Talk:Philip Astley

Untitled

Suggestions:

• "He saw that trick riders received more attention by the crowds in Islington." The context of this statement needs to be introduced to the reader: what crowds in Islington? why Islington?
• The ring: Rather than invoking centrifugal force, mention the unchanging endless vector of forward movement a ring provides. The classical connotations of "circus" elevated the tone of Astley's operation above a mere popular show, such as bear baiting, which also ttok place in a central arena surrounded by spectators.

Last Paragraph

Almost fit for a eulogy, but I'm not sure what is mean by the last sentence, "They began to be displayed 14 years after his death. What, exactly, was being displayed?" Ecopirate 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Father of MODERN circus"

Hello, Philip Astley is being listed as the father of modern circus in this article, referencing a book written in 1864. Since then the definition of "modern" circus has changed a lot, which makes this statement nowadays incorrect.

Philip Astley is the father of the classical circus. The thing that we call modern circus today is an invention of the 1970s. Quite a different time from both Astley and the book that states Astley is the father of modern circus.

How could we update this term? Would it require a modern and reliable source that states Philip is the father of classical circus? I am not sure if you can find one of those but enough sources that will say "Astley originated circus". Then again even "classical circus" might be an incorrect term, since what we regard as "classical" today is from the golden age of 1870 - 1920. Also not Astleys time.

A short history for those who don't know circus: "Circus arts" such as acrobatics, juggling and horse vaulting are known to be thousands of years old. Philip Astley was the first to popularize shows in which skills from multiple disciplines were combined. The term Circus was coined later. Modern circus nowadays is: Circus with a context, on a stage rather than a ring, often without animals. A movement that was started in France early 1970s.

Any suggestions on how to fix this term? --Hapiel (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be against any change to describing Astley as the father of the modern circus. The term modern can mean a number of things but when used in an historical context it most usually refers to the 'modern' period i.e. that period of history that is after the rennaissance / enlightment. The term modern is used in a comparative way when also describing the classical (medieval) and ancient (roman/greek) periods of history (although the term classical antiquity is also used). Therefore in the context of circus where there is a debate about the origins and timeline of circus the term modern circus refers to the resurgence of circus type entertainment popularised by Astley, ancient circus can be used to describe the circuses of Roman times and contemporary circus can be used to describe noveau or new circus that originated in a number of countries in 1970s. As a matter of interest your use of the term classical is also often called the neo-classical. Clearly there is debate about how and why these time periods are described as they are and there are confusing and conflicting use of the terms even by historians but I think staying with the Ancient (Roman Circus), Modern (Astley et al) and Contemporary (Noveau Circus) is the most consistent use of terms. Robynthehode (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Astley and Circus Articles

I have reverted some edits and removed various text which seems to be self promotional and a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources WP:RS and for editors to not add information that is about themselves WP:COI. If you want to re-write the text and add reliable sources without the personal promotion then please do so. But as it stands it is not acceptable. If you disagree please take this issue to the article talk page so it can be discussed by all editors. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Barltrop I have again reverted your edits to the Circus and Phillip Astley articles. You seem to have missed or ignored the above post regarding reliable sources and conflict of interest. Although you may believe your edits are accurate and true, Wikipedia is based on reliable verifiable secondary sources. See WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Self published and other similar types of source are not acceptable as is using Wikipedia for a source for itself. Although I understand it is frustrating that information you honestly believe is correct you must follow Wikipedia policies. You can see the main ones at WP:5P. I ask you again to take any issue you have with my revert and your desire to include your information in these articles to the article talk page at Phillip Astley (as it is mostly about Astley) as per WP:BRD. Although you seem to be an occasional editor who may not know the main Wikipedia policies failure to discuss the issues with your edits by posting the same or similar information at these articles will be seen as disruptive editing and may lead to editing sanctions. Robynthehode (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Barltrop response to above:

Is this the correct place to contact you and comment? Your reference to the Talk tab on the item page failed to say that there is a second stage, a click on the Edit tab. I found my way here by guesswork; your lack of clarity hasn’t helped me get in touch. Sending me the same email three times hasn’t reassured me of your calm and rational consideration of the matter. In case I have now reached the correct medium of communication, please comment on the following.

I accept your previous deletion of references to the success of my play, references which could be seen as ‘self-promotion’, though those mentions are paralleled by other entries on the page which remain undeleted. My most recent edits have been purely factual, and the facts are as follows:

1. I am the historian who pinpointed the site of Philip Astley’s first performances. I gave a reference to the published details. As such, it seems reasonable to include my name;

2. I am the person who, having advised the local community that their homes are on the site of this important event in popular culture, also initiated their generosity in erecting a Plaque, the first monument to Philip Astley to have been officially unveiled in this country. I can if you wish add a link to the website of the community organisation, which reports and verifies the event, but it gives my name and there are photographs of me – will that be ‘self-promotion’? ;

3. I am the person who unveiled the Plaque while costumed as Philip Astley, a major contribution to public awareness of the story. Is the unveiling and my part in it to be redacted? I can give references to published reports.

4. I am the only person in the world to have chosen to document this history by originating and performing a piece of theatre which tells the story and also allows audiences to see Astley’s character, an important factor in understanding the evolution of circus and also of the nomadic community which exists around the Classical (you may be using the outdated term ‘traditional’) circus. Again, it seems reasonable to give my name in this context. I compare your unfavourable treatment of my material with the unredacted references to the excellent Philip Astley Project and to my old and good friends the Van Burens; to the promotion (?) of the superb history book researched and written by Karl Shaw; and further down the page to the mention of a commemorative paving stone at St Thomas’s Hospital, a paragraph which features the name of Zippo’s Circus and which (if you were consistent in your judgments) is ‘self-promoting’ (I should mention that it was again me who wrote this paragraph, since it was me who acted on behalf of the circus company in every aspect apart from paying for the stone).

