Talk:The Circus (1928 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

time traveler?

There is discussion that the film shows a strangely dressed person carrying a mobile phone. The claim being this is a time traveller. Of course, it could be someone who is distressed and holding a shoe to their face, perhaps frustrated that some relative has not done the right thing. DDB (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, but all the talk about it - whether its a cell phone or not - makes it notable. And of course, there are citations galore for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First the So Called Woman on the Cell phone is in the Extras and is from the Premier Footage not the Actual movie. Second why was it added woth a link?99.157.6.230 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think i've addressed most of the flaws in the previous versions of the added text. It's been cited and a bit about it added in the Lede, as should be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted the first (of what might end up being many) additions of personal assessments and speculation as to the nature of the the film bit showing the woman holding what has been interpreted by some as a cellular phone. The most recent assessment, taking the form of a removal by User: Yinzland of its mention from the Lede and removal of important parts of the section detailing the subject matter, including the changing of the section title. What most marked the edit as a speculative one was the edit summary:

"Its a minor internet thing and not important to the film. Also, its simply shameless self-promotion of the poster, who is clearly a parasite."

Now, I don't know who George Clarke is beyond the fact that he's Irish, but I think that classifying anyone as a parasite would seem speculative and not very neutral As well, marginalizing a significant news story as a "meme" - especially without backing up either that or the previous assessment without very solid, reliably-sourced references explicitly noting those qualities seems not in keeping with our job as editors of an encyclopedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that certain standards of relevancy should apply to pointless internet jokes that happen to find some minor mainstream publicity. I believe that this is exploitation and shameless self-promotion on the part of the youtube poster and should not continue here on the wikipedia page. The incident is not very relevant to the film and a single sentence is more than enough to explain it, not 2 paragraphs. And unless you can cite a source that time travel is indisputably possible beyond theory, you cannot word the article as if it was possible, unless you also wish to revise the article on Russell's Teapot. (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (PST)

I disagree. Is the guy a "shameless self-promoter" (my, but you've gotten a lot of mileage out of that phrasing, Y ;) )? Maybe. Is he promoting himself or his own product? Clearly, the answer is no. The instance in the DVD extras for this film, not something Clarke has created. Therefore, it is 100% related to the film, and therefore fair game if something unusual makes the news about it. That's not me - that's Wiki policy and guidelines.

That being said, I am not suggesting that time travel is possible or that the film capture proves this. You will note that I pointedly cleaned up the section so that referenced sources - the only source of information we use here in Wikipedia - provide the claim of chrono-adventures. So long as we stick to what the reliable sources say, we are in our wheelhouse. You are right though; I should have more closely followed the reporter, who was making a joke that the woman depicted would have to be the worst time traveler ever. She isn't saying she's a time traveler; she's pointing to the insanity of the notion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just can't believe this has been mentioned in the article. Story appears to be this. 1: Man watches DVD extra, notices woman with hand to ear. 2: Posts youtube video discussing it. 3: Picked up by media, therefore important and verifiable and newsworthy. 4: Man's video is mentioned in the article for the film. 5: Article on great work of art not improved at all. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Gareth, surely you can see how you are putting your own personal spin about this on the source. You see some commentary that isn't about the content of the film's story and get upset because someone reported on something odd about the additional footage offered of the premier at Mann's Chines Theatre. There is plenty of precedent to note material of this nature: The Crow, Poltergeist, Atuk, and The Conqueror are but a few that offer in the body of the article information not directly related to the actual film's plot or production.

We do not cite Youtube, for the most part, but the moment something takes on a life of its own n the national media and is unlikely to change - it becomes notable and therefore fair game for inclusion. That happened when national media picked up the story. That we would not include it after that sort of coverage is not an option. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Come on. That's no time traveller. Even mentioning that in the article is a bad joke. Does anyone has that DVD and is able to confirm it is actually there? If yes, is there an audio-commentary explaining it, maybe is was filmed in the 2000s as a joke? -Koppapa (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but you are avoiding the obvious, Koppapa: you cannot prove that it isn't a time traveler; even if you could, you are not a citable reference to determine inclusion or exclusion of cited material. As for the commentary it is, according to the commentary from the sources, available in the extras section of every one of the collected DVDs released for Chaplin. There is no evidence that the extras film in question was made at any other time than in 1928. In any case, out primary observations are not citable in any article. We are simply reporting in the article the observations of other, notable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus here is that this story is a peripheral aspect of the article's subject, and the media's reporting of Clarke's 'interpretation' and the clip's subsequent popularity should be given a brief and non-sensational mention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am respectful of consensus, but not when it contravenes our polices and guidelines regarding inclusiveness. Solid, reliably sourced commentary exists regarding the DVD extras scene, and so it seems incredibly stupid to stick our head snit he sand and pretend no one has mentioned it. If necessary, let's escalate the matter to mediation. I'm quite convinced we have to mention it.

As an asie, I don't think we are "sensationalizing" it; we are simply providing rounded discussion regarding something reported by reliable sources. Seriously, this actually improves the article by providing real-world context for the film in popular culture. We do not exclude material simply because it offends our precious little sensibilities. Including this doesn't distract format he film - it expands upon a small aspect iof it. Lastly, we have substantial precedent for this sort of thing, as noted previously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion was initiated by User:Cirt on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I think that notifying folk here is the right thing to do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed down the lavish paragraph in the lead. I think we should be guided by WP:WEIGHT. A vast majority of reliable sources (film historians, arts critics, etc.) give this story no significance at all relating to the film itself. And let's wait for a reliable source to call it an "out of place artifact" before we add that to the article, OK? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a) the Lede bit wasn't "lavish" - let's trim down the semantics intend, shall we? While we should of course be guided by Weight, we shouldn't ignore LEDE in so doing. The Lede is an overview of the article, and currently, there is more in the section about Clarke's suggestion than there is in any other part of the particle. The Lede is supposed to reflect content (as well as serve as an introduction to the subject). Let's not get elitist here. Just because some chowderheads have suggested that the person in the 1928 premiere Extras looks to be using a cell phone doesn't mean it is a cell phone. That isn't the focus here. The focus is instead on the fact that a fir amount of notable folk have piped up since then, speculating wildly. It is because these speculations were reported by reliable media that we note it here. If End World Times or Billy Joe Bob's homepage ran stories about this, I would completely agree that the mater isn't notable. Being snobbish about content, pretending that a news event doesn't belong because it doesn't fit the article is, in a word, stupid. In two words, it is entirely negligent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "time traveler" discussion should be relegated to one or two sentences, especially considering that this film has no other real-world coverage. I don't mind noting the discussion, but we should consider additional coverage of the film to improve the overall balance of content. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not precisely sure what you mean, Erik, about the "no other real-world coverage" - are you referring to the film itself? I agree that any of Chaplin's films should be vast enough to warrant slavish attention to detail. Were that to occur, the few sentences that adequately (imo) describe this recent observational news bit, would likely fit the comparative weight of the article. I don't think we should ignore one part of the article because the rest of the article isn't developed out he way it should be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant real-world coverage about the film in the Wikipedia article itself. If this article was more fleshed out, it would not be as problematic to mention the time traveler excitement. For example, Fight Club (film) is well-developed, and it mentions a couple of viral videos without issue because there is much more relevant content about the film that already exists. That's why I added the notice at the top to encourage finding sources. We should treat this as an opportunity to build up this article in other ways so it is a more encyclopedic presentation for readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, tht's what I thought. I concur. Rather than try to trim down the bit added, expand on the more significant portions that actually discuss the film itself. Currently, there is more in the Lede about the movie than there is in the rest of the article, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't imagine anyone actually reading this coverage could fail to see the 'tongue in cheek' attitude of the media with regards to this story. Perhaps after the Halloween Week enthusiasm has worn off we can adjust coverage of the "time traveler" story in this article back to the minimal weight it requires. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that notability isn't seasonal. The footage will still exist well after Halloween (it's done so since 1928), and I don't think the links are going to vanish - unless someone goes back in time and kills all the reliable sources who reported the odd story. Sorry, couldn't avoid the irony there. The bit about the footage is currently at the appropriate value for the reportage thus far. What shoudl instead be focused on is developing out the other aspects of this story. As has been noted before, there are plenty of examples within Wikipedia wherein odd/unlikely/unbelievable things happen and are citable included in articles. I don't see a compelling UNDUE argument countering that in the near future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erik that this should be an opportunity for someone (hmmm, who should that be?) to get to work on expanding the entire article and thus improving it overall. Wikipedia is not here to pander to little gamer bois like you, so hop to it Jackie. Get to work on improving this article. I'll be on the sidelines rooting for you. -Yinzland (talk 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm. Feel free to lend a hand, fellow editor. I plan to see what I can add through Google Books when I have downtime. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, downtime - I remember back before I had kids when I had that thing called 'downtime'. ;)

And Yinzland, you might consider that I only became involved in the article because of the odd news story. Clearly, you seem to treasure Chaplin's films, so i think you'd be far more prepared to develop out the other aspects of this article. If you ned help (being very new and all), all you need do is ask; I'll be happy to halp you should the need arise. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the rest of the article sounds fine, and a brief summary of the time traveler story in the lead is all that's required per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're only using two sentences in the Lede to note the matter (I had to revert your bold changes to better explain the matter while keeping it brief, btw). I know there was one before, but whittling it down too much only hurts the article - and its important for folk to understand that to seek to do away with this cited matter is deleterious to the article.

