This seems more like an RfD matter. One can call "X" on someone or something where X can be any of several words such as "foul", "time", "penalty", "interference", "dibs", "challenge", and possibly "out", "in", "fair", "point of order", "objection", "exception". In general, if the utterance of X is a brief speech act under some set of rules, then it may be possible to "call X on" someone. If so it would be a productive construction (not fossilized, not set). I need to check to see whether this contains a phrasal verb and whether the phrasal verb does or should appear at call on or call something on someone or whether it is just SoP. DCDuringTALK 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete They're the same. Any construction of “I call bullshit [on that]“ is sum-of-parts. Different from “I call that bullshit”, but we only define terms, not explain basic grammar. —MichaelZ. 2009-09-11 13:15 z
Convincing, yes, I don't doubt that it is an attestable phrase, but admittedly SOP. I don't know quite whether to delete it or not. I'm reluctant to quickly delete everything that appears "SOP". L☺g☺maniacchat? 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the etymological derivation from the card game Bullshit shows, I think, that this isn’t just an ordinary grammatical construction wherein the noun bullshit could be substituted with any other. What other constructions are claimed to be synonymous herewith? †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To call foul is just like to call bullshit. As is to pledge allegiance. To call foul on someone is just like to call bullshit on someone. The "call bullshit by its name" quote is irrelevant to this, but the others all seem good. That the game gave currency to one collocation wouldn't seem to change the apparent fact that the form preexisted the game, which seems to have borrowed something common in outdoor games and brought it to the word of board games, from which it has spread into broader realms of discourse. One would not have to have ever heard of the game to grasp the likely intended meaning of the speaker who uses the expression.
Is "I call bullshit" includable as a speech act? To include it would mean that almost any sentence of the the form "I hereby declare...." would be a candidate for inclusion. Would we be obliged to enter the entire US w:Pledge of Allegiance (and presumably all the other ones in their applicable languages) as a headword because it is a speech act? I hope not.
Should all player or official "calls" in games become entries? traveling (basketball); fair ball, foul ball, strike one (baseball}; intentional grounding (American football). Maybe, just like bullshit. Should whatever form is used to report the "call" be deemed an idiom? I think not. In individual cases the terms may have acquired some kind of idiomatic status, but they would seem to need to establish it on a case-by-case basis. DCDuringTALK 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But are you guys seriously taking at face value the etymology “reference” quoted above? I call bullshit on anyone who accepts Making Things Happen: Mastering Project Management as an authority on etymology. —MichaelZ. 2009-09-16 00:16 z
Delete, anyone care to actually comment on call bullshit? This is not the Tearoom you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, especially given that the person who created the entry now thinks it should be deleted/redirected. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)