Talk:Deadliest Warrior

WHY THE CRAP IS THE LIST OF EPISDOES GONE?!

SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE HECK?!!! It's one of the main things to this article. It's a show, therefore it needs its EPISODES.209.213.17.28 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

links made more obvious again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The obvious disadvantage of seeing a linked number/impossible once again. 209.213.17.28 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do people watch this silly rubbish

Serious question, no judgement, real curiosity. What is the appeal of paying attention to a silly show? Once you realize, after 30 seconds, that it's fluff, why continue watching? After you've seen one episode, or two, and can confirm your initial reaction, that it's just fluff, why continue watching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I got to see who wins. Ninja or da pirate!! 73.239.3.247 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone noticed it ?

It would make sence if someone would make little note in article. Basically none of the weapons have got right name in series. For example AKs-47 as AK-74 Carbine, Chinese Type 67 RPG under name RPG-7 or MAC-10.. as Mini-uzi!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.49.215 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is ashame they named them as they did. 209.213.17.28 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the article really need "simulation" summaries?

How do they come up with these numbers? Look at the weapon selections they give certain teams. They are wrong half of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.213.113 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The actual simulations are done with numbers and done 1000 times. The acted "simulation" is just actors portraying a scripted scenario showing some ways that the weapons could theoretically be used. I think the article would be improved by removing the summaries of what the actors and letting the numbers generated by the actual simulations speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.182.31 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty interesting (to me, anyway) reading about an actual battle instead of reading a bunch of stats. Expo377 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the simulations should be deleted. As the original editor stated, the simulations are dramatizations and the actual results are based on computer generated numbers. While you may find them interesting, Expo, the simulation entries are one of the reasons why there's a cleanup tag on this article. They read like a sport announcer, not like an encyclopedia entry. More to the point, there are multiple examples of uncited opinion/original research, and examples of writing about fictional events as though they've actually occured (see WP:INUNIVERSE):

"This also one of the most disputed fights because of the conventionalism of some of the weapons. Namly the Naginata and Kanabo, both of wich have little to historical evidence supporting their actual use by Samurai, the Naginata being largly used by women (namly Samurais wives) as a self defense weapon and the Kanabo being almost exclusiveivly used by mythological Oni, and has no record evidence of it's use in actual battle."

Is this something that was discussed on the show, or is this fan service? Unless it was discussed in a reliable third party resource, it shouldn't be included.

"The battle was also notable for being in a 5-on-5 format instead of the conventional 1-on-1 match."

Once again, the battle has no effect on the outcome of the match. It's a dramatization.

This was another squad battle, was again very close (in fact the second closest battle on the show, with only seven wins beyond the simulation's margin for error preventing the match-up from being statistically too close to call) and again highly subject to some personal interpretation of the skills of the individual combatant. Strangely, the Spetsnaz RGD-5 grenade and Makarov PM handgun as well as both the American M24 and the Russian Dragunov sniper rifles were not used in the simulation.

Why is the simulation significant? What is meant by "personal interpretation?"

In the most lopsided battle yet the steel weapons of the monk were able to efficiently dispose of the Māori, who fought bravely...

No one really fought. The outcome of the match was based on math. So no one was really brave.

I'm sure if I went through more thoroughly, there'd be more examples. I can help with going through and editing the content, unless people feel there should be more of a discussion on whether or not it should be kept. -Hooliganb (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I actually wanted the simulations just in case I missed the episode,

If the number of combatants was factored into the calculations, why shouldn't the first 5-on-5 match be noted? You don't think they were talking about the simulation only, do you, Hooligan? Everyone knows that the simulation has no effect on the outcome, you're looking for problems where there are none at this point. -Anonymous 29 April 2010

Yes, but as they stated during the show whenever a squad matchup was used, they would be conducting a five on five (Or four on four, as it was once) matchup so that the outcome wouldn't be altered by a stray bullet. Therefore, they were including the 5-on-5 scenario in the computer calculation, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.76.139 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

legitimate criticism

is this a legit source of criticism "BS historian"?GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• No way. It uses the words "arse gravy" in the first sentence, that's a clue. This is a blog, and does not appear to be written by a journalist. It's therefore a self published site and not considered a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The show has been critized for favoring the west; specifically caucasians. Many have claimed the show is often racist in its approaches to its fictional choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersmokescreen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

---

THIS IS A FICTATIONAL SHOW!!!!! its like doing a battle between Jesus and Moses

Jesus uses heal saves 10

Moses parts sea saves 100...

unless it happened in real life there is no point speculating, its completely fictational

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.18.15 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Experts?

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before (I really don't want to read through all that text), but are these guys really experts? For example, Sala Baker doesn't seem to be a Maori Weapons Specialist; his wikipedia page says otherwise and there's no mention of him being an expert in such a field. An explanation would be nice. Expo377 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe there has been blog and forum postings to that effect, but something a bit more authoritive (such as a newspaper review of the programme by a journalist/expert) is required. If their non-expert status is stated and referenced in their own article then it could possibly be stated in this one, but one must be careful of synthesis or, worse, OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the previous conversation: Talk:Deadliest Warrior/Archive 2#Experts. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC

BSHistorian here. I'd rather not get too involved in this, and I appreciate you don't want to link to my article, and even that for some reason 'original research' is frowned upon on wiki - but for confirmation that these guys are not experts, just follow my links and post those in the article. Or Google some up yourself and post those. They aren't hiding their true identities. They are all martial artists at best, actors and radio DJs at worst (by worst, I mean 'least qualified to comment on historical matters'. Not one credentialled historian.

I don't want to make an account to write my own talk section, but whoever edited this article definitely changed the results on purpose. The Apache warrior wins not the gladiator, and the Spetsnaz wins not the Green Beret. I hope someone reads this and changes it, since I am too lazy.

The Maori guy was Sauron!?!? That's awesome!

How exactly you do become a Maori Warrior specialist? Last time I checked the Maori stopped fighting like that a long time ago. Same goes for pretty much every ancient warrior. The closest you are going to get is with people who train with these weapons and become good with them, non of the will ever be as good as the original warriors. Remember there is no degree in ancient Celtic fighting techniques so you are going to have to you hobbyist. Which doesn't necessarily discredit them some hobbyists are incredibly dedicated.TrueMetis (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Announcer

Why is "David Wenham" credited as the announcer in the side panel? I understand that he is rumored to be the announcer, but the page says that the show credits him (the announcer, not necessarily David Wenham) as "Drew Skye", and so does the rest of this page, it also talks about this rumor on David Wenham's page, which means that there is more than enough places to learn about this rumor, and this way we will have more accurate information, so shouldn't "Drew Skye" be what it says there? I just wanted to check before I changed it. --Parad0x130 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  Looks like Drew Skye is a psuedonym according to: http://twitter.com/geoffdesmoulin/statuses/13284431900  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.58.100 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 

Its definently him to me everytime i watch 300 (film) and the persian immortals come on screen the narrator David Wenham describes them and i get deadliest warrior de ja vu when ever i hear it. lol

--Moviemaster1993 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Episodes

Shouldn't this have a page for itself? 24.147.157.5 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Real?

The show is unrealistic,all the experts are actually movie stuntmen and not actually trained,try googling any of their names and you will see that none of them are martial arts experts.

After all,where can you take a course in IRA weaponry and where can you practice using those guns?

61.8.202.103 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yep. Unfortunately, despite all the criticisms that have been made here on this talk page, there still don't seem to be any reliable sources that have been critical of the show. The press apparently doesn't think anyone would actually take this show seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapon enthusiasts and experts aren't allowed to be stuntmen? Is their something wrong with some of the form you've seen the weapons used in? Be specific. Or is all you care about credentials? Well sorry, there is no central governing body that decides who is a genuine IRA weapons expert and who isn't. 71.215.119.92 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was interesting at the beginning but afterwards.......example Knight vs pirate....the pirate gets hit on head with a iron mace....his pistol in tests misfires three times..yet he's declared the winner??????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I was disapointed they never had equals vs equals..a Japanese Ninja vs Chinese Shoalin/Kung Fu Monk.....

Season 2

I keep seeing people place wrong info in the Season 2 section like reamtches, info on the game, and new warriors without any legit sources. I think something needs to be done. Maildiver (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Spit venom

Is the zulu spit venom adenia gummifera ?

Season 1 rematches

On the schedule on Spike TV's website it says all the winners from season 1 will be facing each other again. 71.63.25.240 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Naginata was not a woman's weapon

I want to dispute the sentence "This also one of the most disputed fights because of the debatable conventionalism of some of the weapons... the naginata was and is considered a womans weapon, used by the wife of the samurai for selfdefense and never used by the samurai..." in the section "Episode 2: Viking vs Samurai." While the naginata is now considered a woman's weapon, Wikipedia's own entry for the naginata describes it as "a pole weapon that was traditionally used in Japan by members of the samurai" and shows many, many historical examples of men using it. Did the hosts of the show dispute the conventionalism of the naginata, or is this sentence just saying that some unnamed fans have done so? Redguardian (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that women were of the samurai class too, right? So just because samurai used it, doesn't mean that it's not considered a woman's weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.7.56 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

India's Rajput Warrior

As per the official site of Spike(http://www.spike.com/blog/new-season-new-blood/93847) and an article by By Derrik J. Lang for The Associated Press(http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=209283) The episode is named as INDIA'S RAJPUT WARRIOR.115.252.47.240 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While your sources do support this name, it's also worth mentioning this is technically a list of episodes, not match ups. On the official show page ([1]) under the "Schedule" tab, the episode is listed as "Roman Centurion vs. Rajput" on May 25th. Since "Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior" doesn't appear to be the name of the episode, consistently reverting edits that change the title may be pointless, as whatever name is used when the episode airs will be what determines the section heading.

As an aside, it would also be helpful if you would format your citations using a web cite template/format rather than just posting a raw URL. See WP:CITE. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2010 (UT

How does that make sense? The list on WP page consists of name of episodes, which i have edited.115.118.84.23 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Historical inaccuracies

Looking at the Historical inaccuracies section, it appears as though this information was collected by someone expressing their own opinion of the show. While I completely agree with that opinion, especially since it appears as though that editor did their homework, it's still an editors opinion. According to WP:NPOV, the content on Wikipedia should be compiled with neutrality in mind. Significant opinions can only be included if they're presented fairly as expressed by a reliable third party resource. That does not appear to be what's going on here.

Unless someone can produce a reliable source for this opinion, the section needs to be removed. -Hooliganb (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

all these facts are true, and i'm personally working on getting sources for the information--67.247.147.56 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, the issue i'm bringing up isn't the facts themselves. The issue is that this section is an editor's opinion, not the opinion of a reputable resource. Even though all the research here is probably sound, contributors to Wikipedia do not express their own opinions within the content of the articles. To keep this section, you need to find a reliable third party resource that specifically talks about the show and how it's historically inaccurate. See WP:NPOV to read more about neutrality on Wikipedia, and WP:VERIFY for information on what's considered a reliable resource.-Hooliganb (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is if it's a documented historic fact, and the show says otherwise , for example the crossbow being ued by knights, even though it's a proven fact it can't stay unless someone repuatble says for themselves the show is wrong? --Swg66 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. See WP:SYNTHESIS. While resources backing up the various facts here could be produced, they're being used to express an opinion that isn't part of any of the resources. A reliable resource needs to be provided that's specifically talking about how the show is historically inaccurate. Wikipedia collects facts, not viewpoints, because WIkipedia itself needs to remain neutral.

If Wikipedia can factually say: "This reliable resource feels that Deadliest Warrior is historically inaccurate," then it remains neutral. If one of its editors says "Deadliest Warrior is inaccurate, and here's why," then Wikipedia is no longer providing neutral coverage on the topic. Its become a venue where people can express their own opinions on the article topics, and that's not Wikipedia's goal. -Hooliganb (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

also when the show itself uses actors for it's "experts" and doesn't have any reputable sources itself, besides the "experts" they say are experts who don't show up outside the show or are only stuntmen.--Swg66 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. The show does seem to have some problems with its accuracy. That's not the point though. The point is, it's not Wikipedia's job to provide a commentary on that. It's Wikipedia's job to show other reliable resources providing that opinion. -Hooliganb (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But their are no real credibel people supporting the show, and actual historians who say things that contridict what the show says, Real historians vs Actors who pretended to experts, not a hard call--Swg66 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a hard call, unfortunately, because it doesn't matter what sources the show has. The point of the article is to explain what the show is and provide information about the show. It's not saying the show is right, it's not saying the show is wrong, it's just saying: "Hey, there's this show, and this is what it's about." Information not taken from resources talking about the show can't be included, because that changes the article from information collected about the show to information produced about the show.

In this section, someone is making the assertion that the show is historically inaccurate. I agree with that, but that's not the point. The point is, this person has collected facts from various places to provide a personal commentary on the show. You can't do that on Wikipedia. -Hooliganb (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

no they provided at least for the knight, a historian stating somthing that directly contridics what the show say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swg66 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The historian was specifically talking about the show? Do you have a resource for it? Do you have the historian's name? A quote? Where and when they said it? If you do, that would be the one piece of information in the section that could actually stay... I'm going to try and find other people to weigh in on this.-Hooliganb (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

you're not going to find a historian to do so becasue they dismiss it, but some of the shows facts are wrong--Swg66 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, if you open the FAQ at the top of the page, it says:

Q:Why isn't there a section dealing with inaccuracies in the show's presentation?

A:Because there are not any reliable sources that have published articles critical of the program. If and when there are such sources, content based on them can be added to the article.

Until a resource has published contents specifically talking about the show and how it's inaccurate, this content cannot be included. I'm deleting the section to coincide with the FAQ, this discussion, and the multiple discussions in the archives of this talk page. -Hooliganb (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ok i'm just going to say you're wrong. Deadliest Warrior doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case, they lack any real experts, just actors, The show Warriors on the History channel actuuly intervies real historians and even moderen day warriors like Zulus still living in africa, and the historians say things that directly contridic what the actors say. These aren't opinions on why the show is wrong they are fact, that show it's wrong. The show isn't a documentary, it has documentary qualities, but it's largly only for entirtainment purposues. Their not directly say the show is wrong, but their are facts show it. The whole thing about required someone to say it's innacurate is flawed, just becasue some hasn't made an artical about why it's inaccurate doesn't mean it's not true. Isn't the point of wikipedia to put facts on the sight and give people the truth--67.247.147.56 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reread this discussion and several others that are archived on this discussion page. I'm not the one saying this. It's Wikipedia policy. -Hooliganb (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ok just tell me this, how is not important to point out somthing with thw is wrong, when it's a well known fact, these are oringinal opions on wether what the show is doing is wrong, the a document historic facts that prove what is said on the show is historiaclly incorrect, Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter if a reputable source has pointed it out or not.--67.247.147.56 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encylopedia before anything else. Encyclopedias are completely neutral. They have no agenda, and no opinion. Any original opinion posted on Wikipedia removes that neutrality, no matter how backed up it is. If there are reputable resources out there critiquing the show, they should definitely be included here. However, editors cannot gather their own facts to post their own critique of the show in this article. Wikipedia simply is not the place for that.

For more information on this, see WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:VERIFY. I'm not here to defend Wikipedia's policies though, and I'm the last person to talk to if you don't agree with them. -Hooliganb (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

these aren't opinions, they are documented facts.--Mr.2 Bon Clay (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Facts that weren't assembled with the intention of them being used as a critique of the show. This is an encyclopedia, not a book report. -Hooliganb(talk) 22:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoologanb,I see where you are coming from about the weasel word "supposedly" and how it may imply a bias. However, I was recalling the statement by the doctor in when he said that "an apache knife could probably penetrate chainmail." They didn't test any mail with the apache knife but they eliminated wallace based on what the apache knife could supposedly do. I get that we can't put opinions on this page but frankly its frustrating that this show pushes bullcrap like that unriveted chainmail was used in the middle ages, which was clearly not the case. How is a reference site like wikipedia supposed to tolerate misinformation like this? If someone looked up wikipedia as a citable source and saw the untruths DW claims as fact undisputed anywhere in an encyclopedia article then I believe the integrity of wikipedia suffers. There should at least be a disclaimer saying that the information covered by DW is stated by it only and is by no means embraced by wikipedia or its users. I respect article neutrality but people researching have a right to tell accuracy from the bs. I like this other user tried to set up an inconsistencies page but agreed to abandon the issue for neutrality but this show flies in the face of logic so much that IMHO readers of this article need to know that the viewpoints of DW are not endorsed by wikipedia. -JHanson712

I understand what you're saying about "supposedly," but that's still not the right word. "Probably" would have been a better choice, especially if that's the word the doctor used.

I can also appreciate your frustration, and the frustration of all the people here. More to the point, let me make it clear: I understand a lot of the stuff on the show is made up. It's for ratings and money, not for historical accuracy. However, Wikipedia is not a soap box. It's not a venue for "exposing the truth" of something, unless you're documenting a reliable third party providing that exposure. Wikipedia's neutrality comes before "getting the truth out there."

All of the information on Wikipedia isn't provided by Wikipedia, actually. Wikipedia doesn't include any original research from primary resources. All of its information comes from secondary and reliable tertiary resources. So that kind of disclaimer isn't necessary. It's not necessary to express that the viewpoints of the show aren't those of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has no viewpoints. It's neutral.

Look, if it bothers you that Knights never used crossbows and you have a reliable resource talking about that, you can't post it here unless that source is talking about the show's inaccurate depiction of crossbow usage. However, there are wiki links to the crossbow article in this article. Go edit the crossbow article and make sure it has the information you feel people should see. Readers can come to their own conclusions by exploring the other articles, BUT, you cannot post critiques of the show here until a reliable third party critiques the show.

I'm not the person to talk to about changing Wikipedia's policies and this discussion page isn't the place for it. So, to the next person who posts something to the effect of "but all this is true," it doesn't matter if the facts you have found are true or not. It doesn't matter. That's not the point. Read the archives for this discussion page, we aren't the first people to have this conversation. It does not matter if the facts are true or not, you cannot provide critique without it being published by a reliable third party.-Hooliganb (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to watch this page, but I got tired of having this same debate over and over again. I created the FAQ page linked above and explained the concept of citing sources and not using our own observations about a thousand times to no avail, as you can see in the archives. Why anyone would expect any show on SpikeTv to be scientifically accurate is beyond me, it's not the Discovery Channel, it's "the guy channel". This show is entertainment and nothing more. The very concept behind it is like something two guys would dream up while drinking beer and watching wrestling. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Episode tables

According to WP:TABLES, tables are used on Wikipedia to best present information compared in a vertical/horizontal format (for example, mathematical information, as is the case in this article), but some information is best included as a list instead. In previous versions of this article, the content was cluttered by multiple tables that were better presented as lists detailing information about the separate tests conducted in each episode, making it difficult to navigate. That being said, adding information about which weapon the commentators gave the "edge" to in the table isn't necessary because: (a) it becomes more cluttered visually and less helpful as a presentation of mathematical data, (b) is redundant as the bullets beneath the table contain this information, and (c) the weapons the commentators prefer score higher anyway.

If there's a reason an editor feels the commentator edge needs to be included in the table, perhaps they could explain why, and we could find a solution that doesn't result in a visual degradation of the data. -Hooliganb (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Drew Skye

The narrator is credited as Drew Skye, stop chaning it--Jaws8492 (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yari Not Tested With Samurai

I forget how, so could somebody use this to back up why I said the Yari would have been a more realistic choice than the Naginata or Kanabo for testing ^ a b c d e Deal, William E (2007). Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. pp. 432. ISBN 978-0195331264. It is from the Wiki's very own mentioning of the Yari and I myself have read the book. It clearly outlines that the Naginata was mainly a calvary weapon and saw far less use as a foot soldier weapon either for the Samurai or the ashigaru. It has been proven to go through samurai armor of all types historically, thus its constant use. The citation should be easy enough to list as their are several. Wiggalama (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

unfortunlty it doesn't matter, apparently unless it the source specifically says Deadliest warrior is wrong you can't put it up, it's a stupid rule but some people won't let you put up facts.The Kanabo ad Naginata aren't historically accurate weapons but because some retarded rule you canput it up. The Histoical inacuaracies section is repatedly deleted becasue even the inforamtion is 100% true. Also apparently the Samurai armour shouldn't of handeled the Spartan spear either, that armor style can't stop a strong spear thrust.--Mr.2 Bon Clay (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also putting that stuff up about the yari in the contects it is sounds baised towards the samurai The yari wouldn't of been any better than the Naginata in the fight, it would of a actully be worse, the Naginata can stab and slice like a sword, the spear can only really stab and can't cut as well as the Naginata. The Yari would be more accurate but arguing for it would take away the Kanabo and Naginata, which it was replaced with, so their argument sorta backs fires as it would hurt the samurai it the fights, even though it would more accurate--Mr.2 Bon Clay (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The show discusses the Samurai, and claims accuracy which is proven false. A thrust is far more powerful for piercing armor as it concentrates the force on a specific area. Almost any sword can penetrate light to medium armor if it has a sharp tip and is thrust at least one handed. The Yari, like many spears, focuses on the thrust and historically penetrated samurai armor, mongolian, korean, korean shields, many different types of Chinese armor, Ainu armor, etc... Slashing is mostly useless against armor(especially medium like the Spartans had or Heavy like the later Knights of Europe(circa 1300s-early 1500s) as it is incredibly easy to resist in almost any design. Now, if you say slashed with the force of a horse galloping with a tachi, katana, naginata, etc... then things change. The Spartans viewed shields as honorable but not calvary, archery, or the combination; the opposite of the Samurai. Further, the Spartans where defeated ultimately by larger manuverability, calavary, and advanced archery by the forces of Alexander the Great and later once and for all by the Romans which the Samurai had in spades throughout their history. I did not go into detail on that one out of mercy :D Wiggalama (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well in one-one scenario those things wouldn't make that much a difference.Calvery is actully highlly useless agains spartan formatons ans so is archery, they didn't fall do to military tech or tatics, there fall was becasue their our mentality of no surrended casue high casualitys and eventlly to make for the lost troops they began useing helots, who weren't nearly as skill as a trained spartan. You're not telling me anything I don't know, but it doesn't matter, Unless a credable source says the show itself is wrong you can't up it up on wikipedia, besided the word superior being used to describe the spear is a bais. Besisded pirceing samurai armor isn't the same as a solid picec of metal, the Yari could pirece samuria armor because it wasn't a solid picec of metal. It was iron scales held together with leather or silk, the narrow Yari blade could piece that but a solid plate of bronze is another story.--Mr.2 Bon Clay (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the above may be interesting, but it doesn't mean much for the article itself (Since the article won't be including information in what someone thinks should have been used.) The above discussions go into more detail about why inaccuracies are handled the way they are in this article. (Not an actual editor, but I have a feeling some more involved people will be in to say something similar.)24.14.34.208 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what sources you put up, unless the reputable source actully says it wrong specifically about DW, thenit can't do on Wikipedia.Wiggalama I suggest you read above discussion before you eve try to make an argument. On the other note Sparta was never militarily conqured by either Phillp or Alexander. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, whether you practice somthing or just read about it,If it doesn't comply with wikipedia's rules it can't go up. Also you're "owning" of "Mr. 2 Bon Clay" is essentially no exsistance,especially if you're suggesting Kenjutsu with a Yari, when you have no idea how it would interact with another fighting style. I suggest you stop sounding so preachy.--Jaws8492 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

you may also want to look up the difference between Kenjutsu and Sōjutsu, before you suggest practicing Kenjutsu with a Yari.--Jaws8492 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Spartans defeated by more manuevarable infantry of the later Greeks, Alexander the Great, and finally the Romans. Calvary was essential in the Spartan downfall as the romans had excellent heavy calvary. Sparta was subservant to Alexander and then conquered by Rome. They fell because they couldn't adapt. 2. Kenjutus means "art of the sword". I study Kukkishin Ryu Kenpo, a form of Kenjutsu among other things. I never said don't study the way of the yari, I said try actually practing such things as I listed. 3. You dumb ass. Samurai armor was a combination of laquered leather, plates, and light metal plating(particular metal content in the Kabuto) and is overall toughfer than the bronze armor of the Spartans and others. There is a reason why steel beats bronze and is also lighter per square inch. The only down side is the rust factor is not looked into properly enough. I would also go so far as to say that the Yari or any decent spear in general could penetrate the spartans shield, not that it would get that close with the calvary archer and such of the Samurai. The real test would be Samurai vs. Knight and which period; which region.

Removal of Simulation plots for each sections?

Removing simulation plots from each and every episode degrades details drastically, thus leaving NPOV (No Point Of View) after what happened in the simulation battle from this show. JMBZ-12 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't supposed to be any point of view. See WP:NPOV -Hooliganb (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes and inconsistency

Is this section really needed,I mean it only highlights some minor quips, plus it's poorly written. Deus257 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; also I think this "In IRA vs Spetsnaz the AK-47 and AR-15 were declared equel, in IRA vs Taliban the AR-15 was given the advantage." is wrong. Because, before they compared the ak-47 vs ar-15, with IRA vs Taliban. But this time it is the ak-74 vs ar-15. And then they were declared equal. Also equal is spelled wrong. I am changing this. Pseudoanonymous (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A single spelling error doesn't justify deleting a whole section, just fix it, also thinking somthing is wrong and knowing somthing is wrong are two completly different things, make sure before you remove. The section has valid points, these types of sections area a good thing.--67.247.147.56 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it more I don't think it's worth being in the page seeing as how the section isn't sourced properly and I don't think a simple math error is worth noting, (ar-15 vs ak-74 maybe worth noting though). I think we should just bring an admin in to give their opinion on the subject. Deus257 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give an informal third opinion here (though in the future you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Third opinion and get those who watch over there a chance to provide another opinion). The two sentences which I believe are causing problems are the following:

• This may be why the Spetsnaz's score was shown on the show as 736.
• They declared the AR-15 the superior of AK-47 and the equal of the newer AK-74 without retesting both, causing some confusion.

The big problem is that these statements need to be verifiable by a reliable secondary source. When adding information, one must be careful not to draw conclusions themselves, as this goes against our no original research policy. I would prefer to remove the entire section for now until it can be reliably sourced; we have documentation of the discussion here, so if sources can be found to back these "inconsistency" claims up, then they can be added back in. –MuZemike 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this section of the article should be removed until reliable sources are presented.Deus257 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Remove the section. You are quite right in pointing out that this fails WP:NOR and therefore WP:VERIFY. It is also nothing more than a WP:TRIVIA section which are discouraged.—Welshleprechaun 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Naginata(a calvary weapon that gradually fell out of favor) was chosen over the yari(the main infantry weapon for the samurai, especially from the late 1200s til the edo period(roughly early 1600s; officially 1603)) is clear BS. Basically, the samurai got screwed by not getting their naginata, but ah well....and where to begin on the advantages of the samurai's full on infatantry combat :DWiggalama (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Executive Producers?

I'm fairly new to editing things on this site, so I don't want to do this myself and risk messing the format of the page up, but in the box at the top of the screen that details format and the like, there is a section for 'Executive Producer(s)', and the information listed is 'chinese guy'. This seems both inaccurate, crude, and slightly racist, in my opinion. Just wanted to see if anyone could fix this.

