Talk:An Idiot Abroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject British TV/Shows (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British TV/Shows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


They traded the Rome Coliseum for the great pyramids, so a note should be included that it is not the real new 7 wonders of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


I have rewritten the article as a stub covering the TV show and the book in one go. It can, and should, be expanded but please avoid reintroducing any promotional material taken from the show's publicity or from fansites. Also, remember to use surnames for encyclopaedic tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and copying and pasting stuff from the Telegraph is a bad idea too... --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen two episodes on Science Channel in the U.S. already and neither had the "pop ups" that are mentioned in the article. jonnyGURU

I've edited the country lists so that the name of each country is now, like the flags for each country, also a link to the Wikipedia page for that country. My reason for this edit is not everyone may be aware that the flag is also a link. Also, beside the country I have added the Wonder or Bucket List item that Karl is supposed to experience so that each entry appears like this example:

I also changed the wording of the title and description of that section to reflect the additions. I also changed the wording from Season to Series following the convention used in the UK. I've also left out some Bucket List items for series two. Until we see what exactly Ricky and Stephen have planned for Karl it's just a prediction. Ionsforums (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't think that adding a section per episode is a good idea. Episode one may get reviews which can be used as references but the others probably won't. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - i see your point, but does something actually need a review to have a synopsis included here on it? The whole series has been previewed, it would be encyclopaedically proficient to regale all aspects of the series, no?. We see mass overviews for all movies on here, i think a paragraph on each episode would be beneficial in time. But let's wait and see next week. Your comments are always welcomed. Googly75 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable. If we have sources that cover it, then a paragraph on each episode is fine, if not then it is a problem. As you say, lets wait and see. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel i am aware of the Verifiable rules, it doesn't state it needs a "review" though. Let's wait and see - we'll come up with something to make this page a good one. Googly75 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. I was assuming that a review was the only sort of coverage that was likely, which is why I mentioned it specifically, but maybe that is not the case. As you say, other types of RS coverage are fine too. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


I noticed the advert tag on the article, and apparently it was actually added in September of last year. (The date was added by a bot and is wrong, then). I'm sure the tag was added in good faith; the editor had other contributions so it's not a "drive-by" tagging and maybe it did look like an advert at the time. But it doesn't, now; it looks pretty good. I would be bold and just take off the tag, but since people including the tagger are working on the article I thought I would just open up discussion for removing the tag. Seeing a tag that suggests speedy deleting an article that meets notability guidelines which people have been working on makes me a bit nervous, to be honest. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Show, series, programme or program[edit]

All of these are used to refer to the entire series at various points in the article. Yes I understand that there are specific situations where "show" is not synonomis with "series" or "program", however there are at least a couple of uses in the article in which it is used in such a way. If nothing else, a unified spelling of "program" throughout the article would be nice GusgusMadrona (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right it needs a unified spelling. I'd go for "programme" seeing as it is British. Googly75 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First names or last?[edit]

The way the article mixes first names and last almost at random within the body text feels stylistically wrong to me. I lean towards using first names to match the way the three personalities in the show refer to each other. Any arguments for using last names (or even leaving the names mixed)? MacMog (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this statement have sources?[edit]

Does this statement have sources?- The show was supposedly going to be called Karl Pilkington's Seven Wonders, but Ricky informs Karl of the new title at the end of his last trip; given Ricky’s love of harassing Karl, he may never have intended to use the purported original title. This statement reads rather odd. The word Supoposedly makes it sound like a rumor,and the bit about Ricky's love of harassing Karl sounds like spectulation and like a fan wrote it. If I cannot find sources for those statements I will remove it immediately! -- (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A better balance ?[edit]

Why does the article not mention that the show received criticism for an apparent patronising attitude to the cultures visited ? (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is no one going to comment on this contributor's statement ? (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the criticism was justified, it did occur but cannot be noted because the article is protected. Are the fans of this programme so misguidedly devoted that they are prepared to muzzle opposing opinions ? (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism by whom? It can be added if it is referenced by a reliable source. AngusWOOF (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm particularly offended by the Route 66 episode. One place in Arizona was near Phoenix (which is nowhere near Route 66), and the stop with an Amish family in Indiana isn't on Route 66 either. Outside of California and Arizona, the sole location actually visited on Route 66 was the Blue Whale in Catoosa, Oklahoma, and it was done between California and Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


