Talk:Pierrot

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I hope that the previous editor of this page is not alarmed or dismayed by the extensiveness of my editing. I have retained almost all of the material of the previous page, but have reorganized it (and supplied dates) so that, using the "Contents" box, the reader can find everything conveniently. I have (obviously) added a great deal of historical background and have corrected a few errors. (It's questionable whether the character Pedrolino played a large role--if any--in the creation of Pierrot by the Comedie-Italienne: see the new note #1. And I think it's misleading to say that Deburau was the protagonist of "Au clair de la lune," since the song was composed long before Deburau's birth. But these are small matters.) I have omitted three entries: I don't know what "a class in Golden Sun 2" refers to (I'm an old-timer--but maybe a clarified entry could be included under a "Technology" heading?). Also, since you point out that the "Pierrot" of "Unbeatable Banzuke" is probably not a Pierrot as such but simply a clown, I dropped that reference. And, finally, I thought "Pierrette" deserved her own page--although I'm not sure how much can be said about her, since even her costume--so far as I know anything about it--is highly variable.

I really value your pop-culture entries--involving pop music and anime and manga, for example--and I hope you'll continue to contribute more. I'm thinking of uploading a few more images (along the empty space next to the "Contents" box), but that will probably be the end of my work on the page. Please remove any errors that you find. Beebuk 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs) Beebuk124.121.138.47 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of lines about her (under Popular and Literary Pantomime); I haven't been able to scrape up enough to say about her to create a page of her own. I haven't said anything about her costume because I can't find any documentation about it. Beebuk 09:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs)

This is an extremely long article given its subject.

My grandfather, Domer Howard, wrote an excruciatingly bad series of sonnets titled Sonnets from Pierrot to Columbine. He had them printed (not published, really, just printed and bound) and distributed copies to his family and friends. There were at most a few hundred copies made of this book. Copies have turned up on Ebay and Amazon a few times. If you doubt my evaluation of the book, buy one of the used copies floating around and read the sonnet titled "Space Age Love".

As obscure as this book is, it was mentioned by this article (I have since deleted the reference).

It seems as if someone has attempted to list every last cultural reference to Pierrot that could be located as part of the article. I can appreciate that someone was interested in the subject, but maybe writing a book is in order. This is way too much detail for an encyclopedia entry. Ormewood (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the (main) culprit. Yes, the page is long. But I think there are some good reasons for its length. First, Pierrot has a very long history (a fact that was ignored in earlier versions of the page). And, second, he is—and was from the beginning—a pop-cultural phenomenon. Which makes it very difficult to know where to draw the line when it comes to entries. (I hesitated long over the Domer Howard entry, but decided to include it because of its unusual status: a sonnet sequence involving Pierrot and Columbine in the late twentieth century? Someone needed to know it was there—and maybe take a look. LET 'em have a gander at "Space Age Love.")

As a matter of fact, the page that I encountered from an earlier editor was chock-a-block with what seemed to me very arcane references (mainly to Japanese anime and pop songs), which I thought not worthy of keeping. But, after some thought, I had to confess that it was precisely those references that drew many modern readers/spectators to the page: they are what my contemporaries are fascinated by. So entries for Picasso and Juan Gris (who put in no appearance on the previous page) should be removed?

I decided that the way to go should be by organization: a detailed Table of Contents would help navigation around a long page, especially for those readers with only specialized interests. And so far I've had no objections (aside from the one I'm addressing). In fact, the page has inspired only additions—and it gets between 300 and 500 hits a day. For the reader who thinks I've tried to be completely inclusive, I'd suggest clicking on the first website listed under "Commercial Art": watch all the unacknowledged Pierrots come tumbling out.

I've written the book, incidentally. Two books. And others have written more. Pierrot (as the author of one of Jean-Gaspard Deburau's pantomimes knew) is everywhere. Beebuk 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will back off, especially if nobody else seems to think it's long. You have obviously put a lot of work and passion into this article. Good luck with it.Ormewood (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ormewood's first instinct. The problem isn't just that the article is too long, it's that some of the information is not encyclopedic, and the article is not written in a concise, encyclopedic style. If the Howard book was not a best seller, it should not be mentioned here. Please see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not the place for lists of obscure works. See also WP:Trivia. The article contains lots of excellent content, but by burying the important facts in a lot of less important material, you make it far less likely that a reader will stick with you and read the whole article. I urge you to prune, prune, prune. In addition, there is an article about the Harlequinade which needs to be expanded, if you have an interest in the subject. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. There is no reason to use kid gloves here. Not every reference is notable, and non-notable references should be pruned without pity. Nandesuka (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brutally chopped down the "late-20th century" section to just three or four of the most notable examples. I don't object, philosophically, to adding back a few more, if they're particularly notable, but it would help if that notability was established by a reliable source. The early-20th century section is next. The portions of the article before that are much better, since they are (a) not in list form and (b) are heavily referenced to explain their significance.

Basically, my philosophy here is that if there is a third party reliable source citing a given work as an influential or significant use of Pierrot, its fair game to include it. "So-and-so's barely notable work (myspace link here)" does not make the grade. Nandesuka (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's a little too radical. As I said, there is a lot of excellent material here; some of it just needs to be streamlined stylistically into a more concise encyclopedic writing style. We do need reference to WP:Reliable sources that discuss the use of the character. If a major media source has written an article describing how Pierrot was important in some work of fiction, it thinks that the work of fiction discussed is of interest to a general reader. There should be more narrative discussion at the top of the section about how Pierrot is used, portrayed and understood in the 20th century compared with how the character is used in earlier times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick start by cutting out items where NOTHING in the item was blue-linked and trying to combine stubby sections and eliminate some repetition. Beebuk, you know the territory here and are in the best position to streamline this. Can you cut out the least significant items and try to consolidate other items? This should also be done in the previous section. If you can control these lists more, it will help the whole article and reduce the number of items for which we need refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ssilvers, for restoring a streamlined version of "Late Twentieth etc." It looks good to me, though I've just had a moment to glance at it. I'll do the same with the "Early Twentieth Century," but it will take me a few days, since I'm busy with another project. I have a little difficulty with your "Reliable Sources" caveat. Surely, you don't want a scholarly reference for every one of these entries, do you? Isn't a blue-link a sufficient indicator of importance? (In other words, if William Faulkner writes a full book of poems—Vision in Spring—in which the central character is Pierrot, isn't that fact a guarantor of its own importance? [The scholar Judith Sensibar, who's written a couple of books about Pierrot-Faulkner, obviously thinks so, but must her books be footnoted?] Does David Bowie require some sort of scholarly endorsement to appear here?)

Another problem I have is with the request for a discussion of "how Pierrot is used, portrayed and understood in the 20th century." Such a discussion would be, in effect, interpretation, and that, as I understand it, is to be avoided completely on a Wikipage. What I always wanted to do in Pierrot was to give the reader the facts—e.g., this singer published this song about Pierrot in this year—so that that reader can investigate the fact and interpret it in his or her own way. I've given a great deal of background, so the fact is not without context. But to spell out, for example, what Picasso was trying to convey (or what I think Picasso was trying to convey) in his late drawings of Pierrot and Harlequin is to go beyond the bounds of encyclopedic reference, I think. Beebuk 10:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the section restored by Ssilvers, and I've alphabetized things that need it, corrected punctuation and capitalization, but done nothing else. I'd like to compare the new section with the original when I have time to see what else needs to be done about it. Beebuk 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the citations is to avoid original research, and to provide some degree of evidence that the usage in question is in fact significant. Normally, there is a gray area here: if Pablo Picasso draws a painting of something, that's typically notable enough to mention, in a "You know it when you see it" sort of way. But, frankly, this article has gone way around the bend in terms of reasonableness, and so being stricter about it can only help improve it. It's all well and good to invoke Faulkner or David Bowie, but more to the point I have a hard time believing that "Pierrot's ABC Garden" has much significance beyond the author or the Pierrot-obsessed, or (taking blue-link example) that anyone reading about Pierrot in an encyclopedia really wants or needs to be thinking about the coincidental choice of Pierrot as a random character in Yakitate!! Japan.

Let me put it another way: imagine if I decided to put every song whose title contained the word "Black" into the article Black. That would not improve the article one bit. That's what appears to be happening here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ssilvers here. The fact that a work is blue-linked proves that it exists, but it does not show that there is a notable reference to Pierrot. Yes, it is certainly of interest to our readers that Picasso painted the subject repeatedly. But the article would be much more interesting if you cite published sources that explain and analyze why he painted Pierrot and what he might have been saying about the character. There must be critics and art historians who have analyzed and written about these works. You can say "In 1994, in critic x's review of a Picasso exhibit at the Louvre that included many of his Pierrot paintings, x asserted that Picasso's fascination with the character stemmed from w and that each of the paintings contains z." [reference, including page numbers] On the other hand, critic q has argued that Picasso merely found the bright colors traditionally used to potray the subject useful in contrast to the monochromatic palette he used to illustrate the devastation wrought by the bombing of Dresden...."[reference, including page numbers]. As for Faulkner, what does Sensibar *say* about it? On what page does she say so? Give quotes, analysis, references. In addition to what Nandesuka said above, the citations to Reliable Sources are needed to explain why each work is notable in relation to Pierrot. For example, you mention several works about, or called, "clowns" or something similar. But you then need to state how the ref contains notable information specifically about Pierrot, and then you need to give a citation to something that backs up your claim that the item has information about Pierrot that is necessary for an understanding of the subject of Pierrot. To answer your question above, the request for a discussion of "how Pierrot is used, portrayed and understood in the 20th century" means a discussion based on Reliable Sources: Historian x argues that the modern appearance of Pierrot in a, b and c illustrate that q. Historian y, however, observes that in the majority of 20th century uses of the character, z is the case, not q." You seem to have all the major references, and they must give analysis and opinions. You can quote and discuss the sources, as long as you discuss their assertions, not yours. See?

