasse, and the cameras will be right there! HE IS A CHEATER!!! 131.191.64.130 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He has to do some things like use a life-vest because Discovery's insurance demands it, similar to how they made Les take a rifle with him in one instance in case of polar bears. The show is "fake" to a degree. The point of the show, however, is for Bear to demonstrate survival techniques. He demonstrated how to build the raft, once that is accomplished it is fine that there was a pre-made one that is safer than one he would have built, theres no need for him to risk his life when hes not really in the situation, just demonstrating techniques and options that you have if you are really in the situation. The shark stunt also was probably to reinforce that you need to check the waters before jumping in. Further more, there is clearly a helicopter that follows him and the film crew (notice all the shots from the air?) that could lift cameramen to different locations to get a shot from atop a cliff or from across a river. He is demonstrating techniques, thats all, once hes accomplished that, extra safety precautions should and have to be taken. I see complaints that he carries flint with him to start fires, even though he often uses methods of making a fire without using flint, the fact that he always has it with him means that if you travel to these areas you should bring one (like how Les from Survivorman always has a Multi-tool). Complaining that he waits for the crew to get a better camera angle or re-shoots is like complaining that Les goes and places a camera then walks by it for the shot. Bear teaches valuable survival techniques (with the noted exception being drinking your own urine) and that if traveling to areas like he does to have a water bottle, knife or multi-tool and flint.

Also, very few feature-length film productions that I know of have 32 cameras in operation ever, much less an obscure television show on the Discovery Channel. He has two cameramen. And, as said above, the insurance people at Discovery insisted on the life jacket. After that episode Grylls swore to never protect himself like that. --Grahamdubya 19:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)