Regarding your deletion of material on the ‘Circus’ page, comments similar to those above regarding any inclusion of my name apply here too. Because my efforts to contact you ended in failure this morning for the reason given at the start of this note, I have written separately to Wikipedia at [email protected] to complain as follows, and since you appear also to be the editor of that page, I wish for a full and detailed explanation from you of what appears to be blatant bias in allowing enormous chunks of unverified claims and of self-promoting political material to remain there. My email of this morning read as follows: <<I am a member of the Classical circus community, and a historian of the circus art-form.

The Wikipedia page cited in the heading of this message mentions the inclusion and the historical contexts of performing animals in circuses. However, the page is being used as a vehicle by commercially-operated animal rights groups to promote their activities and their political viewpoint. This material now constitutes more than half the page content. Unsubstantiated and generalised claims are made regarding the treatment of animals in circuses. I have in the past added factual information to counter such claims, but on each occasion I did so it was swiftly removed ('swiftly' in this case signifies 'within minutes').

Historical facts are welcome, reflecting changes over time in the content of circus performances. However, I believe that self-promotion by these organisations is against Wikipedia's rules, as should be the expression of corporate political opinion, and I would welcome your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Barltrop (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Barltrop To take your points in turn but first some basic procedures:

1. It is usual to reply to comment on your talk page with comments on the same talk page. You can make sure I see it by 'pinging' the editor. There are various ways but the one I use is u| (surrounded by double curly brackets) with the user name following the u| but when replying on article talk page replyto| (surrounded by double curly brackets) is commonly used (again with the user name following the 'pipe' | 2. It is usual to sign your posts. It is easily done by adding four tildes ~ (repeated 4 times) at the end of your post 3. Contacting another editor is easy. You can ping them using the above. Or simply click on the editor's talk page link in the user name signature (the user name in square brackets [[]]). You can then post a comment on that user's talk page much like you did. 4. Your inability in contacting me is understandable because of your limited knowledge of Wikipedia but it has nothing to do with my lack of clarity but your lack of experience with Wikipedia. 5. An important part of Wikipedia policy is that content is based on consensus WP:CONSENSUS. If one editor posts content and then another objects to for good reasons (such as whether it follow Wikipedia policies) then the expected proces is to follow the 'BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS' cycle WP:BRD. Because I have objected to your edits consensus must be achieved before the edits can be reposted to the articles 6. Another important policy of Wikipedia is that no editor owns the articles they edit and therefore any editor can be challenged by referring to other editors for their views. You can do this to challenge my views by reading - 'Third Opinion' WP:3O; Requests for comment WP:RFC or event WP:DRN 7. You can always seek help by going to the 'Help' pages - the link is in the left menu on any page or ask other editors

To take your substantive article content in turn: 1. Thanks for removing the conflict of interest sources as per WP:COI. However, just because there are other sources in the circus and Phillip Astley articles that you claim are self promotional doesn't make them self promotional. You would have to argue this at the article talk pages. To make this clear the article talk page links are Talk:Circus and this talk page and the articles themselves are Circus and Philip Astley

2. You may very well be the historian who is responsible for finding out information on Astley. My reversion of your edit is not based on the truth of this one way or another. However, Wikipedia is based on information posted by its editors from secondary reliable verifiable sources. Wikipedia policy challenges conflicts of interest. So because you are the person claiming to be the historian Chris Baltrop and you are posting information about research of and the person that is 'Chris Barltrop' then this seems to me to be a conflict of interest Please read WP:COI and WP:RS and WP:OR. The whole point of the policy challenging conflicts of interest and self promotion is anyone can claim to be an expert in anything and post anything on Wikipedia. This is why there is a core policy of reliable verifiable sources.

3. Re the community event and plaque mentioned above. Conflict of interest comes into play here as well as you are the person posting information about something you were involved in. However if independent reliable secondary sources report the fact of the community event and the unveiling of the plaque that may be okay.

4. Re the theatrical performance. Again a conflict of interest unless it is reported by reliable sources. If your name is mentioned in a reliable source this may be okay

5. Re your email complaint to Wikipedia. Although I acknowledge you do not understand Wikipedia processes and policies and therefore think that contacting Wikipedia by email will result in a definitive response I think you will find they will point you to the various links above about dispute resolution. I do not solely edit the articles in question. I do not claim ownership of these articles. I am just another editor trying the best I can to apply Wikipedia policy to articles I wish to edit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Your claim that the inclusion of 'Animals and Circuses' is self promotional is not credible. There may be issues with some of the sources (this is true across Wikipedia and this is why good editors try to follow Wikipedia policy of reliable sources) but its inclusion in the circus article is warranted. However if you read that article's talk page you will see that I have agreed with another editor that the 'Animal and Circuses' section should be moved to a separate article with only a short summary in the main circus article.

As editors we all want the most accurate up to date encylopaedia possible, that is why there are Wikipedia policies. I have posted this lengthy response here but if you want to discuss the content of your edit and its inclusion in the two articles mentioned then please post on the article talk page (the Phillip Astley one would be best). This makes it easy for other interested editors to post comments. I have copied this post from Chris Baltrop's talk page for clarity and ease of continuing the discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)