Talk:Bullshit/Archives/2012

VfD

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

• Keep. The article is well written and informitive of 'what' it is.

Is it appropriate to have a taboo word as a title for a page?andycjp

• Of course. The " F word" is one of our most heavily-visited pages. We're (mostly) adults here, and Wikipedia has long held (as far as I can tell) an anti-censorship policy. If it's encyclopedic, it stays. That said, I would support a way of "child-proofing" Wikipedia if I knew of one that was feasible, but presently there is none, and unless angry parents start banging on the doors, I doubt the "powers that be" will see a need for such. Mike Church 07:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I would say child proofing wiki is a lot more inflammatory and idiotic than creating a page for bullshit (response to Mike Church) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike of Wikiworld (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• I was going to compose a reply beginning with an obscenity, but good taste won out. Keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998 08:47, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Exploding Boy 14:19, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it appropriate to use taboos as a reason to restrict information? Postdlf 16:43 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Bullshit is only a taboo word in some societies, not sure which ones though. Heh! Scope for an article there, List of Societies where bullshit is taboo. Just joking. ping 07:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. More grammatically correct would be List of societies in which bullshit is taboo, right? Plus, if somebody can find objective criteria on which "bullshit" is censored based on context, that would be great. For example, "Money" by Pink Floyd plays on the radio uncensored... and the Penn & Teller show is only rated... TV 14?? ... but would never be found on NBC. PBS maybe. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bensaccount 04:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cadr
• Keep - It can be fixed. Gamera2 23:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

POV

"Horseshit is sibilant, euphonious, concentrated, well-formed and pungent, whereas bullshit is flat and featureless (and hackneyed by careless usage). Bullshit is used in a trite and generalized perjorative manner; horseshit is more specific and more insulting. The sibilance connotes action, akin to spitting or pissing."

Yes, I'm complaing about pov in Bullshit. But using such florid adjectives in an attempt to glorify "horse shit" over the "hackneyed" "bull shit" is rather absurd. This whole article is ridiculous, when I think of it. I'm not gonna mess with it. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 08:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anything here is really POV, but I think the whole thing about horseshit is horseshit. - Furrykef 00:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that was the point. The italicized text is not meant to be descriptive, but is instead an example of bullshit. Tim McCormack 04:01, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Trivial yes, but the part about the difference between 'bullshit' and 'horseshit' seems to consist with how I've observed the difference between the terms. I guess if you can think of social situations, you might be able to see the author's point. All bullshit aside, I think it should stay and the disputed POV tag should be removed, unless there are people who genuinely believe this article is just a bunch of horseshit. --Ubiq 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BULLSHIT!

Money talks

I always thought "money talks, bullshit walks" had more to do with the power of money, ie, with money behind it a bullshit idea will prevail, or money is so powerful it can make bullshit walk. E.g. "I didn't think Ken Lay would go free, but hey, moenly talks, bullshit walks" (not speaking literally :P).

Wikipedia != bullshit

I removed { For example, it may be used to refer to a purported repository of knowledge that has no accountability -- that anyone could edit without any credentials or editorial control. Such a medium would be "bullshit," and the act of contributing to it would be "bullshitting." } from the page. It's insinuation of wikipedia is bullshit is POV and not aproriately encyclopeidc. -- Dbroadwell 13:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...I think it would be good humor to keep that. Is it so wrong to laugh at or insult ones self?- User:maskedpantsman

Hahaha. BJAODN. Cernen 10:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Amusing, yes. Encyclopedic, no.The Taped Crusader 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

advertising.In <<< bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceadded (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Is the overly vulgar example really needed to get the point across. Use of "fuck". -- Riffsyphon1024 08:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Example and Quote

(read the title) They're usless. No valuable knowledge can be acquired from them.

Examsmanship and the Liberal Arts

Perhaps the original document on bullshit. I've added a link as well as perry's definition.--Wasabe3543 08:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Way to go wikipedians

Arguing by deletion is not the wiki way. It is bullshit. Ok deleting the large lump in the major entry is one thing. Deleting the literal, accurate, factual example of the the use of bullshitting is Australian Humour located way down the page was another. Deleting the dissenting view which is clearly labelled dissenting that cross references to another source of examples of high quality bullshit so that the reader may be exposed to a variety of styles of bullshitting is something else altogether. Presumably the deleter is so zen a wikipedian that not only can they delete the arguments they can delete that there is an argument. In my view the deleter is 'full of it'.

In the deleters view was arrived at apparently in period of 3 minutes, The deleter describes the deletions removing off topic nonsense. The notion that BS occurs in places other than the US, arrived in other countries not via the unsupported and undocumented (undocumentable ie bald assertion, ie BS) process "American popular culture has spread the term to other English-speaking countries.", and that indeed the concept may have arisen elsewhere and been introduced to the US. The deleter contends all this is off topic nonsense. The article as it stands does not convey the concept of BS, I defy people to convey the concept of BS without examples. BS examples do not announce a priori what you are about to hear is BS. BS sometimes becomes self apparent as it goes on. It is true that 'untrue BS' is infinite has no place on wikipedia it belongs on uncyclopedia, which is full of it, the deleted entry was true, and factual and relevant it was simply written in the style of an Australian Bullshitter. The local Australian audience thought it was pretty darn accurate, presumably the cultural gap to the deleter was too wide. Presumably the deleter is the keeper of the one true source of BS. I suppose those that really want see it can examine easily the history, that is until the deleter argues by deleting this pointer to that aswell.

