Talk:Deadliest Warrior

	This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Who

We write - and presumable quote as an authority:

• It was briefly discussed on Charlie Brooker's You Have Been Watching, where it was promptly mocked for being idiotic.

Who is "Charlie Brooker" and why are comments on his show of interest? Perhaps this could be made clear in the article (or elsewhere) for those of us who do not share this cultural reference?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardian columnist, author, TV critic (probably one of the most widely read of the last decade in the UK), broadcaster etc. etc. etc. "Bob doesn't know who they are" does not equal "unimportant". The Screen Burn review can be found here. ^theist 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I particularly call to Bob's attention TV Go Home, written in the innocent days of the 1990s when its contents were outrageous satire rather than current pitches. Start at the bottom and work your way up - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

YHBW - I quite like Rufus Hound calling it "Terrorist 5-a-side" ^theist 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. fantastic. For those, like me, who are not immersed in this particular culture a note of its importance could conceivably be worthwhile.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called "the UK", per my edit comment. HTH - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I worked that out! For those, like me, who are not immersed in this particular culture a note of its importance could conceivably be worthwhile.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I added it because that's the only experience I have of it. And, of course, it's hilarious. ^theist 15:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that it is. My point is that for many people it's meaningless. It either needs a link to a source where people can share the hilarity or a blue link to explain the importance/significance of the reference.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Very kind of you. But if you would answer the point at hand I would have to say it five times.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I'm more inclined to think it's up to the reader to exercise their intellect if they're wondering "who?" Don't talk down, that sort of thing. It's like Human putting "[sic]" when a quotation contains UK spelling - deliberate parochialism to the point of proud ignorance is to be discouraged, not encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One hopes Sir is satisfied by both the quality and width of the footnote just added - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My question was perfectly reasonable. I'm sorry it irritated you. To be honest I still think it's poor, but I've lost interest in the topic.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd be more iffy on the SCA reference to be honest. However, I realise that after adding the links to the talk page to justify the inclusion, I failed to add them to the article. My bad, I apologise. ^theist 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"The" RPG test?

A clarification for people who haven't seen and don't intend to see the show? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the external link, which is considerable in size and scope so really acts as a reference for all the claims in the article. I'd say to recreate some of those claims but I wouldn't want to rely on a single source so we have the same numbered cite appearing 15 times. ^theist 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the Hate?

I love this show, and can't quite understand peoples problem with it, outside of the cheesy fight sequence at the end. --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's part of it, but there's also the dubious history and the half-assed method they use to calculate the results. I'd rather just weave bullshit with my friends on who would win - it's no more intelligent, but at least I wouldn't be watching Spike TV. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 01:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Whats wrong with spike? Its still better then just about anything on T.V.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to go with Angus Young on this one. The show really isn't so much about science than it is about entertainment. And to that end, it's just a matter of tastes. Spike TV, IMO, does have some cool shows. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the Historical Re-enactionists who sometimes (I am told) fight different groups ('I enjoy fighting the Romans, the weekend Viking said, 'their armour bends so nicely.') 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) How can one even claim that the battles would be accurate? It's a computerized battle sim, with NO players. Without the human factor, noone can definitively claim who is better. All the sim takes into account is variables. These meatheads and the single dork at the laptop can't really reduce everything about a culture or individual into a variable accurately. So I agree with Gooniepunk.

Rewrite

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Revolverman/dw

I did a rewrite of this, and I was wondering if it would be good enough to replace the main page here? --Revolverman (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this valid?

I've never seen the show but my impression is that they take warriors from various time periods and then imagine what the results of their meeting would be. Our critical section begins:

• The first, and perhaps the most minor, of the show's problems is the fact that they take fighters from all over human history to fight. Almost always these are groups that have never or would never engage in warfare.

Well, Duh? Yes, that is what the show is about. To be fair, the article does go on to say:

• While this could be forgiven, as fantasy match-ups are the very purpose of the show, it still means the results can't be grounded in history.

Certainly true, but again, well, Duh? Things that can't have happened ... can't have happened! Fantastic RW insight!--Coffee (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Coffee has a point. Yes, we should ridicule the show's claims of being a super serious combat analyzing expert meeting; but the fact that the results aren't grounded in history should be a given, not explicitly stated.Nullahnung (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think we'd be better served in going after the show's appeal to mall ninjas, and after the fact that the show's creator was discovered to have misled people about his actual expertise. Going after this as "pseudohistory" because of its fantastic premise only seems to miss the actual crankery of the show. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete as off mission?

Any chance we could delete this article? Seems pretty far from our mission goals. So what? It's a stupid TV program, which sacrifices accuracy for excitement. The same could be said of just about every "documentary" program. I don't think anyone, aside from internet shut ins/ninjas would took it seriously (OMG no ways could a KGB hit squad take on the Fellowship of the Ring. LOL SO UNREALISTC). The same goes for our article on Top Gear. --Marlow (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is every bit as mission-worthy as Ancient Aliens. The point of this program is to cater to the mall ninja crowd, and it does exactly that. Futhermore, the creator of the show lied about his credentials with regards to his combat expertise, which ultimately led to the show's cancellation. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)`````

As it stands, this article looks like it's written by and for "mall ninjas". There's lots of guncruft & pedantic quibbling about whether the show's depiction of a particular weapon, armour, technique or death blow is accurate, and oh gosh the lack of "experimental controls" is totally a "glaring problem", when it would be better to take a step back & look at this as a rather silly & ultimately disposable example of popular weapon culture rather than some sort of pseudo-legitimate empirical exercise. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It only reads like that due to some rather recent additions a few weeks ago. I remember the previous version being more distanced from the show's content. I sort of agree that we shouldn't have gone into that much detail and should cut some of the specific debunkery. Nullahnung (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I joined in because it seemed like a fun way for people to be introduced to scientific concepts like experimental controls, and remind people that unexamined ideas we take for granted from media exposure might actually be misconceptions. Also, someone pointed out that the article seemed unfairly negative on the show, so I added some balance. Yes, it's silly and might be read by mall ninjas, but I don't see the harm. -PatriotismOverProfits (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)