Talk:Clown

welcome

Clown fans, plenty to do on this page! Ortolan88 11:52 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

If I might make a couple suggestions, this entire article needs a rewrite. The entire thing (including some of the talk pages) suffers from a defensiveness mixed with uncritical praise. Just a rewrite of the introduction would benefit it a lot, then it needs a sensible organization, and the application of a lot of neutral tone. Much of it needs to be cut, such as the list of performers who supposedly match one clown type or another, even though they don't perform in clown makeup or otherwise fit into the clown genre. Then, it needs a much better-researched history section, some brief comparisons to fools, comics, and tricksters, and a higher-level analysis about what makes clowning work. Turtle Falcon 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the absolutely brilliant page that this was in May 2006? I'm very annoyed. Liability Bennett 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

general discuss thread

The CLOWN EGG collection has moved from London and is now based at Wookey Hole in Somerset, a tourist attraction run by Gerry Cottle.

The articles relating to children surveyed in hospital did not show that children were afraid of Clowns but that they didn't like Clown images as hospital decor. Wikipedia is no the only place where the research has been misrepresented and the articles failed to mention the work of Hospital/Therapeutic Clowns.

{{editsemiprotected}} [[[User:Plopbot|Plopbot]] (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What specific text should be updated? How should it be updated? Do you have sources for your changes? A edit request of the form "Please change X to Y" is more likely to be made. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 06:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Great choice for an article, Ortolan. A while ago, I thought of doing an article on the Flying Wallendas--not clowns but trapeze artists--but got side-tracked. I will see what I can find over the weekend. Danny

I don't even like clowns. At age 9 or so I was dragged out of the audience at the Clyde Beatty circus by a grotesque fat female clown who plopped me on the back of a donkey (in a flying harness, to be sure), from which perch I was promptly dumped to the glee of the crowd. I can still remember her reassuring grin through the makeup, and her reassurances that nothing was going to happen. And, short of humiliation, nothing did, only humiliation. Ortolan88

Neither did I, but when I began researching this a little, I realized how many important entertainers, inlcuding ones that I love, can be classified as clowns. There is also a remarkable history of clowns, which are found in virtually every culture. Danny

Here's a couple resources: http://www.coai.org/history.asp

http://www.clown-ministry.com/History/clowntype-tramp.html

Why is there no discussion of the literary clown, i.e. Falstaff and Touchstone in Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 1 and As You Like It, respectively?--Magmagirl 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

'Brettrix'

Wow! The most recent addition is pretty doggone obscure:

Brettrix, a role that can be traced back to ancient Ashtead

I hope you'll provide more, both on the Brettrix, and maybe an article on ancient Ashtead as well. Ashtead, Surrey isn't much help.Ortolan88

If that was vandalism, as whoever deleted it says it was, it was pretty classy vandalism. Ortolan88

If that info is good, please reinstate it. I have no clue about 'Brettix' myselfPedant

a few requests

Hi folks, I've sort of adopted this pages, watch for changes and extensions.

I invite you to amplify anything I might include if you can. I have taught clowning and juggling, and performed professionally as well. I'm also a maven of the juggling arts, circus skills, and a dabbler in clown, juggling and circus history, but I don't consider myself The Expert.

Of real interest to me at this time would be the addition of 'Famous people not well known as clowns but who perform/performed as clowns'(such as Ernest Borgnine) as well as the addition of 'Performers whose primary or major role was a clown role - but might not be considered by many 'outside the clown world' (those who really know clowning more than anyone else are clowns - it takes one to know one)to be clowns but who are unmistakably and demonstrably in fact clowns("Pee Wee Herman" and "Lucy Ricardo" are examples.)

Also, some of the clowns on this page don't have any info but their name. They could use a description or even a short bio.

I'm looking for information on bit "The Stranger With a Kind Face" aka "Niagara Falls!" aka "Slowly I turned" I know it is of vaudevillian origin but I haven't found the originator. (this bit was featured on I love Lucy and on one of the Three Stooges movies) you know it:"slowly I turned,step by step, inch by inch...."

also If you can, add to the clown material on pages that link here (see my additions toLucille Ball) and link to this page from any related pages you might think of.

I envision Clown as a robust hub page eventually. If you have any suggestions I thoroughly welcome them. Pedant 18:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recently appointed jester

http://accessibility.english-heritage.org.uk/Default.asp?WCI=NewsItem&WCE=486

a pie in our colllective face:

as they say in the 'clown world': "a knock is a plug", the article this link points to is a raving rant against clowns, yet in it/s own way, it, itself is an example of clowning-used-as-political-activity, and is really kinda amusing.

• Consider a career as a clown

I'm half-tempted to leave this link in, but after checking the other articles on that site, I think the article's content as well as the author themself may be unstable.

If you want to add joke links like this, please put them on the discuss page, where they might be appreciated longer. Clowns obviously edit this article, and many of us even have a sense of humor.Pedant

John Wayne Gacy is a notable clown

Go visit the Gacy article, look at the picture, and tell me he wasn't a notorious clown. Until a coherent argument can be made to exclude gacy from the list of notable clowns, I am reverting User:Wyss' vandalism to this article. --Oipolloi 21:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gacy was not professionally noted as a clown and IMO doesn't belong on a list of people who gained notability through their work as clowns. However, I see there is another section for historical clowns and it seems appropriate to me, so I've moved his name there. Readers are welcome to look at my contribution history and talk page if they have any questions about my edits and their compliance with WP policy. Wyss 05:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a professional has nothing to do with being a clown. Many great (as well as mediocre and abjectly horrible) painters were never professionals within their lifetimes, but it does not revoke their status as those who paint.

