Talk:Impalement arts

Impalement arts was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Initial comments[edit]

Sorry, haven't got the hang of messaging on here yet (took long enough to figure out the formatting). This is essentially in reply to J Milburn. I wrote the Impalement Arts entry from scratch (using sources which I hope I have fully attributed). Circusandmagicfan 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Awarded to Circusandmagicfan for possibly the best first article, and certainly best first edit, I have ever seen- impalement arts. Keep it up! J Milburn 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

It appears User:Beetstra has taken exception to the links that were included in the lists of impalement artists. I accept that some were perhaps not up to Wikipedia requierements but others were legitimate references. I will go through those lists and try to improve them. I'll aim where possible to add a little information on each artist and then give a proper citation. Circusandmagicfan 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

(PS: Dirk, I accidentally reverted your edits when adding a couple of minor additions (due to having multiple copies of the page open in different tabs) - you will see that I un-did my goof by reverting to your last edit and then re-doing the additions.)

History[edit]

I'd like to improve the history section as I feel it is a little thin at the moment. If you are interested and have information but don't have time to edit then perhaps you could post details of sources here and I will do the work. Circusandmagicfan 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Related arts[edit]

It might be helpful to mention relationships with juggling and conjuring. For example, juggling sharp/dangerous objects, especially when they are passed between and/or around a person, seems somewhat similar. And a number of magic tricks, especially large illusions, involve a visual effect of actual (or threatened) impalement by swords or bullets or whatever. Then there is Ricky Jay, who used Cards as Weapons (and wrote Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women). Mention of such connections would both differentiate this art, and place it in a larger context (circus arts, vaudeville).

In cinema, the plot of the James Bond film Octopussy involves a circus, and knife throwers are important both earlier and later in the story. While this may not be the greatest exemplar of the art, it is one of the more visible ones.

Finally, I'm curious about the shortage of Asian performers; Zen archery is certainly a related exhibition of skill, and one would think that martial arts training might produce entertainers. --KSmrq^T 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to other dangerous circus acts is partly taken care of through "See also" section and by inclusion of this article in Circus Arts category. Discussion of general connections/similarities between dangerous circus arts is probably best done in general article on circus arts. However Ricky Jay's "Cards as weapons" thing might be worth a mention somewhere - just need to figure out where.

I'll check out the details of Octopussy and add it to the "Filem & TV" section when I have time.

I'm also curious about the absence of notable Asian performers - sadly I've just not encountered any and none of my contacts in the performance world have mentioned any. I don't know about "Zen archery" - guess I'll re-read the archery article.

Circusandmagicfan 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Biographical edits by subjects[edit]

I thought people werent supposed to write stuff about themselves (I think the place it says this is WP:SELFPUB and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, although I just wrote WP:BIO in an edit sum). Anyways I just reverted some edits for that reason. Kid Zed (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Kid_Zed[reply]

I'm not sure I'm entering this response in the correct place or fashion, but here goes...

The text I entered about myself follows the criteria stipulated in the WP:SELFPUB information below. All information is verifiable.

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I have therefore "undone" your deletions.

Jackdagger (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Jack Dagger's editing DOES break both the Wikipedia guidelines. It breaks WP:SELFPUB because it is self serving. It break several parts of WP:Conflict of Interest including the following:

"It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography."

JD, you need to learn Wikipedia etiquette before you come wading in and writing stuff about yourself. I will be reverting those edits again because they are just SO against the spirit of the rules.

Kid Zed (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Kid_Zed[reply]

It seems to me that both sides of this dispute have a case. I think Jack Dagger merits inclusion on the basis that he is an established performer who has been honoured by knife throwing bodies. However writing his own entry is a classic breach of Wiki guidelines (the sort of thing that would probably get an article deleted if he was the sole subject). As a compromise I will try to write some text that is more neutral.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Safety record?[edit]

What's the safety record of these acts? Have a lot of people been injured or killed? --69.255.17.40 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any deaths. I'm aware of at least one very serious injury (Catherine Jamet of Duo Grey Arrow injured in a crossbow act) and several other injuries that came close to being very nasty. The article mentions Catherine Jamet. It also mentions the minor injury suffered by Yana Rodianova when she was assisting Jayde Hanson in a knife throwing record attempt on a TV show. Are you suggesting there should be a separate sub-section on safety? I've not thought that was necessary (I've tried to point out in the text that safety/risk is a very genuine issue eg. in the intro). I'm open to suggestions though. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Tasks to do[edit]

I'm making a start on going through all the refs to IMDB entries and converting them to the stock wiki template format - ie. {{imdb title|id=****|title=****}}. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impalement arts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Successful good article nomination[edit]

This article nomination for good article status has been promoted as of June 19, 2008. The article meets the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The article is very good and has clearly benefitted from its prior peer review, further editing and contributions and constructive criticsm by all the editors involved. This is not to say that further improvements cannot be made. If you believe that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thanks to the original editor and to all of the editors who have clearly labored hard to bring it to this status. Congratulations! Glane23 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible good article reassessment[edit]

I believe that the good article reviewer was mistaken in listing this article. First, the lead doesn't have enough content. Second, there is a ton of unsourced content. Third, IMDB is not a reliable source. Unfortunately, if the above concerns are not adequately addressed within a reasonable amount of time, then I will ask for a good article reassessment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment, and would also like to add some other issues: the fact that more than half of the article's content is in list form and that it is not MOS-compliant. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who has probably done most work on the article so far I'll try to stay out of direct debate about the merit of the GA rating (as obviously I'd want it to be of GA quality). However I'm keen to pin down a bit more detail as to the perceived shortcomings so maybe I can do something about addressing them.

