Wikipedia talk:Complete bollocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 
Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Incompatible with AGF?[edit]

Having a policy or project by this effronterous name seems to be incompatible with WP:AGF (one of the most important parts of which, I thought, was acting as though you were assuming good faith even when someone obviously is making deliberate trouble.) Is this really sufficiently different from patent nonsense to warrant a separate project? Robin Johnson 16:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. This is a step up from patent nonsense. It's difficult to assume good faith when faced with articles of the calibre described as complete bollocks. Stifle 16:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It just seems a bit uncivil to me. I'd be happy telling someone they weren't using a neutral POV, or that what they were writing was unverifiable, but I wouldn't be happy telling them they were talking complete bollocks. Even if they were. Oh well. Robin Johnson 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What a good page. "effronterous" is also a word(?) that deserves to enter the language, assuming it hasn't otherwise, yet. Midgley 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
By a lucky coincidence, I was recently editing details of the court case surrounding Never Mind The Bollocks, wherein the magistrates found the word "bollocks" in a title to be not "effronterous" after all... :-) --DaveG12345 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not the word bollocks that I mind, it's telling people that they are talking bollocks. I see the difference between "You are talking bollocks" and "This article is bollocks", but I'm still not convinved the latter is quite civil. Robin Johnson 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh[edit]

I like that.Bjones 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I approve. In fact,[edit]

why doesn't WP:CB redirect here? That would make my day. Melchoir 09:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Boldly made it so. It going to Cleanup didn't make a whole lot of sense anyway. Hynca-Hooley 00:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Best page I've read on wikipedia so far[edit]

Nuff said. 83.208.165.249 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...well should also say to the critics here that 'complete bollocks' is a pretty final, momentous and damning term. Once something is deemed complete bollocks, that's about it for that whatever was thus deemed, and there's really no return. It's used only in reservation, and when one says that something is complete bollocks, it's usual that there'll be no disagreement - a thing that has passed into the realms of complete-bollockness, even in the mind of one person, is compromised seriously enough to warrant being complete bollocks for pretty much the rest of the world or at least the commonwealth. Having said that, there are some who think that the Royal Family is complete bollocks, and some who think it isn't, but no-one would ever say so, because it would lead immediately to civil war. That's how serious the phrase complete bollocks is. Just so you know if you aren't a native English speaker (yes that includes Americans) 83.208.165.249 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good one[edit]

Yep. - David Gerard 12:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More approval[edit]

I'm amazed that this needs to be stated, like most of the guidelines it seems to just be common sense (including *groan* Wikipedia:Common sense) but at least it's amusing. Leithp 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bull shit[edit]

Personally, I am going to use the phrase bull shit when linking here, since I always find Americans that go out of their way to use Commonwealth-only words to be mildly irritating (this despite my use of the word cheers). So, yea, I agree with the concept, but out of respect to Her Majesty's subjects, I shall be citing it like this: bull shit. Cheers. Youngamerican 00:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: complete bollocks is not as harsh, and sounds funnier. I think it's also a little more civil. Turnstep 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is the trouble. No one outside Britain - or, for that matter, no one in Britain who can't hear the tone of your voice - knows exactly how mild you're being. All they know is that you're swearing at them. I know it seems I'm whingeing, but that's because I am. Robin Johnson 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it ought to be pointed out that in American parlance, bullshit is usually one word and not two.  :) --EngineerScotty 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Brit, I would contend that bullshit is somewhat different. Bullshit is something that sounds impressive but which turns out to be complete bollocks. Alan1507 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to be taken too seriously[edit]

All right, in the light of the MfD it seems I (and the anonymous nominator) was the only one getting bristled by this. I've been bold and put a "not to be taken too seriously" notice at the top - that'd probably have been enough to stop me getting angry, so maybe it'll help some other people smile. I toned it down from "intended as humour" to "not to be taken too seriously" because I can see that this semi-policy is not entirely a joke. Hope this is okay. Robin Johnson 10:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the humour tag works well for me and I'd have added the joke image if you hadn't got there first. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