Before arguing by deleteion again please consider what is left when you do. The remaining entry goes such tiny part of the way toward defining Bullshit. The original entry can be sumarised as follows:

  "it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings."

Well thats informative (not) it is a word can be intejected and it means something (actually more than one something....) This totally disregards the idea that Bullshiting is something you can do. Perhaps in the US that is the only use for the word, but in other countries most notably Australia the concept is much richer and fuller.

The idea presented little lower that Bullshit is somehow synonomous with 'mistake' is simply wrong. Bullshit when uttered is generally a deliberate act. A much better synonym for Bullshit as an interjection would be 'inaccurate'. However as with the examples added on the article page they are not 'inaccurate', a majority of voters do indeed in a sense effectively vote 'none of the above' when asked 'who do you want to be president of the US'. If anything that claim could be accused of being overly or pedantically accurate. Although that argument is bullshiting a simple interjection 'Bullshit' would be innapropriate. The appropriate interjections would be 'stop bullshiting', or 'cut the bullshit', these interjections are not equivalent to saying "I call bullshit on that" (which means 'I say that is untrue'), these ideas even though usuually expressed by seemingly 'unedcuated yobbos' are both complex and subtle and best demonstrated by example.

Bullshit is what you get if the speaker runs off to far and beyond the bounds of reason in any direction. Even going outside the bounds of socially accceptable expression of an idea in an academic forum in which you are participating, by adding more than the cultural norm for extra redundant and superfluous words to excessively make a point beyond what would be considered reasonable is Bullshitting. Trust me, I know how my Bullshit smells.

Ok so according to you an example of Bullshit as used in humour, is an amusing annectdote and as such belongs on rec.humor does not belong on wikipedia and was now deleted twice. Ok deleters. Be constructive .... Please replace it with something other than an example that actually lets people know what bullshit, and bullshiting is, and how it is related to and used in humour. Doing otherwise is to claim that certain knowlege, ie what bullshit is and how it is used is not fitting material to be in an encylopedia, that view is Bullshit and I call you for it.

Consider the articles Wiki:Joke, they contain primarily by volume examples of jokes that you should surely now delete as amusing annectdotes that belong on rec.humor. Your trouble with BS is seemingly that it mocks the truth by playing with it. The truth is not a sacred cow and is considerably more complex than the binary True vs False.

In fact I just noticed not only did you delete the humor but you deleted the paragraoph describing the relationship between the simple dichotomy of true vs false and the more complex space produced by the introduction of the concept of bullshit that is neither true nor false. Consult Godel, Hofstader and his book GEB for the formal mathematical and pure logic equivalents.

Note also: that this contributor is a wikizen and is entirely happy for people to 'fix' the article if in the end there is no trace of my contribution, I will feel my task complete.

Addendum added much later. (2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.205.96 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My task is now at least partly complete all trace of my contribution to the article is gone, yet something remains. The current article while not actually saying what bullshit is just like explaining jokes 'as the juxta position of disparate ideas'(according to mel brooks), no more made the fictional "data" a comedian, than the article explains bullshit. You need examples. I have not looked and but I am betting the jokes page has examples. The Bullshit article needs examples. Good ones. That will be hard because bullshitters rarely straight out admit anything so all the best bullshit ever uttered is slanderous to call it such. Life wasn't meant to be easy. You need examples. Various comedians would agree some of their material was bullshit and be proud of it, as will flim fan characters in movies. that is or two sources for examples, there will be others.

having been argued with by deletion once, getting examples is your problem. Actually I did check and yes, the joke page has been improved by removing all actual examples of it from the page. As that's impossible and retain completeness they are referred to indirectly by talking about jokes of the form "Why did the chicken cross the road ..." Having abstracted actual information out of the article yes I can see you are now safe and comfortable in world of unfunny well defined facts. So while these pages need examples it has been apparently decide that they don't. The articles are not more informative and factual as a result. I do see they might get defaced less often if they stay this way, so perhaps some compromise on the truth is worth it.

Deleting it back to an empty shell that does not address the task of explaining bullshit to someone who presumably does not understand the concept is not part of improving it. The original fails utterly to address a number of issues, is very short on quality exemplars, provides and exceedingly (offensively) US centric view of the subject matter.

For reference without having to troll through the histories a now deleted exemplar.

A formerly Disputed factoid

Money Talk Bullshit Walks does NOT mean meaning that people who "do something" will get more results than people who merely talk. in the circles I mix in, finding a defintiive reference before I reverse that is hard.. For the moment I found this second hand non authoritative source with which I raise the objection. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/30/messages/1659.html

MONEY TALKS - "An offer of money is often the most persuasive argument in getting someone to do what you want. The saying can be traced back to G. Torriano's 'Italian Proverbs' (1666)..First attested in the United States in the 'Saturday Evening Post' (September 3, 1903).Anoter common modern variant is 'money talks, bullsh*t walks'." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

The contention that the dichotmy is between "do something" and talk is false. The dichotomy is between Bullshit and money. People who offer up bullshit to a business deal get "walk away" ie no deal. People who "put their money where their mouth is", "put their money on the table", get to talk and make the proposal, bullshit does not even get a hearing.

