The Objective Productions website (http://www.objectiveproductions.net) refers to the latest special as The Real Hustle 'Winter Special' - is this its actual title..?

--J-- 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some references can be found for actual criticism that this programme has received for being take or giving people ideas, I'm going to remove that entire section. Please note that 'proof' of it being fake (like the reference just added) isn't the same as showing that it's received criticism, and a blog post is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (see: WP:SELFPUB. The tags requesting clean-up have been on that section for quite a while, and I think it's time to either fix it or lose it. Wibbble 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over a month and there's been nothing to back up the claims in the criticism section, so I've removed it. I don't think it should be reinstated without suitable references for the claims - specifically that there's claims that it's all fake and gives real criminals ideas. Wibbble 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the now removed text but there's a report on BBC.co.uk about a man who tried to copy a scam seen on the show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6601855.stm

Mr Goodbyte 16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the show, but it's obviously full of stooges and fake 'setups'. I don't doubt most of the scams are based on real scams, but plenty of the filmed ones are obviously fake. They go to the bother of setting up 'hidden' cameras in enclosed spaces, but then a proper TV camera pans around the place, or they have close up high quality shots that aren't possible without the person knowing they're being filmed. The guy's blog photos (including the one with the TV camera directly behind where he was 'conned') make this obvious. The show's claims that all filmed scams involve unaware members of the public are misleading.

I know what you mean. On yesterday's show (S04E04) the mark that Paul was playing gin with was a very memorable contestent from Balls Of Steel (The Alex Zane Lying Game segment). Hmmm. (PseudoNym, not logged in) 89.243.232.105 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this back in, hope you don't mind. The author did post the link via an anonymous proxy, but that's simply because he's the original author of the scam text and doesn't want his IP address listed on wikipedia. If you watch the video of the scam and compare it to the original tourist bag scam text you'll see that they are identical. The earliest reference I could find was at the creation of DIzzIE's website in 2004, here. Bitplane 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting this as WP:OR and not relevant to the article. I'm not saying that this isn't accurate information, it's just not appropriate for the article. Wibbble 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, basically Diz would need to publicly accuse the show of plagurising his work so it's not original research, then this could be linked to? I don't see how it wouldn't be relevant to the article if this were the case, I would say it's a relevant piece of trivia. Are you saying you'll continue to oppose it even if the accusation of plagurism is made on the same site that hosted the original material? Bitplane 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yeah. If there was an accusation of plagiarism then that could be mentioned, although WP:RS would come into play in determining what is a 'reliable source'. It doesn't really matter if the accusation of plagiarism comes from the same site that has the 'proof' - what you'd add into the article is the accusation, not the proof. It's not wikipedia's business to prove anything. Wibbble 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, I'll let him know. Bitplane 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

is it worth mentioning some of the running gags like, their fake companies are always called TRH for the real hustle and season 1 episode2 the talent agents name was frank abagnale--Numberwang 01:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the list, I can only count eleven... (Pseudonym, not logged in) 89.243.232.105 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]