Mr. Gacy was a philanthropist and a "caring clown" He filled the same role that "ministry clowns' fill, in that he would clown to ailing children in the hospitals of Chicago. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/gacy/gacymain.htm

He was a mass murder and a foul individual of the wretchedest sort, but he was very much and quite legitimately a clown. --Soggy biscuits 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy was some loser who VOLUNTEERED as a clown; a perfectly awful clown from all accounts. That does NOT make him a "clown" any more than volunteering to bring your neighbor his mail would make you a "mailman". If you can't see the difference between Gacy and the professional entertainers described in the article maybe you should research the subject a little further.

I think Gacy belongs in the article someplace. The clown persona is integral to who he is thought of -- John Wayne Gacy, "The Killer Clown". It's the total incongruity of the clown with the murderer.

There is also the fact that some people consider clowns creepy, and there's even a name for the phobic fear of clowns -- Coulrophobia -- and there's an American stereotype of the Evil clown.ChristinaDunigan 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, John Wayne Gacy belongs in the article. He was known for his being a clown. --DavidShankBone 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the logic of listing Gacy as a clown, Hitler should be included on lists of famous painters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.200.139 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorting of lists

Am quasi-alphabetizing and resorting the famous clowns list. My intent is to make it more readily perused, as well as shifting the misplaced bits to the lists they belong in and correcting some of the erratta, (the j.p. patches entry for instance was particularly erroneous) Let me know if there is any legitimate objection to these changes.

Also, as an aside, as a performing theatrical clown of a number of years, I have to say the whole bit about "the code" listed here strikes me a huge load of bunkum. There is a "clown code of ethics" set forth by the coai that is used to keep birth party clowns in line, but there is no gentleman's rule of non-infrigement in the clown community, any more than there is in any other art's profession, and plagarism is as ripe with clowns as it is in any other performing group. The somewhat commonplace use of standard material and regular "borrowing" or "lifting" of material, especially among the non-theatrical set, flies in the face of the statement that "this code of non-infringement is always respected by the professional clown,"

I also find the piece on eggs to be somewhat misleading. They bear no official purpose and have no legal relevance. They are a tradition and an act of vanity more than anything else (much a the's who's who book or a self publishing companies) .

I'll continue sorting the lists over the next few days as time permits. I'd also like to see gacy added back to these lists, I believe he belongs in here somewhere. CLowns are as much dirty and human as they are cartoonish and candy coated. Any student of thier history will known that they were not the entertainers of children they have become until the last 50 or 60 years, having held a role much closer to political commentator/stand up comic through to the invention of telelvision, and for the centuries before the invention of circus, were a foil to tyranny and a outspoken critic of the status quo. They weren't relegated to mall openings and babysitting, and to treat them as though they exist only in those roles is a disrespectful to the position they hold in our cultures.

--Soggy biscuits 01:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Clown Eggs? Clown What? We don't have clown eggs.Who has clown eggs? Where's my egg? Can I have it poached? I'm going to amend this if nobody gives a reference.

---

--Theduchess 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Clowns don't reproduce like other people, silly. You didn't know that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.200.139 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Shows

I have been slowly adding to the circus related articles and I have finally gotten to this one. I have added a good deal of information on the terminology of the parts that make up a clowning show. I might break this out to its own entry when I get more time (and figure out how!), but the base material is up.

I will likely add more, especially to the frameworks section when I have some more time, giving the 4 major types of frameworks, examples of each and other related information.

I may also add in a selection of example bits to this, making it a little easier to see how it all fits togeather.

Commercial Plugs

So as I am sure you have noticed, much of the vandalism on this page comes froms fans of the ihateclowns.com website.

This site is a commercial venture owned and opperated by Rodney Blackwell, who also appears to have included himself in the article. While i feel a correctly labled (as commercial) external link to his site is appropriate I don't believe this self aggrandizment wihtin the article is appropriate or accurate.

If there is no reasoned objection to this I will remove that section of the article. (I will wait to see if this talk entry recieves any response first,)

Also, I believe the page is becomgin unwieldly and that the entries concerning the makeup of clown shows would be better served as their own article, (linked to from this one obviously)

Please respond with comments and I will proceed based on those. --Soggy biscuits 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I'll pull the commercial plug for the owner ofthe Ihateclowns.com website. I am leaving the external link to his site, but removing the biut where he talsk abotu himself in the article. That bit of the entry is of dubious factuality, and alot of the vandalism we get on this page seems to be in promotion of his site.

also going to be adding articles corcering the san fransisco center for circus arts, and the clown conservatory, in the  next week or so.

--Soggy biscuits 19:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable Clowns

Since somebody mentioned Gacy, let me throw in Mandy Patinkin, who (I think) was once a clown (& whose "Chicago Hope" character quit being a surgeon to become a clown) & Chris Walken, who once worked as a very scary clown... (OK, he didn't, but I couldn't resist. He did work in a circus, as a lion tamer.) Trekphiler 05:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pickelherring is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. A type of clown introduced into Germany by Shakespearian touring companies, and a popular 17th Century tune by the same name. Has someone some time to add some details about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BWernham (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Refergin to Wikipedia:External links, several of them do not appear to apply. I'd like to remove them.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the sources?