On rexamination I think I understood what was meant and added more words to make it I think clearer. The problem was the use of the word "talk" in the explanation as a synonym for Bullshit. Up to that point whwre the saying is used, one party has been merely talking, this saying indicates that that talking is now identified as bullshit, and that in order to continue the bullshiter must "do something", the "do something" may not involve money. If there are two thugs standing around talking about who will shoot the victim may say this, and then the formerly bullshitting party is thus challenged to do the deed and shoot the vicitim.

This explains the need to anbstract "money" into "do something" in the explanation. What was needed was to change the explanation so that people who do not already know what the saying means can find out from the explanation. This process is called teaching, my advice is more editors should think about teaching as being part of what they do. ie The aim of an encyclopedia is to move the readers POV from not knowing to closer to the authors educated one. Recording the truth however accurately is not the whole point.

"Bullshit" in Australian Humour

- As recounted by a soldier that came back from the war after the war to end all wars - After coming back from the war, the Australian troops brought news of a marvelous invention that was going to dramatically reduce the toll taken by sharks eating bathers at our beaches. The 'Yanks' they informed the stay homes had apparently invented a shark proof suit. At the time neck to knee was all the go so there was considerable space for logos etc. On the front, the suit sponsored a full sized American flag neck to knee, on the back was the writing "We won the war" the ANZACS it seems were certain that not even a shark would swallow that. - - Note: The accurate use of the word Yank, American is far to broad and grandiose a term to use when referring to the citizens of just one country in America. Even North American would be too broad a term given the cultural diversity it contains. While it is known that Yank properly only refers to half the country, it does refer to the half that did win a war all by themselves. Referring to United Stateans as Confederates would indeed be silly, but in the context of this joke Yank does seem fitting from an external world wide perspective and rolls of the tongue much better than the more correct United Stateans or the wordy United States Citizens. - - This BS has been brought to you in the spirit of the ever increasing US AU ties. It is hoped that it will increase our mutual cultural understanding of our mutually supporting roles of founding high-falutin Bullshit as a useful linguistic element in even academic discorse. It is to be remembered after all that when the BS flies it is traditional that it flies in all directions and that no targets are sacred cows. - - The interesting thing about bullshit is that it inherently disputes the idea that truth and falsity are mutually exclusive opposites that live on a linear continuim with only two discreet values. While some people accept the truth comes in shades of grey a true Bullshiter plays around with the truth in a complex non linear space and examines it from various directions and perspectives, some of these when they produce suprising or unusual conclusions, ie 'the majority of the US citizens vote for none of the above at each election' are humourous. From some points of view, usually the bullhsitters, the bullshiter is not bulshitting at all, they are simply thinking about the truth from outside the box. The above is a perfect example, is it the truth seen from outside the box, false, or just bullshit.

AccurateOne 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit Weasel Words

It has been a while since I read 'attack of the weasel words', I will need to go back to it again. Even though the author is Australian and the book was popular, in Australian general use weasel words is not as common by any means as Bullshit. There are no weasel word artists, people are not full of weasel words, etc etc. In fact reading wikipedias definition of the scope and breadth of weasel words Im not sure it was that wide when I learnt what weasel words were. My memory was of weaseling out of things, Collateral damage etc. The use in "is now 20% cheaper" does not fit my memory at all. Indeed while there are words I have trouble identifying which are the weasel ones... This example is about the idea and words left out. I might describe it picturesquely as weasel wording but fail to make the idea of weasel words apply. But if thats actually in general usage it does not have to make sense, it just is. Whats left out is at times non trivial question. The weasel words page says

"Clinically tested..." (but not proven? What did the test results reveal? Does the product work as claimed?)

No few extra words will address these issues. Even the full text of the primary refereed paper in a journal often leaves out salient essential points due to word count requirements. Frequently when attempting to replicate work I have either wanted to or in fact contacted the authors to find out what they really did. Like the article on truth indicates, truth is a complex concept, weaseling out of the truth gets complicated and subtle when it comes to lying by omission.

Mediation/Discussion

A case report was posted up by user:AccurateOne at the Mediation Cabal involving this article. I will now be helping to iron out any problems that anyone is having. If you'd like to see the report itself, check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit. -- Kurds 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems AccurateOne is becoming frustrated with the constant reverting of all of his edits. Personally, I can't blame him, I'd be a little pissed too if all of my edits were being reverted. Although I'm sure you have perfectly valid reasons for deleting his material, it's generally best to discuss it on the talk page and then come to an agreement before we change material that's causing conflict between editors. Please note that I personally take no sides on the situation, and will remain neutral throughout any discussion. Yaaaaay neautrality!!

*ahem* Anywho... Now that we have all that mess brought up to the table, let's discuss why AccurateOne's material is being removed. Eh? -- Kurds 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a summary, a first degree approximation, but to be neutral it is only 'most' not 'all'. There are some changes at the top of the article that were not immediately reverted. AccurateOne 02:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Uh oh er what. Oh by the way Kurds it was all good sofar what is it that happens next? AccurateOne 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 09:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (This is Kurds new username, by the way.)

Im saying we are waiting I believe for something to happen. You said we were here to 'discuss' something Im here your here, I believe that the soemthign we are waiting for is someone else to say something. You could tell me in your experience how long we wait before we conclude it is not going to happen. You could also if you thought it wasnt jumping the gun tell what would happen after that time elapses. You could phrase it as explaining the procedure rather than presupposing the event... AccurateOne 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Er... well. Generally I just wait till it's obvious that there's no response. As far as I can tell, the "conflict" isn't really that big of a problem, and has pretty much died out. But yes, I'm waiting for for the second party of this so-called "dispute".