The source says that he visited Israel, but somebody has deleted mention of Israel from this article. It should be put back. (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The source does indeed note that he visited Israel and the version with the flag has been around for some time until its removal by a certain editor who provided no explanation for his edit on the talk page. I am going to restore to the long-standing version.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As and aside, the Western Wall is more closely identified with Israel and the city is Israel's proclaimed capital. The removal of the flag icon is inappropriate for the reasons stated. SD next time you want to revert a long-standing version of an article, please articulate your opinions on the talk page so the community can discuss it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It says in the beginning of the segment that he visits "Jerusalem, Israel". He visited the Western Wall and Damascus gate, which are located in East Jerusalem, not Israel. So East Jerusalem has been inaccurately labeled as "Israel". This sometimes happens in regards to Israeli-occupied territories. Its not even clear that he visited Western Jerusalem, which is not clear if it is internationally recognized as part of Israel either. But what is clear is that the Western Wall and Damascus Gate are in East Jerusalem and that they are not in Israel. You personal pov that "the Western Wall is more closely identified with Israel and the city is Israel's proclaimed capital" does not change the fact that neither the Western Wall, Damascus Gate or East Jerusalem are located in Israel. It would therfor be a clear npov violation to follow your personal pov and disregard reality. Since no valid reason has been provided here at the talkpage to present East Jerusalem as part of Israel, the inaccurate flag has been removed. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there consensus that places in East Jerusalem are to be labeled as Israel. This is also in accordance with wiki policy npov. So there is no reason for me to open a new discussion about something that there already is general consensus for, or if we should follow Wikipedia policy npov or violate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is all WP:POV and WP:OR. The source says Israel. Enough said. (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No its not. The show incorrectly says Israel, see above where its pointed out that he visits East Jerusalem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
A) You have reverted a long-standing version of the article. B)Two IP accounts and two established users disagree with you. c)The series says he went to Israel. Any other interpretation represents your own political agenda and ideology, and D) From National Geographic, Jerusalem, Israel--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
At least one sock, likely two. You and them have harassed me by wikihounding me to this article, an article you or them never touched before. Including one of them reverting me without saying anything at all. You refuse to address any of the arguments and then continue to edit war to force your pov into the article. The series is wrong as has been pointed out above. You have managed to find (cherry pick) one source written by someone at NG that reflects his POV, this doesn't mean anything, it has nothing to do with reality or the international community recognition. This reliable UN source shows that the vast majority of the international view East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories:[1] not Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether people agree with it or not, Jerusalem is currently in Israel so the flag reflects reality. This is not a political endorsement of the current situation, just a statement of the way it is. If the episode also demonstrably visited any Palestinian controlled areas then a second flag could be added reflecting that, but not otherwise. Failing that, if no consensus can be reached then I propose removing all the flags from the whole list. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That is inaccurate, Jerusalem is not currently in Israel. I therefor ask that you please revert your inaccurate edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Everybody is welcome to have an opinion on whether Jerusalem should be part of Israel but nobody in their right mind can deny that a significant proportion of the city, including the Western Wall, is currently fully incorporated into Israel and functions as its capital city in most regards. This desire to change flags and pretend that situations are other than they are is quite common on Wikipedia. I have seen people trying to pretend that Kurdistan or Kashmir are nation states when such states simply do not exist. This seems to be the political equivalent of those kids who write articles pretending that they are pop stars. These things never get anybody anywhere because they are founded on a fundamental category mistake. The mistake is the belief that reality derives from Wikipedia and hence that editing Wikipedia is a mechanism for editing the World by proxy. The truth is that, no matter how popular Wikipedia is as a reference source, it is defined by the world not vice-versa. Putting wishful thinking into Wikipedia as if it was fact does precisely nothing to make those desires manifest. It just wastes everybody's time cleaning up afterwards. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You are incorrect. East Jerusalem is not Israel. You have confused occupation with being part of Israel. Your comment here above is not in consistence with your edit of the article as you are talking about pretending and wishful thinking, but by adding an incorrect flag for East Jerusalem, it is you yourself who are doing those things. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel Rigal. Either the flag of Israel should stay, since that is what the source says, or all the flags for all countries should be removed (which in my opinion is quite ridiculous and less desirable). All of the POV comments that are being made here by this Supreme Deliciousness editor are not relevant to the article because Wikipedia doesn't get edited based on individual editor's opinions, rather by what the sources state. This editor keeps saying that "the series is wrong". That is his opinion. The fact is that the source says that he visited Israel. Therefore, we go with what the source says. (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is clear that only one person is disputing here and that their objections have been answered, if not to their satisfaction then at least to everybody else's, and hence the "neutrality is disputed" tag is not justified.
Also I do not think it is right to have four list entries for the one episode. I think we should have one per episode. If the episode really did cover multiple sites in Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan, all of them in some detail, then I think that all three flags should be used in a single list entry. On the other hand, if these other locations were featured only very briefly then I propose that we omit them. It would also make sense to consolidate the other episodes which have multiple list entries down to one each. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No my objections have not been answered. What two sockpuppets and a user with the kind of history that Jiujitsuguy has thinks about your replies doesn't mean anything to the actual conclusion of the discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. If you've got nothing but ad hominem against other editors I think we are more or less done here. If you want to allege sockpuppetry then do it in a formal report where it can be investigated properly, don't just use it as a rhetorical device. I am taking the disputed tag off. If you want to take this further then I suggest an RfC to try to bring more people into the discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012[edit]

