Talk:Smash Lab

message: This is a new show. I will expand the article as more information becomes available. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New

message: In this short article, episode 1 is described twice. One time as involving crash barriers in a highway, and the next as dealing Rhino Linings. The episode on December 26, 2007 involves Rhino Liners, but is it actually considered Episode 1? Amazingracer (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's episode 1. I forgot to put the source in the article, so I just added it now. It's also here. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 1

message: This article NPOV, and many unsourced statements, including weasel words, and WP:OR. I made approriate changes to rectify the problem, but one editor has decided to continue to revert changes. If you would like to rework the section and base it on sourced facts, feel free to. But basing a section on discussion board posting is frowned upon. Amazingracer (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - the number of people who agree with the guidelines and want a neutral encyclopedia by far exceed those who want (for whatever reason) to push their own agenda.  Sooner or later the article will settle down into a reasonable style. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the tag, i don't see any POV issue with the article at all. It only lists descriptive facts about the show, there is barely any POV there at all. It's fair to say the article could do with work but there is no real issue with POV, so i assume this was a misunderstanding about what NPOV policy is about. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, what I should have added was POV-check.  The point I was making is that the repeated conflict about NPOV is preventing further development, since it's become obvious that an edit-war is going to prevent anything from changing. I won't bother with the POV check tag, I'll let one of you with something vested deal with it if you're interested.  I happened upon the article by browsing. Kialari (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which edit war are you referring to? --neonwhite  user page talk 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: * All text must be sourced. That's a core policy. Forums are not a verifiable source, opinions of random poster on a forum are of no importance. If it continues to be added without discussion, consider posting a warning on the talk page of the user doing it. --neonwhite  user page talk 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see in the above talk, I have explained this. In my removal of the content, I point to the posts here. It has mainly been anon IPs doing the reverts, but I will start issuing warnings. Thanks for the advice. Amazingracer (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's anon IP's then i suggest requesting semi-protection. --neonwhite  user page talk 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hold on a minute - you have this entirely the wrong way around...look at the history for Jan 1st.  The person who (correctly IMHO) removed the criticism section was an anon-IP (71.196.142.14).  The person who put it back again was a logged-in user (Niyant) who (in good faith) interpreted the removal of a large percentage of the article as vandalism.  That user happens to be fairly new to Wikipedia - and thought she was doing the right thing by protecting the article from large-scale blanking....it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption because 71.196.142.14 didn't leave an edit summary.  The reason I stopped by is that I'm helping Niyant to learn the ropes via the adopt-a-user program - so it won't happen again.  Semi-protecting the article wouldn't have helped that situation...in fact, in the case of what happened on Jan 1st, it would have made matters worse! SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry, admins dont generally semi-protect if they can see productive edits by ips. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea at this time I dont really see a need for protection. The page hasnt been changed since my last revision, so it should be fine. Amazingracer (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Criticism Section 

message: Protection of this page was requested and declined.  RFPP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Hey, could this source be sited as criticism to the show, as it s written by the Discovery VP overseeing the show, and i see this also as an open admission to how crappy this show is.  http://blogs.discovery.com/smash_lab/2008/01/an-open-letter.html
LordFransie (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, blogs and forums are not verifiable even if it did actually state what you are claiming. See WP:V and WP:SYN. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, this is the posting by the VP, not a letter that a random joe posted.  This is also on the official discovery site, which you couldn't post on unless you were an official at discovery.  can you just check the source for me, as i am new,  but I believe that this would be a verifiable source.LordFransie (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs are largely not verifiable sources unless we know for sure they are subject to editorial control. see WP:SPS. The source does not say what you are claiming. It is merely a message asking for feedback. I don't see what use it would be to this article. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the hassle then, i'm still new.  LordFransie (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a LOT of criticism about the show.  While I understand Neon white's concerns about sources, there should definitely be a section on criticism of the show.  This article is not fair and balanced without such a section.  Bob238 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, BUT can you source it? Everyone keeps saying the show has been critized, blah, blah, blah, fine then source the criticism and be done with it. So far the only source that people keep providing are the Discovery Channel forums, and that is NOT a source. So far there are no NPOV problems with the article because there is no extreme praise for the show either. If you want a criticism section though you have to source it. Amazingracer (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LordFransie was right about the show being percieved as crappy... I read the comments on that page and out of possibly 50+ comments, there was not a single comment praising the show! Ilikefood (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  There is no real evidence of "widespread" criticism. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's one article from a daily newspaper. Does it count? If not, who are the mighty Wikigods who judge the credibility of news outlets? http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/03/11/DiversionColumn/Tv.Show.Has.Long.Way.To.Go.To.Catch.Bank.Robbers-3262342.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.21.16.1 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vp Asks for Criticism 