Also, you should eliminate references where Pierrot is merely mentioned in passing. Every item listed should have a substantial connection to the subject of Pierrot, such that if someone looked the item up in the library, it would add to his or her understanding of the subject. I don't agree with Nandesuka's apparent instinct to cut wholesale; I would rather give Beebuk a chance to consider each item in the list and justify its inclusion, but, Beebuk, by doing the work to consider each item and find an appropriate reference, I think you will decide to cut more items, and you will certainly improve the quality of this article. Take a look at some of Wikipedia's highest quality articles, which are called WP:Featured Articles. See, for example, Hamlet. You have the skills, I think, to write a very high quality article. Listy sections can never be as good as a section that gives analysis and description based on reliable sources. If you can *discuss* why something is important to an understanding to Pierrot, it is infinitely better than just saying that "the following things mention Pierrot". Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm formulating a response and will post it in a few days. Beebuk 08:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm unwatching this article. If anyone wishes to correspond with me, feel free to use my talk page, but you don't need to respond to any of this; just go ahead with your work on the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Ssilvers: You're asking the impossible when you ask me to "justify" the inclusion of every item by scholarly analysis and quotation. First, scholarly analysis and quotation have nothing to do with the "notability" of an item. Scholars analyze and pontificate, as you surely know, about everything under the sun now, from Barbie dolls to children's books (yes, Nandesuka, children's books). Such actions are no argument for the notability of the object under discussion. Second, 20th-century art is notoriously complex and ambiguous, and responses to it are various and often divergent. One example: the Faulkner Vision in Spring again. Sensibar maintains that the book is really literary parody (of what I won't get into here—it would take too long—though of course I'd have to do so if I altered the page as you request). Neither I nor any of the students in my graduate seminar who studied the book some years ago agreed with this reading. We decided that it was just bad, though important, poetry—important because Faulkner wrote it and, in doing so, showed where his isolated and ineffectual characters like Quentin Compson came from (i.e., Pierrot) and how his overripe prose developed from mandarin verse. All of this would have to be spelled out on the Wikipage if I were to meet your request. And it would have to be spelled out for all of the other SIXTY-EIGHT artists under the same "Early Twentieth-Century" heading who are just as eminent as Faulkner and as fascinated by Pierrot as he was. Now how long would such a section (for we're talking about just a section of a page, not a full page itself) get to be if every item were dealt with in this way? And we haven't even begun to consider the artists of middling eminence. Take the poet Ralph Chaplin—not really a poet at all, a writer of no eminence, but whom I've included. I've done so because Chaplin was a important early labor activist who went to prison for his subversive activities, during which time he wrote "Maybe, Pierrot . . ." The poignancy of this address to the ineffectual, lonely clown adds immeasurably to our appreciation of Chaplin's efforts on the social front. Take a second example: the painter Gustav Mossa—not a name to conjure by, he doesn't even have an English Wikipage (he has a French one)—but whose painting "Pierrot Makes His Exit" is one of the most haunting symbolist/proto-surreal portraits of Pierrot that I know of (take a look). And I could make the same case for the dozens and dozens of other "minor" artists who are not blue-linked here: but, again, how long a page do you think we're talking about? I have not included a single work in which Pierrot is merely glimpsed in passing. Or if he is, our glimpse of him is momentous—as when Wedekind's (and Berg's) Lulu first appears before the audience in a Pierrot costume, or when twin brother and sister meet, both in Pierrot costumes, in The Man without Qualities, or when Ferdinand's girlfriend of the Godard film calls him "Pierrot." (I might point out, incidentally, that Nandesuka thinks that this film, in which Pierrot never actually makes an appearance, and Picasso should be the sole representatives of the figure in the late 20th/early 21st centuries.) When he is not a central figure (as he is in most of the work here) or a major one (as he is, pace Nandesuka, in Yakitate!! Japan), I briefly explain, in a parenthesis, why the work is included (see the Alain-Fournier entry, for example). Your request puts me in a dilemma: either I deal with a very small number of artists in the detailed, analytical way that you envision—and consign all the others to oblivion—or I forgo analysis, leaving that to the curious reader, and instead introduce him or her to the very large stage of significant Pierrot works that I think a responsible page should include.