Once a case is mediated, it's simply closed and archived. *shrug* -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize)

It has died out in the sense that I am not changing anything so nothing is being reverted. It exists in the sense that I am not bold. I could be very bold and put back what I did that got deleted before but that seems silly, if it was deleted before and nothing has been said and no ideas exchanged, then either immediately or in the not to distant future it will be again. With no information at all on what was percieved to be wrong the last time deciding in the dark what I think and can find that explains 'Bullshit' but might be different in a way to make it acceptable makes the task multiple times harder. AccurateOne 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On a separate note in order to learn I examined some users histories of contributions, and the histories of some articles, so as to find out how wikipedia really works in the real world instead of just how it is supposed to work. When I examined your history to find out what a postive history of contribution looks like, you dont have one. You sprang into existance 00:25, 7 June 2006, is there a reason why or how? AccurateOne 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Causing an edit conflict won't help at all. From what I can speculate, people might not like your lack of citations. Let's pull one of your edits up and analyze it, to help you make better edits.

As recounted by a soldier that came back from the war after the war to end all wars

After coming back from the war, the Australian troops brought news of a marvelous invention that was going to dramatically reduce the toll taken by sharks eating bathers at our beaches. The 'Yanks' they informed the stay homes had apparently invented a shark proof suit. At the time neck to knee was all the go so there was considerable space for logos etc. On the front, the suit sponsored a full sized American flag neck to knee, on the back was the writing "We won the war" the ANZACS it seems were certain that not even a shark would swallow that.

Note: The accurate use of the word Yank, American is far to broad and grandiose a term to use when referring to the citizens of just one country in America. Even North American would be too broad a term given the cultural diversity it contains. While it is known that Yank properly only refers to half the country, it does refer to the half that did win a war all by themselves. Referring to United Stateans as Confederates would indeed be silly, but in the context of this joke Yank does seem fitting from an external world wide perspective and rolls of the tongue much better than the more correct United Stateans or the wordy United States Citizens.

This BS has been brought to you in the spirit of the ever increasing US AU ties. It is hoped that it will increase our mutual cultural understanding of our mutually supporting roles of founding high-falutin Bullshit as a useful linguistic element in even academic discorse. It is to be remembered after all that when the BS flies it is traditional that it flies in all directions and that no targets are sacred cows.

The interesting thing about bullshit is that it inherently disputes the idea that truth and falsity are mutually exclusive opposites that live on a linear continuim with only two discreet values. While some people accept the truth comes in shades of grey a true Bullshiter plays around with the truth in a complex non linear space and examines it from various directions and perspectives, some of these when they produce suprising or unusual conclusions, ie 'the majority of the US citizens vote for none of the above at each election' are humourous. From some points of view, usually the bullhsitters, the bullshiter is not bulshitting at all, they are simply thinking about the truth from outside the box. The above is a perfect example, is it the truth seen from outside the box, false, or just bullshit.

It seems to me the main reason for this being edited out is its lack of any sources. Although Wikipedia is a collaboration of human knowedlge, it's policy to use accurate and verifiable resources, rather than anecdotal original research.

There really isn't much of a dispute for me to mediate. Sorry I can't be of much help, but there's no heated conflicts to cool down... it's just a case of the removal of material that's not backed up with sources. Small sentences here and there are acceptable, but when you include an entire section with a hefty amount of information, you usually need to back up your claims.

As for your belief that there is a way Wikipedia is "supposed" to work, and a way that it "really" works, I can't agree. The reality of Wikipedia pretty much runs parallel to its theory.

Sorry if my user contributions are a little... limited. I've just created an account recently, to allow myself more capabilities for assisting Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't have much information to contribute to the actual articles, that is my area of expertise. I'm more of a "behind-the-scenes" workers, who deals with helping and greeting new people, making Wikipedia more fun, resolving conflicts, etc.

So, if you think that there's not really a dispute to settle... should we consider it case closed? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My written reviewed and then not saved edit of this page took that statement of yours rather badly. Your statement So, if you think "..." is in no sense fair summary of anything I said I think so far. Thus instead of reacting badly to that as I nearly did

Here instead let me now put words in your mouth

Instead you say, as a slightly premptive mediator whos ahead of the game and hence knows what will happen next. So, if you now think that there's no longer really a dispute to settle... should we consider it case closed? -

Yes there really was a dispute of course there was a dispute and I'm not happy the dispute came to be, but does it still exist? If you speculate correctly then yes the dispute is over, if you don't then its simply waiting for me to decide you did speculate correctly and act on the advice and we would be right back here or another forum again. So is it really over or not, we can as you did only speculate that I now understand Henry's reasoning by hoping it is the same as yours.

Yes you have now explained what could have been stated easily quite some time ago. Your explanation while it does I suspect go to the heart of the issue, does not explain all the reverts that happened. I understand edit wars are not clean things and guess that might explain the rest. In considering wikipedia I suspect I listened to the sound bites that skim the details, (hence they are weasel words?) "Contain the sum of all human knowledge", means "contain the sum of all verifiable knowledge preferably with multiple sources" a less well spun claim to fame.