I think this article is good, overall, but is lacking some citations and sources, particulary on the sections of types of clowns and skills of clowns... where did all that info came from? There is aparently one reference - "The Power Clown" Wall Street Journal Aug 12th 2005 - but I don't have acess to that article so I can't confirm it... I tagged it under the unreferenced template. Also, got to be careful when writing that "clowns can do almost anything in a circus" because of the NPOV policy. Ricardo Silva 06:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The saying "A clown can do almost anything" has been around some 200 years. Asking for a source for that quote is like asking for a source for the quote "thats cool"

I didn't write either section, but as a profesional in the field I can verify that the information is correct in both the skills and types of clown sections. --71.243.107.218 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source for the types of clown [1] It does not include Rodeo clown.--Cirque115 13:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For the people who don't want to come to the talk page to see if there happens to be a clown expert on it, this article needs sources. I'm going to have to add some templates. 199.126.137.209 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Because of most of the comments above, I don't think there needs to be much explanation of the cleanup tag I added. There's barely any NPOV, advertising scattered throughout, for some reason =These headings= were being used in places and there are lots of mentions of non-notable clowns. I'm going to try to come back and clean this one up a bit but it looks like it's going to be difficult. I'm not sure what to do with a lot of the unsourced stuff, but it looks like it might have to go. Mrtea (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanups

Hi! I've been kinda busy over the last two weeks revamping the page, adding publicity photos to better illustrate the traditional clown types and notable clown performers deserving of recognition. I've also been rearranging the text, incorporating as much of what was already here as possible, to make the information clearer and more useful to both performers and non-performers alike. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.--Cashincomedy 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know just where to put this observation, but at this moment "Clowning" redirects to "Krumping". Does this seem absurd to anyone else? or have I just reached the age where "what I'm WITH isn't IT any more"? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Defacing"?

I really don't appreciate my attempt at a contribution to the list being referred to as a "defacement". I contributed honestly and in good faith. Further, can somebody please explain to me (without personal attacks) why Doink should not be considered a fictional clown? In all honesty, I just don't see the reasoning here. --HBK|Talk 14:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Heart Burn Kid

I apologize for considering your addition part of a "defacement" if you weren't the contributor who took down weeks of hard work and eliminated all of the descriptive photos that had been added.

I've been working very hard over the last few weeks to turn the clown article into something more accurate and descriptive of the overall picture of traditional clowning and less about birthday party clowns, balloon twisting and Ronald McDonald that clowning has become to most people's minds. In the post-Gacy age of "Scary Clowns", "Evil Clowns", "Killer Clowns" and "I Hate Clowns" I think Wikipedia's entry for clowning desperately needs to present clowning in the best possible light to counteract the sheer weight of the current trend towards the demonization of the clown's image.

You may not know the name Otto Griebling as well as you do Bozo or Krusty but any one of a number of scholarly books on the subject from John Towsen's CLOWNS to Bill Ballentine's CLOWN ALLEY would agree that people like Otto and Lou Jacobs are the high water mark of their profession. The fact that most people don't know them makes their inclusion here in the clown article all the more important.

As for not including "Doink" under "clowns"...

Doink the Clown is an identity assigned to professional wrestlers. The character does not exist outside of the WWF/WWE. The entertainer wrestling under that identity is not a physical or visual comedian and doesn't fit the criterea for "clown" as well as it does "professional wrestler".

Outside of the superficial connection of wearing greasepaint and a wig Doink doesn't fit in for the same reason that the Insane Clown Posse or Homey the Clown don't either. They co-opt the image of the clown without any of the spirit of what that profession and it's traditions entail.

Simply describing any character as "... the Clown" doesn't make that character a clown character. Homer Simpson is a thousand times more of a clown than Homey the Clown could ever be.

Despite the fact that the character evolved into something more family and kid-friendly than originally presented Doink is listed extensively, and more appropiately, elsewhere and probably more accurately under "evil clowns".

So I hope you would agree that Doink is more accurately described as a wrestler and that you will please continue to participate and contribute and again, I apologize for any confusion. ~Cashincomedy 03/20/05

_________

Thank you for the apology; however, everything you said about Doink can very easily apply to Jack, who is still on the list of fictional clowns. He does not appear outside of Jack-In-The-Box commercials, and he does little in the way of actual clowning. Would he not, then, better appear in a list of corporate spokespeople than fictional clowns, by your own criteria? Plus, as you pointed out, when Doink was portrayed by Matt Osborne, he was more in the "evil clown" mold, but Ray Liachelli portrayed him more as the traditional clown. Should not, at least, the Liachelli incarnation of the character get a mention here? --HBK|Talk 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

_______

Jack, Ronald, and the like all exist within their very rigid corporate worlds but have a lot more pop culture exposure than the Doink character. I think it's important to have them listed here, in a marginalized way, so that people can see that they have very little to do with the traditions of physical and visual knockabout slapstick comedy.

Plus corporate clowns such as Jack or Ronald aren't portrayed as negative, evil or scary clown stereotypes, which have their own page.

I'd prefer to add more circus, theater, film and television clowns and help show the thread from the physical comedy of the Commedia through circus, vaudeville, burlesque, silent films, animated cartoons, prop and sketch comics and sitcoms than focus on any of the more superficial aspects of clowning.

I think that the original "evil clown" incarnation of Doink was the one that made the bigger and more lasting cultural impact but since you're really sincere in your desire to have the character listed under "fictional clowns" I guess I would agree with the inclusion of the Ray Liachelli portrayal of the character and a link to the Doink article if your focus isn't on the negative portrayal.