To Nandesuka: "Significant" is obviously your operative word. Picasso, yes; Alcoholic Kidz, no. Yes, I think Picasso was an immensely important force in the making of modern (now postmodern) culture—but so was Elvis (and his progeny the rock band Placebo) and so was DC comics' Superman (and his progeny Japanese manga). I thought "postmodernism" had done away with the scorn traditionally poured upon pop culture. Jean-Gaspard Deburau, after all, the most famous Pierrot in the long history of the character, performed in a fleapit theater for a noisy and (I'm told) noxious crowd for all of his modest career. (His one engagement at the Théâtre-Français was a disaster.) Pierrot—I'll say it once again—is and always has been a pop-culture phenomenon, and to remove all the pop-culture items from the section in question is to misrepresent his appeal. To know what Pierrot is, you can't just go to Picasso and Godard; you have (in your case) to clench your teeth and hold your nose and read Japanese manga and listen to The Seekers and look at trashy posters. You want a High-Culture Pierrot, but that leaves out a lot that's vital to his character. (If you're concerned about "notability," incidentally, shouldn't you be deleting all the pages of the rock groups and manga artists and so on that I've blue-linked in that section? If they're not "notable" enough for the Pierrot page, they're not notable enough for home pages, as well.) As for the children's books, they're there (as is everything else) for a reason: Pierrot's ABC Garden isn't an isolated oddity. Sing, Pierrot, Sing is also a children's book; Crocodile and Pierrot is another children's book. (And there are others I didn't include, like The Story of Bip, because my scruples prohibited the identifying of Bip with Pierrot, perhaps too nice a scruple.) Those books that I've named illustrate the fact that the naive innocence of the figure has endured since the 17th century. (You never see any Hamlet's ABC Garden, do you.) They also reinforce the fact that Pierrot keeps attracting the eminent and near-eminent to his company: have you read Russell Hoban's novel, Ridley Walker, one of the most effective nightmare novels of the 20th century? Hoban wrote Crocodile and Pierrot. I must be "Pierrot-obsessed," you say? Of course I am—as the editors of the Madonna page are Madonna-obsessed, and the editor of the Pointed hat page (yes, it exists) is Pointed-hat-obsessed. If you aren't obsessed, either temporarily or for the long-term, you shouldn't be writing pages for Wikipedia. But obsession and indiscriminateness are two different things. I haven't included entries indiscriminately.

