Talk:Bullshit

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Start‑class High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Start‑class Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Marketing & Advertising Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Logic / Language Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Untitled

In 2006, a group of Philosophers published a response to Harry Frankfurt and I suggest it should at least be included in the 'further reading' section if not featured as more current thinking.

{{cite book|editor=[[Gary L. Hardcastle|Hardcastle, Gary L.][George A. Reisch|Reisch, George A.]|title=Bullshit and Philosophy|location=Chicago, IL | publisher=Open Court|year=2006|isbn=0-8126-9611-5}} — "These are the considerations that led us to put together the collection of chapters that is 'Bullshit and Philosophy.' If it's true, as we suspect, that the popularity of Frankfurt's book signals a willingness among the public to see what philosophers have to say about bullshit, then we ought, we though, to assemble some who were up to the task and tell them to let it rip."

Jim Kay 20:53, 2 May 2009 (EST) bullshit is making money with stocks you have 500 euro but you have to make a profit of at least 7.50 wich is impossible to get with 500 euro. thats the definition of bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.6.55 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments

The British term "bollocks" has nothing to do with "bullshit"! Bollocks refers to "balls" "testes" "nuts", no shit involved at all!

It looks quite special next to the "Personal appeal from Jimmy Wales" banner .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.113.181 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed bollocks is Comparable only in frequency and perhaps degree of general offensiveness to the prim and proper crowd...and that its used to express strong disagreement with someone else's statements often with the connotation that deception was intended. However, "bollocks" or "balls" is also used to express displeasure with unfortunate outcomes (especially in gambling) like the expletive "crap" -- unlike the expletive "BS" which is never used in that way. Also bollocks literally refers to bull testicles. Maybe the article writer just could not resist listing all profanity terms connected to the animal and wrote without thinking.

P.S. Somewhere I read that the meaning of "Bull" as fallacious reasoning or false statements comes from late Middle Ages politics where Protestants viewed many Papal Bulls of that time period as issued for political gain rather than based on spiritual truth or secular necessity. Maybe someone could find an acceptable reference and add that info...even if rewriting history to avoid potential conflict is PC and often influences what Wikipedia publishes. If confirmed this would not put modern people in bad light and simple acknowledges mild historical conflict. 70.114.133.167 (talk)

I do it alot

I removed the link to Scientology from the "See Also" section as it was obviously just some narrow-minded practical joker's attempt at being inflammatory.

One use was missed (and I am bullshit about it): In Boston and New England the phrase "bullshit" can mean that one is very angry. "He was bullshit at Bob for his constant and repeated use of profanity in class."

I changed a typo.

Revert back to right version --Madrone 18:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First person text needs changing. -- Sam

- fixed?

Cross between a shitsu and a bulldog? :)

dear authors & editors of this article.

I think frankfurt's work in this area is enormously important. he noted in his essay that he would not consider the various "rhetorical uses & misuses" of the term bullshit in that essay. this is awful interesting, don't you think?

I know Wikipedia has not been a great place, historically, for trying to codify [for fear of charges of original research] or describe linguistic phenomena in the world. but, I hope that what I've added will stand, kind of, prima facie.

Real quick. If Stacy takes he car in for repairs & is quoted $800 to get up to snuff, many of us know exactly what she means & can relate if she reacts to this figure by saying "that's bullshit." She is not saying that the figure $800 is a part of a discourse 'unconcerned' with some 'truth' of the matter. She is just saying she doesn't like the situation of facing an $800 bill & she feels pretty much stuck with it.

I think the utterance "bullshit", of this kind, is far more common than any philosophical usages.

if frankfurt says that Stacy's usage is a 'misuse' of the term, it's certainly not a truly 'rhetorical misuse'. she is just verbally objecting to a state of affairs.

idk. hope I don't cause a lot of trouble. thanks. skak E L 17:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit in other languages

Could the corresponding term in German be "Quatsch"? As in "quatschen" = talking bullshit, bullshitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.176.37 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quatsch is perhaps synonymous, but it comes from a dialect word meaning cabbage, so it's not similarly scatological. Wegesrand (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the German Bockmist because it's not equivalent: it refers to having done something badly (Bockmist gebaut), not to verbiage. Wegesrand (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The term bullshit isn't a simple portmanteau?? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably true of 20th century American usage, but the term has complex origins. "Bull" was in use in England from the sixteenth century onwards meaning nonsense, presumably from Papal bull. The American usage spread back to Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. --Ef80 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals." - Martin Luther, 1520 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wikUZu9des&t=42m30s Featherwinglove (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--

The "bull" in "bullshit" is unrelated the "bull" meaning "a ludicrous jest." It is, as suggested, a portmanteau of "bull" (n.1 in the OED) "the male of any bovine animal", and "shit."

According to the OED, the "ludicrous jest" version (n.4) is is not derived from Papal Bull:

"No foundation appears for the guess that the word originated in ‘a contemptuous allusion to papal edicts’, nor for the assertion of the ‘British Apollo’ (No. 22. 1708) that ‘it became a Proverb from the repeated Blunders of one Obadiah Bull, a Lawyer of London, who liv'd in the Reign of K. Henry the Seventh’."

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to cite the OED, as I have the electronic version. Sudont (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--

Oh wait, I take that back. This is how they have in the OED:

[f. bull n.1 + shit n.]

1.1 Rubbish, nonsense; = bull n.4 3.

First they have it in the n.1 sense, then in the n.4 sense just below, so I'm not sure. Sudont (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Taboo/censoring discussion in the Talk:VfD section

Netnanny and similar have submission template, if one chooses to add URL in ones' own domain to their blacklists. I wonder whether there is a way to automate submissions for taboo words/subjects, so those may be included without knocking out the whole encyclopedia?

...I'd suggest this somewhere more general to the wiki, If I knew where. JasCollins (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific study about why some people buy BS

This might be relevant to this bullshit article (lol!), or perhaps to others on Wikipedia.

Here is the original study

and here is some coverage it got in the media

I hope this is helpful! SarrCat ∑;3 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'although "bullshit" is more common'

I'm not sure about that, I'm English and only hear bullshit from Americans, and hear bollocks quite regularly. I would suggest removing that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraitorBagel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest removing the whole sentence. It is unsupported and doesn't add anything useful. --Boson (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much older concept

The asymmetry principle was already popular much before Brandolini's mentions. It seems unfair to forget the original blog post -actually, a rerun of a previous one- by Uriel Fanelli (in Italian, NSFW): https://web.archive.org/web/20110627060407/http://www.keinpfusch.net/2010/03/la-teoria-della-montagna-di-merda.html.

Though not using the same terminology, the concept is definitely the same.