But I still think that the ECW was responsible for far more geniune slapstick comedy than Doink ever was ; ) ~Cashincomedy 03/21/06

Why no mention of coulrophobia?

Coulrophobia while not a completely accurate term is the word many psychologists use to describe a general fear of clowns. I realize from the discussion here that the article is trying its best to portray clowns in a positive light (which I too feel they deserve) but isn't the goal of a Wiki article to be objective and neutral? At the very least a brief mention or simple link to the wiki article on Coulrophobia should be included even if the actual cause of fear varies from individual to individual.

I would even argue on expanding the part on this phobia and referring to other (historical?) sources to make the article more balanced. - Redmess (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because. That's why.

Then EVERY wiki article should be made to carry a brief mention of the pseudo-scientific term for the possible fear of that subject. People have been known to have an irrational fear of dogs, seafood and/or Belgians but that is largely irrelevant to any discussion of those topics and need not be mentioned in their articles.

"Coulrophobia" is largely an internet invention, spurred by the media with bad movies like "Shakes the Clown", bad musical acts like the Insane Clown Posse and trash fiction like "It".

When you acknowledge the concept of coulrophobia central to any discussion of the art of the clown you do a great disservice to the many brilliant performers who have distinguished themselves in that field throughout history.

Fear is not what clowning is about at all. It is actually one of the, if not the, most open, honest and immediate of all of the performing arts.

---

An internet invention? What about John Wayne Gacy? Ghosts&empties 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ave

---

It's been stated here on the discussion page before, Gacy was a contractor who volunteered to appear in a clown suit at a handful of local events.

He was hardly a professional clown. The arresting image of him in his awful clown makeup and pathetic home made suit serve as a particularly sinister image but statistically speaking MAILMEN are responsible for FAR more murders than either clowns or clown wanabees and no one wastes their time being afraid to go pick up their mail.

---

It's true. I have a totally irrational fear of clowns, and so do many of the people I know. I'm not quite sure I would consider it an internet phenomenon, since I've been afraid since I was 6 and one jumped at me laughing at the Circus. I had nightmares for weeks, no joke. Never went back to a circus since then. GameJunkieJim 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

If your story is to be believed then that is NOT an example of an irrational fear. It is a fear based on a very specific encounter with a bad performer, most likely a volunteer Shrine clown at a Shrine Circus performance.

But it happened when you were 6. Get over it.

I saw Psycho when I was 10. I had nightmares. I still take showers.

If you had a bad experience with a black man, an Asian man or the League of Women Voters as a child would that be an excuse for racist or sexist behavior in adulthood?

And if you are absolutely terrified of clowns what are you doing in the discussion page of this article? You'd think someone with an all consuming fear that they've been gripped with since childhood would avoid this subject like the plague, no?

I'm not sure where you get the idea from that somehow your OPINION is encyclopedic, because it's not. Just because you think that people with Coulrophobia should 'get over it' that does not mean that their condition is somehow invalid or unworthy of mention. There's a huge wikipedia article on God even though there's literally hundreds of people on wikipedia who are of the opinion that people who believe in God should 'get over themselves'. So you will now stop this rampant POV mongering. Robrecht 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many people with a fear of clowns, I've worked with and as a clown since 1980 and seen at least 20 people with an outright-panic-inducing-fear-of-clowns. It does exist, but the word used above is not an accepted psychiatric term AFAIK. I wouldn't object to mentioning that some people fear clowns, but I would object to using "Coulrophobia" as if it were an accepted psychiatric term... or an assertion that it stems from Stephen King or John Wayne Gacy. I met someone in 85 or 86 who said they had been afraid of clowns since childhood, he was in his 50's and couldn't even look at a clown without freaking out. I don't think it deserves a huge mention here either, most a couple of lines... User:Pedant 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most outrageous cases of field professionals crafting a completely self-serving portrait of their field. You cannot possibly have an article on clowns without mentioning the fear that many people have of them. The comments listed here are indicative of the worst kind of ignorance about what an encyclopedia entry is; it sure as hell isn't a promotion for an occupation. This article should be reduced to a stub for the time being, then rebuilt properly.24.222.64.85 07:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pedant is treading dangerously close to treating this article as a personal webpage, with all the impulses of ownership that implies. Pedant, if you really don't object to mentioning that some people fear clowns, maybe you can add that mention yourself so that we know you can accommodate views against your grain (and also so that the article receives a good, moderate handling of the subject). JDG 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beyond those who fear clowns, a great many adults and some children strongly dislike clowns. Really the both the fear and the dislike components deserve mention.Symphony Girl 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In the Space To Care study aimed at improving hospital design for children, researchers from the University of Sheffield polled 250 children regarding their opinions on clowns; all 250 children in the study, whose ages ranged between four and sixteen, reported that they found clowns frightening and disliked clowns as part of hospital decor.

Interesting, but this doesn't really belong in the opening paragraph. I haven't removed it because I think a section of the article should briefly discuss dislike/fear of clowns, and include the findings of this study, so we can remove it from the introduction. 216.239.82.49 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodeo Clowns

Rodeo Clowns are also the punchline to a famous joke about the "Redneck Rodeo" where a man having intercourse with a woman from behind whispers in her ear that she is the worst he's ever had. He then sees if he can stay on for at least eight seconds and then his friends, the rodeo clowns, burst from the closet to protect him from the enraged woman. The great Oli Farahi had a long career as a rodeo clown, made famous by his technique of mushroom stamping the woman into submission.

Lucy Ricardo

Lucille Ball was a clown - this is not in dispute. However, I'd assert that she was a 'character' clown, not an 'auguste'. Someone reverted my change, so I'm bringing it here for discussion - Richardcavell 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Lucille Ball is the performer, Lucy Ricardo is the character... ok got that? ... the character, Lucy Ricardo, is a clown, Lucille Ball is more than a clown. The clown is the character and not the performer. That distinction being made, and I'm sure I will get complaints that I'm wrong, but I assure you the distinction is important to this issue. (and I have more formal and informal study of clowning than most MDs have of medicine [yeah, I know about Original Research]) Lucy Ricardo, the character, played a clown in one episode of I Love Lucy, and that clown, in that episode was an auguste clown. (I'm referring to the scene in which she used a prop cello). "Lucy Ricardo" is a character clown. The character that her character played in the episode referred to above was an auguste. HOWEVER, Lucy Ricardo (the character) had many elements of the auguste, she took herself seriously, tried to appear to be distinguished and sophisticated, but was the butt of the joke in most cases. So rather than just characterise Lucy or Lucille as one or the other, I'd prefer a more thorough explanation of her multiple layers of characterization. Lucille Ball is a unique case, and deserves some extra lines here. User:Pedant 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Whatever solution there be, now Clown/Circus clown is a horrible fork sitting here for a long time. Kudos to user:Error for nailing it down.

One evident thing is that first of all "Circus clown" must spin off the numerous bios contained within, into separate articles. I suggest the original contributors to do so, so that the literary glory would remain theirs.

One might argue that "circus clown" is not the same as, say, "party clown" (is there such an official profession?), but I would say that "circus clown" must remain in the main article, "Clown", since it is the most generic case, and other kinds of entertainers called "clown" must go elsewhere (if any). Mukadderat 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also needs a link to Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe under Scary clown. Gzuckier 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant "party" like in "birthday party", but your suggestion looks great :-) BTW it is "Evil clown". Wanna redirect? Mukadderat 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merging, circus clowns are not the most generic case, or they wouldn't be Circus clowns, they would be clowns. (kosher pickles are not generic pickles, pickles are, fine art is not generic, art is, rock music is not generic, music is, etc...) We do need to have a section in Clown describing circus clowns, and linking to Circus clown of course, but the circus clown section was outgrowing nad dominating the clown article. It deserves its own page where it has room to grow without complaints that it is too long. User:Pedant 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pierrot and Arlecchino

The section on Commedia dell'Arte names the Pierrot and Arlecchino. Then it discussed the Pierrot. But there's no further discussion the Arlecchino (Harlequin). Why is that? I notice there is some discusssion in the article on Commedia dell'Arte. 140.147.160.78 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

The Three Historical Clowns

"According to circus historian Hovey Burgess, the three most import clowns historically were:" Then there are four clowns listed. Whatup with that? I'm guessing Pennywise doesn't belong, but I don't know enough to say.ChristinaDunigan 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Vandalism

There's a lot of crap going on here. Isn't it about time the page was protected? 161.225.129.111 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

no

Examples

Stumbled on this article looking for information on the history of clowning, and aside from a multitude of heavily-POV style prose, especially in the introduction, I was baffled by the examples of each clown type. Why do examples of the whiteface type include Jerry Seinfeld, Ricky Ricardo, and Bugs Bunny? Either clown is being used as a synonym for comedian, or I missed something. These characters/comedians do not match the description immediately above them, with white makeup, etc. The article seems to miss an important distinction: "straight man" characters in comedy are not a subset of whiteface clowns, rather, whiteface clowns are a subset of straight man characters in comedy. I think this desperately needs clarification, and any examplesl isted should be actual "clowns" under the common definition, not any comedian or comedic character throught history that happens to resemble the style of some actual clowns. Dinoguy2 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Afro?

Well, I removed the afro reference (right at the start) because it's obviously untrue and inaccurate. It's back - what gives?
PS. I also find it strange that the "fear of clowns" is not mentioned.
138.243.195.136 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored Afro to the text because it actually is accurate (clown wigs are almost universally in the Afro style), as well as being a valid link. A contributing factor in my reversion is the fact that the change was made without an explanatory Edit Summary, which made it appear to be vandalism rather than a good-faith edit (sorry, my mistake). Especially when editing as an Anon, Edit Sumarries are an important tool and shouldn't be overlooked. Regarding "fear of clowns"...that does seem a rather odd omission. It would seem like a useful bit of info and another useful link for the article. I can't immediately recall the proper word for the phobia, do you? Doc Tropics 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Coulrophobia is the word I couldn't remember, and it is listed in the "See Also" section; still, it might be worth it's own small section. Doc Tropics 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, for some reason (I neither care for nor - admittedly - know about clowns) this "afro" thing really annoys me. I have no credentials, nor do I wish to become a Wikipedia member, but I'm *sure* it's an inappropriate description.

I'm trying to find a clown expert (if just for my own personal curiosity), but in the meantime I'm discussing the issue here: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070529211610AAemJ1r

One of the answers is "fright wig" which instantly seems more appropriate.

Sad Clowns Disputed

The Fellowship of the Sad Clown? Is this a joke?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

File:SadClown.jpg

Please, no. This isn't a joke. This is one of a few pictures I have of their graffiti, but this is a group that I had the pleasurable experience of encountering during one of my extended stays in San Juan. I've done more in depth research, which is why I was actually considering breaking it off into it's own article. I just didn't want to release so much of my work into the public domain.

The image is a little distorted as a result of me putting it through Picasa's lighting filters and removing a shadow in photoshop that was covering the bottom half of the image. It shows the content fine, however. Jf1288 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful! You are skirting the edges of Wikipedia's prohibition on Original Research. You may need to find third-party sources before this is acceptable. --Mdwyer 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's a picture of graffiti. I'm not doubting that exists on a wall somewhere in the world, but the existence of a "gang" committing acts of "clownitude" is going to need some sources.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like something that is quite typical up here in New York City: a graffiti template that starts to pop up all over the place. It's pretty unremarkable. --David Shankbone 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Geek

Should there not be some mention of geeks in this article? Weren't they the original 'fool' who, lacking a profession of any kind (and self-worth), did just about *anything* for coinage? --90.197.80.124 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fear of Clowns

Removed the following from the article due to it being original research (purely personal experience).-----Adimovk5 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As a traditional circus clown this 'fear of clowns' is quite new to me. I have been clowning for over 40 years and in my past experiences, with the smaller shows and the larger shows, it was never apparent or a problem. Children would help us build up the Big Top (or the small top!) just for the joy and the free tickets and would chat to the clowns painting their boots or whatever. In fact, children would always seek out 'the clowns' asking 'how many are there and who are they' etc.

The problem must be the many newer clowns engaged outside of circus in Mix and Mingle, in Magic or whatever. I do consider the terms clown and auguste to mean circus and its ring (s).

There is and never was any reason for a child to be fearful of clown costuming or make up, if these are troublesome or offensive then it is the artiste who should review his/her appeal and not the child for the whole philosophy should be to please the child (and subsequently the parents).

Here in England we have certain ventures trading the titles 'circus' and 'clown' with an adult 'horror' angle that may be agreeable to student type humour but I do not feel it helpful or proper to misuse the words, especially 'clown' when the persons are using very tasteless humour indeed and is, again, more destructive to the word 'clown' that is suffering enough adversity surely. Let us keep the word clean and pure and wholesome and dependable for every young mind just simplistic slapstick fun.

Tom Sandow (Tomato)

14:28, 9 February 2008 Tom 'Slapstick' Sandow (Talk | contribs)

May I mention here my Life Diary currently running on the Circus Historical Society web-pages of circus experiences since 1940? Tom 'Slapstick' Sandow, 2nd March 2008 13th April 2008. Owing to another person register as Tom Sandow I wish to be known as Tommy Sandow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Sandow (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted a part of the first paragraph that said "many children think clowns are scary" i thought it was silly to have this in the first para. It is addressed later in the article. But to make the article better, i removed that small part of the intro. If anyone can think of a way to reincorperate this into the intro paragraph in a mopre informative way, go for it! --Moss Ryder (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare's clowns in Hamlet

This article needs a section on the meaning of the clowns (gravediggers) in Shakepear's Hamlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnell usa (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

History and Etymology

In a major rewrite of the article, the history of clowns and the etymology of the word must be included.

My conjecture: in Shakespeare's age, the word "clown" meant a peasant -- an often jovial fellow, like the gravediggers in Hamlet. Later, the meaning of "clown" evolved to mean a jovial person, not necessarily a peasant, who told jokes and entertained. Only much later did "clown" come into its modern circus-character meaning. (See my write-up in "Send in the Clowns", where the meaning and background of this phrase is explained.)

Oconnell usa (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. My interests are in physical theatre and mime and as such, clowning is an activity I regard as highly important. While I have added this link in as a side note, I think there needs to be more discussion about the nature of the clown in terms of where they come from, and where they are going and for there to be less emphasis on the circus clown (it is important, but it has it's own article).

What always frustrates me when I mention clowing to people is that that they mistake the appearance with the identity, and the identity here has been barely touched upon. Sebbi (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion - Clowns in South Africa

Hi, I am trying to get a picture on but it got deleted. I am trying to get Clowns in South Africa recognised internationaly but the link was deleted and my picture of a white faced clown was also removed. Is this site not open to international editing. My picture image:zimbo.jpg was within the guidelines of what a white faced clown looks like. I am a well know clown in South Africa and mostly run non-profit and charity events for clowns in South Africa. CDC_Catia (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clowns are Irish racism

Extremely pale skin, big red nose (read: alcoholism), patched clothes, stereotypical Celtic names like Molly or Mickey, packing tons of people into a car for efficiency (exaggerated with small cars and too many people), etc. The "classic" Anglo-Saxon biased clown is just as offensive as blackface minstrels, but this isn't explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.144.221 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This must be a strange personal 'mickey take' by the writer surely. Will this person also complain about Walt Disney with his Mickey Mouse? Does this imply that all Irish persons have mice in there homes? I have not worked with or seen a clown called Mickey, my name is Tomato which implys, I suppose, rotten fruit one way or another. The red nose is a traditional stage apparel seen many times away from 'clowns' altogether. By actors and comedians. It is just comedy don't you see? The only innofensive comedy would be done by a dead person one would suppose? No movement and no action. This person should get out more. Tommy Sandow, 19th August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.112.33 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mickey Mouse is a Blackface minstrel...

Anyway... The slight double standard of whiteface clowning in comparison to Blackface is a serious issue that no-one, including seemingly Wikipedia by this artice, takes seriously. Everything in Blackface is done "innoffencivly" outside of Minstreling... --Kurtle (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A section on Birthday party clowns

I was just wondering if it is possible to add a section on birthday party clowns, after all these type of clowns make up a large percentage of clowns. We don't want the public thinking that all clowns belong to the circus. I will gladly take up this task if you wish as I am a well known birthday party clown in South Africa and have more than 10 years experience in the field --JDab15 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in "American character clown types"

There seems to be a lot of it here. I don't edit this article, but I know vandy when I see it. Somebody fix it, please. Lou Sander (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the worst of it. I kind of doubt the long list of hobo-type clowns, though. Lou Sander (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jango Edwards - Fools Militia

Just watching an interview with him on TV and saw his article which doesn't have anything about newest effort "Fools Militia." Plus he claimed (joking? not sure since was half paying attention til he said it) that he's having trouble with US homeland security because of "militia" in the title. Anyway. For those interested in the topic who might find researching and putting more info on Jango, the militia etc on either page! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ur-manipulator and ur-victim

The text uses the terms "ur-manipulator" and "ur-victim". Where do these terms come from? In German "ur" means ancient, and is prefixed to many words (such as "ursuppe"), but I can't find an English meaning. Web searching "ur-victim" gets hits that all mean "your victim". Web searching "ur-manipulator" gets many hits on prior versions of this page. In context I an reading "ur" as "prototype", but where do these words come from?  Randall Bart   Talk  19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

WOW, this article verges on complete original research! It's not badly written, but where are the sources? I'm suspecting this is the result of editors contributing their own knowledge. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Per above, I agree. Much of the sources are anecdotal at best, and just do not cut it in what is intended to be the distillation of the best sources available to human knowledge. What is particularly weak is the alleged psychological effect, or phobia, a property shared by the related article, coulrophobia. Since the psychiatric/psychological community does not appear to recognise this as a disorder, sourcing may be tricky; but that does not mean we should resort to "popular psychology" sources, as has recently been attempted, to overcome the non-negotiabele requirements for verifiability using reliable sources. The latter source sets out its stall in relation only to nightmares, contains no apparent references to academic research, and thus is thoroughly useless as a source here. In particular, it does not deal with the incidence of "fear of clowns" so as to justify use of the words "few" or "many". However, since the phenomenon is reported, however poorly, I think that we can say "some", without particularisation and in the absence of any statistical evidence whatsoever. We wouldn't do this for cancer, and I see no reason to relax our standards to do it here; unless, of course this venture is a joke, and not, in fact, an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • While I agree with the general point of this thread (that the sourcing is generally poor and often missing) I do not agree with your specific point. Use of the word "some" no less requires a citation than the word "many", which is now cited. Would you be happy with "some cancers are caused by original sin"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Terms such as "few" and "many" are relative, and meaningless without specific statistics, whereas "some" is beyond argument, since the phenomenon has been reported, albeit not to exacting scientific standards; to be frank, I'm amazed that you don't seem to understand the difference, unless you're taking this stance to make some point or other. Let's get rid of coulrophobia first, since it seems to exist on extremely shaky grounds as a psychological disorder as opposed to an internet meme; it should be rewritten as the latter if it lacks professional acceptance. As to your last point, I'm not currently amenable to "reductio ad absurdum", since we are dealing with what should be factual rather than mythical, and you know full well that such an assertion added to this encylopedia (remember?) would be shot down without argument, and rightly so.Rodhullandemu 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Why do you refuse to accept that "some" is also relative? Relative to none, obviously. You seem to be arguing that nobody has a fear of clowns. Malleus

Where have I ever said, or implied, that? I'm arguing about the poverty of the sources and what it is reasonable to state in the face of poor sources? Rodhullandemu 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fatuorum 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• As to the source, see here; this is all unsupported opinion. From the frontispiece, it clear that it's about dreams, and dreams only- not waking phobias, which have been reported to be psychologically damaging. If you look at their bibliography on page 347 of the Amazon online version, it's, er short, and would fail even as an high school essay, let alone an undergraduate essay, and the authors do not provide inline citations for their work. As a work of popular culture, it might fool a few people, or perhaps some, or maybe many, but as a reliable source, I would rather see it emerging from my drains into my sewer than use it as a source on Wikipedia. It's not just shite, it's unvalidated shite. And that's why it's unusable here. Please find a better source. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What's clear to me me clearly isn't clear to you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason for a third opinion, don't you think? Rodhullandemu 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not entirely sure what you two are arguing about, but the dislike (not necessarily fear/phobia--there's a distinction to be made) is sourced from study published in Nursing Standard (according to this Reuters story). It may very well be that this dislike is culture-bound. A psychologist interviewed by the BBC in their coverage of that paper hinted to that "Very few children like clowns. They are unfamiliar and come from a different era. They don't look funny, they just look odd." I can't find the original article, and it may well require subscription. Per WP:MEDRS, the journalistic reports of medical stories should be avoided in preference of the original articles when possible. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary, not primary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are quite clueless: Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of this? I suggest that you read it soon, before you find yourself in hot water. Do you understand what a "secondary source" is? Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't patronize me—of course I understand what secondary means. Do you understand what a qualifies as a reliable secondary source in this area? It's spelled out in the MEDRS guideline. The popular press seldom does, for the reasons explained in the link I provided. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand, as per your comment above: "I can't find the original article". What you ought to be looking for are review articles, not original papers. Do you understand what a review article is? Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to point us to a review paper covering this study? I doubt one exists given that the original paper is not even indexed by pubmed. See sub-section below for more. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think when we are talking about an alleged psychological disorder, as opposed to a made-up name in popular culture, WP:MEDRS should take precedence. It's not recognised in DSM-IV-TR, or any other recognised psychiatric reliable source, and we are dealing with a poorly-sourced WP:NEOLOGISM. That's all. Rodhullandemu 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you and your friend Tifj ought to read all of WP:MEDRS, not just the bits that suit you. But as you have once again pursued me here then I will be making no further comment. Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Wise move, but it's the integrity of this encyclopedia than matters, not your ego nor mine; however, what about dispute resolution? I don't see you seeking a third opinion or request for comment. Rodhullandemu 03:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you threatening me? Again? Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, Rod and I are conspiring to get you, no doubt. I see you already concluded I'm a friend of his somehow. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Curtis paper

