Talk:List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes

Episode Titles

I am watching some P&T episodes right now and I noticed the episodes from the DVD rip are not in the same order than they are on the list. Is this because the episodes are numbered according to "aired date" and not when they were recorded? Thanks 76.123.165.106 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think they might be off. imdb has episode 4 and 5 reversed from the wikipedia page, for example. Their original air dates are the same, however, indicating that it's not just a difference from air-date-order to dvd-order. I can't find where the page's order comes from. I'm a wikinoob anyway, so I won't change it. Anyone else want to weigh in?Directedchaos (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

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

As long as both are referenced to differant legit sources they can actually be differant. If one isn't then the one that is referenced properly is 'correct' until the other gets a source to verify their view. If BOTH are unreferenced they should of course both be removed as hearsay until one or both can be properly cited outside.

The only "proper" primary source for this is/was Penn's radio show, as it is the only time Penn has been heard discussing it. Secondary source would be the official P&T messageboard. The only truly reliable source for P&T info is Penn himself, of course, and as he always says... even that is suspect. Even properly referenced, there can only be one correct bit of info - two contradictory statements cannot coexist.

Links to topics not shows

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

I agree. The links to actual topic articles is helpful, but should be secondary. The episode links should be linked to episode summary articles like it usually is with TV Show articles. DemonWeb 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agreeHighInBC 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the principle of least astonishment, I have removed all the links from the episode titles, as suggested above. Where possible (and relatively easy), I've moved non-redundant links into the episode descriptions, tweaking some wording as needed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we list who the guests on each program are?

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

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

Sign your posts, and you are wrong, its not JUST an entertainment show... I think yours is a good ida Havermayer. 123.255.22.88 (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this post is really old, but I think that it is a good idea to list "notable" people on WP that appeared on each episode. It wouldn't even have to be a full sentence. Just "... name of person here". Sgerbic (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis issues

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

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

I've done some work, probably still some more to go. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was some pretty impressive boiling down to neutral essences in a single edit. Thanks for tackling this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vague position on surveillance?

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

No, you said it yourself. It didn't seem vague to YOU. That would make it personel opinion and thus inappropriate to wikipedia. Find someplace to reference, or somewhere were PnT actually say their view to support yours, and you're good to go. Otherwise you countered your own point as at best being no more valid then the other. (that being the case you are of course welcomed to change it if you feel they don't validate their view either, but that can lead to an edit war which just locks threads or closes them... so much better to take the high ground and get a source!)

The episode was anti-surveillance, and I'd think Penn's position on government surveillance of private citizens would make this obvious. Saying that the episode had a "vague position on surveillance" is like saying that Penn has a "vague position on religion."

Naming?

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

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

new

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

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

"Attacks," "examines," "debunks," etc.

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

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

Season 6

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

Add short list of coming Season 7 topics?

Penn Jillette is on Twitter, and he's sent updates about writing scripts for the upcoming season. Is this worth including just as a simple bulleted list at the bottom, pending more information about Season 7?

So far he's mentioned these titles:

• "Violent Video Games" (1:29 PM Nov 26th)
• "Astrology" (7:02 PM Nov 26th and 1:30 PM Dec 2nd)
• "Orgasms" (1:30 PM Dec 2nd)
• "2012" (3:00 PM Dec 3rd and 3:33 PM Dec 3rd)

Krelnik (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He mentioned another:

• "Organic Living" (Dec 29th) --Krelnik (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He mentioned:

• "Lie Detectors" and the organic one may be "Organic Farming" now. (January 4th) --Krelnik (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient. Before Season 3 penn talked about future episodes of bullshit happening that never went to air, I'd wait till we hear something official. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbf_7B9dGw0&feature=channel up to 2:57 is when he's talking about planned episodes for season 3.Father Time89 (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but I would counter that in these Twitter messages he's mentioning actually writing the scripts and sending them off to the production company, not just ideas he's kicking around. But fair enough, I'll just leave them here on the talk page. Krelnik (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for this anymore, but just for reference here's another one (7 topics known now):

• "Stress" Jan 15, 3:30 PM PST

He also mentioned watching a rough cut of the "Organic Living" episode already. Krelnik (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it maybe we can have a list of these episodes, call it like unconfirmed episodes or something like that. We just need to make sure a reader will know that the list is not official and may change.Father Time89 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think me a killjoy, but that's exactly the kind of information that isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia at all. I say just let's keep collecting on the talk page, and many people who are curious will look it up here (as I did). — Mütze (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I'll see about building one. Here's a couple more that were mentioned:

• "Vatican" 2:02 pm, 23 January 2009
• "Lawns" 3:15 pm, 24 January 2009

That's nine titles he's mentioned, if they do 10 episodes this year like in recent seasons there's only one missing at this point. I'll keep an eye on his Twitter for a couple of days and consolidate the list. --Krelnik (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And the tenth title mentioned is:

• "Taxes" 10:22PM, 26 January 2009 (EST)

so I guess we have all of them at this point. I'll wait a bit longer and build a simple bulleted list. --Krelnik (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Permit me to say, "I told you so". The only thing incorrect with the above list is the "2012" episode is titled "The Apocalypse", and "Organic Living" became "Organic Food" (he mentioned it that way on Twitter too [1]). Perhaps in the future we should consider Penn's blog/vlog/twitter activity as a bit more authoritative? --Krelnik (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that they weren't probably right. They just don't count as an official source. — 87.181.176.15 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The host and writer of the show is not official enough? You Wikipedia folks crack me up. Ah, well. —Krelnik (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 8 Topics

Well we did it last season so let's do it with this season

So far what's been revealed is

• "Cheerleaders"
• "Self-Esteem"

Both at this link 13:40, 30 January 2010

Now as has been pointed out before Penn's a writer and host, true he doesn't get to decide what would get on the air but perhaps it's worth noting somewhere here.Father Time89 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are the others:

• "Area 51"
• "Easy Money"
• "Fast Food"
• "Martial Arts"
• "Teen Sex"
• "Criminal Justice"
• "Vaccinations"
• "Old People"

Enjoy! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.14.147 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Season 9 Topics

Anyone? Anyone? - Big Brother 1984 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bible:Fact or Fiction

The episode summary says "Offers criticism of claims that the Bible is historically and factually accurate, as well as the attempt to turn sacred text into scientific material and general hypocrisy within The Church about the matter.", with the phrase "The Church" linking to the Catholic Church article. I have not seen the episode myself, so someone who has can certainly simply inform me what it addresses, but since the Catholic Church does not necessarily consider the bible historically and factually accurate, nor treat it as a scientific text, it seems strange to criticize specifically them for it. Should it link to a different group of Christians, or did they really try to criticize specifically Catholicism for this? Because that seems a bit silly to me.Farsight001 (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that episode did not specifically point the finger at the catholic church. Rather the opposite in fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830203726/http://epguides.com/PennandTellerBullshit/ to http://epguides.com/PennandTellerBullshit/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090629062120/http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do to http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)