But do what you want with the page; I'm through with it. I thought when I left academe some years ago that I'd left all the eternal wrangling there behind me. (I know it's inevitable, even necessary: without contraries there is no growth, etc., but I don't want to be a part of it; it's too hard on my nerves.) I've drawn up, after long consideration, the best page that I think can be produced, given the compromises involved. If it displeases you, reduce it to rubble. But when you do so, be fully aware that you're doing it in ignorance, from all I can gather, and even arrogance. This is the last you'll hear from Beebuk 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I wish you'd try to compromise with us. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that articles can always continue to improve. You don't "finish" them and walk away, like with a printed book. The best way for this article to continue to improve is for you to stay involved. I think that, at least in the near term, your leaving the article will, indeed, lead to its deterioration. So, I wish you would stay and continue to make incremental changes, like continuing to weed down the examples to the most important ones, and turn them into narrative paragraphs with a discussion of the major sources. For instance, if you disagree with a source, you can say, "X wrote in her 1999 book that q, but most scholars disagree, noting that z."[giving references, including page numbers]. It doesn't need to be nearly as elaborate as in a scholarly paper - it just needs to hit the most important points made in the public debate and media about Pierrot. As I said, others must have written about Picasso's use of the character. I suspect that reviews of Bowie's song or video mention his use of the character. Again, for an example of how to do this kind of description, see the Hamlet article, or - this might be a great example: Superman. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beebuk, it's strange that you try to recast my discussion as framing this as "high vs. pop culture" discussion, especially given that you mysteriously referred to my inclusion of Picasso but equally mysteriously omitted my inclusion of David Bowie who, last I checked, was not in the regular rotation at La Scala. The issue is not "high culture vs. pop culture" but "reliable source vs. Some Guy At Wikipedia". What makes a mention of Pierrot -- in the context of a Wikipedia article -- notable is not whether or not it was produced in 1799 for the coming-out party of Sir Myles na gCopaleen's sister, Muffy, but whether some reliable source has flagged it as such. "Reliable" doesn't have to mean "academic" but it does have to mean "not just the opinion of a semi-anonymous Wikipedia editor". Nandesuka (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "notable" (for a Wikipedia page) and what is not could be endlessly debated (Picasso but not Michael Jackson? Godard but not Sacha Guitry?), but I suspect that such a debate, at least concerning this page, would be a fruitless one. Let me make a suggestion: I think subdividing the page would be a good idea, i.e., creating separate pages for "Pierrot in the Early Twentieth Century" and "Pierrot in the Late Twentieth/Early Twenty-First Centuries." The main Pierrot page would bear the directions "See Main Page . . ." and supply a summarizing paragraph (or two) like Nandesuka's for each of those periods. If this is unacceptable to either Nandesuka or Ssilvers, each is free to respond here. (And I ask that the standard Wikipedia policy be observed: that major changes in a page be discussed on the Talk page before they are implemented.) Beebuk 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that subdividing the page into smaller articles is a terrible idea! Anyone interested in Pierrot wants to read all about it in one article, not have to click around to multiple articles to find out about it. That would add confusion and repetition as well as difficulty for the general reader. Please, no! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought: I, too, would in my heart of hearts like to keep the page together. And I'd like to add one more thing: Why assume that a reader of an encyclopedia article wants or needs to read the whole thing? When I read such an article, I go right to the section I want the info from. Schopenhauer's life doesn't interest me; the ideas in The World as Will and Representation do. Beebuk 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you put back the initial capital letters in the headings. Wikipedia's Manual of style says not to use caps. It should be: Film, television and comic books. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I wasn't aware of the policy (which I think should be changed: all important words in headings should be capitalized). Beebuk 08:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to advocate at the MOS talk page for change, but it isn't very likely! These sorts of guidelines have evolved over 10 years and the input of thousands of people. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you make an edit, please write something in the Edit summary bar at the bottom before you push the button. That way, people reviewing the article history can see what sort of edit you made. Something like "copy edit" or "capitalization in headings per MOS" or "reorganization of section into narrative paragraphs". Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again. I was working very quickly (and forgot to use the summary bar), since I'm always afraid someone else has begun editing the page, and I've never figured out the Wiki instructions for "merging" pages. Beebuk 08:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an edit conflict, scroll down, and you will see a screen where your work is saved. But it is a good idea to copy your edit screen before hitting save so that you don't lose any of your work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Agatha Christie was amused when she placed detective Poirot at a costume ball in which two key figures were dressed as Pierrot and Pierette ^[1]

Beebuk 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oswegotownie (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really don't how to sign my previous entry Oswegotownie Oswegotownie —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about how to best move forward.

The way I see it there are three main categories of work to be done in the Late 20th and Early 20th century sections.

• Find reliable sources covering the items mentioned as being somehow relevant to the topic of Pierrot (beyond the simple equivalence "Oh, look, Pierrot is in the title, therefore we must include it.")

• Remove obviously trivial or suspect mentions.

• De-listify, rewrite in paragraph form.

I'm creating subsections here for us to note what changes we've made, to make it easier for people to object and/or discuss. Nandesuka (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the strategy, except in two respects: 1) I think we have now removed the "obviously" trivial and suspect mentions ( I wouldn't remove any others unless we have made a diligent library effort to verify their importance and have failed to do so); and 2) The 20th century is not the only problem with this article - the earlier sections, while based generally on literature covering this subject, are not adequately in-line referenced, and the writing is, in places, not encyclopedic. This character is not really within my area of interest or expertise. I have done what I can with a quick editorial look at the article. To de-listify the 20th century will require either a good familiarity with the literature or an expedition to the library. Frankly, I think the article is "good enough" for now, and I'm going to bow out. If you want to really dig into the sources and take the article further, that is wonderful, but I've got more pressing pots on my stove. Sorry! Best regards, and happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Placeholder)

• Removed anime references as completely redundant with their manga equivalents - diff.

• Removed "commercial art" subsection as being potentially spammy and not adding much to the article. When de-listified, a simple sentence indicating that Pierrot is a popular subject of posters, jewelry, what have you, should suffice. diff.