Your explanation does not reassure me that a different explanation might not pop out of the woodwork if I take your advice, I might still be reverted without comment or discussion. Ive seen a number of examples of just that in my study of the various users histories, and thus we could be back here having another one sided conversation. I find the amount of time and energy I spend to get a little progress to be rather frustrating. The wikipedia advice 'be bold' does not seem to be on my radar anymore, last time I got bitten. I do however see the writing on the wall and understand 'who' you are now. (See I can read between the lines.) Thanks for being kinder than you needed to be. I understand your rules better and will consider if I wish to participate. It would be a better place if there was greater level of adherence to "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." but I suspect I know what the underlying systemic problems are, that pretensioned the social fabric and thus created the effects I experienced. (the actual need for most of the reverts I saw in the histories and the annoyance that must bring). I have been on wikis where respectful was true even when disagreeing severely and that was an experience I wished to repeat. Still time will tell perhaps one day I will be bold again.

If I were to be bold again the first thing to decide is what it is that is important that I can add to wikipedia that fits your guidelines. I suspect as it is literally, "the sum of all human knowledge" that really intrigues me that I may not find a place here. I see incomplete bits of wikipedia that I do know that I could add within your guidelines, but they are not important enough to *me* to add and especially not important enough to risk an edit war over them. BS was an exception the world has BS, Every day important decisions get slid by on platter made of convincing BS. An entry on BS that actually explained it well enough so that people who read it would better understand the game, and how the bullshiters really manipulated the game so that it was "heads I win tails you lose" proposition. That would have been worthwhile. Its a shame I cant see how to try and get there within wikipedias guidelines.

BTW 'WWI' is still I believe wrong but I expect an rfD or a major edit by someone will just wash that away soonish. As it stands I suggest the article will attract trouble and effectively troll the internet for errors of judgement. And please try not to make the unverifiable claim that is it is American popular culture that carried the term to elsewhere in the world. AccurateOne 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your statements about verifiable sources would make more sense if this didnt exist.

Cave Clan While I suspect much of it precisely true and so on it is not exactly verifiable.

Dont get me wrong I kind of think it should, but I am not sure how you intend to avoid having your leg pulled regularly which is probably one reason verifiability exists.

Nirvana Avenue, Melbourne represents a probably mainly true page but I am suprised the inherent non notability of a suburban residential street or that the local Melburnian wikpedians havent said 'why is that here'. I particularly wonder who speculated to who about the involvement of Buddhists. The location of Halls gap is also equally flawed as an error in fact. It is between those towns in the sense of NOT. From memory, its been about 2months since I drove it(oops an annectdote), it is 1km further to drive from Arrarat to Halls gap via Stawell than direct. It might be about half way between Arrarat and Cherrypoole but dont look for Cherrypoole last time I was there the town of Cherrypoole was a white fence post on the corner of two country roads. Even the verfiable official Australian road maps pull your leg sometimes.... While I don't dispute the policy for verifiability, I wonder just how self consistent the whole process is.

I kind of feel bad about dobbing on those pages put there by my fellow melburnians because I am sure in there are pages like this all over the place and it all only depends on who gets a bee in their bonnet. hmm. Id guess Im done now. AccurateOne 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks

From online Oxford English dictionary. "plural noun Brit. vulgar slang 1 the testicles. 2 treated as sing. nonsense; rubbish." Yes the (first meaning) is used "He kicked him in the bollocks" does not mean kicked him in the nonsense. Used as an interjection

Person A "Our current prime minister is fine and honest gentleman who never bullshits."
Person B "Bollocks!"

Used in that sense it is interchangable with Bullshit. It is in Australia,(but less common) it is in the Oxford English Dictionary, and probably is in fact in Britain. Bollocks equivalency re added. AccurateOne 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's important to point out that "bollocks" isn't totally interchangeable with "bullshit". "Bullshit" is worthless information that's been given with the goal of obtaining personal advantage (like winning an argument), with little or no regard to factual accuracy. "Bollocks" is information that's known to be worthless, but doesn't carry the same implied motivation on the part of the person who supplies it: that's why "bullshitter" is a specific recognised term ("Watch out for him, he's a bullshitter"), but there's not a correspondingly popular term for a "bollocks merchant".

Someone can be "talking bollocks", while genuinely believing, with complete sincerity, that what they are saying is entirely true. Often in a pub, over a pint, discussing sports. "Bollocks" can be harmless but "bullshit" is usually more toxic. So if your mate in the pub is talking rot about some sportsperson being the greatest ever, and you tell them that they're talking bollocks, you're likely to get into an argument, but it's liable to stay good-natured. However, if you say that their statement is bullshit, or you call them a bullshitter, then that's a lot more serious. You're not just dismissing their information, you're impugning their character, and accusing them of deliberately not caring whether their friends are misled, in order to get some sort of advantage over them. If someone accuses you of being a bullshitter, that's personal. That's the sort of accusation that makes friends fall out, for life, because if someone's genuinely a bullshitter, why would you want to be friends with them? And if they think that you're a bullshitter, why would they want to be friends with you? It might not be as bad as calling someone a liar, but it's not that far off, it suggests that you have a certain contempt for their character.

So while what they're saying might well be "a load of bollocks", it doesn't mean that they're bullshitting. It's only if they know that what they are saying is probably bollocks, and say it anyway, that it becomes bullshit. ErkDemon (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We can see this distinction demonstrated in the A:B example above – B believes that the Prime Minister, as a professional politician, is a bullshitter. However, B does not accuse A of propagating bullshit. A may sincerely believe that what they say is true. So B declares A's statement to be bollocks, not bullshit. ErkDemon (talk)

Discordia?

Principia Discordia says that "Bullshit makes the flowers grow & that's beautiful".