If you think another wording would be better, we can hash that out here. The citations should stay in the Lede, since there are going to be Chaplin fans who are going to be aghast that something not Chaplin-eaque was ever reported in the media. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this really such a major part of the films importance that it shuold be in the lead? It seems to me that its not, and as such while it may have a palce in the articel placing in the lead coould be seen as giving it undue attnetion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

what the mail source says "There are also sceptics who believe the footage is just a stunt created by Mr Clark - a film maker with Yellow Fever Productions - to publicise his latest film festival.". So yes it does accuaratly refelct what the source says. The only changese are for brevity or to avoid copyright violation by direct quotation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

It isn't about importance, Slatersteven; its about providing an overview of the article, which it is currently. The rest of the article is noticeably anemic, which makes the cell phone stuff more pronounced. Fill in more stuff about the film itself, and the bits about the film's premiere will be less notable. We aren't giving it undue attention; if anything, we are giving it less attention due to the bare bones nature of the rest of the article.

Lastly, I pulled your cite addition, as the quote took out of context the point of the article. referenced. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

what the mail source says "There are also sceptics who believe the footage is just a stunt created by Mr Clark - a film maker with Yellow Fever Productions - to publicise his latest film festival.". So yes it does accuaratly refelct what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is misleading, Slatersteven. While that is but one of the choices that the reference states, it also posits three other choices, which you failed to note; that seems like an unfair use of the reference to prove a point not intended by the reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The accusation that this may be a publicity stunt is rahter more improtant then specualtion about what 'She' may be doing. Its about him, not the video footage. So no I did not fail to note otehr choices, I failed to note what has already been mentioned (that there are other therories about what 'she' is doing) whilst noting them most important of those that have not been included. Also above there is I bleive a comment about this not being self promotion as he hs nothing to gain (apart from the film festaval poster her promonatly displays at one point. Also leads are for overviews of the artciel to give a casual reader an understanding of the saliant points. This materail is not about the film but a dvd extra that in fact 9assuming its true) is about the showing of the film, niot the fiolm itslef (and is the only material about the premier).Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's your interpretation. The article also submitted three other possible scenarios. Cherry-picking parts of a reference that do not accurately reflect the whole of the source is pretty frowned upon here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think we all need to run over to the John Krasinski article and start adding material that overweights it in favor of this important new developing story. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. It is a good likeness. Who'd a thunkit? If you are looking for odd crap like that, there's a bunch of nutters who believe that George Washington was actually Adam Weishaupt. Goofy shit exists everywhere. It s okay for us to privately dismiss it, but that doesn't extend to our responsibilities here in Wikipedia. If a boatload of reliable sources came forward about the comparison between Krasinski and Christen Købke's portraiture subject, we'd be compelled to note it on both Krasinski's page as well as that of Købke's. That's how Wikipedia works, and how it is utterly unlike some puerile net forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources link this togetehr with the Chaplin footage as examples of posible helloween hoaxes.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Love to see a list of them. Maybe note if they are all taking a cue from one another, cause that's simply citing a case of Round-robin, something the Daily Show gets a home run with every time the major networks leech news stories from one another. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright LuckyLouie, you make a good point. And perhaps my aggressive comments have simply added flame to the fire, but I'm simply appalled that this entire thing has any credibility at all. I've always respected Wikipedia for being group run and self-correcting, basically because there are enough people who want things to be accurate and will argue for accuracy. This is, in my mind, what gives Wikipedia credibility. BUT if every individual who happens to find some obvious misinformation humorous and gets a kick out of seeing it legitimized by including it here gets there way because no one will get them their due spanking, then the site loses that credibility, which I would hate to see. But I will ignore all this for a while until it dies down and certain people get distracted by Worlds of Warcraft (sorry, couldn't resist). -Yinzland

That's okay, you are allowed to go off and play WoW, Yinzland; I'll be here until they shutter the doors. :)

One of the things new contributors like yourself have the most trouble with is understanding that this isn't an internet forum; flame wars only get you blocked, and there are no points for being unpleasantly aggressive or failing to offer the assumption of good faith editing. This is a structured, collaborative environment, wherein we work together within the rules to cobble together stories. We don't get to add our own viewpoint. Ever. We simply report secondary sources to the best of our ability. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is silly beyond belife, but I don;t think snide remarks are the answer. Its now increasingly obvious that this is a hoax (and a prety shabby one at that). Now can we agree that this can be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that being a jerk isn't going to do anything but eventually get that person blocked. that said, i disagree that this is a hoax - shabby or otherwise. Here's another feature of Wikipedia that may have been overlooked: even if the matter turns out to be a complete hoax (which I find unlikely; Clarke couldn't have possibly doctored millions of copies of released DVD collections containing the Extras section featuring the film premiere), we would be compelled to retain the bit because it was related to the film. Notability is forever, me droogs, be it someone confusing a hearing aid for a cell phone and getting a lot of media play, or someone manipulating that media play via a hoax. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather difficult point it being related to hte film. It could be argued (and in the case of the lead wiht a lot of vadality) that it has nothing to do with the actual subject of the article (it is after all nothing to do with the film, the premier yes not the actual film and thus is a bit unde). Also we don't know how many versions do or do not contain this footage, no one appears to have actualy tried to see it for themselves (except for one person it would apear on youtube, not RS) (or the claim its a different realese version if false). No indepth examination of his claim has been done, so you cannot claim its impposible for him to have carried this out. The accusation is out there that this is a hoax, and no evidacen has really ben produced clearly showing its not. But more evidance is turnig up that it may be, now it seems that even the filim technique ised may not have exsisted at the time (so maybe the film ws made by a time traveller?)Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Am beginning to think that Chaplin was a time traveller. Is that roller skate routine in Modern Times his way of summoning up a vortex or something? More research needed. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As has been pointed out several times earlier, there exists plenty of precedent to note material of this nature: The Crow, Poltergeist, Atuk, and The Conqueror are but a few that offer in the body of the article information not directly related to the actual film's plot or production. Curses and radiation poisoning have very little to do with these films, and yet there is information about each in the aforementioned articles. As should be.

We don't ge tto do in-depth examination of the evidence; it is not our bailiwick to Sherlock out the details. We simply report reliable sources that comment about it, and report them neutrally - and I'll point out that the operative word there is 'neutrally'. the accusation made in passing that this might be hoax presented all by itself is an example of undue weight; it has only been suggested in one source, alongside several other possibilities.

We need to keep our personal perceptions, opinions and other bullshit out if the evaluation process. Several sources have reported it, and have use the term 'time traveler' and 'cell phone'. We report that (with citations). Some offer alternative suggestions. We report that too (again, with citations). We think its a hoax and call shenanigans. We keep that to ourselves, as our evaluations are neither reliable, notable or neutral. It doesn't get much more clear than that.

However, if anyone feels that I'm misinterpreting Wiki policy on this matter, please feel free to seek out the counsel of an admin - most have been here for long time, and all are supposed to know Wiki policies and guidelines backwards and forwards. If you choose not to believe me, you can maybe believe them telling you precisely the same thing. This isn't my personal take on wiki policy; this is wiki policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff exstst is not a reason to keep this. Moreover most of the stuff youu have mentioned (the curse of the crow, the cancer of the cast and crew of The Conqueror are directly realted to the production of those films, not to the showing of those films.

I was not talkinig about us gooing into indepth ananysis, I was talkiing about sources not doi9ng so, thats the problom this has the ring of a silly season slow news day story. Tom put in bluntly no one seems that interested in it.

