Talk:The Circus (1928 film)

Re-release date
I added this text to the article: "It is unclear what year this re-release took place, as the official Charlie Chaplin website reports that it was in 1969, but numerous other sources say it happened in 1970. The newly produced music is dated 1968, as is the copyright date on the print of the reissue." Viriditas made this comment about it: "That kind of detail might qualify as a footnote, but as inline text it reads as original research. As far as I can tell, the re-release took place in a staggered manner, during 1969 and 1970." I reply:

I don't see how it reads as original research. What the text notes is that different sources say different things. Also, when you say "as far as I can tell, the re-release took place in a staggered manner" that could be right, but without a source it is OR. One of the sources mentions a December 1969 date for the deal being made for the re-release, so it is also possible that contracts were signed in December, but the actual re-release did not happen until January 1970. The bottom line is that we do not really know for certain what the year of the re-release was, and so the article should not express certainty. IO have a suggestion for an alternative wording that just might be agreeable. How about this: The film was re-released either in 1969[citations supporting this] or 1970 [citations supporting this] adding a new musical score and a recording of him singing "Swing High Little Girl" playing over the opening credits.? 99.192.59.85 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chaplin wrote the new score in 1967 (King 2002) and it was re-released in 1969 (Ede 2003, many more). The rest of what you say isn't true.  There was a 1970 re-release, but it likely took place in Europe, however, that is neither confirmed at the moment, nor incredibly important.  We already know the facts, so your changes aren't needed. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's assume for the moment that you are right and the 1969 / 1970 re-release dates note two different re-releases rather than showing conflicting information about the re-release date. If that is right, then the article should say something like "the film was re-released in 1969 and in 1970" rather than only mentioning the one re-release. So it is still worth mentioning the 1970 date, especially since there are two citations for that date. 99.192.59.85 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we only mention the initial release/re-release which is important. If you want to add the 1970 date into the film, you will need to do research and find out what that date pertains to in the literature.  The film was initially re-released in 1969 with the new score, and that's what is important.  If you think the 1970 date is important (or accurate) you will need to back it up with evidence.  For example, if you said, "if the film was released in 1969, then where was it playing?" then I would refer you to the Greenspun 1969 NYT reference. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, again if you are right that the 1969 and 1970 re-releases are just different because they are the re-release dates to different parts of the world, then those places (Europe, you speculate) did not get any re-release until 1970, which makes it notable as the first major re-release to that region. But if you are not right and the 1969 /1970 dates represent a confusion about when it really happened, then there is no reason to be so certain that 1969 is the right date. I have provided two sources that name 1970 and one of them is a scholarly article in a journal called Film History that says, "Chaplin also refused to revive The Circus until 1970...." So there is the research that there is reliable sourcing for the 1970 date. As it stands, we don't know that 1969 was the date so the article claiming definitively that it was is a mistake. 99.192.59.85 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We do know that 1969 was the correct date, and I just proved it to you with the Greenspun 1969 ref. What part of this isn't making sense? Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Previously when you mentioned "the Greenspun 1969 NYT reference" I thought you were saying that the Greenspun reference claimed that the re-release was in 1969. Now I see that what you mean is that the Greenspun reference was published in 1969, thus the re-release must have been in 1969 (that is, unless Greenspun is a time-traveller :)


 * Since the re-release was in December of the year in the first places it was re-released to, it would not be surprising if the re-release did not hit a lot of markets until 1970 (much like how many indie films today can get a limited release and slowly make their way around other markets), resulting in even scholarly confusion over the release date. But clearly, with an article published in 1969 saying that it had already been re-released, then the 1969 date is confirmed. 99.192.59.85 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenspun only confirms the year and theatre house. However AFI confirms the date and location.  See:   However, do not give up hope.   Although I do no have access to it, The Chaplin Encyclopedia appears to suggest (only in snippet views on Google Books) that there may have been an official release/premiere in London in 1970.  That's an assumption on my part, so we need people to research this, and if true, add it to the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just checked and neither my local nor public libraries have the book. You are right that the snippet looks promising, so hopefully someone with the book or access to it will come along to confirm it. 99.192.59.85 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like, I will contact the Film project. They have a British cinema task force that might be able to help, and at least one coordinator who may have access to the book. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. 99.192.59.85 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Feel free to comment there about the topic if you desire. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation from the book which lists the December 1970 London release. However, it doesn't mention the December 1989 release, it indicates a "revised edition reached the USA in January 1970." It appears the current December 1969 date works, as the book probably refers to a general release beyond the December premiere. If you need any other details, please let me know before I return the book. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Recommend removal