This whole discordia bit reads like a random bit of pop culture trivia, rather than something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. I'm deleting it. --Ori.livneh 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when is popular culture trivia unencyclopedic? Do you intend to go through the rest of wikipedia removing all sections on 'Subject X in pulular media' and so on?

The reference should be put back and other pop culture references specifically to bullshit should be added. 69.181.120.218 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As near as I can tell after widespread reading and observation of head butting

It seems to be a pedia cultural norm that in order to edit page with some potential for controversy the existing culture requires multiple editors, or the solo editors are seen as (or become?) crusaders. Thus the hard to do right articles are only edited in packs.

Hence if someone else turns up who knows the wiki way, undertsnds BS in variety of cultural uses, ie in my experience it varies widely within a country across socio economic groups (Im socio economically ecumenical) and preferably does not come from down under, (ie a diff cultural POV to me.) and wants to have go at _adding_ content to this this article, and I notice, ie didnt get bored/disillusioned waiting, then say hi, and save me a slice of the blue moons cheese. AccurateOne 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour?

I ve never heard this term bullshit to denote that! THe very idea is bullshit!--Light current 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To me this almost seems like a different usage of the term, like "2." vs "1." in a dictionary, but "bullshit" is certainly used this way pretty commonly (at least in my experience). By way of example:

Student 1: "How'd your exam go?" Student 2: "Awful, man the professor put stuff on there he didn't cover!" Student 1: "What? Oh that's bullshit man!"

It seems to me this is almost akin to describing behavior as nonsense, but with an added sense of malice and/or fault, thereby making it a different usage, if only subtly so. While one might think this makes another usage simply "unacceptable" or "wrong", I'm not aware of it being applied to describe anything other than behavior of some sort. For example, low wages at a chain store might be described as BS, as ultimately someone is in charge of setting that wage and it's a behavior. By contrast, plastics being non-biodegradable isn't something anyone has control over, so it wouldn't be described as BS. More likely, one would simply say it "sucks". 70.33.191.29 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

etymology

"Sais christ to ypocrites ... yee ar ... all ful with wickednes, tresun and bull." ["Cursor Mundi," c.1300]

Latin root to boil over or foam. So full of bull = full of nonsense/irrelevance. "It may be from the same root as the word "ebullient," meaning noisily cheerful. Another possibility is that it's from a Germanic root. The word "bull" means "nonsense" in Icelandic, which has common origins with English." - http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/02/hiatt_on_social.html & http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bullshit -

Hmm, what do you reckon? Hakluyt bean 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like bullshit to me. 69.212.56.140 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about... Hakluyt bean 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Any connection to the chinese "bu shi" (mandarin, "not")? When english "bull" meets immigrant chinese workers' "bu shi"? I can imagine Chinese railroad workers on payday getting shortchanged and screaming "bu shi! Bu Shi!" which could easily have been misunderstood by their bosses. "did they say Bull Shit? Yeah I rekon it is bull shit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.230.68 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above:

"...the OED admits the word bull in the sense "Trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense" is "of unknown origin", it directs our attention to OF. boul, boule, bole fraud, deceit, trickery; mod.Icel. bull ‘nonsense’; also ME. bull BUL ‘falsehood’, and BULL v.3, to befool, mock, cheat. " Penn.edu.

At any rate the earliest use in the article is incorrect: it should be T.S. Eliot - The Triumph of Bullshit - 1910 (above link & OED). Anyone know why this has been overlooked? Otherwise I'd stick it straight in. Hakluyt bean 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that the word came from farming. If you're a dairy farmer then you normally need to keep a bull, too. But while the dairy cattle tend to be good-natured and produce a constant output of yummy milk, the bull just stands in their field, reeking of aggression and attitude, and being "the big 'I am'" , and constantly producing ... bullshit.

It's stuff with no marketable value, incessantly produced by someone with a loud and aggressive nature, and it smells, and as a farmer, it's just one of those things you have to deal with. I think it's an excellent metaphor. ErkDemon (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on etymology, moved from article

The bullshit entry does not give enough emphasis to two things:

1. The fact that British philosophers have long used "bullshit" as a technical term to describe continental philosophy. (I don't know anything about this myself but I know a man who does.)

2. The fact that "bull" is an old British army word - noun and adjective. "Bulling" means shining up your brasses, blanco-ing your webbing, creasing your trousers, boxing your blankets, cleaning the toilet with a toothbrush, paininting the coal white and so on. Bull is designed to impress and making an impression on the enemy has been around for thousands of years - headdresses to make you taller, warcries, drums, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.249.220.82 (talk • contribs) .

afaik bulling in that sense is the action of polishing or scrubbing (cf buffing). I guess there's a connection with appearing plausible, putting on a show, which connects to an old sense of 'bull' ie egregious nonsense, which I'm pretty sure is older than the article has it atm but anyway. Back to army slang, that's always very hard to pin down m8. Hakluyt bean 05:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bit more. RAF slang. bull - formalities of the service (square bashing, saluting the King's Commission etc.) e.g. "he's full of bull" - bullshit - longer version of bull RAFRA Hakluyt bean 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The British Army has been using the term bulling for at least as far back as the Boer War. 'Bull' was the term used, as mentioned above, for polishing up (buffing) leather boots, belt and holsters, to a nice shine ready for parades - 'plenty of bull' as the sergeant would say. This was known as bull shine (BS) and was regarded by many in the lower ranks as an unnecessary and pointless task. This contempt and dislike for the work came to the 'shine' part being replaced with 'shit' - bull shine - bull shit! - 'shit' being a word liberally used by the average British or Empire lower ranker of the time when out of earshot of an officer, and possibly still is. 'Bull shine' became less irksome with the introduction of cloth webbing that replaced the leather belts and holsters, although the term was still used to refer to polishing boots.

In fact, I bet the term 'bull shit' was used by British army personnel at least as far back as Rorke's Drift, although it my go back even further. That was a time when the British Army was involved in fighting in places all around the world, and when the corresponding other possible claimant had never fought a battle outside its own continent - or at least not one that that anyone else has ever heard of. But I'll leave it to you people to decide who was more likely to have originated the term.

Some people also claim that the phrase 'god damn' is of recent American origin, but the English Army was using that during the Hundred Years' War, so much so, that the French referred-to the English as Les goddams. If it's an English swear word, you can almost bet your life it originated with the English and British - they've had much more practice than anyone else.

Sturgeon's Law

Sturgeon's Law Am I right or should a reference be made to Sturgeon's Law, it being about the application of Bullshit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hungermonkey (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I cut this -- it's nonsense

I cut the following -- it's . . . ahem . . . bullshit.

"It is also the name of a popular card game that is played by children across America.

A highly speculative theory suggests a connection with mandarin chinese. In mandarin chinese "It is" or "Yes" is "shi" pronounced very clipped. To say "It is not" or "No" would be "Bu shi" (not is) pronounced like clipped "you she" very short "e" at the end. Emphasis just like american "bullshit" as say from a basketball coach to a errant ref. An emphatic "bu shi" is spit out just like an emphatic "bullshit". Potentially, the expression could be from the old west, perhaps transcontinental railroad construction gangs. This kind of "pidgin english" origin would accord with, for example, an alleged origin of the term "Wobbly" for a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), by a Chinese sympathiser unable to pronounce "w.""

--75.57.111.65 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Magazine

Anyone remember the magazine Horseshit? Pustelnik (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Horseshit

Why does Horseshit redirect here, different species surely? Something to do with cloven hooves I think. SpinningSpark 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, why would horseshit be a euphemism for bullshit? This seems silly as you would still be swearing the same amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.225.69 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Horseshit reference for now, and rediected Horse shit to Feces#animal_feces for the time being until theres more of a better claim with references that support "Horse Shit" JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Shitter

I fuction do it out of my ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.112.112 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. Welcome to Wikipedia's list of personas non grata :)

KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pappe kak

In #Euphemisms, there is a suggestion that "pappe kak" is Dutch. It is not. It's actually Flemish.Refalm (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Card game

Bullshit is a popular card card game and this should be added to the page—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.78.51 (talk • contribs)

Have you seen Bullshit (game)? No need to mention it here. There's also Bullshit (disambiguation), linked at the top of this article, which links to other articles. Mindmatrix 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Triumph of Bullshit

The article says that the word does not appear in the article itself however it should be known that this type of poem tends to have a hidden, acrostic meaning. I looked at part of the verse and found this: alembicated, Orotund, tasteless, fantastical, Monotonous, crotchety, constipated, Impotent

Whether or not this is deliberate I don't know but I'd surmise it's no coincidence.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't it also refer to the manure of a male bovine?

Not even a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an article on a bull's crap? I think not. Guano is one thing, vs. batshit which, as a word doesn't merit it's own article since it just means insanity. Unless you were to visit Encyclopedia Dramatica...

KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The page on Feces already links to this page by figuratively listing it under the Cattle. Even seeing that bothered me.. Let's not take this too literally. --Poet  Talk  22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

BS

From the "BS" section, this was removed:

• • Barbara Streisand

It was first removed for being unsourced. That seemed odd since no others in the subsection were sourced. Restored with Google sources, but then re-removed because (the remover said) Google is not a valid reference and there were only X (it varies) number of Google results. Seems to me that any results beyond ~one~ shows an understanding of this usage spreading through the culture.

Thoughts?

Cramyourspam (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam

As the guy who removed it the first time, I have to say it is not really odd, the people in question is alive, so BLP standards, which are much more strict, apply. "Bullshit" is not a very positive term, is it? If the material cannot be properly sourced, it is to be removed for probably being libelous. And no, sadly, Google search result is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source to back up this claim, I've no objections in re-adding it. Blodance the Seeker 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP standards? As in Biography of Living Persons? Really? Mentioning the usage in this article is not a Barbara Streisand biography. Presumably, the Barbara Streisand article is the BLP-relevant part of WP. Maybe I'll dig up citations other than the Google when I get time. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Frankfurt quote

Here's another quote:

One who is concerned to report or to conceal the facts assumes that there are indeed facts that are in some way both determinate and knowable. His interest in telling the truth or in lying presupposes that there is a difference between getting things wrong and getting them right, and that it is at least occasionally possible to tell the difference. Someone who ceases to believe in the possibility of identifying certain statements as true and others as false can have only two alternatives. The first is to desist both from efforts to tell the truth and from efforts to deceive. This would mean refraining from making any assertion whatever about the facts. The second alternative is to continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are but that cannot be anything except bullshit.