Edit request from 98.80.136.187, 5 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} provide the number of kills caused by the Colt Revolvers 98.80.136.187 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for the suggestion. The editsemiprotected template is meant to be used for more detailed requests, so you need to either leave the suggestion without the template for some interested editor to possibly pick up, or provide the text you would like to have inserted, along with reliable sources for any factual information. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is at an all-time high everytime a new episode airs. I say we semi-protect the article before an episode actually airs on the airdate itself, since some anons like to swarm the article with vandalism around that time. Who's with me on this? (Iuio (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

This opinion is indeed correct. After the episode, Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior, the vandalism skyrocketed. Multiple users, mostly not logged in or not a member, are making cruel vandalisms. Coolsprings (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It took me 3 minutes to get my stat updates for that episode in because of edit conflicts over so many people (mostly vandals) editing the article at the same time. So I say we protect the article on the day a new episode airs as a preventative measure against such disruption. (Iuio (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Way Too Long

I'm sure you people have already talked about this, but I'm concerned with the length of this article. Once this article has completed posting the results of Season 2, this article is just going to be WAY too long. Is there anything we can omit from the article? WaninokoZ =3 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to split this off into two more pages. Deadliest Warrior Season 1 episodes and ... Season 2 episodes. I'm sure someone with time and C&P Skillz wants the credit. David.snipes (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article to add more sections and split the sections so that it's easier to read. The long lead title has been removed because the lead paragraph is within reasonable limits. Sreesarmatvm (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kill Total Innacuracy

In the Spetsnaz vs. IRA, back for blood special. The LPO-50 Flamethrower actually got eleven kills. I have added up all the kills without the correction and it's only 357 kills. The Flamethrower got ten more, making it equal it's actual amount to 367. Can this small mistake and inaccuracy please be fixed. The evidence for this is clearly shown in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.60.244 (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Katar for Rajput weapon

As seen in the intro to the show, Katar will be a Rajput weapon, though it will have more than one blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gesza (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the weapons are not posted until they are shown on the website or used in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But they posted the RPG-7 for the pirates, even though I don't see any sources saying they will have an RPG-7. Gmboystupidfish (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then that should be taken out, as there is no evidence for it being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.171.144 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Format of the Show Addition

You should add to the "Format of the Show" section, that the episodes seem to go from before gunpowder age, to after, then back to before, then after, etc. You can clearly see they developed the pattern from season 2 that they go from ancient/medieval warriors (swords, crossbows, etc.), to modern/gunpowder type troops (automatic weapons, explosives etc) Gmboystupidfish (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rajput weapons

"Aara" mentioned as one of the weapons of Rajput, is actualy another name for Urumi. So i think we should add Urumi's link in Aara's place.Mdmday (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

CLIP!

"The Mauser C96's automatic fire capability was then demonstrated, emptying a full clip in less than a second"

Someone fix that please.

Pirates RPG?

It seems you listed the Samolie (Spelling?) pirates weapon, even though there is no source of where the weapon (RPG-7) came from. It should therefore be taken out until proven it is an RPG-7 that they will use. Gmboystupidfish (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error - Please someone fix this.

In the second bullet for Jesse James/Al Capone, the word "target" is spelled as "taget."

Problems with Somali Pirates vs. Medellin Cartel

Where is the information on the weapons coming from? The official website has not posted the weapons for either of them, so is this weapon information coming from an unlinked source, or is it mere guessing?

A recent video shows that the article is right about the Somali Pirates having the AK-47 and the Medellin Cartel having the Uzi. However, the AK-47 only recently replaced the AKM for being incorrect, and the RPG-7 seems to be inferred, which I don't think is Wikipedia policy. And there is no evidence to support the other weapons. I'd change it myself, but the article's locked.

• The information seems to come from promo pictures on the Spike website (they can be seen here[2]). There are pictures of the RPG-7, M-60, machete, and dynamite, among others. However, while it's likely that these weapons will be used in the episode, I don't think we should consider those pictures a reliable source. They've been inaccurate in the past: one of the promo pics for SWAT vs. GSG9 shows a SWAT guy holding a pistol, but they didn't use any handguns in the actual episode. Until we get an official list of what weapons will be used in the episode, I don't think we should list them in the article, with the possible exceptions of the Ak-47 and Uzi. It may be informed speculation, but it's still speculation. And we definitely shouldn't put weapons in range categories before we get an official list, that's pure speculation anyway you look at it. The same thing seems to be going on with Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu and Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer. INH (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my input, I have the scores for the Cartel for each weapon, can someone put them up?

Car Bomb - 140 M-60 - 96 Mini Uzi - 188 Machete - 54

I am certain these figures are correct (hit the freeze button on my tv so I could take down the scores). If these scores are not correct (I'm 99% sure they're right) then please ignore this. I am asking because I never edit on Wikipedia and would rather not mess it up. I also don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.50.247 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Aara expert Sukhwinder Singh

I do not think the Sukhwinder Singh link in this article points to the expert that was brought in for the episode. The link on this page is for the musical director/singer. It should be unlinked, as with the other experts, if this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Show Isn't Perfect

It's obvious several of the episodes suffer from anachronisms, questionable weapon selection for the warriors, questionable experts, and a questionable computer program. But a lot of you are taking it way too seriously. First off the majority of those warriors of antiquity had no "standard issue" equipment or any central governing bodies that handed out licenses and to this day still don't. Secondly the "versions" of the warriors they discuss reflect how they appear in popular culture more than history. I believe one of the backgrounds to the show is two drunks arguing in a bar about which warrior in history is the strongest. When they say ninja of course they're referring to the Hollywood kind and not some fat oaf from the Bujinkan who thinks he knows dim mak or taijutsu. 71.215.119.92 (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Many ancient societies did indeed have stard equipment for their soldier, notably the Romans. But you're right, this show is not scienific or meant to be taken seriously. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove it. 184.96.225.250 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Celtic club