The article states that the term is used to indicate an incorrect and unverifiable item. There is no significant difference between this and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The main difference is that this ttitle refers to an informal british term, while Wikipedia:Verifiability uses formal, clear language. The other difference is that Wikipedia:Verifiability is offical policy, while this article has a warning that it is a joke. It should be redirected to Wikipedia:Verifiability. 72.139.119.165 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No it should not. this page passed through mfd as a separate page quite recently and the concensus was keep. look at what you wrote. you say theres no significant difference between the two pages then go on to list the significant differences between them. WP:V is policy - this one isnt. WP:V uses formal language - this one doesnt. this is not a policy page but it is one very frequently refered to in debates particularly at afd where it adds a needed touch of levity. if it was an article then it should be redirected but it isnt - its in wikispace not article space. becuase of that it should be kept as a seperate item. surely the number of different established users on wikipedia who keep reverting your changes should be an indication of the fact that it should not be a redirect. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First, there are no significant differences in the topic, not the article. Informal terms do not belong on Wikipedia (unless they are in some way important) and all discusions in VfDs should use formal policy. In case a discussion uses the term, the redirect would indicate that it is related to WP:V. Also, only two users reverted the edit by the IP number, and one of them simply stated that other users should get 24 hours to comment on the change. Polonium 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The tme to raise thes was at MfD. The article survived MfD with a strong consus to keep (much stronger than at most AfDs). You can take it to WP:DRV I guess , or nominate again some time, but in the mean time it seems that the community wants to be able to call some things complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Zis Guy and BL - if I'd seen this changed to a redirect I would definitely have rolled it back - this page has a distinct use. Informal terms have great use within wikipedia space - though they should not be used in article space. But as BL says, this isn't in article space. And as Zis Guy points out, the mfd was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping this page. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your viewpoint - I think this article is at best in-joke-cruft and at worst harmful and upsetting - but I also have to agree with Guy/BL/Grut - where were you in the MfD? We very recently had a consensus to keep the article, so single-handedly redirecting it was the Wrong Thing. Robin Johnson 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Finding possibly bogus articles[edit]

If you search for the phrase "emerging theory" or search for the phrase "widely disputed" every so often you should be able to catch newly-created pages that may fail verifiability criteria. Use these links wisely to find articles that may not meet Wikipedia's standards and then follow the usual procedures for reporting them (user warning templates, npov/fact templates, AfD, whatever seems applicable in each case). If these phrases tend to fairly reliably flag articles as needing attention of one kind or another then by all means let's give them this attention!

(It should be noted that at this moment both searches seem to mainly turn up legitimate articles. Clearly, blindly nominating articles for deletion solely because they contain either phrase would be a Bad Idea. But keeping an eye on articles that pop up with these, and maybe other phrases, may not be a bad idea.) --69.196.212.30 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed", I would personally classify these as Weasel words rather than indicators of BS. Exactly how long ago was it that both of these phrases stopped being regularly added to article on global warming?

perfectblue 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I found checking pages linking to paradigm shift to be interesting. Some of those were well and truly bollocks. Leibniz 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to certain issues you really need to put BS aside unless it stands for Bad Science, badly sourced or beginner stumbling. For example, the link that originally lead me to this page was from a page listed for deletion that somebody appeared simple not believe was valid because the topic was the paranormal, when it was just that the page was badly written and overly generalized by a novice user.

perfectblue 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever did this[edit]

And the spoken page is great too :) porges(talk) 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that whoever made the spoken version probably had a lot of fun doing it. :D Kudos to him for not cracking up while reading it! --Ciaran H 09:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Porge and Ciaran H - I only just found your comments. I prepared and read the spoken article for Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia (WP:WSW) - What you are hearing there is the 11th revision of the spoken article, cause the first 10 times I read it I nearly wet myself laughing and screwed the recordings up! Still, I am glad you enjoy the work. Why not consider coming along and joining the project? We need more voices and more artists to do these spoken works! Just go to Spoken Wiki and read up on us! Thor Malmjursson 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"How bold are you on wikipedia? How big are your WP:BALLS?" has been added to my userpage. Anomo 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia deciding Fact vs. Fiction[edit]

"This strongly implies that they must also be true."

True/False should not be reflected in the article, leaving the reader to decide for themselves. Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, with a touch more WP:NPOV, is a good example. I do like the idea, though. BTW, what is a bollock? GChriss 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ohh, that is British. GChriss 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Bollock Secretlondon 14:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

picture caption[edit]

"Proud Tanuki carries flask of sake and outsize testicles".

One of the funniest individual sentences i've ever read. Whoever's responsible should be very proud. -W guice 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another encouraging word[edit]

I find that there are some pseudo-academic subjects, like the instruction of schoolteachers or business managers, that need to inflate their vocabulary and operate at inappropriate levels of abstraction to maintain the pretense that they are in fact academic disciplines. This is probably a US-specific problem: don't really know if Cambridge or the Sorbonne offer courses in Salesmanship or have a programme leading to the Master of Business Administration degree, but I sort of doubt that these things loom large in their offerings.

