Talk:Street theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Street theatre article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] link: http://www.raven1.net/abtstth.htm

The link to the website titled About "Street Theater" is based on mostly controversial and unsubstantiated anecdotal accounts rather than scientific investigation. Replaced link with more objective documentation.24.168.236.113 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


yes, it is "unscientific" as you say, but it is a MUCH needed balancing CONCEPT to the HIGHLY BIASED article that ONLY talks about the street theatre done for "evil"... plus the "scientific" article ridicules and DEMONIZES activists, protesters and "rebellion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.23.226 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

a MUCH more common use of "street theatre" is THE POLICE...as they brandish batons, shields, guns,water hoses, and the like in order to INTIMIDATE and scare people away from protesting injustice.

The latest practice, now being used in TORONTO, Canada... is to have child services agents infiltrate the crowd at protests, then TAKE away any CHILDREN who are in attendance.... if THAT isnt the definition of street theatre, then the definition is a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.23.226 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


UTC, please don't delete my comments. thank you.

i am not trying to fight with you, i just honestly feel that there needs to be a balance to the article you have posted... weather it is the page i have linked, or another, my point is that scientific or not (sincewhen is wiki scientific?) the article i linked is ON TOPIC, and OF INTEREST to viewers of this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.23.226 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request protection

Nominating this page for protection. Revisions and edits occurring that suggest vandalism or attempts at an edit war.24.168.236.113 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violence

The second section of this article seems to be about violent warfare in the public space. These things are different enough that it deserves a separate article, especially as what it is talking about isn't called 'Street Theatre' at all. There seems to be a vague claim that the arena where is takes place is referred to by miltarists as the "Street Theatre" (as in 'the rural theatre is calm, so we're going to organize an operation in the street theatre", but this is pretty unsubstantiated. Let's move this elsewhere. 199.71.183.2 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I propose moving the "Performance protest" section to an article of that name, with a reference from here? 199.71.183.2 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


no, street theatre IS the violence and electronic harassment (regardless of PHYSICAL location...) it is a TACTIC, and street theatre is a generalized term for all of these actions, whether done by "bad" groups, or governmental agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.23.155 (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intimidation

Intimidation is not limited to merely ethnicity, but includes intimidation targeting people of different religions, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disabilites, or political affiliation among other things.75.184.81.173 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

This page currently appears to be about two totally unrelated subjects, with just a name in common. It is also mixing the UK spelling of the original article, with the US spelling of the addition. I'm proposing a split for the new section onto a separate page. I've suggested Street theater (protest), but perhaps someone who understands the subject better could come up with something better. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is very vague, but seems to cover more than protest, such as gangs which engage in 'street displays' to enhance their credibility. How about Street theater (conflict)? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's good too. But you are right, the section doesn't give any real context and I'm still not sure what exactly it is discussing. That's why I was hoping someone would come along and clarify. One thing's for certain, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Don't split it up. The whole point of street theater in the performance violence aspect is that acts are perpetrated as orchestrated 'skits': pre-arranged and scripted as a method of covert attack, for example, persistent 'prank' telephone calls with the 'actors' making veiled threats, repeated vandalism with the 'actors' destroying or damaging property, or other nuisance violations intended to cause disruption and precisely timed for optimal impact. The events may seem to some as non-violent and harmless performances, hoaxes perhaps, and if not well documented, maybe as coincidence. However, the acts are very much associated with real 'terrorism'. The events are performed to convey through word or deed an intent to intimidate, cause injury, or harm,...which is violence.75.184.85.166 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation makes things clearer, but there still remain significant problems with this section within the article.
  • None of the cites (or at least the ones I could access) actually use the term "Street theatre/theater". This doesn't help it establish its notability or legitimacy.
  • Even if the term "Street theatre" is used to cover what is described here, it is significantly different from the subject matter of the original page to have its own page. The fact that one derived its name from the other is not necessarily reason enough for them to have to co-habit the same page. As I understand what you say, the relationship between the two only goes as far as one being used as a cover for the other. That's only a good enough reason for them to link pages, not share.
  • The section has way too many links that simply make it difficult to read (not that it's overly clear to begin with).
  • The relationship between the references and the text citing them is often unclear.
  • It is written with US spelling. If it share the page with the original article it need to follow the same spelling standards.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:25, 24

November 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to keep the article intact is that more than a little of "entertainment" theater is in actuality an expression of protest. For example the movie "School for Scoundrels" is a statement 'artfully' expressed through metaphor regarding tactics and techniques used in competitive situations analogous to politics. The mime on the street who might seem vaguely amusing or even annoying 'walking against the wind' may be trying to tell you something about the disadvantaged trying to make their voices heard. Performances of violence, whether they are communicated through recorded film, like recent videos released which convey threats to attack Austria and Germany[1], or threats conveyed through any other medium can be as impactful to the targeted audience as 'live' threats made by a bankrobber waving a gun in a teller's face. If a terrorist attacks wearing a clown mask and considers his performance 'art', does it make him any less of a terrorist?75.184.85.166 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, none of what you are saying is any reason for the section to remain part of the article. It can say all this in an article of its own. It also doesn't address any of what I've said above. Principally, none of the cites uses the term "Street Theatre". Until you have a cite making use of the term as it is described, the entire section doesn't merit inclusion anywhere. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
“The street theater of performance violence…gives the perpetrators of terrorism a kind of celebrity status and their actions an illusion of importance.”[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.85.166 (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's about "performance violence". The reference to street theater is simply a metaphor. You could call anything that happens in the street 'street theater' on this basis. A newspaper seller: street theater. Two drunks fighting: street theater. Two people with a funny walk; street theater. It doesn't make what you are describing actually street theater. Perhaps you should be placing this section in a new article called Performance Violence? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As 75.184.85.166 hasn't yet come up with a credible cite for her/his section I'll be going ahead with removing it and placing it on a page of its own. The section is overly full of references, but none that actually refers to what she/he's writing about (and I'm still not clear as to what that is, such is the wide ranging and unspecific nature of the writing) as Street Theatre, which is the subject of the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

STREET THEATRE is a concept which people can enter into quite easily, and it will fill their lives very nicely.( it is NOT ALWAYS VIOLENT!!!!) don't you DARE make it so that anything to do with STREET THEATRE is "terrorism"... that IS street theatre.. it labels people who perform Theatre in an outter setting, and try to TEACH through it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.23.155 (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am concerned that the recent edits relating street theatre to terrorism are agenda-driven in some way. I mean, do we actually have ANY source that calls ANY form of street theatre "violence" or "terrorism"? I am not talking about street theatre as protest or social commentary, I am talking about the editor's association of street theatre with intimidation. Do we have any source for that? If not, then WP:SOAP and get rid of it. Please. --Alfadog 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As indicated in above discussion, and for the above reasons, I have split this section off to an article called Performance violence.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)