Talk:Deadliest Warrior/Archive 2

No original research

Please have a source for any information added. You can say your source is what you seen on TV, but there is no way of verifying that information. Thanks, mynameinc 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Episodes are reliable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My Rollback

I meant to undo that. Raiku Samiyaza :  Chat  21:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode 9 random edits

Ok guys, I think the stupid kids that were editing the title for episode 9 with all of those stupid and disgusting names are gone. Thanks to all the people who were trying to help fix the problem they did every 2 minutes. I filed for a Semi-protection and it just got approved for 1 week. Let's keep this page clean for this awesome show. Megamanfan353 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is the third time this page has needed protection. If it happens again (not a very big "if") we should ask for a longer protection period. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Experts

Please take the quotation marks of of the word "experts" in the summary. It makes it appeear as if they are not experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.125.113 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the quotation marks are valid. The word "expert" is a matter of perspective. Someone who seems to be an expert to one may not be to another. The show portrays the guests as "experts" but whether or not they are really experts is a point-of-view matter. In a neutral source like Wikipedia neutrality is the best option and it should be left to the reader to conclude if the "experts" are really that. An example of this were the Viking reenactors. We may call them experts if they know how to swing an axe and we don't but real reenactors such as Thrand (his aftermath video on youtube is great by the way) would not consider him as an expert. Apparently it has been stated on some forums that one of the "experts" is indeed a movie actor with no reenactment experience. The same thing goes for the ninja expert-a ninja in another school may disagree with his portrayal of the ninja, saying maybe that the ninjato was not used correctly or whatever the case may be. Same thing goes for the Maori expert, who is in fact a Samoan. It is needless to say that some Maori may disagree with his portrayals of a native warrior. Likewise, a major in classical studies may disagree with the portrayal of the Gladiator. I could show many more examples but the message is clear. The show calls them "experts" but there is so much variation as to what this really means that we can't simply say that they are real experts and be done. Rather, we must say that the show portrays them as "experts", which is subject to personal interpretation, and leave it at that. Wikipedia cannot say whether they are expers or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I believe your argument contradicts itself. By adding the quotes, the Wikipedia article is implying that they are not experts, when they are defined as such on the show. Without an actual reliable source saying they are not or might not be, it is a violation of policy on neutral point of view to put quotes around it. What has been said on forums has no bearing, as they are not appropriate sources. I could go on a forum and claim that all the experts were really high school shop teachers, that doesn't make it true. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I do not believe that the quotes imply that they are not experts. I see the quotes as indicating that the show STATES that the experts are real experts. Much like a quoted saying, it indicates simplly what the show says is true. It is up to the viewer to make his own informed choice. Like I said before, some viewers may agree and some may not. You hold that putting quotes has a certain implication while I am saying that not putting quotes has an implication too, that is that the editors of this article and Wikipedia at large classify them as true experts. We disagree on the meaning of the quotes. My purpose of the quotes is to relay a statement of the show. Let me give you an example. If I said "Ghosts are real" in an article on Wikipedia without the quotation marks then by your logic it would mean to say that by not editing it Wikipedia would accept the statement as fact. This is unacceptable as there are two sides of the issue, violating neutrality. If I put instead that someone said that "Ghosts are real" with quotes then it would indicate a statement made by someone to be judged impartially. Quotes preserve neutrality while omitting them implies that the statement is fact. We could settle on "purported experts", "portrayed experts", or something like that to indicate that it is a statement of the show and not to be taken as a fact. As for the forums I am not making a statement validifying forum comments. Instead, I am raising instances where the "experts" may not be viewed as that by everyone. Furthermore, I am providing evidence that maybe these testers are not really what they are cut out to be, that is learned in history and the weapons and techniques of the warriors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.41.41 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• um, are you User:JHanson712 not logged in, or someone else? My point remains the same either way, that you are making your own judgement on whether or not these are experts, based on your own observations and some forum posts. Our own observations do not count for anything here, and neither do forum posts, only reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes but the experts are experts on certain things the show says are imporatant to the warrior. Putting quotations on experts or saying "as portrayed by the show" is an insult to the show's credibilaty of which it, despite the fact that it is on spike and there is much trash talk, has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.125.113 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not all experts. The guy who was supposed to be the Mafia/Italian american expert/historian was just an actor who majored in history in college. I checked his website and IMBD page. He had no scholarship that would prove him to be an expert on italian americans, teh mafia, or weapons used by the mafia. He did however have a cameo on Entourage. There are plenty of university professors and ex-military guys Spike tv could get. But they are probably not good infront of the camera of aesthetically pleasing. Yeah some are experts, but a lot arent. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is there an echo in here? Without a reliable source that specifically says they are not experts we have no business implying they are not. The standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability not truth. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ok, I get what you are saying. "is ther an echo," nice, thats cute and funny. However, if you look these people up you can see that they clearly are not qualified to even, in passing, be mentioned as experts. I understand that that qualifies as original research and we cant include it....but really, it is so blatantly obvious. For the vast majority, You can see that they have no credentials at all to be called experts in anything. They are actors that fit the part for that episode. But whatever it is your website. Oh, BTW I am an expert in rocket science and brain surgery because I say so, therefore I am correct unless a reliable source specifically says I am not. Even if you did research on me and found out that I have no training at all in physics or medicine, I am still, nontheless, an expert (because I made the claim and no one has published otherwise). I also invented the moon, breathing, and sunlight--you cant disagree becasue that would be original research. That is the logic we are arguing. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong. This talk page isn't a reliable source either, and since that is the only place you are making that claim, it would not be able to be included in an article. Go say it on a television show and that's different. And it's not my website, I didn't write the policy on verifiability, but it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow really, I thought it actually was your website. Its just a saying. I think I understand that. What if, I say, listed the 'experts' and their 'qualifications' (with real life sources) saying what they do for a living or what their education is. I assure you that 'ninja weapons expert' (or expert on any weapons/fighting style for that matter) would not be included. Is there a wikipedia article on common-effing-sense? If so, would it read something like " a guy who is a voice-over actor, or night club promotor, is not an expert on ninja fighting styles. Particularly if the person has no experience/education in that field, and is not listed as an expert by any scholarship within that field.'

For instance, the guy that was on the mafia episode. They claimed he was an Italian historian and a weapons expert. Here is his IMDB webpage. [1] and here is his website. [2]. Nothin about him being a historian or weapons expert (he majored in history at university of delaware, but i dont think that makes you an expert. He maybe took two classes in Italian history). I looked him up on JSTOR to see if he published anything (I would assume an expert worthy enough to be on tv would have published something, I mean SPIKE TV wouldnt want to embelish his credentials at all would they?). They result was zero (0) articles or book reviews published by this guy, JSTOR scans 109 History Journals over a 60 year period. I checked on amazon.com to see if he had authored/co-authored a book. Nope nothing. How is he an expert? How is the voice-over actor an expert on ninja history and fighting styles? The special forces one was the only one with 'real' experts. Cant we just include a sentence stating that these guys may not be experts, or something to that effect. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of the 'experts' on Shaka Zulu and Zulu comabt in general Jason Bartley--[3] and [4]. hmmm nothing there about Zulu, combat, or weapons. Google search for jason bartley + zulu = nothing other than Deadliest Warrior website. Search for articles authored by him = 0. Other than this show I cant find anything about him and Zulus. Now if he were would to edit the Zulu page on wikipedia, would you let him because Spike TV said he is an expert. Or would you, say, want verifiable scholarship on the subject. I mean verifiability, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I can verify using sources, that he is not any sort of expert.

here is the other supposed 'expert' on Zulu combat. Earl White nothing on him, I looked up his name with zulu, stick fighting, and comabt. Got nothing at all; no articles, no videos, nothing. Now if he were would to edit the Zulu page on wikipedia, would you let him because Spike TV said he is an expert. Or would you, say, want verifiable scholarship on the subject. I mean verifiability, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I can verify, using sources, that he is not any sort of expert

Hell i'll call their agents and ask them, see if they ahve any credentials if you want. cant we jsut add something that says that these guys are 'supposed experts'. Something to that effect. Or do you work for Spike TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.221.242 (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, lets look at this another way. SAY there were a TV show called Deadliest Poison, and the network had an someone they called an expert on the series to talk about poison. Now lets say this expert said, "Cyanide isnt bad, infact it is safe and even healthy for you." Now that doesnt sound right to you, the viewer, and you suspect this person may not be an expert on poisons. You research the guy and find out he is an actor that has been an extra in several cable tv shows, nothing more. You research further and find no information linking this person to poison or cyanide research. Now, lets say you are just some 'joe shmo' and have no chance of being interviewed by tv or magazines to talk about the qualifications of experts on Deadliest Poison; however your research, and comments by others on blogs, points to the fact that these people are being misrepresented as authorities on poison. But joe shmo cant add that in the wikipedia article because it would violate wikipedia standards(i.e. no one said it directly in a published source). I realize on the issue of poison, more people would probably speak out and it would there would be less ambiguity about the credentials of experts. But in the field of history and combat (which is what deadliest warrior is about), the real experts in the field (academia and so foth) arent going to waste their time writing and publishing an article about the innacuracies or lack of real experts on some cable tv show. Nor is a tv station really going to use up air time on a story about some show on Spike TV (they want stories about Sara Palin and Brittney spears, that gets ratings). However those of us who know a thing or two, and can do some primary source research realize that these people are actors chosen to be on the show becaue they look good infront of the camera (again ratings, if you were the producer would you rather have the varifiabley qualified Harvard Professor Oldy McOld, the foremost historian of Scottish History talk about William Wallace, or some hot buff dude that looks like he is from GQ magazine). But the people who do the research (i.e. those of us complaining about the accuracy of the show and its 'experts') cant get articles writen in magazines, newspapers, or on tv because we are just joe shmo's. Because of lack of accessibility, things like blogs, youtube, and oh my goodness....wikipedia, came into existance. Basically so the collective intelligence of many people, not just those who had a monopoly on information and information dissemination, can share it with the world. I can prove, with primary sources, that 90% of these guys are not experts or even close to it. However, as you stated to the last person to post, unless that criticism gets on tv or in a magazine to say it, you can even place it in the article. Am i making sense here? --Billwsu (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• You guys are just not getting it. There were similar discussions here before by the way, still available in the archives. It is not up to us to criticize the show. Criticism must come from sources that specifically mention the inaccuracies on this show. The five pillars is pretty clear about this:

  All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate.

  This isn't me talking, it is Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Research that includes references, sources, and citations cannot be used. That'll work, I'll drop the issue. Oh, but why we are at it, can we remove any reference of wikipedia being an "encyclopedia." Please dont post a wikioedia talking point or pillar stating anything about how wikipedia strives for excellence or any of that. Ill just use the blogs to get my information, because at least on the blogs there is real discourse and not the policing of information because something doesnt fit perfectly with some bureaucratice-wikipedia policy. Have fun with your irrelevant information website, just please stop pretending it is anything informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.221.242 (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, the thing about not finding anything on Jason Bartley and Earl White on the internet reminds me of an anecdote I have to share. Back when Google was having it's 10th birthday and had an archived Google Search 2001, I wanted to get curious and search up things that weren't popular yet, so I searched, among some other things, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." If I can remember correctly, I did not get any pertinent or useful search results, short of a mere handful of web page results that merely listed the name of the then-relatively-unknown Tehran mayor, or got results that contained either "Mahmoud" or "Ahmadeinejad" by it's respective self while having nothing to do with the person I was searching for. It's as if back in 2001, people on the internet did not even care. Of course, these days and as early as 2005 when he was elected President of Iran, he's a household name in international news, and to go implied, gets millions of page hits on Google now. The point I'm making with this is that the internet is not the "Be All, End All" of worldwide information. Yes, you can get a hell of a lot of information on the internet, but there's also a lot of information in real life that's practically unknown to the internet. The internet is only as good as what's discovered in real life, and even then, what is on the internet may not even be what you're looking for. It's entirely possible that in some circles of respective expertise outside of the show, the people featured on this show are known by others as a reputable source, but being reputable does not necessarily mean one is famous and known. I have a grandfather who was a guard in the Nuremberg Trials and got the signature of Rudolph Hess, making him a damn good source on what happened that eventful day were he still alive, but to the rest of the world short of the particular Anderson family I'm related to, he's just another John Doe. Just because someone on the show doesn't fit the definition of "credential" just because he can't be searched on the internet doesn't mean he can't be trusted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. In response to the rest of the discussion here, I completely understand the adage of "Trust but verify" in keeping in line with Wikipedia standards, but who else can you get to back the claims on the show? Maybe not all of the "experts" on the show are experts, but they certainly aren't the only experts. If one off-show expert independently mirrors the on-show expert's facts, that could be considered something of a "verification" of the on-show expert, no different than how Wikipedia itself uses sources to back claims made by editors. Having to verify a verification is redundant, yes, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting facts checked and double-checked, but the trust just depends on the situation, and in general, I think the experts can be trusted, though your verification is going to have to come at an individual basis, and by then, you're just going to have to separate what their opinion is from what facts they said. Either way, this is just an entertainment show about theoretical fights, and although yes there is some truth to a lot of the historical context based on what is known, this is still not a university-level history class to be taken to the exact word. While we argue about the definition of an "expert" and whether we can verify their claims or not, the experts on the show still say more sensible stuff than any of us could BS with a page edit, and if there's any trouble on verifying what they said, than the standards of this site are hypocritically high for such low-level work and we may as well not even bother putting anything up. SouthernStang93 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Narrator Credit?

David Wenham isn't given credit as the narrator. I'll add it as soon as I can unless someone beats me to it.

The narrator isn't David Wenham, it's Drew Skye. Someone took a screencap of the credits here:[5] and this variety article mentions the narrator as well. [6] CommandoJohnMatrix (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say, Mr. Skye does a very good Spartan accent. --TwilightDuality (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be getting into an edit war over the narrator. I'm under the impression that the narrator is identified in the credits as 'Drew Skye,' not David Wendham (who, I agree, it sounds like; alas, my hearing doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for verifiability). IMDB's entry on Wendham doesn't indicate his affiliation with the show; the show's credits identify Skye, and a Variety article identifies Skye, meeting the verifiability requirement. If someone out there has verifible information contradicting this, or identifying Skye as psedonym for Wendham, we can add that. In the meanwhile, I'm reverting. MWShort (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticsm section

The article could use a section regarding concerns as to the shows historical accuracy and the reliability of their methods for determining the effectiveness of weapons. I personally feel that many or all episodes of the show contained a sizable portion of bullshit. If created, the section should contain errors in the show from both a historical and a physical/medical standpoint, as well as criticism of the stereotypes played on by both sides throughout each episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.206.18 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• sigh Please see the Frequently Asked Questions link at the top of this page, and the thread titled "experts," and most of what is is in the archive. In short, provide a reliable source that is critical of the show, or we have to leave it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pigs and Brains

Right now the article lists the test targets as "pigs" and "brains" etc. In actuality they are pig carcasses and gel used to simulate brains. It's misleading and gives the impression that this show violates animal rights and other similar things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.22.83 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers?

I was just questioning the necessity of in-depth explanations of each episode. For most shows, a simple explanation of the episode suffices, something that might be shown on the info panel on a cable box, for example. Yet for this one, the sections for each episode are very in depth and specifically re-tell the events of each episode. This just seems kind of unnecessary, in my opinion. 98.228.31.217 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide, it specifically does contain "spoilers" per WP:SPOILER. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Most TV Show articles kill two birds with one stone by writing short, non-spoiler entries in order to also decrease the size of a page, thus decreasing strain on Wiki Servers. These full summaries are short enough that it doesn't matter :-p 24.61.22.83 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.23.242 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)