Talk:MythBusters (2004 season)

message: The reason I have reverted the recent edits by 62.234.87.22 is that part of it (the six-pack myth), is largely redundant, having already been covered in the section for that episode. Some of the edits also contain unencyclopedic parts, like the made-up myth results "Too much Confirmed" or "As good as Busted". I have asked this user a few times over the last couple weeks to stop making up myth results, including the specific examples I have listed. However, it seems they just added them straight back in. I have asked this user to participate in this discussion.--Drat (Talk) 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of 62.234.87.22's edits  

message: The notes for this section start with the sentence "The current in most electrical appliances is well above the levels the human body can withstand.". But the value of the current inside an appliance is not the same as the value of the current through a human body nearby - conditioned on voltage, the two currents are independent, with or without water. Current is voltage divided by resistance. The actual voltage present at the human's skin depends on a range of factors. In fact, it would seem that the higher the current through the appliance, the lower the voltage at nearby objects - so in fact it should be safer to use an appliance with higher wattage, and most dangerous to use an appliance which is turned off. Not having seen the episode, I don't know what to change the sentence to. If they used the clearly fallacious assumption that electrical current between two electrodes is the same within any nearby material, and avoided doing a test with an animal or something, then I think they have made a very careless mistake. A5 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think somehow the MythBusters are above subjecting live animals to deadly tests.--Drat (Talk) 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be missing the point. The article says "confirmed", I think there should be something in "Notes" which says how it was confirmed, which doesn't use erroneous/irrelevant reasoning as it does now. Or, it could point out that the MythBusters reasoning is erroneous. A5 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? It may be so, but to put such info in the article would be original research. However, if a reliable source has criticised this particular thing, then by all means cite it.--Drat (Talk) 07:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Kirchoff's laws, formulated in 1845, are not original to Wikipedia. I'll update the article. 83.67.201.204 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the example given on the No Original Research policy page. Unless Kirchoff specifically referred to the faulty reasoning of the MythBusters experiment (which, short of time travel, he obviously couldn't have), you can't use it.--Drat (Talk) 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are being ridiculous, Drat. What is common sense to undergraduates studying electrical engineering need not be considered original research. A5 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read WP:NOR. I have updated the article again. The "research" involves looking up a number from one Wikipedia article in a table in another. I hope that it is not too original. If it is, perhaps you can tell me what else I can do. I am worried that people will read this page and be misled by the bad science. I think that there should be a way to avoid causing that to happen. A5 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't cite Wikipedia articles to support others. Also, while Kirchoff's laws might be common sense to people studying electrical engineering, it wouldn't be to the average Joe. It's been two years since an article was nuked that was overflowing with people performing original analysis of the MythBusters' experiments. The science may be imperfect, but that should be taken up with the people behind the show, not here.--Drat (Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't owe anything to the people behind the show, and they don't owe anything to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia. My goal is to keep visitors to this encyclopedia from being misled by bad science on a page that you keep reverting. Please tell me what is the simplest thing I can do to achieve this goal. A5 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source that has made the analysis, cite it and add the info.--Drat (Talk) 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, I can put up a web page which says the same thing as what I wrote in the article, but referencing reliable, non-Wikipedia sources instead of the Wikipedia articles, and then put a link to it in the article, and you will not revert it?A5 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the source would have to be reliable, so no, you can't just put it up on a web page and cite it.--Drat (Talk) 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is reliable? The page you linked says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a very simple claim. It is not contentious. Hopefully you don't expect me to wait until somebody is bored enough to devote a PhD to MythBusters to be able to correct this problem.A5 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are two other suggestions: (a) I could add the expert-subject template, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." to flag that there is an error. (b) I could delete the offensive sentence altogether (i.e. the first sentence in the section). A friend pointed out that the sentence more likely than not didn't appear in the MythBusters episode, since it is so clearly incorrect. Perhaps it should be deleted until someone can verify whether it was in the episode or not, and if yes, clarify the apparent logical error. It seems that explaining this error should be the burden of the person who added the sentence, just like adding [sic] after misspelled words in a quotation should be the burden of the person who found the quote, since the rest of us cannot be expected to have the time and money to buy and watch the episode ourselves. I would not delete a line of a poem if it had a mistake; but in this case the sentence I want to delete does not really add anything to the rest of the sentences. I think the section would not suffer if it were removed. A5 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Drat, since you have not replied, I have edited the article as per my suggestion (b). A5 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appliances in the Bath 

message: Discovery's DVD sales seem to indicate that 11 episodes from what is considered 'season 2' are called (by them) "season 1 (part 2)". should this be commented on? I'm assuming it has to do with production season vs. airing? TheHYPO 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 1 part 2? 

message: I was watching this episode yesterday, but didn't get to see the final results of the experiment.  Did the plants receiving classical music grow better than the plants which recieved the looped speech tracks, or did they just grow better than the control?  The current description isn't all that clear.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking to Plants 

message: Does anyone know what the name of that 50 cal gun was?--142.68.44.140 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Bullet Proof Water' Question 

message: Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season subdivision, reference 

message: Apparently the Discovery Channel page was misinterpreted. It seems to be organized per year rather than per season, and so some episodes listed here are in fact from season 1 (up to "Buried in Concrete" to be exactly).
While the Internet Movie Database is supposedly unreliable, it seems to be the best source for correct season separation. Plus, the dates make more sense that way.177.228.43.103 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the season articles are organised by year, not season, since MythBusters doesn't follow a traditional season, as explained in the lead of :List of MythBusters episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MythBusters (2004 season). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811232442/http://www.clickorlando.com/news/2491417/detail.html to http://www.clickorlando.com/news/2491417/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MythBusters (2003 season) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress