Talk:The Circus (1928 film)/Archive 2

Removal of see also section
Based on WP:SEEALSO, the consensus of the discussion on this topic since October 2010, and the consensus on Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_22, I've removed the entry. This obvious hoax/slow news day story is not notable enough for inclusion, and it if is, we can wait for books and scholarly articles on the subject of the film to be published about it.  Furthermore, the labeling of this obvious hoax as "alleged" transcends the limits of absurdity. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your bold edit will be reverted for several reasons. To begin with, you are not notable, and therefore have no standing to determine that anything is an "obvious hoax/slow news day". Secondly, several people disagree with your interpretation of notability (not the least of which are our policies and guidelines) and consider the matter notable enough for inclusion. Thirdly, perhaps you missed the above decision to list the matter for mediation. You don't appear to have listed yourself as being part of that discussion.
 * Lastly, this seems like wiki-stalking, which you were specifically provided notification to avoid.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, please do not revert all of Viriditas' edits. The "See also" section is the only one that you should have restored. The other edits are fine and welcome. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that the other edits are an improvement of the article; as I noted, the wikistalking quality of being notified by an editor to stay away and then making over 30 edits in less than two hours - initiated with an edit of obvious contention - was cause for immediate concern. Had you not reverted, i would have self-reverted, adding in the information that was deleted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is no excuse, you should look at the edits not who makes them. If you are being stalk take it to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I appreciate your opinion, and evaluating the edits should have been my first concern - as I noted above. Maybe you should actually read posts before responding.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that saying you should have done something you did not is not an excuse, you should not have done it in the first place. You have (I think) accepted you were wonrge an appoligised. So that is the end of the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sage advice that perhaps we could all follow, eh? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with removal of the See also section as currently constituted. If there is to be such a section, it needs to contain articles relevant to the movie, such as Charlie Chaplin or "circus movies" or something else that belongs there. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out numerous times, the footage is connected to the film, in the same way that a DVD extras is connected to the film. I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find an FA listing that doesn't utilize information from DVD extras where they exist. And making this article into an FA one is pretty much the point, right? If anything, the germ of the idea that the internet footage references should be a 'Appearances in pop culture' section, and not a 'See also' one, so, good catch. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a FA that includes material about third party analysis of DVD extras not associated with the production of the movie?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)?

RfC: George Clarke's time travel urban legend
Should the article on Charlie Chaplin's 1928 film The Circus mention George Clarke's time travel urban legend If so, why? If not, why not? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
There is a dispute over the amount of coverage the time traveller story deserves. Consensus is that it should only be link to another page Time_travel_urban_legends. Whilst a couple of users insists that it should have a descriptive passage. It hinges on the issues of Fringe, undue and NPOV. A request for mediation was made but a user has rejected it[] (and a user had effectively been driven off by this situation) so its hard to see where to proceed from here. As such some outside input might be useful.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind more input, but aren't you concerned that seeking an RfC while mediation is open will seem like forum-shopping? We cannot help it if a single user who refuse to participate in mediating a solution to a problem; that's more their issue than ours, or that of this article. If they don't wish to particpate in mediation, they don;t get to participate in the discussion or the contentious part of the article. Like I said, it's their choice.
 * I would submit that putting the RfC on hold (or discontinuing it) until mediation resolves one way or the other. It's the appropriate next step in DR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If one user rejects mediation then mediation has been rejected, generaly. All involved parties must agree to mediation..Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Please take the time to actually read the policies and guidelines you cite, Slatersteven: if one person chooses to not involve themselves in mediation, and there remain other parties to the mediation, then mediation continues without them. Further editing by someone who refuses mediation is seen as bad faith. If mediation fails, then it moves up the DR food chain. To my end, when listing the mediation, I probably shouldn't have added anyone's name but my own, but there's little to be done about that now. Those who wish to participate in mediation would add their names as well. If informal mediation fails, DR suggests formal mediation and then, of course, Arb. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the mediation guidelines here Requests_for_mediation/Guide specifically *not all parties agree to the request for mediation*. Also note *prior dispute resolution* RFC and not mediation is the first step. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with policy before deeming others are in breach of it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack has not requested mediation. Formal mediation is filed at Requests_for_mediation.  Jack filed a case with the "Mediation Cabal", an informal process, and his doing so after multiple discussions did not go his way, is a form of forum shopping. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, which reliable source about the film includes a discussion about George Clarke and his wacky theory? I can't find any; notability is not inherited, and it is undue weight to discuss Clarke and his fringe ideas here.  In case anyone is confused by the subject title, this information does not appear on the DVD extra, but is rather the interpretation of the DVD extras from the unknown "George Clarke".  There is nothing notable about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONEWAY, it doesn't belong in this article at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. "  You don't feel that bar has been met by the massive news coverage?  I agree that doesn't require we *do* cover it here, but it's not a reason to not cover it as far as I can see.  Hobit (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speculation of time travel or cell phones in 1928 would disqualify the "serious" from "serious and prominent", in my opinion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not even a fringe theory but more of an internet meme, and its lack of connection to the movie rules it out, in my view even for mention in "see also." No serious article on this movie, were one ever to be written, would include a mention of somebody using a cell phone at the premiere. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not connreted to the subject of the artciel by third paty RS. They dicuse a DVD extra not the film. Moreover I would argue that many of the sources describe the Time travel story as a fun theory (hardley serious coverage).Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You could argue that, SS, but unsuccessfully so. The problem here - as has been pointed out before - is that it is your personally held opinion - that this was a "fun" news story. That, as well as claims that it was a "slow news day", etc. are all products of personal speculation, not actual citations. As well, whether Clarke is espousing a fringe theory is immaterial. It is cited by several neutral sources, including those that took the time to offer alternative views on the subject (ie, the "de-bunking"). It is also immaterial what we personally believe; it is fundamental to our performance as edtors to remain objectively neutral - we state both sides of the discussion with references and move on. To seek to eliminate information because we find it fanciful is a failure of that core principle of Wikipedia. In short, what you personally believe has no place in Wikipedia. Period. If you cannot accept that, then Wikipedia might not be the best use of your time and energy. That's an observation, not an invitation to go away. There is no proposal within this article by any editor to give the matter so much coverage that the article becomes a coatrack for the theory. At most, the matter should probably be a cited mentioning of the matter, and another sentence noting the likely explanation for it. That solution allows us to cite normal, cited material neutrally and responsibly. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason to exclude anything fromt he encyclopedia, as it directly contradicts our neutrality policy. Coincidentally, this instance doesn't constitute an internet meme, either - at least, not how Wikipedia and others define them. It's one guy's video musing about something he saw in a commercially-released DVD (note that the term "commercially-released" signifies its connection to the subject of this article by folk whose notability in doing so overrides our ability to dismiss), and was interesting enough to be picked up by several media outlets, at least a dozen of them notable (thereby smashing the arguments posed by those citing NOTNEWS), reliable and verifiable. Had it not been picked up by major news organs, or been as popular as it was (and still is), I'd be on the side of others in this matter. As it is, I am sticking with every policy and guideline within Wikipedia, which states that the material should remain in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not his "personally held opinion" but a factual statement.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, it isn't a factual statement, but rather a paraphrased interpretation of such, minus any pesky parts that might interfere with that interpretation. The reasons for inclusion are solidly - I repeat, solidly - supported by the actual interpretations of our RD, V and N policies. Those supporting exclusion have tossed out every old chestnut there is, and incorrectly. NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Neither does FRINGE, UNDUE or any of the other reasons that have been cludged together. The fact is, you simply don't want the information in the article because you don't like it. You are allowed your opinion, but you are required to leave that at the door while editing. If you cannot do that, then you should consider what you truly need from editing at Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to ask you to please assume good faith, and kindly not lecture other editors in this overbearing manner and condescending tone. Even if you were not a new user account, that would be unacceptable. This is not a first request on that subject, as you know.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I am not being condescending or overbearing. Really, I am not. Likewise, AGF is not a set of blinders; the only leavening agent here is whether I need to point out the obvious, as per WP:SPADE. My comment was meant genuinely. If a user comes to Wikipedia thinking that the rules here take a backseat to their own personal interpretations of what they think an article or Wikipedia should be like, they need to reconsider how much fun/resistance/frustration they are going to encounter here. You aren't getting paid to argue with me, and you haven't said anything to convince me of the strength of your arguments, all of which are incorrect applications of our policies and guidelines.
 * As your post was more of a personal issue with me than a comment on the article, I'll consider this the last word on the subject. If you need to carry this further, you know how to follow DR, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with DR, and so are you, as you were were subject to a seven-day interaction ban with Slatersteven, just expired, in which you were, inter alia, asked not to post to this talk page. My request was made in a friendly fashion, and your refusal to comply is noted, but your point re this talk page is well taken and I'll be more than happy to raise future issues with you on your user talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, not familiar enough with DR to know that making such amazingly incorrect statements is going to provoke the sorts of condescending reactions that you seem so miffed about, Scotty. The interaction avoidance and not "ban" (please feel free to provide a diff that uses the term "ban"), suggested by EdJohnston for both of us was followed - at least by me; SS went on interjecting himself in other discussions where I had been posting. Three days after the time expired, I returned here to re-join discussion here. No such prohibition was made about posting to this page after those 7 days - but again, please feel free to present a Diff indicating such. If you had requested it yourself (or just wished it really, really hard), I didn't get that particular post. In any case, so long as folk continue to post in this article discussion about how to develop the article, I will be contributing. And frankly, considering your past comments about me to others, you can pretty much expect your requests for that sort of thing to be ignored. Let's just leave it at that; if you feel a particular need to talk about this more, we can do so on your talk page. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets try and dicuse content and not users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Its been a while now and the RFC has not resolved the matter. Where do we progess from here?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RfCs can be slow, and sometimes result in few or no responses. I'd give it more time. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal take is that it is not an example of time travel, but a wonderful illustration of how perception is influenced (dictated) by presumption. I have no problem with the article of the movie including a few lines on the urban legend. I don't think we should be putting extra weight in making claims about it being true. The danger with providing a blow by blow description of the multi media debate is that that isn't our job and won't improve the article, but detract from it. DDB (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I completely agree, Ddball. No one has suggested such (and particularly, not by myself). At most, a bit clarifying the news stories about the YouTube thing, and another bit where someone suggests the likely explanation. Both cited, and maybe - just maybe - a mention of it in the Lede (as per WP:LEDE). For all the hysterics, you'd think someone was wanting to add the Necronomicon and tentacle porn. We are just reporting what happened. As its connected to the film, it seems stupid to pretend it never happened. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a fan of Lovecraft .. I keep a diary, so that others will know (tentacle porn indeed, my diary reads like the necronomicon) .. less humorously, however, I am serious about simple sentence statements and not so many embellishments as to make an endorsement. DDB (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Non one h=is msusgeting it never happened (indead its in teh artciel as a see also link to a much more detailed examination then we could realistyl have on this page). Perhaps jack would like to post here to talk his susgested text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DDball, it may or may not be a "wonderful illustration of how perception is influenced (dictated) by presumption," but that does not address its relevancy to this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I feel that to not include a reference would be to take a position on the issue (understate it). To write a lot about it would be to overstate the issue. I first raised the issue on this talk page because I think the issue relevant to the article. I don't think it should dominate the article, although I think the discussion on the issue is good. DDB (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Appreciate your clarifying that you are a previously involved editor in this talk page discussion, and not an uninvolved editor responding to the RfC. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but I ca't see where the user admits previous involement. I would however point out that we do have a rferacne, a link that says prety much what is wanted that there is a time travel story. What more is needed?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He raised the issue on the talk page initially, as he just reminded us. There's certainly nothing wrong with previously involved editors responding to this RfC (you and I fall into that category), but the viewpoints of involved editors need to be distinguished from the views of new editors responding to an RfC. The primary purpose of an RfC is to get viewpoints from previously uninvolved editors. Sometimes views of uninvolved editors are put in a subsection. That may be worth trying here. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. I might have thought that it was unnecessary to distinguish between previous editors and new contributions except for the antagonists and protagonists, but clearly that is too hard a concept for some. Because then it would appear as if an editor was being sidelined for having an undesired opinion. Which may be inferred but which I am not accusing anyone of. The argument against any reference to the larger discussion is not supported by wiki policy or practice. It might be possible to use weasel words, or Schopenhauer's thirty eight methods for winning an argument which you have lost. DDB (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not faulting you. I just noticed that every editor in this discussion has been here before. We have no new input so far. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Views of uninvolved editors

 * No. It's not significant in terms of the subject of this article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh why not. It's interesting. It's true. It relates to the film, tangentially at least. What's the harm? (N.B.: I have not read all of the above discussion. I am just responding directly to the question.) Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It's just an internet meme, loony and inconsequential, excluded by WP:ONEWAY. I am suspicious of the motivations of people so desperate for its inclusion. Waste no more time on it. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (I am uninvolved to the extent one is uninvolved after seeing this at some noticeboard earlier, opining there, and deciding that it was a bizarre waste of time.) No. To the extent that the idea of a time traveller is taken seriously, WP:FRINGE applies. To the extent that it's a guerrilla marketing stunt for a DVD, the spirit of WP:BOOKSPAM applies. To the extent that this is an internet phenomenon, WP:RECENTISM applies.
 * One of the things that Wikipedia is often criticised for is the inclusion of, and sometimes ridiculous weight given to, relatively irrelevant recent developments. A typical example would be discussing a film based on a Shakespeare play in detail in the article on the play. The present example is less typical only in that it is much more crass and shameless.
 * It took some time to develop, but there is now a project-wide consensus that trivia must not be given undue weight in articles about serious topics. I don't see why the present article should be an exception. A "see also" link is fine. A single sentence with a link is fine. (But not both.) More than a sentence is undue. Hans Adler 13:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If this article was much longer, then a couple of sentences on the time travel meme would be ok. As the article stands right now, a link in the "See also" section appears to be adequate and appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could see that. The way the article is expanding, that might not be a problem before too long.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it ought to mention it, it is obviously notable in it`s own right and should of course be mentioned here. Tentontunic (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, to having it discussed in this article. The few reliable sources are so short and non-newsy (i.e., feature type stories that are just fluff) that having it mentioned in this article is WP:UNDUE. The Telegraph article mentioned just above, for example, is six sentences long. Yes, to having a link under See Also: Even though the YouTube "story" doesn't merit its own Wikipedia article, I think that a link to the Time Travel Urban Legends page under See Also gives it due and appropriate weight. First Light (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the squabbling has been about this silly little Youtube video? Hell no, it doesn't belong in the article. The article is about Chaplin's film, not somebody's theory about time travel. Figureofnine (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not belong in this article... it is a matter of contextual relevance. The time traveler speculation stuff is only tangentially related (if that) to the topic of this article, ie the movie itself.  It really isn't appropriate to mention it in the context of this article.  It might well be relevant and appropriate to mention it in some other article... but not in this one. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Edit for Time Traveller
I don't know who posted it, or why it was removed. The reason for the removal was not apparent among the talk. The content was not wrong. Neither was it overstated or superfluous. If there is reason to remove the content I am willing to entertain it. DDB (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was posted by who has approximately one edit (this one) to his name) and it was added without consensus for inclusion.  Currently, we only have agreement on a see also section as a compromise. No discussion at any time has shown any consensus for inclusion of this material (see User:Viriditas/Circus consensus and more recently Fringe theories/Noticeboard.  The RfC above shows no consensus for inclusion as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would feel more comfortable if you hadn't so often over stated the case for removal, Viriditas. You removed it claiming that no one supported it. You linked it to a place that didn't exist. I posted a talk statement, you posted on my user page and linked to your user page where there was majority support. Then you linked it to an obscure wiki editor site where Charley Chaplin was misspelled. The clear argument posted by the vociferous opposition to inclusion is that time travel is not real. It is noted among the dross that Santa is not real either and real hard to argue against in some circumstances. But the reference is not about the reality of time travel but the issue of perception focused on a shot that didn't make the film, but is included in the extras. It is a bit like global warming, where the science is not real, but the argument is substantial. DDB (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat, there is no consensus for inclusion of any material aside from a link in the see also section. If any of what I have just said isn't clear, say so, and I'll rephrase it another way.  What you've written above makes no sense at all, so I've ignored it. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And to repeat, in the off-chance you had missed it any one of the seven other times it was brought up, consensus does not trump policy and guidelines. Ever. Period. So far, you have attacked three different editors who disagree with your personalized views of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps you feel as if being here as long as you have afford you that right, but I can assure you that it does not. Please do not belittle, insinuate about or in any ther way seek to attack or dissuade other editors from contributing. DDB has valid points. You don't like them; we get it. Now, pipe down and allow other non-attached editors to contribute. Please do not do this again.
 * On behalf of the rest of us, we appreciate you stopping by to lend a hand in resolving this matter, DDB. You were treated shabbily, and that isn't how we (try to) do things here in Wikipedia - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that comment, Jack. It's a huge step forward for you to recognize consensus, and that goes a long way towards helping resolve this dispute.  However, you've repeatedly made the odd, out of context claim that "consensus does not trump policy", as if there was a policy/guideline that you believe consensus is being claimed to trump.  I am not aware of any, so if you could be so kind as to explicitly specify the name of the policy or guideline that you believe consensus is "trumping", that might put an end to this dispute once and for all.  As a new user, you may not be aware of all the policies and guidelines, so to help you in your quest, here is a comprehensive list of policies and guidelines.  To repeat: please choose one or more that you believe consensus is being used to override. Thanks in advance for helping to finally end this and get back to working on the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Jack, after thinking about it, I figured out that you were misinterpreting WP:V. I've raised this problem over at User talk:Hans Adler, where you are welcome to contribute.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas you may edit my opinion from your user page. You may ignore me. However, you are wrong to claim that I have not brought up policy and correctly interpreted it. I feel that you make that claim because you don't find it convenient. The public commentary on the issue connected with the film is notable. You might not like the content but that isn't an issue. Jack has been reasonable, and that is what has prevented this issue from spiralling into what it isn't. Don't take my criticism of your behavior personally. Learn from it. Schopenhauer was right. DDB (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not trump policy, but there is no policy that says we have to include something (one of the main arguments for its inclusion) the disagreement (and its here that jack is in a minority) is where or not policy allows for this materials inclusion in anything more then it has now. I would point out the commentary was not about the film but A DVD extra, can you explain why therefore its notable to the article about the film? Also consensus may not trump poicicy but it can help define it where there is dispute about policy interpritation.


 * If Jack would like to post the version of the text he wishes to include here rather then just make edits without consensus maybe we can discus that text (that is the reasonable thing to do). Its is mentioned in the article, very briefly and without any detail and links to an article that covers the material in more depth, what more should be neeed?

overage has to be serious and non-trivial, are tehre any sources that do this (and no I mwould argue the ones so far produced do not) He claims there are dozens of sources (I have found ,tops, 8) where are the others? When asked on talk mto produce sources to prove any of these two poitns he has refused, that is not being resonable. WP:NOT covers this story. Has this had any enduring notability? No.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that both consensus and policy precludes more than the "see also" reference that is already there. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Slatersteven, I had missed your previous request for a version of the text. I think I need to restate that this matter doesn't need to be noted in the Lede. I think a pop culture section (or something like that) could say:
 * In late 2010, media outlets reported on a YouTube broadcast by Irish filmmaker George Clarke who claimed that a film of The Circus's 1928 premiere showed a woman talking and listening into a cellular phone, and suggested that she was perhaps a time traveler, based upon the apparent anachronism. The internet speculation led to coverage by news outlets,


 * Nicholas Jackson, associate editor for The Atlantic, seeking to debunk that hypothesis, believes that the item in question was either a Siemens or Western Electric brand hearing aid . Philip Skroska, quoted from LiveScience, thinks that the item in question could have been a rectangular-shaped ear trumpet
 * This can be trimmed down of course, but this would resolve the issue in a minimum of space, and the bit about Jackson and Skroska would seem to balance out the first part by debunking it. I am open to suggestions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you drop the matter because many independent editors have already explained why this fails WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you do not understand DUE. Read it again, Johnuniq. This is two or three sentences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What source should we use to gauge the notability and importance of this material to the subject? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The the reporting (and thus the story) was about its internet impact, so that is where it should be described. The artciel about interent meme's. No evidance has been provided that the civerage is about the film or the premier. Also none of the sources used indicate non-trivial or serious coverage.Slatersteven 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Content of video clip
I just wanted to underline something that may have gotten lost in the bickering and filibustering in this discussion. The clip in question clearly articulates a "time traveler" appearing in 1928. See minute 2:15 or so, and also quoted in the NY Daily News: "Right now the only conclusion I can come to, which sounds absolutely ridiculous I'm sure to some people, but it's a time traveler." See. So please, let's be very clear about what we're talking about here. This is advocacy of the proposition that somebody traveled in time and landed at the Circus film premier. I feel that this "see also" needs to go. It's unencyclopedic, violates ONEWAY, violates UNDUE. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't that a further example of bickering and filibustering? The wider debate is taking and has taken place and you don't feel that reference should be made to it beyond your comfort level, which is low for this topic? DDB (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, ScottyBerg is correct in observing that the statements made in the video are not only fringe, but clearly make the case for the subject being completely unencyclopedic, and nothing more than a practical joke/marketing tactic perpetuated by the news media on a slow day. All of the arguments for inclusion have failed to meet the minimum standards for inclusion.  "Chaplins Time Traveler" has nothing to do with this film, and does not expand upon or elucidate the topic in any way.  It is humorous trivia, nothing more, and has no place here. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So his opinion agrees with yours and so you can ignore my valid point with an untested assertion. Meaning it is bickering and filibustering.DDB (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What encyclopedic value (feel free to quote any number of our policies and guidelines on this subject) does George Clarke's "time travel theory" bring to this subject? Please answer this question. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The public commentary on the issue connected with the film is notable. Kindly prove that it isn't. If that commentary is to be noted, then a few words positioning the weight of that commentary is worthy. DDB (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't exactly an answer, but we will work with what we have. First of all, on Wikipedia, the burden of proof rests on the editor adding content, so I don't have to prove that the "commentary" isn't notable; you have to prove that it is.  So far, there is strong consensus that this so-called commentary lacks enduring notability.  Now, with that said, you can try to argue that Clarke's PR stunt has enduring notability, but most of all, you also need to show that it has something to do with the film.  When I'm in this situation, what I do is look through the best sources on the subject, in an attempt to find a scholar or notable author who explicitly describes the material as notable and contributing to the legacy of the subject.  Unfortunately, we don't have that here.  If you think we do, please demonstrate it. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer back to Schopenhauer how you persist in arguing over things after you have lost. Even you accept the reference. By your logic that must mean it has passed those wiki tests you proclaim but fail to adhere to. Therefore you should position it as I have suggested. I gather from your non answer that you do not know of any actual reason to sustain your argument. DDB (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to translate your comments as best as I can. You seem to think that because we have a "reference" for something, anything, that means we must include it.  That isn't true at all.  You need to be able to demonstrate that the material in question is about the subject (it isn't, it's about George Clarke and his wild ideas) and is relevant (not about the film) and is represented in sources about the topic (it is not).  So unless you can do these things, or discuss why you think the "public commentary" (whatever that means) is important, then I'm afraid it is you who has "lost". Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to translate me. Just address the issues. Try to be substantive. So far you have claimed you don't need to. Joseph Heller wrote about that in Catch-22. DDB (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You need translation because all you've posted above are personal attacks, moving the goalposts, and shifting the burden of proof. Standard procedure for editors unfamiliar with the burden. You need to prove the material is encyclopedic and all that it entails, not me.  So far, there is strong consensus that it is not.  You said something about "public commentary" being important to this topic.  I then asked you to show me, to demonstrate how and why it is important to the subject of this article.  I'm still waiting... Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try not to get personal. All you need do is address the issue. I have referred to Schopenhauer who mentions the issues of personal attacks et al. The page has a reference, it is to my mind too small. You have not said why it needs to be too small. You have claimed there is evidence it shouldn't exist at all. I have asked you what that evidence is. You have then challenged me, without addressing my question, to prove that it should exist. Earlier, you deleted material claiming that no one thought it should be there. I pointed to people who said it should. You said their opinion didn't matter. You said another site had unanimous views. It didn't. You deleted a posting of mine to your talk page claiming it wasn't valid or in correct format. All I have asked is for you to substantiate why it is that a reference which is too small for those who do not know the substance of the debate should be so small. Kindly address that question without saying I am not a real wiki editor, or accusing me of not knowing policy, or of being rude, personal or any other thing you employ to get your way. DDB (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you 1) do not understand what is being said, and 2) require the assistance of a third-party to help you understand.  Competence is required, so if you can't understand what I've said above, there is nothing more I can do. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what is being said. All I ask is that you address the issue (try not to be insulting). I will accept your acceptance that you do not have an answer. DDB (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An answer has been provided: For whatever reason, someone has made some silly claims; those claims have nothing to do with the topic of this article, and it would non-encyclopedic trivia to insert the latest have-you-seen video here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the answer is still not given. The link reference exists, only it doesn't provide detail. Jack's suggestion is appropriate and doesn't give the issue undue weight, while I feel the mere link is confusing and misleading. DDB (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What source would you recommend we consult to determine the importance, significance, and notability of Clarke's YouTube video? You previously said that the "public commentary" was notable.  What did you mean by that and how did you gauge it?  In other words, which authoritative source clearly and explicitly says this is important to the subject of The Circus? Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the difficulty your questions pose. I point out that the reference is there and is too small as it currently stands. Those questions show your thinking. It is argumentative to argue the reference shouldn't exist when it does. I feel that as it exists, it should be of an appropriate length and detail. You have not addressed my question. DDB (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your question? I'm trying to get you to verbalize your argument so I can add it to User:Viriditas/Circus consensus as a "yes".  However, I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference is there by your own hand. Why not make it an appropriate length to explain to the uninformed viewer what the issue is about in straightforward terms? I saw one other editor write (in support of you) that there had been too many words, which compares Jack to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart favorably, incidentally, More recently another has made the absurd statement that a proper length to explain the issue would be unachievable as the article was too small. It is misstating wiki policy to claim those arguments. DDB (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know what "the reference is there by your own hand" means or implies. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Undiue states that you do not give something coverage in an artciel that is greates then the subject matter deserves in relation to hte articel. As the artciel is about the film, not its premier, not DVD realese and not time travel it would be undue to cover this mater in any great detail. Also a reader can click on the see also link as read in far grater detail about the incident then we could write fairly in this article. Also any mention of time travel is fringy.Slatersteven 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)