We also AGF. Also multiple sources (at least 6 are used in the articel) call this either a hoax or stunt.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that we should retain this because Other Stuff Exists; stop trying to reframe the question, please. You need to separate your presonal views with those from our references, as the latter are going to be the only ones we can include. And frankly, you have provided one citation - one - that suggests in passing that the film might be a hoax - mad as that seems (I mean, really?? George Clarke went around, broke into several million homes and altered the DVD collections of millions of consumers so he could claim time travelers in 1928? Granted, it'd a be a grand Irish prank, but I think that would take more time than Clarke has.) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why rasie otehr stuff? alsois there any evidacen that millions of peple have seen the origional footage (rahter then on youtube) and have verified this womans existance? I also think we need a quote from trh ITV source saqying this has recive d notable coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this mentioned on the fringe theories noticeboard. My immediate and strong reaction is that the so-called time traveller is grossly overweighted in the article, and deserves to be mentioned in a single sentence or not at all. I'm referring to this version[1] in which the article about this notable Chaplin film is dominated by discussion of the "time traveller." That's nuts. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scotty. Could you post a link to the discussion at the Fringe Noticeboard? I'll be trout-slapping the contributor who thought they'd back-door the discussion without posting a link here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you'll be slapping nobody, Jack. WP:OWN much? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest all you want, Lucky - forum-shopping w/out giving others the opportunity to contribute is inherently unfair as it seeks to seek consensus without presenting dissenting views. And you are going to want to seek out and read our civility policy, as accusing someone of ownership will likely get you pwn'd until you cannot sit down without a special cushion.

Found it: the mention discussion can be found here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You're literally the one holdout among a consensus of editors who disagree with you, Jack. It's time to stop trying to dominate the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More's the pity - I am the only one correct here, in that case. I will state it bluntly: whether or not you believe the woman is indeed a time traveler or is using a cell phone (I personally don't think so, but my opinion on the subject is as unimportant and unusable as yours or any other editor here) is of no importance. we have citations suggesting it is, and those that suggest it isn't. Look at the info being added: one edit failed to note that it was one source that suggested he had faked millions of DVD collections. Another slanted the source to list only the hoax suggestion over the other three suggestions (hearing aid, etc), which is essentially cherry-picking sources to support a personal view. We don't do that here. Ever.

What you see as "dominating the article" is me trying to help the new folk amongst you to understand that your personal views don't belong in the article. Your personal take doesn't allow you to purge cited information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jackie boi, did you just threaten physical violence against LL with a fish? That's not very civil young man. Don't worry though, I would never suggest banning an entire user just because he mwade mwe swo mwad dat mwy bwackhweads hurted and I dwopped mwy gwameboi, boo hoo hoo.

Also, I'll add to the ever growing list of things wrong with the article: Wikipedia:CITEKILL. You are so very very wrong and this will all be over soon I'm sure.-Yinzland

I haven't read through the immense discussion above, but I think it boils down to a simple issue: this minor Internet brouhaha is dominating an article about a significant part of the Chaplin filmography. It is a gross and obvious NPOV issue. Remember that NPOV deals not just with opinions but also aspects of a particular article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No source has sugestes he has faked millions of DVD,s wghat5 has been sugested by sources is he faked one. And that is all. You are the one susgesting that millions own this DVD, anbd are ORing to susgest they have all seen this women (I shall ovoid the obviouos sarcasm). As I have already pointed out the other version you say were ingnored were not about his actions (which is what the fakery accusation is about) but about other theories about what she is doing, its not the same theory at all. AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sugested new text "Time traveller" footage

On 19 October 2010, Irish independent filmmaker George Clarke uploaded a YouTube video focusing on a scene from the film's extras available from the collection DVD. The scene, depicting the comings and goings of people at the premiere, shows what Clarke suggested was "a time traveler using a cell phone". Some sceptics she may be using a pocket-sized hearing aid or a compact hearing trumpet. It has also suggested that this may have been a publicity stunt, or a Halloween prank, or that the film is fake. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN clip

Thius makes no mention nof notable coverage I would ask you to self revert and to stop mis-representing sources. Or I would ask that someoen else checks the source, and if I am right undo this edit. I am now seeking claificatioin of this point.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, 2.5 million hits and 20k comments isn't notable? Wow, that's a jaded world view. Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is OR, you can only say what the source actualy says, not how you interpeate it (and no 2.5 million is not a lot, its about what 1% of youtubes total, thatxs not vast now is it).Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that, SS. Notable coverage also refers to not only volume but the caliber of the media outlets commenting on the matter: CBS News, CNBC, DailyMail - pretty notable news sources, all. Out of curiosity, what would you term the coverage? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not what I (or you) call it its what RS call it. Moreover its not who reports it, its how that determines notability for purposes of material being kept. But what you have done is to claim (in the article) that this has received notable coverage when no source you have provided (despite claiming one did) says the coverage is notable, that is OR. Material that is challenged can only be i9ncluded if RS support the text, this has been challenged RS do not support the text as such it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I;m sorry, cold you go back over your post and spellcheck it? I've asked you to do this a few times before, as a lot of your content is confusing otherwise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

NO problom, but it might help if you did too you know. we all make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually refactoring your post would be seen as impolite and is frowned upon. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is? can you provide the link to policy please?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RTP - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I read this it A: applies to other edds making changes to someone else’s comments 2: It dies not preclude it, nor does it seem to say its frowned upon unless its inappropriately done. I fail to see it’s applicability here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm putting an NPOV tag on this article. The fact that an entire section of this article is consumed by a section on this "time traveller," now consuming the bulk of text on this article, is one of the worst NPOV violations I've ever seen. This article doesn't even have a plot summary!

Here is the section of WP:NPOV that applies:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

I'm also removing the section tag as it is redundant. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you consult with an admin before doing so - the article itself isn't NPOV. Not even the section is, really - its simply reporting news stories that presented an outlandish claim. We aren't taking sides in it (well, some are rather vehemently opposed to its very existence, but they're mostly newer users here), How is adding cited material from reliable sources considered NPOV? I'm curious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy I've cited above speaks for itself. I sense an "IDONTHEARIT" ignoring of basic policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the dickish commentary to a minimum, Scotty; I asked a question: how is the article an example of a failure to utilize a neutral point of view? Are there opinions presented in any of the sections that are uncited? Did I miss some part of the article wherein someone slipped in a 'I heart Chaplin' comment? I'm not seeing the supposed NPOV violation that you are tagging. Is this a noticeboard issue? Post a link, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The section gives undue weight to one aspect of the subject, this supposed "time traveller." It couldn't be more obvious, and I've raised this point at least three times. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't consult an administator and no such consultation is necessary in such a clearcut situation, but I see that an administrator on the fringe noticeboard agrees that this is an WP:UNDUE violation. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ScottyBerg, much appreciated. I've tried properly tagging this article for outside opinions several times and its the darndest thing, someone keeps deleting them without allowing outside opinions to burst his little bubble. Thank you for your help. Yinzland

I endorse the addition of the NPOV tag per Scotty's referenced passage of WP:NPOV. The section is indeed "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Erik (talk | contribs) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The section really needs to be either removed completely or reduced to one or two sentences. I personally favor removing completely, as this is so much of a flash in the pan that it's just not worth mentioning at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Respectfully, I think you are crystal-balling, Scotty. How do you know this is a "flash in the pan"? I mean, its a fairly safe bet that what we're seeing isn't really a time traveler chatting it up on a cell phone, but our opinions aren't inclusive. We aren't in hurry; and can fully adopt a wait and see attitude in this matter. We have reliable sourcing on what we do have, which makes the topic rock-steady. Still not seeing the NPOV violation; what I am seeing is a regular-sized section in an otherwise sparse and anemic article. I think our energies would be better served by developing out the rest of the article instead of flexing our moral outrage over the inclusion of a news story from this century. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing: if this was a minor cult movie, and that was the only thing notable about it, I'd feel differently. But this is a gosh-darn Charlie Chaplin movie! ScottyBerg (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How about a transwiki to Wikinews for most of the content? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what transwiki means, but if it means "remove," I'm all in favor.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I wouldn't mind having parallel content in WikiNews, but I'd oppose the removal of this material in its entirety. It is related to the film; there's no escaping that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No it was shot outside the cinema showing it, that does not make it linked.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"time traveler" query

As a Wikipedia user (who has not contributed to this article), I can agree that the "time traveler" footage is irrelevant to the Circus entry. But as someone interested in time travel as a literary device, I want to be able to consult Wikipedia for all the details on this meme. The issue for me is not time travel, it's the history of pop culture, which Wikipedia does cover. New entry, perhaps?76.171.170.77 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It may belong elsewhere, but I don't know where. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I could personally live with it simply being listed here: [[2]] Yinzland

Excellent place for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! But it's not there.76.171.170.77 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. The smart money is that it's about to vanish like a fart in the wind. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the section down to a bare minimum seems fine, excising it and ignoring it altogether isn't. It wasn't something just mentioned in a couple of blogs, many mainstream news outlets picked up on it and therefore there should be some mention of it. Valenciano (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; it was one of several points I made previously. No one is advocating writing a novel about the instance. However, since none of the editors advocating the complete removal of the info have actually done anything to improve the article, the addition of the info seems like bloat in the current skeletal version now in place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A simple line or two along the lines of "In October 2010 it was claimed that a time traveller using a mobile phone was visible during the premiere of the film." Let's be honest about this, most people hadn't heard of this film before those events. The article was getting 60 views per day, that jumped to nearly 8,000 views on the basis of the story. It seems bizarre that the article now contains absolutely no reference to such a well referenced event with many arguments for the complete exclusion of the info coming dangerously close to "I don't like it." Valenciano (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the objections are that it’s not about the film. Its speculation about an extra that may (its not been established that it does) show a scene at the premier (there was nothing in the article about the premier before this, and still is not) that might show a time traveller. It’s not about the film but the premier (do any other films articles have sections about notable (and this may not be) events at premiers?). The problem is this tells as nothing about the film, its making or those who starred in it, it may in fact (beyond being shot outside the cinema it was showing) have nothing to do with the film (she may have just been walking past and not attending), indeed it actually tells us nothing (and does not add to our understanding) of even the premier itself. Its value to the article is negligible and is merely reporting of an internet phenomena that is only indirectly linked to the actual film (its like having a car crass outside a film premier and having it on the film page as a linked event, which is what this is someone filmed outside the premier).Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Valenciano is absolutely correct. The filming of the premiere is indeed related to the film (we know it is related because it was included in the DVD collection for the film - therefore, we have reliable sourcing for that connection). We are not allowed to censor simply because we do not like the info being provided; we are editors, not authors. According to the justification being provided above, the "curse" following the Poltergeist film has nothing to do with the film, and should be removed. The fact that several cast and crew of The Conqueror came down with radiation sickness after filming had concluded is also unrelated to the film. Yet, we have mention of those things in those articles.

The basic fact is that folk were "appalled" that information - even solidly sourced, reliable information - could be added to the article. It was elitism, Valenciano - nothing else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not about the film, it's about something not in the film at all but in some film shot in promotion of the film, and doesn't belong in this article. I also strongly disagree with the view that most people hadn't heard about this film prior to this incident. That's nonsense. All of Charlie Chaplin's films are amply notable in their own right, and all have been watched by millions of people around the world to this day. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on your belief that most people had heard of this film prior to this incident. The lack of development of this article is substantive proof of that. Were your claim true, this article would be as well-developed as, say The Great Dictator. This is one of the reasons why the information about the premiere (which I totally agree with you was definitely related to the film) stood out so starkly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't judge the popularity of this film by the neglect of this article. There is only a stub on some of his best known and most celebrated shorts, such as The Pawnshop. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually we don't know its film of the premier, the accusation is that this does not appear in other versions of the extra. Two The premier is related to the film, but not everyone that appears in that footage is (for example the man seen before the old woman). So the best we could say is that she is related to something related to the film (by the way do we know if she even attended the premier or was just walking past?). Also (for the umpteenth time) all of the other films mentioned have sections about matters relating to production, this is not related to production and so it’s not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually,w e do know that the video segment came from the film of the premiere- reliably sourced information has explicitly said so. As well, your assertion that this segment doesn't appear in other versions of the premiere footage is completely inaccurate; you misread the source. What was actually said by one (and only one) detractor was that the premiere footage didn't appear in their version of the collected Chaplin DVDs. You got that wrong, Slatersteven. As well, whether the woman was walking past or attending the premiere is tangential; she appeared in the film of the premiere, and her appearance stood out. And lastly, please feel free to point out where, precisely, a "curse" surrounding the Poltergeist film series is related to production. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NO we don't we know that Clake claims its from the DVD, and one person has contradicted this (and no third party RS has come forward to support either claim) (By the way most sources do not say it came from the DVD just that Clarke said it did). As to Poltergeist, well the curse (according to its artcviel) only affected the actors, thats production personel, not peopel walking past.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, Slatersteven - you need to stop and actually re-read the article and citations (or rather, the version of the article before the info was purged); Clareke explictly noted that he was watching the segment present in his Chaplin DVD collection. If not, why would would one other person claim it wasn't in their collected DVD? What you keep failing to realize is that your job is to edit, not act as a detective to suss out the truth. Indeed, the criteria for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". Lastly, you are actually wrong about Poltergeist as well; the "curse" affected them after production had closed - production was no longer ongoing while the supposed curse ran its course. We include it because its connected to the film, just like a film premiere is in the early days of film. I don't know why I keep having to continue to explain this to you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has veered off from the central point that the so-called "time traveller" is not in the film. Manhattan Melodrama is known mainly as the "film Dillinger was shot at." It's absurd to suggest that The Circus was sunk in obscurity until this silly Internet meme surfaced. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the article has languished here without significant expansion since its creation precisely eight year ago. Even today, it doesn't have the most basic elements of a film article, like plot, production and reception sections. This "silly internet meme" as you call it (and I disagree mightily with that assessment) has brought tens of thousands to this article since the news story appeared. Manhattan Melodrama and Our CountryAmerican Cousins are both known for information only tangentially related to it - you even agree about this. And yet, you cannot seem to extend that same courtesy to other reliably cited information in an article its tangentially - yet inextricably - related to. I am guessing its because you personally feel that it is - you called it "silly", right? Your personal assessments cannot be used to determine inclusion, Scotty. Verifiability, not truth is the litmus for inclusion. That's Wikipedia's rule, not mine.

I seem to have completely disproven every point you just made, Scotty. Got anything else? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's "Our American Cousins," not "Our Country Cousins," and you haven't "disproven" a thing but merely repeated arguments that have been rejected by a clear consensus of the editors in this article and at the fringe noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A typo - thanks for pointing out the correct title. Could I trouble you to also point out where consensus trumps policy? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No one says that consensus trumps policy, Jack, only that since both are against you, it's time to drop the stick. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that we're at an impasse and that this discussion is starting to become an argument? (Strong) disagreements exist and opinions seems to be solidly formed and I doubt there's anything any one party can say that will change the opposing party's mind. I'm not suggesting a complete cessation of any type of discussion but a voluntary moratorium on things already discussed that would only lead to further repetition of "I'm right, prove me wrong", "You're wrong, I just proved it"-type of argument that usually doesn't lead to positive results because it's non-collaborative by definition. As it stands, there does seem to be a consensus although not everyone is in agreement with it. Maybe it would be worthwhile to step aside for a bit and let someone else (who hasn't spoken yet) offer a fresh perspective? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the fresh perspective. I'm not a regular editor of this article. I responded to a posting on the fringe theories noticeboard. This dispute was festering for days before it came there. The discussion at the noticeboard, involving Jack Sebastian versus numerous other uninvolved editors, is still dragging on at that location. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

According to a rumour I have heard (I have been unable to find RS to confirm it) the copyright holders of the footage confirm that in some versions the women is present but in otehrs she is not due to poor editing. can those with more commitment to this have a look and see if they can find any confirmation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Internet phenomena

It's been moved to this article, under "films". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of puting a see also link on the page, thus those who wish to can go and see it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've since relocated it to List of Internet phenomena#Videos since Clarke's YouTube video is rightly an Internet video meme now widely known as the "Charlie Chaplin Time Travel Video". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i see the See Also entry, but I'm not sure that any reader seeing it is going to know what it is or where it leads. Do we explain what it is, or expect the reader to use telepathy? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm dubious about this "see also" entry, for the same reason the absurd "time traveller" section was removed from this article. It's about something on the DVD, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the film itself. Why is it there? I think it should go. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The DVD is related to the film and this is a reasonable compromise if the info isn't included in the article itself. Valenciano (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Its an attempt at a compromise. By the way see [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK no problom with that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

plot

as of now the plot described in the lead section is loger than in the plot section. it should be trimmed above and expanded under plot. but i haven't seen the movie. -Koppapa (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the article hasn't seen significant expansion since its creation eight years ago, I'd guess that you weren't alone in not having seen the film, Koppapa. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I also must admit that I haven't seen the film and am the first to admit that the Plot description which I wrote isn't very good. If I get around to seeing it in the near future I will write a nice, original description. But Jackie boi, isn't it amazing that all of these thousands of people viewing this page have themselves not added any relevant information, nor have they come to your defense. Food for thought. And please, let the record show that Jack has been the one person throwing a tantrum about this whole thing. And I would like to remind Jackie that in my first edit I corrected the wording of the incident so that it no longer implied that "time travel" was indisputably possible. That alone caused you to loose all credibility kiddo.Yinzland

I will ask you once in this public space - since asking you privately has failed - to stop the personal attacks. If you don't, there will be consequences. Don't test me, Yinzland. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just discovered that the film is in fact uploaded in its entirety on YouTube. [[4]] (The lack on hits compared to the infamous time traveler video is just depressing) I'll watch it tonight.Yinzland

Hmmm... not a legal upload, but I must say I watch the illegals myself very often. ;) I actually did see The Circus, and I may even have that DVD extra upon which the space traveller appears. In a way I'm grateful for this nasty little dispute as it has reminded me of my interest in Chaplin. I may do more editing in this area as time permits. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol - I'll believe it when i see it. This article went 8 years without any significant work. I imagine it'll go on another few without getting touched. And the net stuff will come back, once more people comment on it. Count on it, and it probably won't be me that adds it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "Lol," why not help expand this article? ScottyBerg (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two reasons, Scotty. First, I am not a Chaplin film buff. I know some people are, and that was one of the many things I found depressing bout editing this article. During all of this back and forth about the Extras footage, not one person expanded any part of the article.

Secondly, I have every reason to believe that the clusterfuckery that occurred here when I was mobbed (by a policy interpretation that I simply find laughably inaccurate) would absolutely happen again. And I've wasted far too much time on a single article where not even a single Chaplin fan could be roused enough to expand it. All of the 80k visits to the article mentioned earlier were due to the Extras DVD - a bold statement supported by the fact that not a single person expanded the article. It has in fact contracted.

So, you can understand my hesitation to either work against the tide of what I feel is malformed opinion or the headaches commensurate with the effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User page hits have absolutely zero impact on article content. I've responded to other aspects of your post on your talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. As for page hits having nothing to do with content, that's utter nonsense. Unless you have a policy or guideline to back that up, I'll presume that that's an original interpretation by you. We write for the casual reader. Not the experts, nor for wiki editors. For the casual reader. They see something online, and come here to learn more about it. When they don't get that because someone's magically predetermined that the content in question is nonsense and a flash in the pan, we have failed both the encyclopedia and the reader. Period.

I'll say it one last time until we revisit this subject at a later time. The content is related to the film; Extras footage sold with the actual film has already determined that. The content was related to the film. Even if it wasn't what some Irish kook thought it was, it is still notable in this article because it was commented on and verifiably connected by reliable sources. That's policy, and it's not really going to change, the various incorrectly-arrived at recent arguments to the contrary. I feel you are incorrect, and I know I'm right, as my interpretation of policy actually follows policy.

":I've answered your questions. We disagree, and I've not heard a single compelling argument to compel me to change it. I think we're done here. Go expand the article, since you worked so hard to "protect" it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It has a mention in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Time Traveler Issue in hindsight

It has been a little over 2 months since this "story" was first reported, and obviously all the hysteria around it has died down. A google search for news articles related to the story has shown that the incident has only been reported once in the past 2 months. This one page was an "end of the year summation" that is typically seen at this time of year. Since this story only managed to be mentioned on one of these lists it is safe to say that this is clearly a flash in the pan and I am now removing it from both here and the internet phenomena page. THE END. - Yinzland (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change. In retrospect, these news reports did not develop into anything of lasting value. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. We should remember to do this for the thousand other YouTube derived "stories" on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is too much of "it on snoozetube its the most important thing ever, did you know that up to 1% of the worlds internet users have looked at it?" nonsence on wikipeida.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone missed the Wiki bit about notability; if something is notable at one time, its notable forever. I'll be putting it back in, right back where it was. Please leave eit be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The weather of tomorrow is notable. But it isn't forever. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I bleive that WP:EVENT may be far more relevant. This was a one off that has had no lasting impact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Of course, there are avenues to pursue when seeking out advice on which policy is more "relevant". Naught has been said about the film since - essentially - it premiered last century. 9/11 is also just an event, too.

So, while I appreciate the bold removal, we found a hard fought consensus to include it, and so I don't want it to get shuffled off because someone pooh-poohs "common" media. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not seriously suggesting that 11/9 was no more important then this film? Even if you are not a quick search should tell you that the events of 11/9 are having repercussions to this day, as well as still extensive news coverage. This film has been forgotten. The film has no zero lasting impact; it is a one of event of no significance. Also I am not sure that consensus was for inclusion per see. It seems that consensus was against you but everyone backed down in order to compromise because you refused to let go of the stick. Much as you are doing now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today Justin Bieber twatted "everybody enjoy their new years and have fun. 2010 only ends once. :)". Would you also care to add that to his wikipedia page, along with all 6538 of his other "press releases"? Dude, it was never that funny, and its over now. Let it go.Yinzland (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Slatersteven, consensus (sought on a noticeboard) opted to mention it, not devote an entire subsection to it - it was still notable, and as per that guideline, "notability os forever." It made the news and was carried by several reliable sources. We aren't going to pretend it didn't happen because it appears to offend your sensibilities. And I didn't "let go of the stick", as you quipped, because I disagreed with you. What I did was compromise with you and others in allowing a more minor mention of it in the article - an article that has seen little in the way of expansion since that matter was discussed in October and early November. Perhaps time would be better spent expanding the other parts of the article - which cannot even make it to GA status as is - instead of pointing out something which in hindsight seems silly.

Silly or not, the fact that it was notable is not erased by the passage of time. Maybe you are operating out of a vivid misapprehension of our notability guideline. Maybe you should read it once again. If you still feel that the matter isn't notable, find an admin. Find several admins. They will all say the same thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not temporry. But I was not aware that any one had agrees this was notable. It was a compormise to end an argument, not an agreement it should be here. Notnews makes it claer that single events that have no lasting imopact have no place on wikipedia. I have said it before and I'll say it again (I thinki I will rasie this at a notice board) the notability is not temporary argument is used to keep material that is onlot here oni sufereage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to article content; content must of course meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, so the question is if the time travel element is being reported from reliable sources, and from a quick google news check, it is. Based on what it is, and that this is still a stubby article, a short paragraph to explain and debunk the idea is certainly well within all other policy. Just because no one talks about it anymore has no impact on content. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What about wp:fringe and wp:undue?

Masem, in that case would you have any objections if I added the info in this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/judases,16373/ to Chaplin's page? Could you at least take a closer look at the content of reliable news sources before you legitimize them? This is a joke, Jack Sebastian knows that it is a joke and I don't think that wikipedia policies are there for people to passive-aggressively dance around and find loopholes in like some 5 year old with crumbs on his mouth who says that you can't prove he stole the cookies from the cookie jar since you didn't actually see him do it. This is not simply a notable news story that had a few days of coverage and is therefore legitimate and meant for the ages. This was just a joke, on the same level as the Onion or the Daily Show and for whatever reason news sources that are not primarily satirical reported it, briefly. Is this really a question of the letter of wiki policy and the intent of wiki policy?Yinzland (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, obviously the Onion article can't be included because everything from the Onion, unless under the AV Club moniker, is satire and parody.

Notability applies only to whether we would give a topic its own article. I agree that the time travel story does not merit the long-term notability needed for it. But we're talking about inclusion of reliably-sourced neutral explanation of the event connected to this film; we don't have to show notability, but make sure that we're supplying verifiable sources and in an unbiased manner. Sources include MSBNC [5], Time [6], The Telegraph [7], and others. Note that they all approach the topic with skeptism but do mention that the video appears to show what it shows, and the Atlantic [8] subsequently debunked it. So, this eliminates the issue with WP:Fringe - the inclusion is not to say time travel is possible, but that as part of the film's DVD release, there was a short period where a video extra caught the Internet's attention and later debunked. No POV is taken by that. Completely appropriate as part of the legacy of the film.

The only possible issue here is Undue, as a paragraph to explain and discuss the issue may seem to outweigh what's presently available in the article. But this article is also short for a typical film article, and clearly there's room for expansion, so I cannot believe there's any UNDUE problems. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To say that they approached the topic with skepticism is to imply that they literally considered the possibility that this truly was a time traveler. That itself is a POV. I disagree and say that the reporters and anchors who reported the story were well aware that this was a joke and that debunking it was simply part of the satire. "Debunking" a time traveler is POV. And if it is satire it is clearly intentional unreliability. Reporting what something appears to be is a pseudoscience. Every year many news sources have "Special Issues" on April 1st. There is an understanding that on that date many pranks may be pulled. We laugh and then forget the jokes the next day, in my opinion. Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast is notable because (amongst other things) of the widespread panic that it caused by people who literally believed it to be a reliable news item. I don't think that any of these people "went along with the fun, wink wink, nudge nudge, and fled their homes just for the snicker bragging rights". No such notable hysteria came of this story, as I had already shown that since the initial flash in the pan 2 months ago this has been mentioned only once by any news source. Charlie Chaplin's The Circus is not the point, it never has been. The point is seeing how far a joke can be stretched for the snickering fun of it. The Circus, or a few seconds from an extra feature on its DVD over 80 years after it was made, its itself arbitrary to the joke itself. How then does this help the wikipedia article for The Circus? - Yinzland (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ther is the germ of a good point here. Every so often the papers report on some crackppot theroy. That does ot establish anyhing beyond a slow news day. At teh saem time this is one link to another page.Slatersteven (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, what is being added is not saying "There was possible evidence of time travel from an extra on the Circus DVD release" (that would be the FRINGE aspect that we need to avoid). What is being said is "On release of the Circus on DVD, a special that appeared to show a woman with a cell phone (but later proven to be a hearing aid) attracted some Internet attention". That's a non-fringe that is backed up by the sources. It doesn't need much more than a sentence or two to say that and add refs, but it would be improper to ignore it. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EVENT and the like don't apply to the material in an article. WP:UNDUE does however. I'd argue that a whole section (even "see also") may be undue weight even as a single sentence. Squeezing in a sentence somewhere would seem reasonable however. In any case, I see no reason why this can't be included here if done correctly. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I believe that the item was a cell phone or anything, but I think that the term "proven" is a little bit stronger than the sources have stated. The source provided by a generous editor above fromthe Atlantic says "it could be", not "is" - which is accurate, since the woman failed to hold up the damn thing to the camera for us future-dwellers to read. I would suggest something along the lines of:

"Nicholas Jackson, associate editor for The Atlantic, believes that the item in question was either a Siemens or Western Electric brand hearing aid."

This, I believe, neatly bookends the entire matter, keeping us off the path of FRINGE, UNDUE, NOTE and most other sets of allcaps wikilinks. As the reporting of the kerfuffle was reported by major news organs, and therefore has pretty solid citation connecting it to the film, I am strongly opposed to removing any mention of the event. We do not participate in revisionist history here. Different editors may think the entire thing was stupid and yet another internet jolly-off, but we take conscious steps to remove ourselves and our personal preferences from the articles we contribute to. We simply add the cited information, ensure that it presents a balanced, neutral and cited picture, and get the hell out of the way. It's that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think you are ignoring my main point which is that this is all a joke, and therefore based on untruths. And that both The Circus is in the peripheral of the joke and the joke is in the peripheral of The Circus. It has had no lasting impact on the news media and almost entirely disappeared after a few days. And again, not every single subject that is reported by the media should be added to Wikipedia. I still don't see any good reason why this needs to be kept.Yinzland (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, if it was a practical joke, or a lie, perhaps you could cite a reliable, verifiable source wherein it was called such. For all we know, the Irish feller could simply have made a mistake, or actually believes its a time traveler. Maybe I missed the news story where the guy said 'yep - all a biiiiiig joke on ye'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Per policy, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." WP:BURDEN on editor who adds material to demonstrate evidence of *enduring* notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Wikinews is a viable venue to cover this kind of timely news subject. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong on both points, Erik. The burden of notability was met quite some time ago, back when the matter first came up for discussion. The 'burden' - ie, notable, reliable and verifiable news outlets reported the matter, some even taking the time to offer possibilities as to the actual nature of what folk were seeing. So, burden met. Also, the previous attempt at removal, citing NOTNEWS, is equally invalid, as the news reporting on the incident was anything but "routine". It was notable enough to be covered by several major, non-internet news outlets. So that doesn;t seem to fit, either.

And while it might indeed be something nifty for WikiNews to have as well, the event is months old now. In any case, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be here as well as there.

And this might just be my innate distrust of motives, but it seems like removing most of the mention to the internet phenomena page was merely a first step, the next being the removal of the story entirely. If that is indeed the case, i take issue with such an underhanded method of approach. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I think Jack is right. Even if it was a hoax or a fib, it's still notable enough for it's own article. Probably doesn't meet WP:EVENT, but it easily meets WP:N. Let's find a single sentence (or maybe two short ones) that flows nicely in the text and call it good. Hobit (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't. I agree with Erik that it doesn't belong in the article. It is entirely peripheral to the movie. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Not only has the article not been improved, it's been made worse by loading the "See also" link with editorializing that elevates a YouTube amusement to a "hypothesis". The Atlantic article itself dismisses time travel as a 'fun explanation'. I think that gives us ample clue not to treat the subject as if there were some controversy. I'm reverting it back to the version before someone tried to make the "See also" link into a mini-article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that your assessment is - at best - uncharitable, Louie. At worst, its a snide comment. In either case, its still incorrect. The Atlantic is but one citation "debunking" the video, which is - of course - a best guess by a non-scientist 80 years after the event. It's akin to watching a 21st century forensic accountant try to identify Jack the Ripper. It's simply a best guess.

Let me be clear: I don't think that the video identifies a time traveler or a cell phone user, but such is outside our authority (as editors) to assess or decide. I only bothered to even say it so some kook won't think I'm endorsing George Clarke's theory. Keeping this in the article doesn't endorse the theory either. It simply identifies material - cited material - that is related to the subject of the article. Period.It was included in a DVD set of material for the film, so its connection is absolutely beyond question. Any argument of "peripheral" connection lacks foundation. The reliable, verifiable sources say differently. Therefore, it should stay and I'm undoing the revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with the film, not even a scene in the film, but is based on somebody's analysis of something in the DVD. I'm not seeing the consensus here supporting reversion of the overlong "see also" mention, and suggest you leave it be. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than play the tit for tat game of politely insinuating a person who disagrees with me has some character flaw, I'll just agree with Scotty, and say the previous overlong "See also" did not conform to the "brief annotation" recommended by WP:ALSO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Respectfully, you are wrong, Scotty. Hard consensus was found here earlier to leave the event as a simple sentence, hyperlinking it elsewhere. Not two mnths later, its complete removal fromt he Project is being sought, by not only purging the reference here, but to the hyperlinkage as well. Wikipedia is not censored; we do not remove a heavily cited instance based simply upon the perception that its absurdity.

To that end, I've fleshed out the vent again, with citations, as well as keeping a connection to the Internet Phenomena article (despite my impression that the latter constitutes a 'not a directory' oversight). I've also noted - as per WP:LEDE it in the Lede. If necessary, let's go to Arbitration on this, as the material is indeed cited, referenced, newsworthy and of related to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Placing it in the lead section is totally ridiculous and unwarranted. Please don't put something in the lead that has nothing to do with the film. It doesn't belong in the article at all, and certainly not in the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC):::::@Jack; I think more and wider opinions are the key to a solution here, not running off to arbitration when consensus is against you. How about a noticeboard like WP:N/N or even WP:NPOVN? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just adding that arbitration is not for content disputes, but for user behavior. A request for comment may also be helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Two replies: ScottyBerg - as per WP:LEDE, the Lede is the overview of the article, and for better or for worse, the event is within the body of the article. it is your opinion th theta matter doesn't belong in the article, so i can understand why you feel it is being given unfair attention by being mentioned in the Lede; we don't compound that error by forgetting how we put together articles in Wikipedia. If it is in the body, it get mentions in the Lede. No other way around that.

As well, I welcome a wider audience would be helpful here. As far as I know, I am the only person who has expanded the article in almost two months, and I added citable references to neutral, balanced content. I think that's what I find most frustrating about this discussion; people are arguing to remove stuff without having spent any time actually working to expand any other part of the article itself. If you think that a noticeboard is the best way to go, then let's do that (though I am not sure why you'd suggest NPOV - it isn't a matter of neutrality but of - presumably - notability). I haven't heard any compelling arguments against inclusion thus far, and find no merit to the arguments for diminution or exclusion. Once I have posted to the N/N, I'll add the link. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is theoretical as having a mention of the "DVD time traveller" in the article at all is patently absurd. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend that the incident be removed from List of Internet phenomena since it does not meet the criteria (seen on the talk page) of being notable and in compliance with WP:NOT (being news of non-enduring notability). If this is in doubt, we should create a separate article and put it up for AFD. If it is kept, it can be linked to. If it is deleted, it is not notable and does not belong anywhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Erik and LuckyLouie. If alllll this time (this has been going over 2 months) was spent improving this article, it could be a GA by now. Having a paragraph about this is just nonsense and I'm sure there are Conspiracy Wikis this belongs to (though don't hold me to that!). The way it is now, is perfect though.—Mike Allen 03:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The link to the notability notiveboard can be found here.

I've already addressed Erik's suggestion about NOTNEWS; his interpretation is incorrect, as the event was covered by dozens of news outlets, including print and television. And once found notable, it is always notable. As for the suggestion that the mere men tion of it should be deleted everywhere and put into its own article to stand AFD feels less than altruistic; I wonder if other films, like say the cultural impact section of Fight Club or the visual effects for The Fountain or the historical accuracy section of Valkyrie would survive such treatment.

The point is this, cultural events related to something usually are noted because of their relationship to the events which led to their creation. Had someone not been filming the premiere of The Circus, the person talking to their..whatever..might have never been filmed.

And I'll say it again: we are editors, not arbiters of Truth; the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. This is so important a distinction that its the very first line of our verifiability policy. Were it not notable, no one would have reported it in the first place, and no one would have taken the time to debunk it. As an person, you are personally allowed to think its all rubbish, but as a Wikipedia editor, your opinion has absolutely zero value. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that all those artciel you mention are about the film, not a DVD extra on one DVD relese of the film. Mo0reover being coverd in dozend of news outlets does not establish lasting impact (as required by nt news) just that at the time it gainsed some notice. s to its presence in the lead, sorry the lead is about the improtant elements of the artciel about the filom. Not ancillery elements. At one time this material took up half the articel, now its fiding its way into hte lead. For a 30 second (if that) clip on a single DVD extra only one person has noted(in RS as seeing that that every expert appears to have dismised is way undue (and begins to look like advacacy).Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are deeply misapprehending out Notnews guidelines (I am presuming you are still talking about this, since you refuse to spellcheck before posting, and I sometimes have a bit of trouble following your posts, as I've pointed out to you in the past). Most of our films have sections that discuss DVD extras. This is something in a DVD extra. Related to the film. And the bit about lasting impact? Simply look that page stats for this article since the story appeared; they were abysmal prior to it (like maybe 50 visits a month). During, we saw over 16,000 per day. The stats still have not returned to the pre-existing sad little numbers. Granted, Wikipedia isn't the world, but these numbers should indicate that there is lasting value to this information. At the very least, recognize that readers came here looking for information on the subject, and some folk here don't want them to see anything. that runs contrary to our supposed jobs here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Slaversteven about the lack of relationship. News reports can be used to build up topics of enduring notability, and all three films you mentioned are of enduring notability. This incident was a newsworthy event and was timely, as evidenced by the lack of follow-up. A separate article would be truly appropriate here if you do believe the topic is of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed this before at least twice; not sure why you aren't reading the posts. No separate article is required; this material is directly related to the release of the film, and was commented on and reported on by several verifiable, notable, and reliable news organs. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one possible approach, but I think that a better way of addressing this time-traveller stuff is to remove it from the article for the reasons stated, as policy and common sense so dictates. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For good or ill, your common sense doesn't override cited information, Scotty. You are seeking to censor the article's content because you find some of it absurd. I find that disturbing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what Erik is trying to say is that, should someone think the subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, they should pursue a stand-alone article approach. Whether the stand-alone article succeeds in convincing the community that it satisfies notability guidelines remains to be seen but I think Erik agrees that the material does not belong in this article. So you're in agreement on that issue. I am also in agreement with you. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm just suggesting that it is not necessary. However, this being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I suppose anyone can create any kind of article on any kind of rubbish. Try new page patrolling and you can see what I mean. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Way to show that neutrality, Scotty. Epic fail. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability Noticeboard entry

Thanks for starting a discussion there Jack, more eyes on this are better. However I wish you'd have phrased the issue more neutrally. Stating it this way as a "problem" attributed to a "small group of exclusionists" who commit the sin of "lack of expansion" and are "seeking to nix any mention of this matter" I feel totally misrepresents the position of your fellow editors (including me) here who happen to disagree with you regarding this article, and seems to show incredibly bad faith on your part. Would you consider refactoring your notice to be less accusatory? Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the willingness to remove the only story which has brought thousands of people to the article to be a problem; it damages the encyclopedia to not provide interesting info to the reader. As no policy or guideline is violated by its inclusion (despite the old, dull saws of Fringe, Notnews, etc being offered by folks not actually reading the policies in question), I am frankly appalled that I am not finding any level heads here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It also (as I bleive has been pointed out) not about notability (that has only to do with articel creation) but with Undue, Fringe, Not news et all.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was pointed out - several times. Perhaps you would be better served to actually read up on the policies/guidelines you are citing, Slatersteven. the inclusion of this violates none of them. Indeed, inclusion fulfills several of them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A view which you seem to be a in a minroity.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Which, of course, doesn't make me wrong, Slatersteven. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could bring an actual policy or guideline that the inclusion f this information actually violates. So far, you haven't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's include this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1xuLs7BCeo&feature=related in the cat article. It has millions of views and there was (for one of 2 days) a real media biz about it. I mean if it were a time traveller, but that dude uploaded that video as a joke. -Koppapa (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear on the guidelines regarding the inclusion of Youtube links, since they tend to go dark without much warning. this is another reason to include the information int he article, as the cited references content he video itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The Lola Cat story deserved a spot at Internet_vigilantism#Cat_dumped_in_wheelie_bin but not its own article or section in Cat, Coventry, Surveillance camera, Facebook, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor does your opinion that you are right make it so (by the way see WP:ONEWAY WP:REDFLAG . The point I mam trying to make is that this is not an issue of notability as that covers only artciels, not subjects mentioned in artciels. So take it to the fringe theory board.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes me correct in this particular discussion is the fact that I am following policy and guidelines to include cited information. I am not suggesting it has to be one way. I am stating that it must appear in the article, as it is related to the subject. And there is not reason to take a non-fringe problem to the frigne noticeboard. We aren't discussing whether the time traveler theory has merit. We are discussing whether it is notable for this article. Which, of course, it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Consensus makes no attempt to establish who's right and who's wrong, Jack. There really is no right and wrong here, every policy and guideline is subject to a degree of interpretation. Several editors interpreting several policies in a different way may all be right so how do we move forward? Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." When Slatersteven states that you hold a minority view I don't think that means to imply you're wrong, it simply means that voluntary agreement in this case seems out of reach and a majority decision, to which you are opposed, should be taken as the solution rather than to keep pursuing the "right and wrong" issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that idea, Bigbird, but suggesting I am forum-shopping because I think you are incorrectly interpreting policy and guidelines is not forum-shopping. If I went to, say, 4 different boards with the problem, then that could be seen as such (and yet another reason - apart from the obvious non-relatedness - of not taking the discussion to the fringe board). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken re: forum shopping, I take that back and I have struck out my remark regarding that from the noticeboard. Are you willing to make a concession that there is a majority decision on this issue, regardless of how much you may disagree with it? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking the unfair comment, Big Bird; its rare to see that in contentious discussions such as these. I do note that consensus appears to be against inclusion, but I am convinced you guys are wrong. You (and others) are incorrectly applying polices and guidelines to the inclusion of heavily cited info, and I cannot escape the impression that this is one of those 'i don't like it' cries from the chorus, instead of actually improving the article. It doesn't help that the user who initiated this discussion was indef banned for stalking and personal attacks. I am only following policy and guidelines here. The question is, 'why aren't you guys?'