The link for the Celt's club weapon currently points to the club as an organization. It should point to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_%28weapon%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmrahi (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shaka Zulu Given Unfair Disadvantage

It's a bit odd that someone involved with the show won his match up, considering the very obvious disadvantage his opponent was given. What I am speaking of is the pairing of a lethal "special" weapon (targe/dirk) with an absolutely non-lethal special weapon (poison spit). It is especially fishy due to the fact that the match was basically a draw, with the exception of the 200+ kills with the targe/dirk as opposed to the 0 kills with the poison. It's actually a bit shameful they had to resort to such tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here isn't really for talking about the show here. (If you wanto t read about some issues with the show, googling should give quite a lot of results.)24.14.34.208 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flaming will NOT be tolerated.

International Broadcast?

Does anyone know anything about where this show can be seen outside the US? I know that's it has aired in the UK. Skyrocket (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Video Game

Why is the Centurion listed as a playable character in the upcoming video game? The citation it references does not identify the Centurion as playable, only one warrior from season 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.199.219 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sun Tzu's back scratcher

Vlad gets a hand cannon, and they give Sun Tzu a back scratcher. I have never even heard of such a ridiculous looking thing - and I can find nothing on google that even supports its existence. From what I've heard, there are a few hypothesis out there that it's not even a weapon that was used on a battlefield - it was a nonlethal tool used to restrain prisoners.

Why the hell did they not give Sun Tzu a dagger axe?

I'd like to know how they justified this... Intranetusa (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone put their own opinion into the Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu section, Im prtty sure its a wiki standard that you don't put personal opinions into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.52.159 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. That's what the discussion section is for. However, technically those aren't his opinions either. The iron-claw is a fictional weapon never used by Sun Tzu. It is common historical knowledge that Sun Tzu would indeed have used a dagger axe or spear, and not a fictional back scratcher. And if you check the edit-history of the article page, I believe the person named "Q-sector" is responsible for editing those lines.

Intranetusa (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose opinions those are! Nerd raging should NOT be on the main page! I don't care how accurate the rant is, that's not the point of this site! Someone take it off IMMEDIATELY! I would do it myself, but the article's still locked. 74.101.104.190 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have the weapons actually been officially revealed yet? If not, they should be taken away, if so, and these are correct, they aget included whether or not they are accurate to the actual warriors or not.24.14.34.208 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@74.101.104.190, the edit has already been reverted. Why don't you make an account and help revert these edits instead of whining? @24.14.34.208, the weapons have been revealed on the weapons-preview on spike's website. Intranetusa (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed that the rant was on the main site when I made my comment, so had though you were simply complaining about weapon choice, not responding to something in the article. I probably should have deleted it or put a never mind when I realized I'd missed the rant in the actual article.24.14.34.208 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post the current weapon edges here seeing as some tard got the article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.46.55 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron Claws are real weapons. They're called "Hand-claws" though (Tekko-kagi) and are usually refered to as being Japanese, and I'm not sure if Sun Tzu ever used them. http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_10_strangest_weapons_of_all_times.php http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/08/31/weird-asian-martial-arts-weapons/ 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What am I talking about, you're refering to the Zhua? http://www.kungfumagazine.com/info/weapons.php 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sun Tzu a warrior or strategist?

When I watched the episode of Vlad the Impaler against Sun Tzu (season 2 episode 19) the first thing I thought was, 'why in the world is Sun Tzu even fighting this battle?'. Is Sun Tzu really a warrior who went into the line of battle and fought??? Maybe he did, but Sun Tzu was a strategist, who gave orders behind the lines of battle, similar to another famous Chinese strategist, Zhuge Liang. So why did Deadliest Warrior pick out Sun Tzu who was not actually famous for his fighting prowess to fight Vlad the Impaler, a fighter and clearly a warrior? --Virusguy5611 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Video game

A video game adaptation of the TV series has now been released and is available on the Xbox Live marketplace. Might want to put that in the introduction. --92.12.34.61 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's later in the article. And the game is an arcade downloadable game for XBOX 360, not sure that merrits entry into the intro. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

The Mongols who had the largest empire ever and defeated hundreds of different armies all who had hundreds of different weapons and strategies lose to some small Native American guerrilla force? This show is biased and a criticism section is definitely needed. 184.96.233.193 (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to critique the show itself. --Kevin W. 00:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, but yes this is not a discussion forum. What this article does need is a criticism section. I only started watching today, so I wouldnt know if there has been extensive criticism of it. Metallurgist (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there has been extensive criticism on it especially on the show's historical accuracy. However, I don't know if wikipedia creates such sections. (Virusguy5611 (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

This is one of the BEST places to critique the show, mind you boy. 209.213.17.28 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

simulation program from a game?