(Placeholder)

Hello everyone, I added (alongside with Fellini's Clowns) The Night Porter by Liliana Cavani. There are multiple visual allusions to the Pierrot character, and I think this film is culturally significant. However, if anyone thinks it is original research, you are free to delete my additions.Beebuk 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.5.172 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a section of this title largely in response to an objection of Ssilvers (in A Defense above): "There should be more narrative discussion at the top of the section about how Pierrot is used, portrayed and understood in the 20th century compared with how the character is used in earlier times." -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Forgot to sign the above. Beebuk 11:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that the article is using a mixture of citation styles. Some of the older references are added using the very basic markup of <ref>[www.example.com Name of source] other info about source]</ref> while other citations are formatted using citation templates. Wikipedia does not have one single preferred style for citing sources, but its generally considered a good idea that style used throughout the article be consistent per WP:CITESTYLE. Personally, I prefer using citation templates because they are easier to use and easier to ensure consistent formatting, but some editors do not like them. Just for reference, some of the shorter citations like <ref>Author's name; page #</ref> can be converted into templates using Template:sfn, Template:Rp, or Template:Harv. WP:CITEVAR says we should defer to the style used by the first significant contributor and only change styles if there's a consensus to do so. Some other things to consider are WP:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATETIES. It seems that an all-numerical format is currently being used which is fine, but the depending upon the variation of English being used the "month day, year" and "day moth year" formats can also be used. Once again, it can help save on clean up if a single format is agreed upon in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that came out of the discussion at WP:ELN#Embedded external links in Pierrot is that some are of the opinion that a direct link (i.e., a convenience link) to a complete online version of a book, poem, etc. is something to be preferred over no link at all. Personally, I'm not so convinced since it seems more than sufficient to simply cite the source (book, etc.) being discussed. If, however, the consensus is to link to these websites and that doing so can be verified without a shadow of doubt to not be a copy violation, then I think there's a better way to do this that what is currently being done in the article. I will use citation templates simply for explanatory purposes; the formatting can be changed to the preferred style as needed. I've formatted to template vertically to make it easier to follow, but it can easily be done horizontally.

Example: Aria da Capo (1920)

This is currently being formatted as follows:

<ref>
 {{Cite web
 |url=https://archive.org/stream/ariadecapoplay00millrich#page/n7/mode/2up
 |title=Aria da capo, a play in one act
 |website=archive.org
 |access-date=2016-04-17}}
 </ref>

which looks like this:"Aria da capo, a play in one act". archive.org. Retrieved 2016-04-17.

That's OK, but I believe it's better to cite the actual original source and not the website where the an online version can be read. So, I suggest the following:

<ref>
 {{cite book
 |last=Millay
 |first=Edna St. Vincent
 |author-link=Edna St. Vincent Millay
 |url=https://archive.org/stream/ariadecapoplay00millrich#page/n7/mode/2up|title=Aria da capo, a play in one act
 |year=1921
 |publisher=[[Mitchell Kennerley]]
 |location= New York
 |isbn=978-1-44006-330-5
 |via=[[Internet Archive]]
 |accessdate=2016-04-17}}
 </ref>

which looks like this: Millay, Edna St. Vincent (1921). Aria da capo, a play in one act. New York: Mitchell Kennerley. ISBN 978-1-44006-330-5. Retrieved 2016-04-17 – via Internet Archive. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

The above might seem like a purely cosmetic change and in some ways it is, but it also cites the original source of the material and not an archived website hosting an online version of the material. I think this is more inline with WP:CITEHOW and the preferred thing to do on Wikipedia in such cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beebuk and Sphilbrick: Any comments on the above? I see that more citations are being added which is fine, but once again I think its preferred to cite the original source (not the website where the convenience link is found) whenever possible. If my suggestion is OK, then I have no problem doing the necessary clean up. This is just a matter of formatting which shouldn't take too long to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I don't know how to implement the changes you request, so I've asked for Sphilbrick's help. I regret appealing to him so often, but I'm not a techie and don't have many sophisticated editing skills. At this point—I'm leaving the country very soon and will be out of touch with all things Wiki for a while—all I can do is assure you that the links made so far (and those that I've planned to make in the future) are innocent of copyright violation. Beebuk 02:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beebuk: All I am suggesting is switching from Template:Cite web to Template:Cite book, etc. depending upon the original source. I think this would make it little easier to directly cite the books, plays, etc. themselves. For example, Edna St. Vincent Millay, not the Internet Archive, wrote Aria da Capo, so it seems more appropriate to cite her and the book directly than an online version found on some unconnected third party's website. For example, suppose there is a New York Times article about Pierrot that you want to cite in the article, but the only online version you can find of the article is on a website completely unconnected to the paper. There are two things you can do: (1) format the citation directly to the original NYT article (perhaps using Template:Cite news) without providing a link per WP:SWYRT (sources only need to be WP:PUBLISHED, they do not need to be online); or (2) format the citation directly to the original NYT article and provide a link to the website where it can be seen if you are sure it is a true copy of the original and is not a copyright violation. I am not suggesting that the archived links be removed. If you look at the examples for Aria da Capo I've given above, the link to Aria da capo, a play in one act is still in both citations. There are some differences, however, between the way the two templates work.

"Cite web" needs to have something added for the "url" parameter for it to work properly and the failure to do so means that an error message will appear in the relevant entry for the citation in the "References" section. "Cite book", on the other hand, does not require a url and can be used for sources not found online. Another difference is that "cite book" automatically places the title of the work in italics whereas the "cite web" template places the title in quotes. On Wikipedia, we usually place the titles of major works in italics and the titles of minor works in quotes and this cannot be done using the "cite web" template. Just for reference, the article content uses italics. All citation templates can be basically be used to serve the function, it's just that certain templates are specifically designed to perform a certain role a little better than the others.

The rest of the information I added is just filling in other parameters in the template such as the name/location of the publisher, the year of publication, the isbn number, the name of the author, a link to the Wikipedia article about the author, etc. All of this information is not required; it just makes the citation a little more complete per WP:CITEHOW. I apologize if this seems confusing because it's a little too technical, but I am not suggesting that any content be removed from the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is what you suggest sounds sensible, however, for technical reasons, my editing will be limited for the next couple weeks. There are some implementation issues - I'll research and comment later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: No worries. As I posted above, I am just advocating a tweaking of the format and not suggesting the removal of any content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is pretty big and goes 4 section levels deep in some places. It might make things a little easier to navigate if it were limited a bit by hiding the lower level subsections per H:LIMITTOC. This is just a formatting change and no content will be removed. The individual subsections will still be there, and they can be wikilinked; they just will be hidden from view in the TOC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the section/subsecton headings are identical which is not wrong per se, but it's not really ideal. Generally, it's better to give each heading a unique name per MOS:HEAD because it makes it a little bit easier to add wikilinks in other articles to certain sections and easier to understand edit sums. For example, some of the section headings in Pierrot#Eighteenth century and Pierrot#Pantomime and late nineteenth-century art are the same. I can see why this might have been done, but it does cause a few problems because of the way Wikipedia's software works. Suppose, I want to add a wikilink to the "England" subsection in "Eighteenth century" in another article, etc. Normally, the way this is done would be Pierrot#England. Since this is the first time "England" is used as a section heading clicking on the link brings be exactly to the right section of the target article. Now suppose I want to link to the "France" subsection in "Pantomime and late ninetheeth-century art". Just like I did for "England", I create the link as Pierrot#France, only this time the link does not take me to the relevant section. Instead it takes me to the "France" subsection in "Eighteenth Century". The reason this happens is because the software sees the target of the link being the first section/subsection titled "France". If I want to create a link specific to subsequent sections named "France", then I need to use Pierrot#France_2. This is not very intuative and can be a little confusing to editors not famliar with linking.

Another thing I've noticed is that some of the subsection headings in the article as what is called "pseudo-headings". Pseudo-headings are basically created by using a semi-colon to cause the text to be bold. Apparently this formatting style was used quite a bit when Wikipedia was just starting out, but I believe it has been slowly deprecated over the years. So, instead of using semi-colons, it probably better to use proper section levels and just create another subsection. For example, "Popular and literary pantomime" and "Visual arts, fiction, poetry, music, and film" should probably be converted to level 5 section headings. This is not only consistent with what is being done in the rest of the article, but it is more in tune with WP:MOS. One positive of doing this will be that it make it a little easier to edit those particular subsections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the immense work and quality of information Beebuk has put into this article, but WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The writing is poetic and passionate, but off-putting because it is not formal, impersonal and dispassionate like an encyclopedia article should be (Wikipedia:Writing better articles). The most obvious culprit is the multiple sentences that start with "And", "But", and "And yet" (WP:WORDS). There also seems to be some synthesis applied overall. As an example, the following sentences:

It was neither the Aesthetic nor the popular Pierrot that claimed the attention of the great theater innovator Edward Gordon Craig. The appeal of the mask seems to have been the same that drew Craig to the "Über-Marionette": the sense that Pierrot was a symbolic embodiment of an aspect of the spiritual life—Craig invokes William Blake—and in no way a vehicle of "blunt" materialistic Realism. (ref)

could be roughly revised to:

