Talk:The Circus (1928 film)

message: :Critics consider The Gold Rush and The Circus Chaplin's two best comedies
I originally added this, but aside from Gale, there really doesn't seem to be any support for it.  If anyone objects to me removing it, please say so. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend removal 

message: *I support the recent removal of the link to George Clarke's time travel urban legend (). While it's not exactly a case of WP:ONEWAY, the concept is very similar: this article is about a notable film featuring a megastar, while the see also is a mention of some ephemeral excitement around a youtube video. A search of books and websites could find hundreds of mentions of incidents related to Chaplin's films, and encyclopedic articles do not link to each—only to those which provide encyclopedic information related to the topic. That does not include a "look at this amusing image" video that only serves to promote the film maker. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely well put, V. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: What and where? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: well ther are accusations that this is the same old mob, who are afraind of RFC. There are accusations of agendas and of wike relasionshipos to name but two.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess it is sort of an obvious argument to make. Either way, it looks like consensus has changed almost exactly 6 months after it was established before. I guess we can all plan to come back in another six. 'Til then, we can probably close out the drama. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "time travel" fable doesn't even have to do with the content of this movie, it has to do with a newsreel clip about the premiere of this movie. The entire "time travel" concept is fanciful (or trivial; or bogus, to be more blunt) and has about as much business being in this article as would a paragraph in the 2011 World Series article describing the type of grass someone was thinking about planting in a non-existent public park across the street. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bugs.  This has been explained to Jack, oh, I would say about 50 times.  His response indicates IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another way to look at this is notability. The Wizard of Oz article probably has something about the alleged "Munchkin suicide", which has been debunked, but at least it was possible to have happened - and while also trivial, it's much more notable, as it had been widely covered by many sources. This "cellphone" stuff is an impossibility, and it's either a deliberate joke, like a satirical thing; or much scarier, that someone might actually believe it. But either way, unless there's evidence that this "legend" is widely covered and commented upon, it doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I recognize that consensus has changed. I am not sure what else needs to be said. What's the ongoing need to beat a dead horse? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 
OK, lets drop it untill it resurfaces again.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of see also

message: A "sequel" section has been added by  on four occasions recently: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. In addition, IPs like 66.87.120.x have added the same content four times, with the result that the page was semiprotected by Airplaneman.
The material is WP:UNDUE and unsourced—all material in articles must be verifiable based on reliable sources. However, the sourcing issue is relatively minor compared with the fact that this article concerns a major artistic achievement by an acknowledged master, and an article on this film is not available to promote other proposed works. I have again removed the text and ask that anyone wanting to restore it should engage in discussion here in terms that acknowledge the policies at WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

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

text: We cannot disregard the evidence on the movie itself, and the military develops many technologies in advance, releasing them to general public much later like the GPS technologies, etc. Never mind, there aren't reliable sources to include it other than the movie itself. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The movies is an RS for only what it obviously shows, not for something that is speculation about what it shows. It might not be a mobile phone, thus it is wp:or to say that is what the film shows.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

text: . Whatever source you're getting this misinformation from, it isn't trustworthy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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