I take a hard line on these articles for both intelligibility and notability: piffling in an inappropriately abstract way about "process" and "systems" in these homely but quite concrete subjects is a dead giveaway, as are elaborate rings of rhetorical tautology. The defining line here is that when you strip away the abstractions and put it all in plain English, you find that you could have thunk it all up yourself, and the only contribution that isn't baldly obvious is the obscuring blizzard of abstract words. In the USA, there are academic journals that publish papers on this rubbish. Worse, there are people who make money selling seminars and books about this stuff. Much of it is borderline spam, hyping various business consultants. The problem is that it can be made to look referenced and "verifiable," so it falls through the cracks of standard policies. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be all for some sort of proposal for a plain English policy on Wikipedia (although it'd be more credible if plain English were a better article itself.) Robin Johnson (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've considered some additions to the Plain English article, but most of what I would have added is already present at legalese or Plain English Movement. I may nevertheless try to draft something along these lines. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I have started an essay on the subject at Wikipedia:Plain English. You are invited to take a look. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice poem![edit]

Kudos to whoever added the poem here. That is a classic. Carcharoth 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. :( Vitriol 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BALLS?[edit]

I wonder why WP:BALLS shortcuts to this article -- I would think it should shortcut to something like WP:BB. I'd support changing it to that effect, hopefully without my suffering blunt force trauma to that general vicinity. -Etafly 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bollocks" is a British English term for balls... I don't know if you already knew that or if this clarifies things for you. Anyway... that's probably the reason for the link. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This essay contradicts WP:VER[edit]

The second sentence of this essay is in direct contradiction to the the wikipedia's policy on verifiability. This essay states:

"The policies of Wikipedia state that articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. This strongly implies that they must also be true."

The first sentence of WP:VER states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth."

If we work on topics long enough there may be times when our personal conclusions of what is "true" may be at odds with what the references state. In those cases we have to go with what the references state -- not what we believe is true. WP:OR and WP:NPOV cause us to discount what we personally believe to be true.

I question whether essays should depend on what we personally believe to be true. Geo Swan (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"BOLLOCKS"[edit]

I'm sorry, but despite their best efforts, the BritClique has yet to make the english language Wikipedia their express domain. Quite sure the other people who prodominately speak english only know of the word "bollocks" in the vein that it's something "the British say sometimes when they mean bulls--t." But to have "BOLLOCKS" as the descriptor to a general WP guideline or whatever you want to call this is, well, "bollocks!" Are you forgetting the other side of the pond? Despite your personal feelings, whatever they may be, surely those people matter too. In a shared language is there not a word that conveys the same idea as "bollocks" but is not uniquely one sided? The answer is "yes." Will my little two cents (or t'pence or tuppence or what have you) be thoroughly trounced in a condescending manner? Again the answer is in the affirmative. Be that as it may, I figured it had to be mentioned nonetheless. [I have an account but I am not logged in nor at my home computer] 130.156.160.65 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks and bullshit are different concepts.
Bullshit is usually something said for effect, usually to impress or persuade someone to do or think something, with little or no care paid as to whether it is factual or not. It's goal-driven, often ego-driven, often for personal gain or vanity or status. The thing might sometimes subsequently turn out to be correct, but to the habitual bullshitter that's an incidental and perhaps unimportant detail unknown to them at the time they made their statement, and it's wise for the bullshittee to assume the opposite. Salesmen and politicians are often effective serial bullshitters.
Bollocks refers to something that is just ridiculously wrong, often extrapolated to defend some other claim. It can be honestly, stupidly wrong, without intent to deceive of manipulate.
"But that's because the Pyramids were actually built by aliens in 1942!" "I'm sorry, but that's bollocks." "But it says so in this book I bought!" "Then the author was bullshitting you."
So while bullshit is often bollocks, a thing can be bollocks without being bullshit, or can be bullshit without being wrong ... but it has to be badly wrong to be bollocks. ErkDemon (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Humorous content[edit]

Why does this article not have a "humour" template on it? Elements of it are quite obviously meant as funny. The reason for deletion (of the template) was that the information should be taken seriously. I sincerely doubt that just because an article has a humour template placed on it that the message won't be taken in. I move that the template be restored. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)