In the "Format of the show" section, it states, "The data collected from the weapons tests is fed into a computer simulation based on an unreleased commercial game engine developed by Slitherine Strategies to determine the average winner of one thousand battles." However, I've seen every episode of the show, besides "Navy SEAL vs. Israeli Commando" which airs tonight, and I have never heard them say the simulation program is "based on an unreleased commercial game engine." Could someone please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.112.224 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I just watched this show for the first time today and as some people here have said it has absolutely no basis in reality. You could roll dice and get better results. However, none of this means much here. Since I am a newcomer to this show, I dont really know much about criticism of it, but there certainly has to be a lot out there. There simply is no way this has much semblance of reality. Thus, we need to have a criticism section that addresses this. I dont know where to look though. Metallurgist (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the show for a while now and I think it's quite entertaining as long as you don't take it too serious. It's great because it's one of those "who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman" type shows except with real figures. The results are too speculative to be accurate, if you take into account that every fight/combat,etc is very subjective in the sense that any battle can always go ethier way no matter the advantages of both sides, becuase of to many "other x-factors" to count. The things that really bug me about this show is the way the "experts" always act like big d-bags to each ethier. It seems to have gotten better in the 2nd season, but it always feels that they are on the verge of a fist fight in every episode which is a big turn off i think. Also that computer guy Max...it always bugs me when he gives his 2 cents, cause it's like "what made you an expert all of a sudden?". Maybe I'm the only one, but thats just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.35 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Trey44, 2 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} remove the sentence that is saying americans always win, a troll edited that in

Trey44 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.23.129.210, 2 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove these sentences from the Deadliest Warrior page as they are biased and inaccurate. The quotes appear in order, starting from the end of the first paragraph.

"However, most of the tests appear to be rigged in the American's favor. Even in outcomes totally illogical, the Americans seem to pull it off"

" However, even superior weapons seem to lose if it doesn't belong to an American against an American."

"And once again, the Americans always win. It's pretty ridiculous, the odds. But somehow, the SWAT beat the GSG-9, the KGB lost to the CIA. Jesse James beat Al Capone."

"However, once again, the Americans always win, so it doesn't matter what the guests say, if you are American, you win. Most of the American wins are due to extremely rigged odds. For example, most of the Capones were Italian, so they sent the Capones in with one gun, a close-quarters gun, and in close-quarters, they lost to Jesse James because they had loaded Revolvers and Winchesters that they had just stolen from the museum."

76.23.129.210 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cltarr, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the third paragraph of the article, it states that "Season two . . . the last episode airing on August 27, 2010". The last episode actually aired on July 27, 2010. Additionally, I am unsure why there is a citation on this sentence that leads to an article about equipment used in Season 1. (Citation #4, "Tekscan, Inc. Featured on Spike TV's Hit series, Deadliest Warrior") It seems this may have been accidentally misplaced in an earlier edit?

Cltarr (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The narrator...

...is Drew Skye. So STOP PUTTING DAVID WENHAM. It may sound just like Wenham in 300, but in the end credits, it says the narrator is Drew Skye. Right now, it says David Wenham. It needs to be changed. Drew Skye is who they say narrates it, not David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdensburg, NY 10/16/10

- I just changed it back to Drew Skye. Spike TV credits Drew Skye as the narrator, not David Wenham. It doesn't matter who people think the narrator sounds like; Drew Skye is the credited Narrator. jjh295 10/24/10

Exactly what I was getting at. I was saying that, despite any resemblence between the narrator and David Wenham, the show clearly states that the narrator is Drew Skye, so people need to leave it as Drew Skye, as opposed to David Wenham. -Mike R. from Ogdenburg, NY 12/15/10

accuracy and reaction

Is there some source for the historical accuracy, or the fact that the decisions usually fuel debate than settle it? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Response Section

I removed all of the complaints about the show's accuracy in the Response section. It was all unsourced information. Like the FAQ says, if you can find a reliable source that says that kind of stuff, you can put it in the article. Otherwise, keep it out. Cond256 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

George Washington

this is going to seem incredulous, but I've heard that Jeff Daniels played George Washington in the season 3 premiere! is there any truth to this??--99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Noun/verb agreement error should be fixed.

"Joining Elliot was show regulars" --> should be "were" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.191.59 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Show cancelled

Geoff Desmoulin confirmed in a podcast that the show was cancelled due to the cost involved in producing each episode. It's the "Jay and Kirby Deadliest Podcast", google it and you'll find them (http://www.jayandkirbyproductions.com/). Is that enough to be considered a reliable source? It's just two guys that record a podcast, but they interview the actual guys from the show; in my mind, Geoff confirming that the show isn't coming back when he's asked is pretty reliable. Even if it's only a podcast by two unknown guys and most of them are about silly stupid stuff now.

They interviewed Nick Hughes, the Foreign Legion guy, and he gives some interesting background to the episode. Is any of this notable enough for inclusion? Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Random match ups relevant?

So, in the reactions section, what exactly is the justification for having random celebrities comment on which fictional character would win in a fight? There doesn't seem to be any connection to the show, and even if there is, they are not cited, so I can't check. While the show is about people fighting, first the show focuses on real types of warriors and secondly the show focuses on archetypes of warriors, not singular characters. Even if this is relevant, I fail to see why it should be in the reactions segment, as it has no relation to the actual broadcast show. Unless someone can explain why this is relevant, I think it would be better to delete the aforementioned part of the reactions segment. 66.57.77.154 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411170026/http://www.thedailyaztec.com:80/tempo/boob-tube-scoop-deadliest-warrior-attacks-1.1646236 to http://www.thedailyaztec.com/tempo/boob-tube-scoop-deadliest-warrior-attacks-1.1646236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120831054353/http://www.variety.com:80/review/VE1117940011?refCatId=32 to http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940011?refCatId=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Deadliest Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105111140/http://news.yahoo.com/s/newsarama/20090421/en_newsarama/fightclubclassicsinsidespikesdeadliestwarrior to http://news.yahoo.com/s/newsarama/20090421/en_newsarama/fightclubclassicsinsidespikesdeadliestwarrior
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131110170600/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/culture/2009/aug/08/screen-burn-deadliest-warrior to http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/aug/08/screen-burn-deadliest-warrior

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Film

What happened to the announcement of the film adaptation to be directed by Shawn Levy?