Jump to content

Talk:Circus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article to do list

[edit]
  • Create articles on any redlinked skills, performers, circus owners.. etc
  • Expand history section
  • Organise circus skills into hierarchical list, realted skills together under parent skill or more general term. (Note: In large part this has already been done. See the Handbooks section at SimplyCircus.com for a well thought out layout for exactly this.)
  • write paragraphs for some of the most important things on these lists, save the lists here on talk if removed
  • eventually, when lists are organised, convert to proper list of entries and move them out
  • redirect alternate spellings
  • cross reference... this article has no real related article section


An event in this article is a January 9 selected anniversary

Missing Information:

[edit]

-Anyone knows the song of the circus, the one more well known?


Stars and Stripes Forever, aka the Disaster March. It's only played in the circcus when something has gone wrong


i thought it was called entrance of the gladiators

See the article on Julius Fucik for the refrerence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.107.242 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--> make sure you add the Kantimirov Family who put together the Cirque-Horse stunt show (www.CirqueNiagara.com) 1st russian cirque show in canada (stationary)

--> Stephen Sondheim's Send in the Clowns works as a circus song, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Circus (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--> "Isn't it rich? Are we a pair? Me here at last on the ground... You in mid-air. Where are the clowns?" Joe Circus (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

[edit]

This article and the realted constellation needs some good work and patience. It will eventually, I am sure, become a featured article, and the more help, the better. If you are reading this, maybe you are one of the people who would like to help take this on as sort of an unofficial project? I am adding my name here to what I hope will be a long list of enthusiastic circus lovers worldwide, who are going to focus a few minutes each week at least to bringing this article up to featured article quality:

  • Pedant 21:38, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
[edit]

I just put back a links that someone removed, and I added several additional links to the external links section. All of the links I added have relivant content. In the case of the link I put back (simplycircus.com) it has a huge amount of content on it, including whole books on various aspects of the circus. That site is linked to from many of the pages in this constilation. If you feel the need to delete one of these links, please post here with your reasoning for doing so.

    • Solipsist, I would recommend you check that site again, as you seemed to have missed the very important part of the site noted by the OP. The home page is obviously related to the operation of their business, which isn't surprising, really. I would also agree that its a bit, oh shal we say, lacking in design? Still, the OP noted that the site has lots of books on circus on it, so lets take a look. I don't care about a teenage group so skip the first link. I'm not going to buy any classes from a company in a town I have never heard of, so skip second link. I would say it's the third link on the page that is most important to us. That link brings us to the section with the tutorials and textbooks on circus arts the OP noted and I have to admit enough information on and related to the circus that I have been lost in it for a few hours now. I juggle, and as a juggler I found the section on juggling and manipulation skills to be fairly good. Being allergic to latex myself, I found the 'latex alternatives FAQ' to be quite informative. Other than that latex FAQ, I don't see a lot of original content in this section, but it is a decent list of links to sites for learning all these things. The section on what they call 'equilibristic' skills is very good. I like the stiltwalking book, though I would like to see it go into more advanced topics like they do in the walking globe book (which is by far the best thing I have ever read on the subject, though I think the few pages in 'Circus Technique' is about the only other thing I have ever seen written on walking globes). The aerial arts section also seems quite good. I admit that the 'Aerial Arts FAQ' goes beyond me (I am not a trapeze person) but its like a 30 page document with all sorts of stuff on aerial arts. Going back to the home page of the site, I would say just skip the next 7 links, but you might want to check out the search engine thing they have (I will play more with it later). Now, I'm not sure if we should be listing the tutorials page or the companies home page, but I do think they should be listed.
      • I took a look at this site - I have been meaning to since I saw Steven Santos present at the 2007 American Youth Circus Festival. I learned a lot about formalizing my own teaching pedagogy during that presentation. As a circus arts teacher, this site is the most extensive resource on circus arts I have ever seen. I really wish more schools would put research like this online. I added it to the article, and then had to revert the edit of Bob98133.

Bob, if you had actually bothered to read the site (seems to be a recurring issue when linking to this site...) you would have seen that (1) its the official site of Simply Circus, a fairly well-known circus school (at least among the youth circus world); (2) it is a very well documented site (the conferences section documents every major circus industry conference of at least the past 5 years; The theses page is arguably the most extensive collection of abstracts, citations and links to circus related theses ever assembled - it dates back to the 1940's; the skills stuff on the site is truly amazing.