 * Critics consider The Gold Rush and The Circus Chaplin's two best comedies

I originally added this, but aside from Gale, there really doesn't seem to be any support for it. If anyone objects to me removing it, please say so. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Section name change
Seeking to prevent another long and drawn-out disagreement, I thought I'd nip this one in the bud. An anon changed the section title from "George Clarke's time travel urban legend" to "Time travel urban legends". As I recall, the wording of this was the subject of lengthy, heated and often vitriolic debate, and when a balance was struck, it set in place a consensus that lasted, unmolested, for two months. The anon may not have been aware of this, and my edit summary, reverting it back, explained as much. Slatersteven apparently couldn't understand the edit summary (which, apart from a typo, seemed pretty clear to me), and reverted back against the consensus term. It was subsequently reverted back by Tentontunic and Slatersteven, going back and forth a few times, before I reverted it back to the pre-anopn edit version (read: the consensus version), suggesting that here might be the better place for SS or the anon to argue for a change in consensus, instead of racking up reverts, which really doesn't work. So, with one editor poised at the 3RR threshold, and two others at two each, it seems like a smart move for SS to come here and argue for a change in consensus. I'd suggest that no more edits be made to the section title until we get something approximating a convincing argument for changing the existing consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reversion made by Jack Sebastian (diff) which restored the "See also" link to George Clarke's time travel urban legend (rather than the new Chaplin’s Time Traveler). Per WP:EASTEREGG the piped link is not helpful: since this article is about a film made by Chaplin, a link titled "Chaplin's X" looks like X was made by Chaplin, when in fact the linked article is just marketing nonsense and is nothing to do with Chaplin. Not sure what "Section name change" has to do with it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the section in the article Time travel urban legends is not called George Clarke's time travel urban legend so someone going to that page to "see more" will not be able to find it without a bit of work. It should be named after the actual material in the article (which is ""Chaplin's Time Traveller"").Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem: An article about Chaplin's film cannot contain a link like Chaplin's something unless the target of the link concerns something by Chaplin. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Neither alternative is very good. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like you sugestion on my talk page "1928 cell phone user" it sums up the basic points of the story. Perhaps it might need alledged or sum such to make it clear its not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could get some more feedback on this. I'm not wowed by any of the choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But surely the suggested name says exactly what the situation was. Some one using a cell phone in 1928. The story was about that, not the person who saw it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying its a stupid solution, Slatersteven; I believe I said that we should seek a few more opinions apart from the usual suspects, as I think it's a less than workable solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion that you opened appears to be ongoing at Talk: Time Travel Urban Legends. In the interest of maintaining a single line of discussion, let's hold off on discussing the matter here until that one is concluded or ends unresolved. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of this discussion when I made a change (and was reverted). I propose "A time travel urban legend involving a clip from this film". Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must strenuously reject your proposal in favor of the clear consensus established at User:Viriditas/Circus_consensus and the multiple, extensive discussions linked to that summary. This is a closed subject and should remain so unless new information has come to light. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the explanation on your user page, I have added "involving a clip from this film" to the see also description per WP:SEEALSO, cutting down on the redundancy. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted it back. Viriditas, you know the long parade of nonsense that occurred the last time someone messed with that particular bit. It was the compromise edit. If you seek to to change consensus, then seek to do so here in article discussion. That would seem to follow the BRD path. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since you reverted, we're at the discussion stage.  So, what is your objection to the modified proposal? Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean, apart from the six-month-long knife fight to arrive at the current consensus version? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, could you please answer the question? Why did you revert this edit? The D in BRD involves you explaining why you don't accept the new version.  Clarityfiend explained here and on his talk page why it is a reasonable change per WP:SEEALSO.  Even though I don't agree with the placement of the see also link, and I believe that it should not appear anywhere in this article, I added a modified version of Clarityfiend's proposal.  Since you reverted, you must disagree with it.  The talk page is the place where you explain why you disagree.  Is any of this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I had made it abundantly clear. With a contentious issue, it's plainly stupid to simply alter an area that you are fully aware has undergone extensive - and often vitriolic - discussion. You propose it here, allow others to yea or nay it and proceed. I am aware of your feelings on the matter, and I respect them, though you are conversely aware that I do not share them.
 * In point of fact, it is not a part of the film. It is part of bonus footage taken at the time of the film's premiere, not the actual film itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is actually footage from the opening of the film in Los Angeles, IIRC. Since this is a collaborative site, why did you not modify Clarityfiend's proposal to read "bonus footage" instead of "film"? Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not as willing to open the hornet's nest that caused 6 months of contentious and often tendentious editing. More importantly, as it is substantively inaccurate, I don't think it should be altered or modified from its consensus form. Part of collaboration is understanding when to leave certain things alone that have been decided by consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This realy is going to be a festering sore. I really think this shuld be removed as this will constantly crop up. As to the wordking, its fine as it is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is a "festering sore" - and I do not think it is - it is only such because some folk feel the need to continually reopen the stitches. I say leave it alone, and concentrate on the other aspects of the article. If no other advancement can be made, submit it to peer review, and seek new ways to improve it, and eventually ge it to FA. Squabbling over something that is clearly and pretty solidly decided is dilatory and of little use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, you reverted a proposed modification originally suggested by an editor who has not been involved in previous discussions. Since you cannot defend or justify your revert and appear hopelessly confused about the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative website, I must therefore agree with Slatersteven and support removal of the entire see also link at this time.  When you feel ready to use the talk page to discuss this in a collaborative manner, then feel free to join the discussion at that time.  The burden of proof is on those wishing to add the link and modify it accordingly.  Clarityfiend made a good argument for modifying the link per the see also guideline.  You then reverted this without any discussion, and ignored subsequent attempts at discussion.  The link will now be removed.  Please do not add it back until you are capable of addressing the questions asked of you.  This is Wikipedia, not Jack Sebastian's Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That personal attack was uncalled for, Viriditas. I did address your question; I am sorry you did not like/accept/understand the answers you received. Looking at the same old faces calling for its removal, I am not going to get in the way of its removal. Consensus has changed. It can change again in a few months. On any article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I support permanent removal of the link as I always have and always will. It's idiotic trivia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Move the link to the Cell phone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An RFC will be needed as we will not get agreement to its removal from jack. If that does not work then ANI may be the ansswer. I also note that you seem to say jack that this link is in fact pointless.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you got that impression, steve, but it is an incorrect one. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What that you wioll oppose removal, or that you consider this matter trivial?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, an RfC is not necessary if a consensus of editors favors one course of action or another. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Could you perhaps cite the governing sentence of policy that says that, ScottyBerg? Frankly, I hardly care at this point, despite the fact that the same old faces just seemed to magically reappear when the new call for the removal occurred. Curiouser and curiouser. An RfC would bring in new blood - something dreadfully missing from this article. Unless we don;t thing the outside voices will mimic the inside ones? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked. ScottyBerg is referring to Dispute resolution, one of the procedural policies of Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize you probably just shot from the hip ther, Viriditas, but that isn't what I asked. I've read DR, and I don't see the governing 'sentence' (or paragraph) supporting ScottyBerg's opinion that 'an RfC isn't necessary if a consensus favors, etc.' Since you offered, please feel free to point out that bit, if you would. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, editors need to read a policy more than once to "get it". Try again. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that you don't know where it is, then. Thanks for confirming that you're just interested in taking cheap shots. Grow up. We're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of see also

