Talk:Street Parade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Rave, Rave music and other various aspects of rave culture. For more information, visit our project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Re SILLY COMPARISONS. It does not go to throw the Street Parade in one pot with the Love Parade. Our foreign readers will be misleaded. If in BerlIn, one of the biggest metropoles of Europe, half a million of its own inhabitators and some agglos gather to celebrate, it can not be compared to when in Zurich, a tiny little town, one million of uncivilized foreigners from the north descend and leave every square inch of parks and streets plastered with their garbage, not to speak of their turds and their urine. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • sorry Bruno, if you have problems with "unicivilized foreigners":myself, an unicivilized italian was in Zurich in 2004 and 2005 and I had a lot of fun with my friends an with a lot of Zurich-locals... and if your read the article about the city of Zurich: it has a population of 1'100'000 as urban area... not very tiny to me... my hometown Milan has 1'600'000...

Re PROBLEMS. My dear Anonyma, the last time we came down from the mountains to Zurich, the city was still to the north of Milan, which means, of course, that your hometown was still to the SOUTH of Zurich. This may have changed in the meantime, but in 2005 you definitely couldn't have been one of the uncivilized foreigners from the NORTH mentioned in my post.
As to the article on Zurich: There will no doubt come a time, when reading Wikipedia will have an influence on the number of people living in a city, but we are not there yet. At the moment the population of Zurich remains unchanged at roughly 350,000. You can of course add to this any number of villages and towns and call it Greater Zurich. But to keep the comparison intact you would have to do the same for Milan and Berlin. The trouble with this is that you never know where to stop. Before you know it you're in Adis Abeba or Stalingrad.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Why join the party"

Re PROBLEMS. Instead of the meaningless discussion above, I would like to propose that some ideas about the Street Parade movement itself be added to the Wikipedia article. Now the article suggests nothing about the character of the event except that people used to climb trees and WCs, and that it's techno music. For example could someone answer:

  • how come even if they would never usually listen to techno, people come all that way to join the party, dance, chill out, get involved
  • how is the Parade an important event representing international and interracial respect, sexual tolerance, and freedom of expression
  • what about the different styles and artists represented, the different events and parties, the boats, media presence
  • what about the REAL social issues that the organizers have to deal with -- such as partypeople vs. bystanders vs. trippers, how the city is kept clean and the citizens sane after the noise
  • and the naked chicks? (lol) the Street Parade is sexy and it's not a Love Parade imitation. it inspires and keeps electronic music alive and throbbing.

--Loleg 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re HOW COME. If I'm not mistaken, Loleg, you're suggesting that somebody explain in the article why people who don't care for techno nevertheless "come all that way to join the party". Great idea, Loleg, but wouldn't that be POV or, worse, ORIGINAL RESEARCH?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re HOW COME. Yes, Bruno, I realise that..you may have noticed that I'm new and naïve to the Wikipedia-scene. I'm not an authority on the subject of technoparades in popular culture, but I can suggest the topic to someone young and impressionable as a topic of their next Maturarbeit. :) Loleg 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re YOUNG & IMPRESSIONABLE. Let's all hope that you'll find him, Loleg.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Without a costume"

"…celebrating without a costume…" is an odd turn of phrase. Are we saying people were naked? Are we saying that everyone prior to this (all million of them) wore some particular type of costume that the article has not mentioned? - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re NOT MENTIONED. Right, Jmabel, it's not mentioned in the article. Maybe because of its overlong German name. We call it DesKaisersNeueKleider.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I presume that is a joke, (ja, ich kann Deutsch; ich habe es seit 30 Jarhe nur ein Jahr in die Universität studiert, aber ich habe nicht alles vergessen), but my point is that "without a costume" in the context of a celebration is very ambiguous in English, equally likely to mean "naked", "not masquerading" or "not in elaborate dress": in this context, each seems about equally likely; "even more accessible" suggests the latter, other things here suggest the former, it's really quite a confusing sentence. And one cannot be without the Emperor's new clothes: you always have those with you. - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re JOKE. Wrong, Jmabel. I know that jokes are not appreciated in Wikipedia. So I would never dare to make one. And if I did nevertheless I would take care to label it. Like this: JOKE. You can be sure of that. Now about the things you call ambiguous: I myself hold all of them to be equally true in this case. Even self-evident. And lastly (and most important): You CAN be without the Emperor's new clothes. And believe me THAT'S NO JOKE.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

BZ, talk pages are supposed to be for working on the article. Articles are supposed to be comprehensible. I've tried asking civilly for an explanation, hoping to clarify rather than remove the material. But I guess I'll give up on that, and just remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Re WORKING. But Jmabel, do you realize what you are saying? You are telling the world that you changed an article in a certain way because my answers failed to meet your expectations. In other words, I, by choosing to answer your questions in the way I did, determined that the readers of the article will now read a text different from the one they would have read if I had chosen another way to answer you. If this doesn't mean "working on the article", what does?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I asked on 15 August if someone could turn the unclear sentence into something coherent. Apparently, no one could, so I removed it. All you did was waste time and effort by raising the false hope that you might have something useful and pertinent to say. - Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re PERTINENT. Exactly, Jmabel. If I had not wasted time and effort and raised false hopes but would instead have said something useful and pertinent, we would now have a different article. That is what I have been trying to tell you. Is it clear now?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)