So bob, would you care to explain how exactly is a link to a single thesis better than a link to a well ordered collection of theses put out by a major circus school? "per—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.241.74 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me folks, but I had a lengthy look at that site and IMHO it has NO content -- it is basically a link list with some YouTube and a wiki which requires people to log in. It's a rip-off. I'll remove those links again.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am the Director of Simply Circus and the author of the site in question. The Simply Circus community site is designed to make it easy for the students of Simply Circus to find good information on circus. If others find it useful, I think thats great. If not, thats fine too. I do take offense to having someone call my site a "rip-off" because I restrict some content to my paying students, and given that the site has literally thousands of pages of text hosted on it I also take offense to the "no content" comment, but I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Mark, it was a pleasure meeting you at AYCO. I thank you for trying to post a link to my site, and for your email telling me about this thread, but honestly, let it go. By and large wikipedia editors are not people with any connection to the circus industry. They are not people with any real understanding of circus, yet they feel justified in going on as if they did. Attitudes like those of Raven, Bob and Solipsist are very prevalent here, and from what I see, it only gets worse each year. People with no connection to the industry, no real education or experience in the ring are the ones making the choices of what content to in this and other circus articles (hence why so much bad information exists in this article, the clown article and so many others). In the end it's not those that know what they are talking about, but those with the most time are the ones that win these fights on wikipedia. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time than fight like this, and I suspect you do as well. SimplyCircus (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spent at least 30 minutes trying to find useful content on that site. I remember finding a few PDFs. So, I didn't mean to offend anyone, but yes, to me it really looks like a rip-off. Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, links to SimpyCircus should not be on Wikipedia.
Sorry for any "attitude"
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We restrict our wiki to our students. Sorry if that offends you, but I know of few schools that open up their internal database to the world. And no, you can't buy access to that database - as a matter of fact, we don't sell anything on our site except for classes. I know how hard it is to find useful information on that site - I know that the abstracts page (a resource that the Circus Historical Society has featured a few times now) is devoid of content if you skip all of the abstracts and theses on it; I know the section on conference proceedings (featured in industry newsletters) has nothing worth looking at if you skip all of the handouts from all of those workshops; I know the Aerial Arts FAQ is useless if you skip the 60+ pages on aerial arts stuff. If you don't like my site, don't link to it. If you don't see valuable information on it, don't link to it.
So, SimplyCircus, you are upset because people are objecting to you promoting your own pay-for-content website? And you feel that the information you have posted is better and more informed than anything on Wikipedia? So, if you care about Wiki, why don't you go through your wonderful website and pick out references to include in the article (ones that other editors can review without paying)? That way you would be improving the Wiki instead of self-promoting your website (which is a Wiki policy violation anyhow). You also seem upset because you believe this article is written by people who are ignorant about the circus? It seems to me that someone who is not as well-informed as you about the circus would make a better editor on this subject, since we only have documented sources to use, whereas you already know it all, so may not be as careful in your references. It also seems that since you represent the circus industry that you might have a biased point of view on this subject. And yes, 71.174..., a single reference to a scholarly work is far better than a POV link farm. Simply Circus is NOT an appropriate reference for Wikipedia. I agree with Raven on this. Bob98133 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I object to people expecting me to give away everything, including the stuff I am not selling, and then use that as the basis for attitudes like this one. (for the record, you can't buy access to the wiki, you can only get it as a student).
About a year ago I did go over numerous circus articles in wikipedia and corrected a lot of bad information. I even took parts of articles out of our wiki and used them as a basis for wikipedia articles. You know what happened? It didn't take long for the correct information to get replaced with the same bad information that I already corrected. Why should I go back and recorrect the same things every few weeks? My time is better spent writing articles and resources that I don't need to police all the time.
You accuse me of having a biased point of view because I work in the industry. Biased towards what? Teaching safety? Do you accuse other teachers of having a biased view for working in a field when you don't agree with them?
I don't even know why I came back to read this, but as far as I am concerned the two of you have proven my point for me. Drive an expert away in favor of two people who have said they don't know a thing about what they are writing, and use justifications like the one above. This is why I stopped contributing to wikipedia, and what will ultimately cause its downfall.

SimplyCircus (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This conversation is, as far as I am concerned not productive. So I will leave you today with a series of specific questions. Your answers will be interesting.

Question #1: Link 1: http://community.simplycircus.com/research/thesis_papers.htm

Description: Citations, abstracts and when available links to full text of virtually every English language circus related thesis published since the 1940's.

Link 2: http://www.geocities.com/glen_ryman/circus.html

Description: Thesis paper looking at two decades and two different categories of circus in Australia.


Which of these two pages is more relevant to this article? Why?


Question #2: http://community.simplycircus.com/conferences/ is a directory of conference proceeding. Most of the proceedings are hosted on this site, however a few are not. Does that make this site a "link farm"? Why? 

   2007 is the page with handouts from some of the 2007 circus conferences. All but one of these handouts are hosted on this site. Is this page a link farm?


Question #3: The Aerial Arts FAQ is linked to from many wikipedia articles on aerial arts. Please review this link and describe for us why it is not an appropriate resource to link to. Please suggest any other site on the internet with the same information as an alternative to link to.

SimplyCircus (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply Circus,
You don't get the point -- Wikipedia is about verifiable content. I work at Gröna Lund, the amusement park in Stockholm, and I know tons of stuff about it -- I'm surrounded by clowns, acrobats, and ghosts every day -- At this time we even got the CanonBallLady Jennifer around, she's from the US. But I don't add information about it without making sure that information is possible for others to verify. All the gossips I know simply don't fit. Your site and your knowledge is probably really great, but it is not usable as a reference on Wikipedia. Period.
Just for the record: I don't claim to know a lot about circus.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raven,
Thats very, very different than the site being a "rip off". Thats very different than the site "having no content".
A lot of what is on the site is primary source material. Stuff like http://community.simplycircus.com/tutorials/aerial/FABRICDATA/fabric_data.htm is the actual test results from pull tests conducted on aerial fabrics. In order verify those results, you would have to conduct pull tests (or look on the aerial arts page and see the posted results from numerous other peoples pull tests, however finding the results otherwise would be next to impossible). And yes, a lot of the time we have written the only books or documents ever written on a given subject (many of those PDF files noted above).
When it comes to the world of circus, most of what has been written has been written by people without much first hand experience. The secretive nature of the industry means that a lot of what has been written is slightly off from reality.
Having no sources is bad. Having one source is better than none, but not as good as two.
And for the record, my real name is Steven Santos, I am the director of Simply Circus, and I am an expert in the field of circus, and teaching circus skills.
(edit conflict)
Again, the links you've given above are pages that link to other sites. On Wikipedia these pages should be linked to directly, not using your site as medium. This don't mean that your site is not usable in various contexts, just that it is not the site to link to on Wikipedia.
Again, when I visited your site, I really thought of it as a rip-off. Writing this now, I'm less convinced about it. But without being able to take part of that content, it's hard for me to judge.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raven,
Linking to additional information is part of the power of the internet, not a detraction from it. The Aerial Arts FAQ for example links to many other places when we briefly cover an item, and the site has a more detailed write up on it. Some of those other articles we host, some we don't. Most FAQ's do this to one extent or another. Does that make the Aerial Arts FAQ less useful or less of a resource? I don't think so, at over 60 printed pages its still the only definitive site on the internet for aerial rigging information (and its used by just about everyone in the field at this point).
The conference proceedings page links to two or three outside virtual symposiums (why reinvent the wheel if you don't have too? or should wikipedia reinvent it?), and in one or two cases links to a handout on the presenters preferred web page as opposed to hosting every document ourselves, but then we have to follow copyright laws. We also link to the conferences official page where possible. I think you would be hard pressed to find such pages for any conference in any field that doesn't do the same (unless the conference hosts the proceedings...). Does any of that take away from what is available on the site? I don't think so, you have over 100 handouts available, as well as other conference information that isn't available any place else. That we provide access to these aditional resources makes us a link farm?
Last but not least, the thesis page has links to versions of the full thesis and the worldcat links (though that is incomplete at this time). We do host some of the theses, but have not yet gotten copyright clearance to host more of them. On the other hand, the vast majority of the abstracts and citations we have posted are just not available any place else. In some cases our library has the only known copy of the theses, so its a little difficult for others to verify it. In some ways I understand the objection to UMI links, I wrestled with that one, but in the end I chose to tell people where they can get it, via ILL or buy it, rather than let them struggle with that. Thats an editorial choice I made on one of my websites. If wikipedia does not like it, then say specifically thats what you don't like and don't link to it. It is far too common for editors to make statements like the ones you and bob have made in this case that do not reflect what is really going on, and ultimately serve no other purpose than to drive away an expert in the field.
Raven, I am glad that you are listening and rethinking your position, its more than the vast majority of WP editors I have run across would do, and I give you a lot of credit for it. I don't honestly care if WP links to my site or not, but the accusations made against me and my website do bother me. If nothing else, I hope that you will be more careful when making such accusations in the future. SimplyCircus (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SimplyCircus, identifying yourself as an expert and revealing your name is great, but it's not verifiable, so no point. If you want to add referenced information to an article, please do so. Please cite references from their source, not just add external links to your web site. It would be like adding [www.nytimes.com] as a reference for everything. Sure the info is probably there somewhere, but the idea is that a link should go directly to the referenced info, not to a page full of links, or thesis, or ads. As for first hand experience - it is not particularly valuable for editing, since it comes with a bias, as you've indicated. I doubt that many reporters at the New York Times are experts on what they report, so they keep an open mind and try to deal with reputable sources. Saying that the industry is secretive, so only you know what goes on, may be true, but again, not verifiable. Please sign your comments by adding 4~'s at end. Bob98133 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bob,
If you want to verify who I am, my full contact details are on the [www.simplycircus.com Simply Circus website]. Feel free to pick up the phone, or come to a class or otherwise verify who I am.
Most reporters do specialize in a field, and the best of them have enough work experience in the field to know whats going on. The person reporting on financial issues is likely to have worked on wall street at some point in the past. The legal annalist will have some legal background. And if someone else has that experience, a good reporter will listen to it. True, smaller papers may not have those resources, but pushing them away makes no sense either. As to bias, the fact of the matter is that every human comes to the table with biases - You clearly do. Its how much those biases take shape that matter.
The industry is secretive and has been for a long time (The circus in America, 1785-1872. Raymond C. Gerhardt, M.A. St. Mary's University, San Antonio, Tex., 1948. 436 pp.). I am not the only one that knows what goes on, but at the moment, I think I am the only one that is here that does (others, please feel free to step up). WP has pushed away a great many others that tried to make corrections in this realm, and the worst part is that the status quo makes that OK.
Bob, I would be very interested in your answers to the 3 specific questions I posted above.

SimplyCircus (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SimplyCircus. I don't care who you are since it is not relevent to the topic at hand which is editing Wikipedia. You are clearly not an expert in that field (nor am I). You are correct that most reporters do have background in a field, however, they do NOT have a conflict of interest in promoting their current endeavors, as you do. I'm glad that you're the only one who knows what goes on in the circus. It must be an awesome responsibility. I have already addressed the issues you present in your questions. I'm not interested in going over the same ground again. Either participate within the constraints of Wiki or not - up to you. I've invited you to make constructive, referenced edits, but aLl you seem to want to do is promote your website. If you want to edit an article and use a paper cited on your website as a reference, I have no problem with that. If you want to external link to various lists of links and papers on your website, those links will be reverted. It's been nice discussing this with you. I'll be pleased to discuss some other issues, pages, content or edits with you, but I'm done with this discussion. Other than the editor using an IP address (coincidently from the same town you're in), no one seems to be supporting your point of view. This page might be useful to you: consensus. Goodbye. Bob98133 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Bob, your right, the issue is not subject matter expertise, or the subject of the article at all! If it had anything to do with actual content you would have answered the specific questions I asked above. You didn't do that, and you won't do that because the issue is not content, but simply wiki politics.
I want people to be able to access good information. I want people to be able to access information that is actually useful about the subject, and not just whats needed for an eighth grade report on the circus. Thats my bias bob, I am so sorry you do not share it with me.
I wish you well, and I hope to see you do a lot with this article. Maybe you will even get some of the mistakes corrected.
Oh, you have a link to the carny or carnival slang dictionary. While some of that crosses over, a lot of it has nothing to do with circus, so you might not want that particular link. On the other hand Geoff Stevens has an excellent book on UK circus terminology out. Circusnews.com, and NICA have circus dictionaries with more content in them (circusnews's dictionary is US centric, NICA is Australia centric).
You have an off-site link connected with the International Circus Festival of Monaco that you may want to correct.
As for the citation about Gypsies and circus, look up the name Hermann Arnold and the book "FAHRENDES VOLK" - it traces Roma (or wasit Sinti/Manush?) gypsy families and their connection with show business and specifically itinerant performances (Arnold has over a dozen books to his credit that all go along these basic lines).
Cirque nouveau started in 1960's, not the 70's (by 1966 Hovey Burgess had already founded Circo Dell'Arte). Ernest Albrecht's book "The New American Circus" (0-8130-1364-x) traces the new circus movement in the US.
The animal section of the article covers the "The Circus Animal Working Party" but never mentions the findings of the parties chairman, nor his final report. Talk about bias and NPOV.
Over the past 25 years, many circus buildings have been erected in the United states. Those include Sailor Circuses building, the Circus City Festival building and the Circus Juventas building, not to mention the various CdS theaters that have been built.
I could go on, but I suspect I have made my point. Good luck. SimplyCircus (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict again),
God morning Simply Circus and thank you for that peer review
I really think you should make more clear on your site that the relevant content is only available to students. Clicking dozens of pages without finding useful information is very frustrating. No one is likely to recommend your site to others the way it looks at this time. Furthermore, I can see "The circus in America, 1785-1872" is clearly in your list of theses, but Google returns
No results found for "The circus in America, 1785-1872"
Results for The circus in America, 1785-1872 (without quotes):
and your site is not in that list. So, no matter if having links to your site on Wikipedia is important to you or not, you should change something over there.
Wikipedia styles itself "the free encyclpedia" because the project is about making information free. So, whatever that hidden information is about, the information about the secretive industry might have to wait a while. "I'm telling you and I'm the expert" simply don't work as a reference on Wikipedia.
To sum up: The discussion in this section is/should be about including external links to your site in this article or not, and the answer clearly is no.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raven,
We have hundreds of resources on our web site, and only one database is restricted (though next year we hope to add access to the international index to the performing arts - will you complain that we don't pay for world wide access to that?). That database contains licensed materials, student work, class notes and other protected content. In short, we are not opening that database up, so get over it. That we have such a database is not the justification you seem to think it is.
You use the lack of a google cite as the basis for your objection to that 1948 cite? Are you serious? Google is a great tool, but it is far from a complete tool, especially when looking for theses (google isn't even on the list of places Harvard recommends looking for theses). The citation itself (you know, the one I put in this thread) should be more than adequate for anyone who knows how to do a basic literature review to track it down, but since you clearly don't know how to do that, I suggest you make use of the OCLC number for the thesis (provided on thesis page, in this case the OCLC number is 16512857) and go into your local academic library to request the thesis through inter-library loan. It is available via ILL from Saint Mary's University, San Antonio, TX. when I requested it, St. Mary's charged an ILL fee for this item, and it had to go through an academic library, though that was in 2002.
Raven, you have admitted that you don't know much about the subject of circus and bob has remained silent on the issue, leading me to believe he knows little about it himself. The fact that in a very short amount of time (less than half an hour) I pointed out, cited and sourced half a dozen issues with the main article, issues that you and Bob didn't know anything about means I probably know a good deal more about the subject matter than both of you (I found 22 errors, but I wasn't pulling books out of the library to source them for this).
Get some help from someone that knows a thing or two about the industry. Learn a little about the industry before you make judgments about what is and is not valuable information. From where I sit, your ignorance on the subject of the main article is striking. SimplyCircus (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading

[edit]
SimpyCircus,
My simple Google test was just to show you that there is a general problem with your site: Google can't see it or is ignoring it -- not even a simple string search on the content freely available returns anything. This talk page is supposed to be about improving the article in question. Use for example Template:Harvard citation to cite your sources.
/ Raven in Orbit (t|c) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We recently reorganized our web site. We moved content from a number of domains over to community.simplycircus.com. The theses page was re-crawled a few weeks ago, but it usually takes google 45ish days or so to catch up when we move content.
If you want a better test, choose a circus topic and research that with google. You won't get far before hitting simply circus pages (rolling globe, aerial fabric, aerial lyra, flag spinning, the list goes on and on). Even better than that, research a specific circus topic without touching our sites, and then compare that with what you get using the information in our site. SimplyCircus (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I've marked this article as "requiring cleanup", I suppose with a similar attitude to the above. The Cleanup procedure requests that I write a note here on why, so:

  • The first part of the article is just a load of lists
  • The middle is entirely taken over by a discussion of juggling, placed at the same document-level as other acts
  • The quasi-rant against animal acts, while I may agree with it, doesn't fit in with the rest of the article.
    • Agreed, the rant should be removed. Rammer 11:51, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
      • I removed the rant, and replaced it with a more NPOV bit. Anyone know if their is a more apropreate article in the encyclopedia somewhere we could like to for coverage the (for lack of a better term) rant?
  • Removed thread on cleaning up skills area. Skills moved to circus skills page.

Breaking out large sections

[edit]

Anyone with the energy is welcome to start breaking the lists into paragraphs, and the juggling section should be broken out to separate articles... any section that grows too large should be broken out to separate articles in fact. try not to lose any text when shortening the sections, you could dump them on the discuss page for the appropriate articles.

I'm focusing on the juggling part for the next few days.Pedant 2005 July 6 20:39 (UTC)

Maybe animal cruelty or something for the animal rant? I didn't see it, and I don't have time to look for it right now. There maybe should be a paragraph that mentions animal mistreatment, as the circus is one of the areas where animals are sometimes horribly treated, though, I have to say that not all circuses mistreat animals, if you can excuse keeping an animal in a cage. In some circuses, the animals are treated like rock stars. Pedant 2005 July 6 20:39 (UTC)

Guys and gals, I just want to make the point that omitting to mention the mistreatment of animales in circuses is a "point of view" - talking about the positives only and not mentioning the negatives. Watch some of the Ringling Bros elephant training videos for some education.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anon15 (talk • contribs) 20:22, March 12, 2007 (UTC)

Chapeaugraphy

[edit]

Originated in vaudeville, and this could use a more complete description, maybe a mention of the 'Trouble Wit' (or whatever the spelling is) prop? Anyone know of any famous hat manglers? (hat mangler is the clown expression for a chapeaugrapheur) Pedant

Romany Gypsy

[edit]

There is a lot of Gypsies in Circus show biz right? - NO there are not.

A few European Gypsy families became involved in the circus, but they are a tiny minority among the circus community. However, in some cases the great fame of particular families may give a different impression; for example the Bouglione family in France, who proudly boast their Romani ancestry. 87.242.138.74 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the Abuse of Circus Animals

[edit]

I see where someone is submitting legitimate links on the abuse of animals at circuses but another is deleting them. Hopefully this will not be another case of censorship on Wikipedia. 66.14.116.114 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited some of the section on animal abuse to try to bring it a little more in line with a neutral point of view. The section is probably still biased against animal acts, but I think it is a little better now.Ms408 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDH, I reverted your earlier edit because it changed "animal acts and abuse" to "animal acts and" and also included (and still does) the words "Insert non-formatted text here" with nothing thereafter. This seemed odd to me. Also simply having the words "animal acts" does not accurately convey all of the information found in that section. I am removing the cleanup tag as well as I believe its placement there is itself a biased action. Just because one doesn't like the info in an article is not grounds for placing a tag. About your contention that the title is POV, the title is appropriate as it covers not only general info about animal acts, but also sourced and factual information about animal abuse in circuses. As evident from the cites abuse is a big issue for circus acts, thus it deserves to be in the article. As Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewsays Facts ... are not Points Of View. In a similar discussion on another talk page for a different article I read the following apt comments and reproduce them here, "Sometimes the facts aren't flattering" for example, "Some tax protesters have objected to the very use of the term tax protester to describe a person who makes a legally frivolous argument about Federal income tax law, despite the fact that tax protester is the term uniformly used by the courts -- in formal decisions -- to describe such a person. Why? Because the term has negative connotations they don't like. The fact that a term or a fact has negative connotations for someone does not necessarily mean that the reporting of that term or fact in Wikipedia represents non-neutral point of view. When a person does something that does not result in a flattering description, that person cannot reasonably complain when the result of that conduct is reported. Neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean deleting "negative" information. Neutral point of view means presenting both negative and positive information in a way that lets the facts speak for themselves." Also this from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly" Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. If you have further issues please discuss it here first. Thanks. 63.196.193.87 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The naming of the section as animal acts and abuse, clearly expresses your POV that all circuses that use animals abuse them. There is no evidence of this so the section should just be called animal acts. Further the section is a mess and needs to be cleaned up, see the MoS.--Peta 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in that subheading does it say that "all circuses that use animals abuse them"? It's merely a heading summarizing some of the information found in that section. As such it is entirely appropriate. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style which you link to above says Sub-headings help readers get an overview of the article and find subtopics of interest.
On the other hand, says HSUS, The Humane Society of the United States opposes the use of wild animals in circuses and other traveling acts. Because cruelty to animals is inherent to such displays, we seek to end such uses of wild animals. Note the word "wild" there not "all", as I said in the article "...the use of animals, especially wild animals, ought to be disallowed in circuses." In other words, even without evidence overt acts of abuse (e.g. beatings etc.), people knowledable about animals and animal abuse believe that violently taking wild animals from their native environments and families, making spend their lives chained up, confined to tiny cages, constantly on the road and performing stupid tricks for the amusement of people in their small amounts of "free" time is "inherently" unnatural and abusive (go figure). This may be their POV, but it's one which is allowable in Wikipedia. Also remember, circuses are a holdover from a time when doing the same thing to people (slaves, "freaks") was also acceptable. While some places do mention "animals" in general, usually it's wild animals they are most concerned with.
Further, overt acts of animal abuse of various sorts is a verifiable, historical fact at many circuses, and Facts ... are not Points Of View Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And how is the section "a mess" that needs to be cleaned up? Please don't censor factual information under the guise of editorial purity. Wiki etiquette is to discusses your changes on the talk page before. 63.196.193.248 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating NPOV; there is no evidence to suggest all circuses with animals abuse them- naming the section as you propose implies that. The section is also still a mess.--Peta 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, Where in that subheading does it say that "all circuses that use animals abuse them"? Where in that section does it say "all circuses that use animals abuse them"? It is merely a heading SUMMARIZING information found in that section. It is YOUR POV that the subheading implies that all circuses with animals abuse them. Again it is entirely appropriate that the subheading actually summarize content found in that section. And again, you have not shown what you think the "mess" is. 63.196.193.173 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, it immediately associates the use of animals in the circus with abuse; which is not the case. Abuse is one aspect of animal acts in the circus.--Peta 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you just INCLUDE information that you feel demonstrates other non-abuse of animals in circuses rather than trying to stigmatize a section with a tag etc. just becasue it tells a truth your uncomfortable with or don't want others to know about? 63.196.193.173 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate that the section needs cleanup. There is an issue with the naming of the section, as I have gone over already. --Peta 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDH or Peta or whatever, as far as I can tell YOU are the one who placed the cleanup tag. I've disputed that, therefore there is debate that the section needs cleanup. If you feel that the section needs cleanup STATE what it is specifically that you think needs cleanup. The issue of naming of the section I dispute as well and have stated my arguments with Wiki sources. You have used only your POV to argue from. IMO you are abusing your editing priviledge. 63.196.193.173 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are abusing the open editing policy of Wikipedia to push your POV. The section does not conform to MoS standards- hence the cleanup tag; and labeling the section as you want is just pushing your own biased POV. --Peta 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now others are doing your censoring for you, again without good reason. I have given ample reason for my edits, you none. Why not call for a mediator then? Don't expect you'd be interested in that though. 63.196.193.173 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Okay, let the record show that I tried reasoning, I provided Wikipedia policy references and in fact I've provided sources for everything I've stated. PDH has supplied nothing but his/her own POV. Sad. 63.196.193.173 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, the title is most definitely biased, as the title links circuses to animal abuse. It is considered best practice to not have such titles. "Treatment of animals" etc, is more NPOV as it does not put thoughts in the reader's mind in the title. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I've been selectively denied editing of the article. Silly. All can rest assured that I wont. While I don't think the disputed title is in any way biased, "Treatment of animals" works for me. Please so edit. 63.196.193.173 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just saw this section as I was about to mention my recent addition to the "Animal Acts" section. While I agree that the title does not need to be changed I do feel information was missing. I added information I felt was essential to that section.--Amadscientist 06:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the article's semi-protected status

[edit]

I'm not using an anonymous user ID and I still can't edit this aticle. And I doing something wrong here?Ms408 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected rather than semi-protected. But it is now unprotected so you should be able to edit. --Jon186 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. I was disambiguating Gypsy, and was not able to disambiguate the entry in Circus in the ancient world because of the edit protection. Could an administrator disambiguate this link?--HarryHenryGebel 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now unprotected; I have set gypsies to point to Roma people which I think/hope is correct. --Jon186 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jon!--HarryHenryGebel 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this section was added without a reference and is of concern, perhaps the disputed reference to Roma|Gypsies could be replaced with something like "itinerant performers" thereby avoiding possible offence or inaccuracy.Bob98133 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the word Gypsy has traditionally indicated Romanies. However, its legal meaning now defines any person who lives exclusively in their mobile home / caravan wherever it happens to be, and who thus has no fixed address. This law specifically excludes travelling showmen (= Carnival operators) or members of a circus. 87.242.138.74 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, but please I don't thank you when using the word Gypsy loosely.
Did you know that Gypsy not only in the UK but the whole world references the Roma people.
We are not Romanies, we are not Roman. We are Roma.
Words are powerful things in how we use them.
Your so called legal definition... or what I would call a loose legal definition talks of mobile homes and caravan...
A proper legal definition of what I would understand would be 'persons of nomadic habit of life whatever there race or origin, but does not include members of an organized group of traveling showmen or performances engaged in traveling circuses traveling together as such'
From what i see and know... Tieing the Roma people up with your missuse of words whether conciously pointed or with unconcious ignorance crosses my Roma eyes and boils my Roma blood.
It's a blatant miss use and in my Roma mind racist! Tommyonewheel (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

animal acts again

[edit]

I edited the animal acts section. I know I took out some sections that were already there. As it was there was one paragraph about animal acts and 4 paragraphs about animal abuse. I trimmed down the stuff on abuse and added some more general information on animal acts. It isn't enough and the section still needs to be cleaned up.Ms408 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you think the section is unbalanced you NOT remove information or links on abuse which is documented fact and should not be removed because it is unpleasant, but ADD info and links on the "positive" use of animals that you may find. 4.246.204.123 03:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typically I'd agree, but we don't need a listing of every example of animal abuse, particularly given the number of links in the section going to webpages with that same information. I didn't remove the information because it was unpleasant, but because it was repetitive and was taking up an abnormally large section of an article that is supposed to be about the circus in general. If that much detail is needed, someone should create a seperate article about the treatment of animals and reference it on the circus page, but I'm afraid I don't have either the time or knowledge of the subject, I just want to avoid an unseemly ideological kludging from either side in this article.Ms408 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should lock this page--Hailey 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put in a request for semi-protection. Since most of the trouble is coming from anonymous or newly subscribed users, hopefully, that'll put an end to it.Ms408 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protect status was denied by Voice of All. I'll keep an eye on the article and try to just revert the outright nonsense. As far as the animal rights issues that keep coming up, would anyone object to my creating a seperate article for animal welfare in the circus? We could keep a small section in the Circus article proper, and then have a link to the subarticle. Let me know what you think.Ms408 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fork of limited usefulness, we already have extensive coverage on animal rights - there might already be something on Wikipedia about animals in circuses wrt animal rights. --Peta 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for a page that covered that particular topic, but I haven't found one yet. I'm not thrilled with the idea of creating an article with such a narrow topic, but its been the solution before when a trivia or special interest section threatens to overwhelm an article. Whether it was a good solution, though, I suppose is a different matter.
There is already an article on generic animal cruelty, although it could do with a fair bit of editing. Do you think a movement of the animal welfare concerns on this page to that one would be useful? We could create a link from Circus to that subheading in the Animal Cruelty article. Hopefully that will leave everyone feeling that their perspective has been expressed without burying this article in circular debate.Ms408 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a section like "Cruelty to animals in film making" about the circus to animal cruelty article is probably a good solution. --Peta 04:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll get to work writing it up, and if no one objects for the next few days, I'll make the edits to both pages. (Then everyone can get to work objecting to those.)Ms408 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Circuses since it is probably these people forcing the 'issue'. Yes, objecting - I always worry about articles getting warped by the introduction of too much material from just one aspect of the topic. Like when someone added a full page of Christopher Reeve jokes to that page - warped. Shenme 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the circus section to cruelty to animals. I tried to clean the section up before adding it, but it is still a fairly mangled section, and you can tell it is the result of an edit war.Ms408 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the animal abuse paragraphcs from Animal acts into a new heading i made which is "controversy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.212.140 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Someone might want to go through this article for red links - there's lots. Bob98133 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this debate was a year ago, but that the article on the place of animals in the circus (whatever its title) has still been allowed to remain a diatribe against their use rather than a historical / contextual overview of their part in the history of the circus. Questions re their inclusion are relevant; but the overuse of specific and lengthy examples presents an unbalanced POV rather than an informative note. The answer is not to add opposing examples, as suggested above, but to reduce the present bias. I add that, when I added 'balancing' material some time ago, it was repeatedly deleted even though I was careful to limit myself to factual additions. 87.242.138.74 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Royal / Loyal

[edit]

In France the host is always called Monsieur Royal. Is there a similar thing in English?

Yes, generally the host is called the Ringmaster though some circus shows have no specific ringmaster or in some cases the ringmaster has a distinct identity as part of the show. bondolo (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the 'host' of French circuses is called Monsieur Loyal, not Royal. Several men from the Loyal family of circus performers became Ringmasters, so their family name became the generic in France. 87.242.138.74 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Does anyone object to an external link to www.circuses.com in this article? Or it might fit under animal acts somewhere. The website, even though it is by PETA, gives factsheets and schedules of many circuses, videos of animal treatment. PETA claims it can document the information, and even though circuses.com definitely has a POV it's really no more so than circusnews.com, or Barnum Museum. Bob98133 13:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Uniformist"? What is it?

[edit]

Does anybody know the translation of the following Russian article: ru:Униформист (Google translation? What is the name of this profession in English? Is it "uniformist" or something else? Esn 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be usher: some who serves the audience, AND also the artists. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everybody!