 * I support the recent removal of the link to George Clarke's time travel urban legend . While it's not exactly a case of WP:ONEWAY, the concept is very similar: this article is about a notable film featuring a megastar, while the see also is a mention of some ephemeral excitement around a youtube video. A search of books and websites could find hundreds of mentions of incidents related to Chaplin's films, and encyclopedic articles do not link to each—only to those which provide encyclopedic information related to the topic. That does not include a "look at this amusing image" video that only serves to promote the film maker. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. Johnuniq's reasoning convinces me. (Sorry about reigniting this smoldering fire.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. The link has nothing whatever to do with the film itself, and as Johnuniq correctly points out, it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove - As per everything that's ever been said in favor of removing it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am seeing the same old faces as before. What, everyone afraid of an RfC bringing in some newer people? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? Do I know you, stranger? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't referring to you, Clarityfiend. Sorry for any confusion my cynicism might have caused. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove. This is an encyclopedia not an advertising banner for an unknown director who makes unknown films and self-publishes his non-notable observations on YouTube.  We get that Jack is a fan of George Clarke, and if they are friends, I respect that, but this kind of self-published fringe nonsense doesn't belong here, even if it's a slow news day and a blogger or reporter decides to spice things up a bit by writing an article and making a passing reference to an unknown director and his wacky ideas.  In any event, as this discussion demonstrates, Jack wont explain his reverts nor justify the inclusion of the link, and since this is a discussion and not a vote, it appears we have consensus (5-1) to keep the link out. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Extremely well put, V. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, it certainly looked like a vote and not a discussion to me, considering that you conclude your post with a tally of a vote. As for the rest of your little rant, I'm not a fan of Clarke, had never heard of him before his observations gathered interest from notable, reliable sources. I am a fan of Wikipedia. Maybe it was forgotten along the way, but we tend to add sources to material connected to our articles. I think that we should at least mention something that notable sources connected to the film, and keep our own, uncited opinions of his claims to ourselves. Apparently, the rest of the consensus feels that their opinion is more important to the article than sources. As the consensus has spoken for removal, and I've already conceded, I am unsure why you still feel the need to take cheap shots, Viriditas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove - Way undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets lay of the inuendos shall we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What and where? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * well ther are accusations that this is the same old mob, who are afraind of RFC. There are accusations of agendas and of wike relasionshipos to name but two.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it is sort of an obvious argument to make. Either way, it looks like consensus has changed almost exactly 6 months after it was established before. I guess we can all plan to come back in another six. 'Til then, we can probably close out the drama. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "time travel" fable doesn't even have to do with the content of this movie, it has to do with a newsreel clip about the premiere of this movie. The entire "time travel" concept is fanciful (or trivial; or bogus, to be more blunt) and has about as much business being in this article as would a paragraph in the 2011 World Series article describing the type of grass someone was thinking about planting in a non-existent public park across the street. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bugs. This has been explained to Jack, oh, I would say about 50 times.  His response indicates IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What'd ya say? :) Another way to look at this is notability. The Wizard of Oz article probably has something about the alleged "Munchkin suicide", which has been debunked, but at least it was possible to have happened - and while also trivial, it's much more notable, as it had been widely covered by many sources. This "cellphone" stuff is an impossibility, and it's either a deliberate joke, like a satirical thing; or much scarier, that someone might actually believe it. But either way, unless there's evidence that this "legend" is widely covered and commented upon, it doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I recognize that consensus has changed. I am not sure what else needs to be said. What's the ongoing need to beat a dead horse? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To that challenge, I can only retort, "Neigh!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets drop it untill it resurfaces again.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove. The principle of WP:ONEWAY clearly applies here. Hans Adler 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Its been removed, Jack agrees to it, so an we please drop this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sequel
A "sequel" section has been added by on four occasions recently: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. In addition, IPs like 66.87.120.x have added the same content four times, with the result that the page was semiprotected by Airplaneman.

The material is WP:UNDUE and unsourced—all material in articles must be verifiable based on reliable sources. However, the sourcing issue is relatively minor compared with the fact that this article concerns a major artistic achievement by an acknowledged master, and an article on this film is not available to promote other proposed works. I have again removed the text and ask that anyone wanting to restore it should engage in discussion here in terms that acknowledge the policies at WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Time travel cell phone mystery
This was added before, but it has been removed because it was deemed to lack notability. Heres the previous discussion. The scene from the film clearly shows that it was there. There aren't any WP:RS to add the info though, but clearly the scene was there and according to most sources the military would often put prototypes of technologies not released to the public yet on films, and cell phones were discovered by the 1920s, only released to general population much later. Regardless I cannot find any reliable source so I cannot add it just based on the scene actually being there. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? The first handheld cellular mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchell and Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We cannot disregard the evidence on the movie itself, and the military develops many technologies in advance, releasing them to general public much later like the GPS technologies, etc. Never mind, there aren't reliable sources to include it other than the movie itself. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The movies is an RS for only what it obviously shows, not for something that is speculation about what it shows. It might not be a mobile phone, thus it is wp:or to say that is what the film shows.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "the military would often put prototypes of technologies not released to the public yet on films, and cell phones were discovered by the 1920s". Whatever source you're getting this misinformation from, it isn't trustworthy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Dupont [the company that reportedly owns the factory in the video] had a telephone communications section in the factory. They were experimenting with wireless telephones. Gertrude and five other women were given these wireless phones to test out for a week. Gertrude is talking to one of the scientists holding another wireless phone who is off to her right as she walks by." (quoted from source) This is mainly based on a similar 1938 film with time travel allegations, and also mentions 1928's The Circus. I was wrong about the military part, it was a telephone company testing prototypes but disregarded using them, "Maybe they decided it was too far advanced for people and they abandoned the idea. ... Ideas are hatched, prototypes are made and sometimes like this phone they are forgotten until somebody discovers some long lost film of the world first wireless phone and marvels at it." (quoted from source) Other sources claims the same, but I already mentioned non of these sources are reliable, and I agreed its nothing much notable, so for me this is the end of this discussion and I too support not adding this trivial matter which lacks reliable sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, Huffpost.com passing on a dubious story told by "a YouTube commenter who goes by the handle Planetcheck" exemplifies WP:SENSATIONAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)