Talk:Circus

Article to do list

 * 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:
-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)

--> 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)


 * --> "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)

Participants
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)

Arbitrary heading

 * 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)


 * 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)

Cleanup
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
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
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
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)

Info on the Abuse of Circus Animals
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)

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)


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

A question about the article's semi-protected status
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)
 * 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)

Gypsies link
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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, Jon!--HarryHenryGebel 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

animal acts again
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * See also People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals 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)

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)

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)


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

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)

Monsieur Royal / Loyal
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)

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)

External Link to Circuses.com?
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)

"Uniformist"? What is it?
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)
 * It appears to be usher: some who serves the audience, AND also the artists. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey everybody!
I've started a new WikiProject all about this topic,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)

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)

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

Britney Spears Album Disambiguation
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)
 * 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)

No lead photo?
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)

For reference only
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)

circus tent
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)

Greek
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. ;)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214203639/http://www.komedykollective.com:80/skewedcircus.html to http://www.komedykollective.com/skewedcircus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414221351/http://www.history-magazine.com/kk/circuses.html to http://www.history-magazine.com/kk/circuses.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528102028/http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/2004_HSUS_Circus_Incidents.pdf to http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/2004_HSUS_Circus_Incidents.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726045752/http://www.peta.org:80/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=66 to http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=66
 * Added tag to http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/documents/circus-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925120348/http://www.cirquedusoleil.com:80/en/about/intro/intro.asp to http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/about/intro/intro.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108114017/http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/circus_tour/the_first_circus/default.php to http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/circus_tour/the_first_circus/default.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/about/intro/intro.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.fve.org/uploads/publications/docs/fve_position_on_the_travelling_circuses_adopted_final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018151207/http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/circus_tour/default.php to http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/guided_tours/circus_tour/default.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Description of PETA is biased
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)
 * 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503230859/http://www.circusinamerica.org/public/people/public_show/67 to http://www.circusinamerica.org/public/people/public_show/67
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416104435/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Info Added To History Section
Added more information about the creator and origin of the circus in the history section. Krystal C871 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Animals and UNDUE, again
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Splitting proposal
I propose that sections Circus 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Some material copied from Circus into Tyke_(elephant) article
On 13 February 2023, I copied some text (with the accompanying footnotes) from Circus into Tyke_(elephant). Mksword (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

History of circus needed
I think we should create this based on the history section here, which then could be shortened. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)