THE LINE: "In Sweden, the series airs on Sveriges Television as En idiot på resa (An Idiot on the Road)."

SHOULD BE: "In Sweden, the series airs on Sveriges Television as En idiot på resa (An Idiot on Travel)."

NOTE: "...on the Road" would be "på vägen", not "på resa".

Tvanhare (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Google translates it as "An idiot on the road"?Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "An Idiot on Travel" might be the direct translation, but it's a bit awkward in English, as the word "travel" generally isn't used as a noun in this fashion. It could be that "the road" was chosen instead because it makes more sense. "An Idiot Travelling" would also work. That's just a suggestion, though. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Not making the change, since "on Travel" doesn't make a lot of sense, and because Google translates it "on the road". ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine and Jordan[edit]

List entries have been added for series 1, episode 3 suggesting that the episode also visited Bethlehem, The Dead Sea and Petra. I have not seen this episode so I do not know if this is correct however I do note that the theme for the series is "the seven wonders", and the other "wonders" are all very specific locations. For example, I notice that for Egypt they went to the Great Pyramid specifically, not to the pyramids or to Egypt as a whole. This makes me wonder whether the episode really was focussed on all these places as a combined "wonder" or whether they have been added spuriously, maybe just to shoehorn in additional flags.

Can somebody confirm the nature of the "wonder" in this episode? Was it the Western Wall specifically (in which all case the others have to go, even if they did receive some brief coverage) or was it the sites of the "holy land" more generally, in which case including all the major sites visited, with flags, is OK. Can somebody help here, preferably with a good solid reference that saves us having to rely on our own differing interpretations? --DanielRigal (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel: The "Wonder" in the episode in question (s1 / ep3) is Petra in Jordan. As in most episodes, they surprise Karl along the way with a few unexpected stop-offs (for example, the Dead Sea, in this episode). Setting Petra as the goal for this episode is consistent with the template for all of season one, which was to visit the sites defined by the "New 7 Wonders" foundation. (The one exception, as mentioned in the article, was the replacing of the Colosseum with the Great Pyramid of Giza in episode 6.)
Both the Science Channel website and Sky1 refer to S1/ep3 simply by the name "Jordan" just as they simply name the other first season episodes by the country of the wonder that is Karl's ultimate goal that trip.
The episode description is

"Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant send reluctant Karl Pilkington to see Petra in Jordan. But before he even gets there, Karl's forced to go on a tour of the Middle East that takes in the religious sights of Israel, a tour of Palestine, and the Dead Sea. "

Jg og 2 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Season Three[edit]

Ricky Gervais confirmed on Conan (TV series) the other night that there would be a third season. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Germany[edit]

At the moment the programme is heavily advertised as starting on November 27 on the german channel DMAX the Title given is "Die wundersamen Reisen des Karl Pilkington" (the wondrous travels of Karl Pilkington) and judging from the trailer it will be (at first) only episodes from the second series with the Bucket List motive. -- (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lost Luggage[edit]

The Science Channel here in the U.S.A. has begun airing episodes of "An Idiot Abroad: Lost Luggage" which features outtakes, previously unused sequences, and new post-production discussions. Each episode is focused on one specific episode from the past. So far, two episodes from Season 1's "Wonders of the World" series have been aired. Ads shown during those episodes seem to promise the 'Lost Luggage' treatment will also be applied to Season 2 "Bucket List" episodes. If anyone has anything official to draw on to update the article, that would be helpful. I have not found this version of the show mentioned on either the Sky1 or Science Channel websites so far.

Jg og 2 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^