Frankfurt's argument wasn't only that the bullshitter is trying to impress. That's one of many possibilities. The basic point that distinguishes him from a liar is that he doesn't care about the facts either way. He could even be a solipsist, convinced that what he's making up on the spot is really "the way things are". rudra (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankfurt nailed it. The bullshitter tells you whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their objective, whether it's appearing knowledgeable, or important, or trying to persuade you to do something. Although some of what the bullshitter says might include conventional lies, the distinguishing feature of the bullshitter is that they usually don't know or care whether what they're saying is right or not. They're saying whatever they think will resolve the current situation in their favour. So by the law of averages, sometimes a bullshitter will end up saying something that subsequently turns out to be correct ... but it was still bullshit, because the person had no way of knowing that it was correct, but still presented the thing as solidly factual. ErkDemon (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Teaching by example, Frankfurt taught us what bullshit really is. Good quote. But the summary of it on the article page is also bullshit...

"The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth and is only seeking to impress"

...this is such a load of bullshit. the distinguishment between lying and bullshitting has nothing to do with caring and not caring. they are both careless. let's get things in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.135.242 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not "American English"

There's no evidence in the article that bullshit is an "American English" word. The fact that its first dictionary appearance is in the OED suggests it's of British origin, although there's no agreement about its exact origin. Therefore, I propose to delete the references in the first paragraph to it being "American English" and also delete the references to "bollocks", which has no particular relevance to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitsyou (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the word "bull" to describe something dishonest came before the word "bullshit" so it's wrong to describe "bull" as a euphemism for "bullshit". The first paragraph needs a complete rewrite.Suitsyou (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Americons should use "Bison Shit". 143.205.176.60 (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"don't bullshit a bullshitter"

This seems to be a well-understood phrase, meaning, "Don't try to bluff me or con me, I know how the process works, because I have experience of doing this myself, and I can recognise when other people are trying to do it to me". ErkDemon (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.subzin.com/s/don%27t+bullshit+a+bullshitter

Mel Brooks definition

Just some food for thought -- whats the consensus on including under the "philosophy" section a quote from the Mel Brooks movie 'History of the World Pt. 1? In one scene Mel is trying to collect unemployment and gives the clerk his occupation as stand-up philosopher. To which Bea Arthur replies "Oh, a bullshit artist!" It seemed rather an apt description to me. What does everyone think -- add it or not? Sector001 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

'Bull'

'Bull' is a long-winded, drawn-out, lengthy description, of something, of nothing. Derived from the long-winded, drawn-out, lengthy descriptions, written by the Pope in connection with making something of nothing, in order to make himself seem important. The 'Bull' was sealed by a Bulla, an item which resembled the hanging bollocks of a male bovine.

Which begs the question, 'what came first, the Bulla or the Bollocks'? Or something like that. Probably!

92.239.71.235 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about now Jemmy? A Bulla from a Papal Bull looks nothing like a pair of testicles. It's a small clay, wax or metal seal, usually in a disc shape, into which a signet ring is pressed to form the familiar "seal" of authenticity.

What you describe is a "bulla" amulet maybe, that at a stretch might be circular or orb shaped.

The origin of the word "bulla" is completely unrelated to the etymology of bull or bollocks.

Please see Golden Bull and Papal Bull, or google images to clear up your obvious confusion. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Papa Bull

Seeing as papal bulls were issued well before the term "Bull Shit" entered usage meaning "Rubbish" is it inconceivable that the "Bull" referred to in the phrase "Bull-shit" is not a male bovine but a letter from the pope?

The word shit has it's origins in "scitte (diarrhoea)" (taken from the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit).

The Phrase "verbal diarrhoea" to this day means someone who will not stop talking, but who is saying nothing important.

So "Bull Shit" could easily mean "A Letter from the Pope of excessive length and little content."

This Article is Complete Bullshit

Clearly the word "bullshit" is being hijacked here. This article is full of bullshit about bullshit.

And that's bullshit. Please stop bullshitting around.

69.171.160.240 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha--74.34.87.191 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012

"In everyday langauge" should be "In everyday language" Shawntabai (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with excrete

Just wondering if a notation should be made between the excrete of a bull, in the more literal sense, which is likely the word's etymology. To compare it with horse's excrete, is, to underwhelm the etymology of the word 129.180.1.214 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

BULL SHIT may be an anglicised derivative of the National Chinese [Mandarin} "bu shir", meaning "not fact", [often used in the Chinese question, or comment; "Shir, bu shir?' "fact, not fact" or - "is that so?".]

from nshapiro@warwick.net

216.6.147.3 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like original research. Do you have reliable references to support your claim? Mindmatrix 20:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.136.147 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily to impress

The article currently strongly implies that impressing people is the only possible purpose of bullshit in the Frankfurtian sense. This is itself bullshit; that is only one possible reason, albeit one Frankfurt spends disproportionate time discussing. As I read Frankfurt, however, the only feature of the bullshit artist's motives essential to his definition is that truth plays no role in them.

("Bullshit artist" is my term, not Frankfurt's.)

I'd make the change myself, but the article is semi-protected and I prefer not to break my anonymity, as the last time I did that on an extended basis, I got sick of the political, well, bullshit that goes on here in short order. 50.72.196.97 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, v. To bait (as in provoke), To deliberately infecate or provoke someone to infecate themselves or otherwise respond to the presence of animal feces, (particularly large male animal) or a deception, particularly a foul, embarassing, incriminating, or otherwise negative, unfair or unjust presentation or implication. To introduce a deception or ad hominem perturbation. Often a combination of hazing and hustle falsely "played off" as harmless or victimless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKevinAnderson (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)