Without a good answer to that, I am forced to seek input from others outside this discussion page; the fight to exclude this info simply doesn't track with our principles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "we are all following policy and guidelines, yourself included" and, as you yourself stated earlier, we are not wrong for disagreeing. Being completely truthful and honest, is there really a "good answer" that will satisfy you if the material stays excluded? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure wht you mean, BB. I think the material should remain; indeed, I think it should be expanded a little bit, so that the reader knows why someone thought a time traveler was in the footage. After ll, the page stats clearly tell us that the reader came here looking for precisely that. I'm not saying the article should be chock-a-block about it, but ignoring that which improves that article (and the reader is the best judge of this, btw) seems boggling to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Page stats have absolutely zero influence on how an article is supposed to be edited. You've raised this before, and I've pointed that out to you. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, if you've read my posts, you will note that I've not put too much stock in page stats - I've said as much. Often. they are indicators, not in-depth studies. What I am saying is the we write articles for the common reader. Not the Chaplin aficionado or the classic film buff, or the Deletionist: we write material that appeals to the largest group of our readership. Page stats tell us how many people are visiting the article. The page stats for this article spiked after the video appeared and was covered by major news outlets. This is a simple, incontrovertible fact. The article's visitation has remained higher than it was pre-event - also a proven fact. These facts simply combine to point out that visitors came to the article looking for more information, and we gave them diddle squat. I'm sorry, but if you are going to argue that they tell us nothing about the interest in the article, I cannot reason with you, as you appear to be unreasonable enough to overlook what everyone else would consider to be obvious. we aren't going to find much common ground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks, Jack. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've stricken the unfair assessment, replacing it with something more observational and not confrontational. Thanks for calling me on my unfair comment, SJA. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK, starting over. I think one sentence here with a cite is appropriate. There are plenty of sources, WP:FRINGE doesn't apply (or if it does, it doesn't prevent a single sentence) and one sentence isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Can anyone give a policy/guideline based argument for why one sentence isn't appropriate (or isn't enough as the case may be)? Hobit (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. None of the sourfes are exceptional, they are rountine news stories about a really exceptional claim. Also I would argue that undue does come into this. Material has to be given “…a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject”. The subject of this articel is the film, not the DVD realse, which is not even coverd in the articel. Undue also says “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” What do the majority of experts bleive this to be? Ther is no evidance that thjis is anything other then the view of one non-expert. The proper place for it is here Time travel urban legends I would susgest that those who consider this so important start working on this articel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and would add: A mention of any kind is inappropriate given the brevity of the article and the fact that it relates only to something in a special feature of a DVD, and not in the film itself. There is a mention in the See Also section, which is more than enough. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree; the news reporting of the claim was not "routine" as per the definition of such at WP:NOTNEWS; where dissent is clearly presented, we stick with the wording of policy.

As well, all of the sources are exceptional, immediately recognized as top tier news agencies (CNN, ABC, etc.), as per Wikipedia's definition of reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. Even the official Charlie Chaplin website makes mention of the news story (albeit in a playful manner).

No one is really arguing that we spend paragraphs upon paragraphs on this matter - it would overwhelm this woefully neglected article, which hasn't been expanded in over 2 months. What is appropriate is a mention (with citation), and a redirect to the more extensive article, thoughtfully cludged together by Slatersteven in less than an hour or so. What would be even more appropriate is the same level of energy being directed to actually expanding the article,b ut then, that's just me.

Make no mistake - our readers have come here looking for the matter, as indicated by the page statistics and internet results, and they are the sole reason we edit. While the initial opinion of the professional filmmaker on the nature of a film might not be considered "expert" enough (and I don't think anyone considers them an expert on time travel, but then, who is?), the subsequent story was given extensive coverage and follow-up "de-bunking" by science reporters taking the time to do so. They gave it the time. So should we. Our personal discriminatory preferences get absolutely no play here in Wikipedia. Period. We note sources, not uncited personal opinions.

Due to the extensive initial and follow up coverage, Wikipedia is clear: we have to mention it, despite any personal preferences to the contrary. How much we have to mention is - and should be - the sole point of this discussion. If necessary, let's go to mediation. I am convinced that we cannot remove the material, and it damages the article to pretend the story was never publicized - which is what is being advocated here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no exceptional claim. We're not going to report that there _was_ a time traveler, merely on the coverage gained about the issue. And I'm struggling to see how a sentence is too much weight on a issue that outweighs the coverage of the movie in the last year or so. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So if we were not to claim that Tufty shot Kendey as a road safty issue, but just that some one has said it and include it in the Kenedy articel that would be OK. Sorry the claim is that thre is a time traveler visable, that is a really very extraordianrty claim. Also The artice, is not about teh DVD (or the rpemier) but the movie, that is why I say its undue. As to coverage. Well its late but I will have a look and see how much coverage the film has recived. Sources or the film

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/entertainment/movies/it-may-not-be-classic-chaplin-but-hes-a-comedic-ringmaster-113062764.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Chaplin-festival-in-February/Article1-642608.aspx

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110105/LIFE/101050392/1001/NEWS/Hepburn--Grant-film-starts-Elsinore-series

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/911054--the-tramp-s-tribulations

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/14/business/la-fi-ct-onlocation-20101215

All in the last week, so it’s received as much coverage in a week that the time traveller story has had in a year after what a few minutes searching. I think that’s undue.

Slatersteven (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble following your spelling, Slatersteven. I think I've brought this up on your talk page before about how you need to slow down and use spellcheck. Or, if English is not your native language (or there is a physical disability in play), you could look around to make sure you are using the right words (or at least seek out the correct spellings). This is not intended as an insult; it's a request that you slow down and iterate more carefully what your arguments are, because I want to understand your arguments. Please take your time. There is no hurry. We are not going anywhere.

In the absence of understanding your post, Clarke's hypothesis (as explained elsewhere) of time traveler is arrived at based not upon seeing the act of time travel but an apparently anachronistic device; therefore a hypothesis, not a claim). It is indeed an extraordinary claim, and one that requires extraordinary citation. Considering the amount of top-tier media coverage on the subject and the level of scrutiny the claim received, I think it's quite fair to state unequivocally that the required extraordinary citation has been fully met.

Part of your post I was able to understand what the argument that this is not connected to the film, the reel in question being from the filmed premiere. If you look at almost every other film article, you will find sections or at the very least commentary about DVD extras. At the risk of sounding like I am arguing that Other Stuff Exists, I'd additionally point out that the reel is for the premiere of the subject of the article, and that the people responsible for compiling the DVD collection meant for them to be connected. We are not allowed to gainsay their judgment at linking the two. They simply are connected because the Chaplin people and the manufacturers of the dVD collection say so. That bears restating: that The Circus and the film of The Circus's premiere are linked is absolutely verifiable. every one of the 20 plus sources on the subject say so. We are not notable as wiki editors, so our opinion doesn't get to override that.

Lastly, I think you were seeking to make the point that the film continues to have as many Google hits now as it did during the story breaking. Despite the fact that - of the four examples you provided - only the first source is of value (the second one being all the way in India, the third a notification of a film showing only and the fourth merely mentions the word 'Chaplin'), your claim is incorrect. Do a basic Google search for "Chaplin" and "The Circus" (excluding any mention of the words 'time traveler' or 'cell' - as in cellular phone) and you get 27 hits total. Do the same search without excluding those terms and you get 1.09 million hits. I think that shreds your claim that the time traveler thing was but a blip with potential readers. These results are reinforced by the page stats for the article (which I have presented before); readership for the article spiked from around 50 hits a month to more 17,000 each month after the story broke. It still hasn't returned to pre-news story levels. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That’s odd because I get for Chaplin "The Circus " -time -traveler –cell 517,000 (oh and by the way by using cell you also remove film cells) this search Chaplin "The Circus " -time -traveler –cellular produces 532,000 if you do a search for Chaplin "The Circus " + "time traveler" you get 282,000 hits. The search you suggests "Chaplin" + "The Circus" + "time traveler" + "cell" 232,000 hits (remember that cell can mean more then just cellular phone as well). So there is a discrepancy between my search and yours. As to sources being in India, sorry that argument is wholly inappropriate and goes wholly against policies. Films that do not discuses DVD extras that are unrelated to the production of the film. Alien (film) Only material I can see discuses material added to the film. I can see no mention of DVD extras. Blade Runner Again no mention that I can see of DVD extras. Close Encounters of the Third Kind Again I see no section discussing DVD extras unrelated to production. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King come closets that I can see actually saying what many of the extras on the special edition are. But these are still all related to the production of the film, or are extended material. So why is this extra more important then those on these film DVD's? I cannot recall seeing any page on a film that has material about DVD extras not related to production or fandom. I certainly do not recall ever seeing a section about speculation regarding a DVCD extra. If you wish mediation I susgest that you aks for it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Listed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Listed?Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Untill we have agreement lets keep about the only amount of text we actualy have consensus for shall we.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)