Talk:Bread and Puppet Theater

mention of influence on protest repertoire
this article lacks mention of the appearance of B&C puppets at alter-globalization and other demonstrations. they have become part of the global protest culture repertoire. lack of reference to this makes the section on republican convention non-sequitur. up to that point it sounds like they are only a theatre troupe. Crabclaw (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

printed resources, references
http://www.sagecraft.com/puppetry/papers/Schumann.html http://www.breadandpuppet.org/peter_schumann.html Crabclaw (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

POV cleanup
A bit of POV seems to have elbowed its way into this article, and clean up is in order. Its style sometimes betrays a POV of someone associated with the company, who is eager to put it in its best light, and even justify it, rather than document it. (It need not be cold and hard, of course, as it deals with works of art, which is a challenge to write about in NPOV.)

Also, the jab at Fleming smells of a grudge, providing no context or reasons. What are the facts? did she specifically say "you cannot march in the parade," or did it merely happen that Bread fell out of rotation of the six or so puppet companies that are invited? As far as I no, one needs no invitation to march. Regardless, it sounds a bit like "inside" politics.

Use of phrases like "official paranoia" need to go. It is doubtful that "attraction" of the police has anything to do with the "vivid narrative" of puppetry, but if this is indeed true, perhaps documentation should be provided, as well as the police's side of the story.

The story about the convention seems a bit apocryphal, and more facts are in order. Calling measures "extreme" is a little hard to prove as well. True as it may be, how is it provable? It does not include the police's stated reasons for their actions, nor does it explain what precipitated them. It reads like the police, out of a clear blue sky and with a mission to stamp out selected narrative forms of art, stormed into a studio with no good reason and kidnapped puppets. Dubious at best, and smacks of self-serving circular political rhetoric: "We're important because the police hate us, and they hate us because we're important, see? so we need to protest that, and look -- what do you know -- the police showed up at the protest.  The must hate the message of our puppets!"

All in all, however, it is a good article, and a wonderful subject, which would be well served by more photos, if they are available. Descriptions of the puppets, especially compared to other puppets, would be a meaningful addition to the article. paul klenk 19:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the obviously non-neutral sentence about "offical paranoia" and rephrased the discussions of the RNC and Halloween parade to be strictly factual. If you want to add more context, please feel free, but I think the current wording is clearly NPOV.  (FYI: Neither I nor, as far as I am aware, any of the other prior editors of this article have any connection with Bread & Puppet.) -- Rbellin|Talk 20:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and reply. I am copying your comments on my talk page to this page, to keep all discussion in one place. I will address all your comments below:


 * Thanks for the note about your NPOV tag at Bread & Puppet. I must say I think you've overreacted a bit, as most of what's there is strictly factual and well-sourced, but I have made an effort to clean up the few bits of notably biased language you noted ("official paranoia," etc.).  Can you explain (on the article's Talk page) why you moved it to Bread and Puppet Theater?  I find the article title Bread & Puppet preferable because (a) the group always uses the ampersand, not the "and," and (b) the article covers the Press and other activities which are not part of the theater company. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul sez:

Thanks again for your thoughts and efforts. paul klenk 22:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I do believe that most of what's there is strictly factual; I hope that any reaction I have given is for WP purposes only. Reaction, yes; overreaction, I don't see it, but invite you to draw it to my attention.  Believe it or not, I'm sometimes wrong!
 * 2) The move and name stuff: Most of the article is devoted to the theater (the first paragraph calls it a theater); the press and museum are distinct entities, and are bolded as such (and may one day get their own pages, but now the press is described as being run by puppeteers); the company often uses the word "and" -- see its official page -- so, spelled-out English is, I believe, the preferred convention.  Since B&PT does use both, and the ampersand actually appears a bit logo-like in its effect, I spelled it out.  Again, if they made consistent use, I would have as well.  You may note that throughout my re-wikification of links throughout WP, I tried to respect each author's preferred style, which itself is not consistent.
 * 3) Now that you've removed the obviously non-neutral stuff, the next job should be removal of the non-obvious non-neutral stuff (not necessarily by you):
 * 4) Lack of any context for the RNC arrests, or the other side's story
 * 5) Lack of facts about the "disinvitation" by Fleming, what "disinvitation" means, and that comment's appearance as a spiteful jab from someone inside. What does "offically appointed" mean -- the opposite of self-appointed? and why relevant -- she is the artistic and producing director, no?)
 * 6) The use of the word "radical" in para. 1 without describing where in the political spectrum these politics lie (like no one is going to figure out they're leftists -- but it's still a valid concern in an encyclopedia)
 * 7) The inclusion of over-fawning worship by its admitted "participants," rather than outside sources, especially that of Codrescu (not everyone knows that NPR praising extreme leftist theatre is like a lion praising red meat). A fixture of our subconscious?  Sez Andrei.
 * 8) The article does deal with politics and art; again, its own bias should be part of the article, because that is its very nature, but authors should cast it neutrally.
 * 9) I have carefully reflected on the issue of NPOV and am re-adding the NPOV tag, to draw attention to my on this page, and in the interest of pushing the article to a higher quality. I hope it doesn't overly annoy, but I don't do it lightly.


 * I don't really see what you perceive as conflicting with the WP:NPOV policy in the article as it currently stands, and would invite constructive edits rather than just the re-addition of the NPOV tag.   On the RNC issue, I'm not sure what "the other side" is that you want to see represented, as the article simply reports on the arrests, and I don't know what context you'd like added -- please just add what seems necessary to you.  On the Halloween parade, I don't see this as either an "inside" remark or a "spiteful jab," and in any case it is now worded neutrally and factually: the phrase "officially appointed" seemed strange to me, too, so I removed it.  I didn't write either of these sections, and don't know anything about their subjects; but feel free to find and add more context.
 * Your other points simply don't make much sense to me. If you'd like to add "left-wing" to characterize the theater's politics, feel free; but you might want to look up the meaning of the word "radical" first, as it is quite synonymous here.  And the "over-fawning worship" is in fact rather representative of the critical responses to B&P that I've been able to find; if you feel that some abstract principle of balance requires that theater criticism be divided into "pro" and "con," then feel free to search out published negative opinions of the theater's work, but I don't see how this collection of responses and notable people associated with B&P can be construed as non-NPOV.  Should the article on Shakespeare also give equal time to negative opinions of his work?  Anyway, the remarks are all quoted, not made in Wikipedia's own voice.  (By the way, Andrei Codrescu is a well-known poet and writer, not just a radio personality, and I find your aside about NPR and politics quite tangential.  Please review Wikipedia is not a soapbox and be sure you're not just trying to make a point of your own here.) -- Rbellin|Talk 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rbellin, after some more research, I have been able to establish that the changes made after most of your work was done were responsible for the POV of the article. They were lifted sometimes word for word from a TheatreMania article. This article quoted Fleming, but she was never interviewed -- only Elbow was. Also, the focus of the article was a performance preview of a later show, and the stuff about the RNC and the parade were only added as background, and as a result not researched very thoroughly. This explains the one-sided, incomplete nature of the remarks.

I made some slapdash changes and will continue to polish them up.

Regarding a few of your comments: Ending an article with gushing reviews written by the subject of the piece -- the theatre company participants themselves -- cannot be seen as anything but POV. Not POV of the author, necessarily, but who he's writing about. It is like ending an article about Ford Motor Company and quoting its executives and workers telling us how wonderful its automobiles are. We wouldn't stand for that in the Ford article; we shouldn't stand for it here.

Also, tangential as my comments may appear, we are dealing with something more than a puppet theater. It is a radical political organization and a social movement in its focus, content, mission, beliefs and attitude, and tactics. Its own view of itself as a "victim" and a "target" clearly shows in the article, but without any real perspective it seems self-serving (even if it is true). One cannot write a quality peice about this and overlook these things.

Three other factors make this more important: 1] Wikipedia is mirrored all over the Web; 2] there are very few other sources except this one and its mirrors, and 3] Bread and Puppet's own Website is woefully lacking on historical data, let alone objective data. I'll keep working. paul klenk 14:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response and for your work seeking out more context for the incidents that concerned you. I think your additions are generally quite helpful, though you've introduced some text (like "the city was still in mourning") that seems POV-suspect itself to me, and I may modify it a bit.  Regarding the "praise from participants" bit, I think my own vague wording was at fault for your confusion there, as some of the praisers are not participants in the theater.  I don't think there is such a clear line to be drawn between "insiders" and "outsiders" here, though; because the theater is a large, amorphous group that's been around since the '60s, often puts on performances involving dozens of "extra"-type performers and puppeteers, and takes as one of its missions to break down barriers between audience and performance.  It's fairly natural that someone who likes the theater and is around it a lot will occasionally participate in the performances (this is, e.g., basically what Grace Paley's involvement with it is like, in my understanding).  And I reiterate that an honest summary of various notable people's aesthetic responses to the theater has nothing to do with the WP:NPOV policy. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 was the "pretext" for the Afghan war? Tendentious. Saying it was the "reason" or "stated reason" for the war would be better.

A city in mourning
Thanks for your continued work on the article; it is beginning to shape up nicely.

I have given a lot of thought to the whole POV issue of "the city in mourning" thing; I really think it is not POV, but a basic reality of life in the city at that time (I live in NYC, by the way). '''Truly, it is no different than saying, "Two days after the 1995 blizzard, the city was still shoveling itself out from 2 feet of snow." ''' It was real; it happened. The city was stuck, dumbfounded, shattered, horrified, and shaken. The descriptors are real. Okay, they describe emotion, but emotion is also real, like an angry crowd at a riot. Crowds do get angry; cities who watched their city burning like a furnace, watched friends, families and business associates die, well, those cities mourn. The newspapers were full of obituaries, and everyone was going to funerals. We were in mourning as a city, take my word for it.

Frankly, it also says something about Bread and Puppet, too. This incident has a historical context. We historians (if we're doing this well, that's what we are) clearly and plainly state the facts, place them in context rather than hide the context, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. That's the secret of doing this well. On this page, I can call B&P insensitive, outrageous bastards for whining about having to not present their precious histrionic political show; on the main page, I can't; but what I must do there is add factual context, not shy away from it. That's what I've done.

I have been prepared to answer objections on this point, and have to ask WP'ns to deal with this reality. Imagine seeing tens of thousands of missing posters on every single street and train stations. We didn't want to take the down for weeks -- we just couldn't. We were still mourning them. paul klenk 01:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my brevity, but I have little interest in a long discussion of this phrase, and I don't think this discussion genuinely serves to help improve this article -- instead, it seems like you're looking for a place to air your own opinions (as you finally do in your third paragraph, to no Wikipedia-related purpose that I can see). Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with your contention that the phrase "the city was still in mourning" is an unbiased reflection of objective factual reality -- and I say this as a fellow New Yorker who lived in the city at that same time, so don't think me a callous outsider.  I think, rather, that the phrase is designed to further a particular political bias and justify a particular POV on the interpretation of an incident, and I don't think it's at all appropriate in anything like a "historian's" work or as a seemingly factual statement.  Please, in continuing your often very good work here, remember that Talk pages are for discussion directly related to improving the article, not for airing personal views or opinions. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Name
"Some have heard echoes of the Roman phrase 'bread and circuses' or the 1912 Lawrence textile strike slogan 'Bread and Roses' in the theater's name as well"

Surely the reference is mainly to the slogan "Bread and Peace" from the Russian Revolution? 

Soobrickay 10:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably not. The Russian slogan was more often "peace, land, and bread" (sometimes in a different order, but usually with all three).  "Bread and circuses" is a more direct reference, and "bread and roses" has always been a more popular slogan in the US.  It predates the Russian Revolution, and is even a popular song, recorded by Judy Collins, Utah Phillips, and many others. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Undoubtably Peter Schumann is familiar with the Russian phrase. His wife, Elka Schumann, is Russian. Morganfitzp 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lauds
I have changed the name of a laudatory section to "critics comments" or somesuch. This section cries out for WP:BALANCE. Putting in only nice comments from critics makes a neutral reader suspect WP:PR and WP:POV.Student7 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said a while ago above, naively "balancing" every opinion with its opposite is not what NPOV is about. If you have some citations to serious critics who disparage B&P, please add them, but the fact is that most writing on the Theater is pretty glowing. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * People like protesting pickets/demonstrators? That would be unusual! Student7 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your problem is here that no one is reading this except believers. I guess you are happy with that. Student7 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Belief" is not a relevant category with regard to critical attitudes towards a theatre company. And yes, their protest productions have been well-received and critical appraisals of the quality of the company's work has led to it being studied all over the world. They are easily one of the most significant American theatre companies working today. If you'd like to locate well-sourced negative appraisals and add that information to the article, by all means go ahead. I suspect you'll have a hard time finding much, though. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

2021 history


 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Research
— Assignment last updated by MaeMK22 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing plan
Hi there! Just to let everyone know, I'm planning on making some edits to this article. My plans are to:

- Add a section under History to discuss the theater's "Art is Cheap" concept and their funding.

- Slightly change the wording under Causes just to make it read nicer.

- Fill in some of the citations under Conflicts.

- Add some additional commentary on the theater under Critics Comments.

- And to potentially create a new section called Notable Contributers, to reincorporate the first sentence under Critics Comments (which is not critic commentary).

Thank you! MaeMK22 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)