I'll certainly try to develop the lead into something more substantial if that is needed. At the moment I think it would read OK as a very short standalone article describing what the impalement arts are. Can anyone indicate more specifically where it falls short of meeting the requirements of WP:LEAD and what should be included to improve things?

As for unsourced content, I'll agree there aren't citations for every single sentence but that will be the case even with featured articles. As I understand it the GA criteria only requires citations for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Are you saying there's unsupported content of that type? If so can you give me a list and I'll see what I can do.

As for IMDB, I didn't think it was quite as clear cut as "thou shalt not cite IMDB". Certainly the guidelines say trivia from IMDB shouldn't be relied on (and if there is something contentious for which I've relied on IMDB then I'll make it a priority to research alternative sources). However it appears to be established practice to reference IMDB entries where they might be relevant (if that shouldn't be done why are there templates for the purpose?). When it comes to movie and TV information it's difficult to know where to find other sources that are anywhere near as comprehensive and I've come across academic work that uses IMDB as a data source. If different sourcs are needed I'll try but some suggestions would be helpful.

As for formatting, I can try to work on rewriting some of the list-type sections into continuous text, but that will take a little time. Apart from that aspect, can you be more specific about where things are not WP:MOS-compliant?

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

To start, perhaps it's best to focus on one issue at a time. What I consider to be the biggest problem is the lack of sources. Statements that can be challenged should always have a source, and we should cite a source whenever we take information from it. This doesn't mean that we need to cite a source for each sentence; consecutive sentences supported by the same source don't need to have two citations. However, the last sentence of each paragraph does need to be cited (even if the first sentence of the next paragraph is supported by the same source). I hope this helps. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's not really much help. The GA criteria only require citations for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". I don't see any reference at all to requiring a citation at the end of every paragraph.

Can you point to specific examples of text in the article that is direct quotation, contorversial, or counter-intuitive and which lacks a cited source?

I'd have to say that overall the article seems to have quite a substantial reference section (I looked through a random sample of good articles on arts subjects and many had much smaller reference sections). Obviously I'd expect to have to develop this section further if this was ever to begin moving towards featured article status but I wonder if you aren't applying your own rather more demanding criteria rather than the actual GA criteria?

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Just about every statement can be challenged, which is why this article needs more references. I'm trying to help you out here because I'd rather see the article brought up to GA standards that see the article delisted. I can guarantee that if I brought this article to WP:GAR it would be delisted, and I don't want to do that. I have reviewed several good articles and I can say that if I had been the reviewer for this article, I would have failed it, for the reasons listed above by myself and Kakofonous. If you disagree with us, that's fine and we can just go to WP:GAR. What do you prefer? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much prefer to try to fix it. I'm working on the sections that might be construed as list-like but this will take a little time. I'm doing it offline and will post a major edit when I have it complete.

Your argument about references is another matter and I do feel you are applying your own criteria, which are not the GA-criteria. It is unhelpful to argue that "just about every statement can be challenged". If one is determined enough then every sentence in every article could be challenged. GAs and featured articles provide plenty of examples of uncontroversial passages which are not sourced. In today's featured article there is a paragraph which ends: "She was noticeably thinner in her next film, For Me and My Gal, alongside Gene Kelly in his first screen appearance. Garland was top billed over the credits for the first time and effectively made the transition from teenage star to adult actress." There is no cited source for that. There are quite a few other examples in the same article. They could be challenged but they don't seem to have been because they are presumably not contentious. Surely there are some non-contentious passages in the Impalement arts article?

It's unreasonable to effectively ask for citations for "just about every statement". That isn't the GA criteria. Can't you at least indicate a few examples of what you consider to be contentious or potentially controversial passages which lack references?

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

(<--)How about Knife throwing is the most common and well-known discipline within the impalement arts? That is a claim that certainly needs to be sourced. Or It is arguable that some sharpshooting acts fall into the category of impalement arts when they involve a performer holding up targets for a marksman. Or One of the most difficult and dangerous feats for a knifethrower. These are all obviously unsourced, contentious statements. I cherry picked these, obviously, as some of the best (worst?) examples of unsourced content, but it would be good to start by sourcing statements like these. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at least now we can start to look at specifics. I will try to go back and find the sources I was looking at when I wrote those first two sentences.

As for "One of the most difficult and dangerous feats for a knifethrower." That came from the source cited at the end of the paragraph. If needs be I can find additional sources that say this (I know that Adamovich, Heil and Schollenberger uses similar descriptions).

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

I'm not seeing any improvement, so I'm bringing the article up for reassessment. If you want to improve the article, you'll have plenty of time to do so while the article is at GAR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major re-write[edit]

I have commenced work on a major re-write. The main thrust of this is to address the criticism that too many sections have a list-type structure. I aim to incorporate relevant parts of the lists of notable artists into a new and much more substantial history section. The "fictional or artistic representations" section is also being re-written as prose. Because of the substantial nature of this re-write I am doing the initial work off-line. My plan is that once I have something reasonably complete I will upload it into my sandbox for checking before transferring it into the article.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

File:Great grossini and Rosa.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Great grossini and Rosa.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Impalement arts. 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: 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} 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impalement arts. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/gr8tcindini/knife2head.htm

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} 11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Impalement arts. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Impalement arts. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Impalement arts. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Impalement arts. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/gr8tcindini/knife2head.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405212443/http://www.wwac.com/ to http://www.wwac.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415193805/http://www.knifethrower.net/ to http://www.knifethrower.net/

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impalement arts. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210200142/http://www.thehartzells.com/ to http://www.thehartzells.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thejasters.com/main.htm

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]