message: Can't anyone who cares enough about this show even muster up the energy to write a decent article?  I couldn't care less, so I won't be improving, just complaining.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.166.151 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: why bother? It won't last past this season.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.10.48 (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why even bother complaining in the first place?Amazingracer (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's worth complaining about  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.71.239 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god... looks like there's a second season! What are the Discovery execs thinking?! 26 July, 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newspaperman (talk • contribs)  
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that some people dislike Smash Lab because they don't laugh at all (or show much personality)? (unlike Mythbusters). Ilikefood (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Is Nearly As Bad As The Show 

message: Many argue that this show is terrible.
:Would it be acceptable to write in the article, "Posters on Discovery Channel's blogs link to blogs have extensively criticized the show."?  --Bowlhover (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Ilikefood (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism should be added 

message: See above --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production company should be cited 

message: This requirement for citation of claims has no application when applied to areas of opinion.  That is what the discussion section is for, the main page is for the fact-checkable areas.  Unfortunately you can't wrap the universe into a neat little box and label everything just because you want it to be that way.  There are so few people that think this show is fantastic, that they aren't statistically significant enough to justify removal of a criticism section.  We aren't talking about a scientifically verifiable subject here, we are talking about a bad show, and no double-blind study will ever exist to shed light on this.  "Professional" reviews are simply opinions with window dressings.  Just because someone is famous does not make their opinion more valid on subjects such as this.  
Basically the requirement for citations is impossible to substantiate because of the nature of the material covered.  Instead of parading wiki-rulebooks around, maybe it would be more helpful to simply identify that the wiki-rules need to be refined for areas such as this.
I love standards, but trying to apply them in areas where they aren't relevant is a fools errand.  It is also disingenuous to omit such a widely accepted opinion, even if the view is invalid.  The fact that a position is popular is enough to at minimum concede it's very existence.  Such is the case for racism, antisemitism, and misogynistic tendencies.  They exist, they are widely viewed as wrong, and they are opinions worth noting in spite of their popular invalidity.  Additionally, the reason people are offended by this show is because even a layperson can see that it is not conducted in a valid scientific way.  Do we need to list specific instances, which can be verified by watching the show, where they jump to conclusions or fail to adhere to widely accepted scientific standards?  Will we then invalidate the finding just because it's regular people pointing out the facts?
If the rules don't allow for such a widely held viewpoint on a non-scientific subject to be mentioned, then it's the rules that need refining.  In science there are no unfalsifiable positions, and when there is a lack of definitive proof, the leading hypothesis need to be listed for consideration until a valid theory is reached.  Please don't let rabid adherence to the letter of the law blind you from why the laws exist in the first place.  Wikipedia is good, please help it be better by making it better, not acting like a computer and adhering to a limited if-then-else mentality.
We can do better, so lets try to do better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin0641 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Unfortunately this article has apparently become the pet project of some irrational fans of the show and so, while they allow dissent on the discussion page, they fervently remove it from the article content.  As you can see from the article history and discussion section, any appeal to stop this falls upon blind eyes.  The second season may generate enough interest to start yet another edit-war, but ultimately this article won't improve unless someone is willing to deal with its guardians.  The majority of us who have attempted to improve it obviously don't have anything vested beyond mild academic interest.  The show and this article aren't urgently important, and so rather than waste the energy the issue has repeatedly been simply dropped. Kialari (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catch-22

message: I found some critism that is a CREDIBLE SOURCE. *gasps from the Wikigods*
http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/03/11/DiversionColumn/Tv.Show.Has.Long.Way.To.Go.To.Catch.Bank.Robbers-3262342.shtml
It's a NEWSPAPER. CREDIBLE. I'm posting it.
67.166.57.119 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found one! 

message: This crap needs to be reworked. That line that stated bluntly why the show was supposedly canceled was obvious bullshit. I'm sure there are many negative comments about the show on the internet. Great. Good job. Super duper. But saying that does nothing for the article and is being falsely represented here as either expert or consensus. I could just as well say that there were many positive comments about the show and quote one of the positive reviews. This crap is just shoehorning someone's opinion into the article. Since bias apparently means something around here, I actually hated the show even though I'm defending such a terrible wiki. Whoever wrote this article must have also written the show.207.118.34.63 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Shouldn't the article be in past tense, as the Original Run section implies it ended in May 2009 or is there a question over it being picked up?Autarch (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Smash Lab. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyillini.com/diversions/2008/03/11/tv-show-has-long-way-to-go-to-catch-bank-robbers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified