Talk:On Bullshit

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Philosophy: Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does this article really need a spoiler warning? Chris 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the cited review in the Daily Telegraph archives anywhere... can anyone verify this citation and/or provide a link to the original review?

Image:Frankfurt onbullshit.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... isn't the joke here that Frankfurt bullshits about bullshit? Or is the essay really meant to be read without tongue in cheek? Maikel (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not ignorant, you are just bullshiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.193.70 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was me who added the EL, but now that I come to consider it I see no reason to think it is authorized. WP shouldn't be linking to copyright violations, so I'm about to remove the link. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the policy that says "don't link to (possible) copyright violations"?116.55.68.106 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:LINKVIO. In its current state, it reads: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't state the genesis of the term bullshit. Since the term is central to the focus of the essay, it seems to me like that's great context, either showing that this essay is commentary on an existing term, or is coins the term itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have missed the entire point which is - bullshit exists. what is it? Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the article is unclear. An encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be an in-joke. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article is about the book, called On bullshit. the book doesn't discuss the origin of the term. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so perhaps the article should clarify that the essay doesn't discuss the genesis, but tries to clarify the nature of bullshit. If it doesn't succeed in even that, then that's probably noteworthy for the article as well, as perhaps that is an in-joke in the book itself (I wouldn't know, I haven't read it). That's certainly not mentioned in the article at the moment. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence describes what the book does. There are zillions of things it doesn't do. The book is not a joke. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's clear enough, and I've suggested a way in which it can be clearer. You seem to feel it's good enough. I disagree. And since we don't seem to be making any progress, I'm done discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the book is very short. you could have easily read it over the last month since you first posted here. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many citations of the book itself -- and rightly so. But the citation system is a bit cumbersome for this purpose. How about using Template:Rp? (You can see it used, plentifully, in Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography, for example. Its use there is cumbersome, but less so than any alternative I can think of.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Bullshit is a 2005 book (originally a 1986 essay) by American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false. Frankfurt's philosophical analysis of bullshit has been analyzed, criticized and adopted by academics since its publication. Is this supposed to be a serious introduction? Who read this over and thought it sounded perfectly fine and publication-ready? Seriously, who? —theMainLogan (t•c) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydkay4and, Woodringm02, Alexavail, AaronJudge38, Moskovitz23, Austinhittle (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pinguea17.

— Assignment last updated by Okigbov (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachscillia, Sdestefano, Tommy Ulmer21, Nateboyle7, A.H4897, Daniellebishop21, Sgutierrezmoravian (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DylnC, Dbhattach15, Daniellebishop21.

— Assignment last updated by Daniellebishop21 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]