The mass media focus on the fear of clowns in this paper appears to be questionable. In the authors' "leaflet for the professionals" [2] the only place where clowns are mentioned is in:

“ Finding 1: Children and young people over 7 years old find hospital spaces too babyish.

What do children say?

‘I don’t like those curtain things with clowns and balloons. I think it’s a bit babyish’ (9 year old boy)

[...]

‘The clown border.. Hated it, I hated it. Too childish. I don’t want childish borders’ (15 year old boy)

”

This doesn't seem to be fear, but dislike. The lead author, interviewed by the BBC, said "We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable." What proportion found them frightening is unclear. The Nursing Standard paper is not indexed by Pubmed [3]. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a separate, maybe a bit spammy article Clown Care about clowns in hospitals. I came across it through adding a reference that visits from medical clowns made in vitro fertilization more effective (see the IVF section of that article). Of course the responses of women that age are likely to be different from those of children. But, I can't believe vast numbers of kids find clowns frightening, or else Ronald McDonald wouldn't have been able to sell them so many hamburgers. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nursing Standard and other comments

I spent some time checking into this. Nursing Standard is not a medical journal (it's more of a trade mag for nurses) and it didn't publish the Sheffield study (it quoted from it in a popular-style article that says approx. the same stuff as the Reuters article). Nursing Standard actually ran three articles:

1. "No more clowning around--it's too scary." Nursing Standard 22.19 (Jan 16, 2008): 11. (196 words)
   • This is the one mentioned by the Reuters story, that talks about the Sheffield study. It is a fairly light, popular-press style piece.
2. "Clowns are not so scary after all.(NEWS)(clowns help to treat children faster)(Brief article)." Nursing Standard 22.34 (April 30, 2008): p10(1). (113 words)
   • This says "A survey conducted by academics at the University of Southampton with nurses, doctors, children and their parents shows that most appreciate the therapeutic distraction of the 'clown doctor' service provided by the Theodora Children's Trust." and mentions the earlier article about the Sheffield study. It too is a popular-style piece and IMO seems there to counterbalance the January article.
3. "Laughter proves welcome relief in children's care: having clowns on wards can aid recovery for children with respiratory disease." (Clinical digest) 25.7 (Oct 20, 2010): p16(1). (287 words)
   • This one is written in a more serious way and it's about an Italian study, mentioning "The authors comment that the physiological observations appear to show children's bodies enjoyed a psychophysiologically positive state in response to the clowns." It cites the study Bertini Met al (2010), Clowns benefit children hospitalized for respiratory pathologies. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.[4] (it gives a DOI that doesn't work, but I found that prepub link through web search). I also found [5] in that journal.

Another article: [6] is informative, and gives some further promising cites. It does cite the wrong issue number for the Nursing Standard story (says issue 22:11 instead of issue 22.19 p. 11), which threw me for a while. It talks about a difference in performance styles between trained medical clowns, and normal circus-style clowns. I think this is a higher quality source than the first two Nursing Standard pieces or any of the popular-press stuff. I'm sure more can be found.

I believed the clown phobia story before without paying much attention, but at this point I think Rod is right and it's mostly a meme. I think it should be removed from the lede of Clown due to undue weight (it can be mentioned further in the article). Coulrophobia also seems like a mostly bogus article and IMO should be changed to redirect to a short section of Clown dealing with that subject. We should not write as if there is actually such a recognized phobia without MEDRS documentation. The current coulrophobia article's lede comes across like "this is a newly emerging area of clinical research" instead of "this is a bogus story that got thrown around in the press a few times". Treating a non-scientific subject as if it had scientific legitimacy is called "pseudoscience" (it doesn't even seem to rise to "fringe") and should be dealt with as such.

On the Malleus-Rodhullandemu thing: the acrimony between those editors is well known and I wish they'd disengage. Interaction style aside though, IMO Rod appears to be basically right about the content matters, and Malleus is being tendentious. Malleus's semi-threatening civility remarks toward Tijfo098 are also unimpressive. Arbcom wrote long ago,[7]

The premier rules to be observed are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: you are counseled to be courteous to one another. This is a policy which extends beyond formal politeness. Please do not address one another with insulting bantering language. Please do not answer one offense with another. ...

By that standard, Malleus is in no position to go around complaining about others for incivility. While only Tijfo098 used the markedly impolite word "clueless", the complex range of behaviors involved in interacting courteously with another person can't be captured by simplistic formulas like avoiding certain words. Malleus's discourtesy is apparent through this discussion so he can't reasonably bring a civility complaint with clean hands. Tijfo098 and Rodhullandemu are of course also being quite discourteous.

Finally, Clown Care should be rewritten to use real sources and be less spammy. Medical clown redirects there now, but maybe the direction should be switched. I start to beieve there are enough MEDRS to write a reasonable article about clowns in medicine. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Regards, 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)