[edit]

I've started a new WikiProject all about this topic,Wikipedia:WikiProject Circus Maybe we can clean up the articles and try to stop attacks from the Animal rights folks.

moooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.87.101 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all i needed to find was the origin of the three ring circus (for a paragraph in my homeschool co-op class) but i can't find it anywhere! for crying out loud, people! i really don't need to know about a circus in some city halfway across the country, i need info on the actual process. no offense of copurse- this is still a cool site to go to for info, and ill keep using it! p.s. did anybody see the picture of the day? it was a tesseract- a 4-d cube. WAY cool. 69.4.100.160 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Shippo69.4.100.160 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, and who said' moooo?!' thats very funny.

[edit]

oh, and a quick p.s.- i agree- all the animal rights stuff has got to stop. i also think it's pretty unfair, but whining about it online won't help anything. get off your computer and do something about it if you think its so cruel. (which i guess it is, but im not gonna get into that here-_-') 69.4.100.160 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Shippo69.4.100.160 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears Album Disambiguation

[edit]

The Britney Spears album Circus has been added and removed repeatedly as a disambiguation special case. If you are in favour of the album receiving special mention in the disambiguation message please describe here why the normal disambiguation doesn't suffice. Don't just re-add it! bondolo (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are many other disambiguations for Circus, and a Britney Spears album does not merit special mention here. Mfield (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lead photo?

[edit]

Is there some reason why there's no lead photo here? Either the Lion Tamer or Trapeze Artist lithos would be pretty good...

[Looks in Commons] Hah -- some good stuff. I'll lead with one of the Faroe Circus stamps, but am open to others. The Seurat File:Georges Seurat 019.jpg is also nice. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference only

[edit]

A new book has been published concerning the Circus of Pepin and Breschard, possibly the first American circus, 1807-1815. For more information, www.CircusRider.org 76.251.212.202 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:An elephant on just 1 foot in Circus.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:An elephant on just 1 foot in Circus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

circus tent

[edit]

it needs either an article or a section. circus tents have changed some over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

[edit]

Perhaps a bit of mention is due for the Greek circuses which preceded Roman (not just etymologically). ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC) P.s.: please archive obsolete posts - it takes forever to scroll to the bottom. ;)[reply]

And where are your sources? As I know, archaeologically speaking, a Greek circus is never existed, while you can find over 200 Roman arenas in Asia, Africa and Europe!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.29.200 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circus. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description of PETA is biased

[edit]

Look, PETA sucks, and we all hate them. I get it. But calling them "extremist" or even "highly politicized" is ridiculously biased for an encyclopedia page. Given how much this section has already been discussed, this looks like vandalism more than honest editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.154.6 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless, the "highly politicized extremest" wording is unsourced, so I removed it. Had it been wp:reliably sourced, it would be another matter. Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Added To History Section

[edit]

Added more information about the creator and origin of the circus in the history section. Krystal C871 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit because the section already mentioned Astley and the complex history of the circus. Astley is mentioned in the lead and there is a linked article for Astley. If you want to expand this section please do so but make sure it is sourced and does not duplicate information already present Robynthehode (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animals and UNDUE, again

[edit]

I'm new to looking at the page, but I concur that (despite agreeing whole-heartedly with their message), the animal cruelty/law change content has become wildly UNDUE compared to the topic of all circuses, across history, including all aspects.

Since it's been determined in the past that UNDUE is based off the current state of an article, not some "potential max coverage" state, it can't just remain in the hope that in a few years someone will even it out.

It's obviously a legitimate topic, and I particularly dislike to see valid information removed. Thus:

What are thoughts on splitting it off to be a new article, with a fairly large summary section (probably 20-25%, rather than the normal 10-15%), where these concerns can be put to bed? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear Yes I think this is a good idea. It will allow the animals and circuses topic to expand without any ongoing debate about undue coverage with enough in the main circus article to have reasonable coverage of the animal issue which is a significant aspect of circus history. The link to the standalone article will allow those readers who wish to go into more depth. Are you suggesting you will do this? Robynthehode (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robynthehode I can take a look on Monday or Tuesday if there's no absence of consensus here. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that sections Circus#Controversy and laws and associated sections be split into a separate article called Circuses and animal cruelty. The content of the current page exceeds the size for splitting and these sections are large enough and notable enough to make their own page. Comments please. If there are no comments within a month I will boldly split the article Robynthehode (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robynthehode: I support your splitting proposal. It merits a page on its own, and in the current page the information is very diffuse and fragmented. Legislation and international animal welfare standards deserve a section in this split-off article, and I'm willing to contribute to that. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: Thanks for your post. How do you want to proceed? If you have experience splitting articles please do so as I have very little. I suppose the first decision is what to call the new article before the split is done. I am open to alternatives to the one I initially proposed. Robynthehode (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the section-split template to the right section. Edderiofer (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some material copied from Circus#United_States into Tyke_(elephant) article

[edit]

On 13 February 2023, I copied some text (with the accompanying footnotes) from Circus#United_States into Tyke_(elephant)#Background. Mksword (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of circus needed

[edit]

I think we should create this based on the history section here, which then could be shortened. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Some things just grow by incremental edits and get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 7 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
It would seem preferable if one of the article regulars could look at these. I have not been involved with the article. My solution of removing from the bottom a desired number might. I have found that oftentimes links stray from the guideline. Inclusion would contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. "Curlie", in the "about" section, states: Curlie strives to be the largest human-edited directory of the Web. However, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Links moved from article

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circus&oldid=1251935367"