Pierrot also appealed to the theater innovator Edward Gordon Craig in a similar manner as his conceptual "Über-Marionette", in the sense that Pierrot was a symbolic embodiment of an aspect of spiritual life, as opposed to a vehicle of "blunt" materialistic Realism. This corresponded with the views of William Blake, whom Craig admired. (ref)

I understand from the above that Beebuk has in fact written books on the subject. Again, I have concerns not with the content, but with the emphatic writing style (fit for a book) that is out of place in an encyclopedia. Opinions are welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where is the muffin (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In his poem, "West-Running Brook", Frost writes the following:

Some say existence like a Pirouot

And Pirouette, forever in one place,

Stands still and dances, but it runs away,

It seriously, sadly, runs away

To fill the abyss' void with emptiness.

Despite the alternative spelling, this is clearly a reference to Pierrot and Pierrette. Perhaps someone could add this to the extensive list of poetry references.

Many thanks for the suggestion--but the references here seem to be merely decorative. --Beebuk 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lush style of this article is inappropriate. It needs a lot of attention to read like an encyclopaedia. Spicemix (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It is impressive in its hugeness, but no one can read it. I am going to start working on it. Do you have suggestions about how to "outsource" some of it? I think it would be good to write new articles about some of the subtopics. Let me know if you have ideas. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss your edits to Pierrot and Jean-Gaspard Deburau.

Before getting into the edits themselves, I would like to provide a little bit of relevant background.

As you are aware, Wikipedia has a lot of written rules, arguably too many (certainly too many for the typical editor to have read and absorb them all), as well as a number of unwritten rules. A potential problem with unwritten rules is different editors may have their own universe of unwritten rules which may not match with others.

I think that in the early stages of an article's life, the proper protocol for editing an article differs somewhat from the latter stages of an article's life. Early on, I think it's quite appropriate for any editor encountering this article to make changes the editor feels improves the article, including additional referenced material, removal of cruft, and rewriting awkwardly written sentences. Of course, anyone at any time can object to any edit and open up a discussion on the article talk page. However, it is my opinion that when an article reaches a later stage of maturity, substantive edits ought to be handled differently. In short, I'd like to see more extensive discussion on the talk page about proposed changes. This can take place in many ways — one could identify a problematic issue and throw out general ideas about how to address it, or specifically identify proposed alternative text or organization plans, but is ideal to get feedback from others before simply proceeding.

I do see some a discussion on the talk page. This is very cryptic comment in July 2020 identifying a concern without much specificity to which you responded, and I see your specific suggestion about a proposed split.

I applaud you for starting the discussion but see the removal of about 10,000 bytes without any specific proposal or discussion on the planned removal and an edit summary suggesting more is to come. I'll confess I haven't read this before and after the cuts, so I'm not making the argument that the cuts were improper from an editorial standpoint, I am arguing that the process doesn't match what I think is good practice. You are probably aware that Beebuk is a substantial contributed to this page, and while I have general concerns when any page has this larger contribution from a single editor, it is not uncommon in a narrow subject matter that such a situation will occur. It is my opinion that ought to have a specific discussion with anyone interested but particularly editors with significant contributions to get their point of view.

It's only fair to point out that I've interacted with the editor Beebuk on several occasions, so I do have to be careful about viewing this issue as independently as possible. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote! Thanks for your response and the good ideas. I understand that my edits may seem rather independent, but that is part of the problem with this article. It really is one author's private jamboree. It lacks the encyclopaedia-style brevity and neutrality. So I started by removing the most egregious examples of wordiness or exaggerated detail. I would, however, be very interested in practical suggestions, if you have some. What do you think about my splitting suggestions? And in general, how do we reduce the article's excessive length? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I'm continuing to try to make the article more readable by condensing it. The sections about the 19th century go into an exhausting list of every place Pierrot has appeared, or where one editor thinks he may have appeared, in all of western civilization. By splitting into a separate list which contains all the Pierrot appearances, we have retained all these details, but in the main article, the detail seems too much. Any thoughts on how to do this best? --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything referenced should likely be kept in either this article or at Cultural references to Pierrot. Only unsourced content should be outright deleted. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude OK. Then I will only cut the lush phrases and the unsourced reflections. I'll stay on the level of the sentence and try to make the statements more direct and neutral. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I saw that you removed the "too long tag"; do you think I should continue to tighten the loose formulations etc.? --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC) --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the section Pierrot#Pierrot_and_Modernism be split into a separate page called Pierrot_and_Modernism. The content of the current page seems too specific for the general article on Pierrot. The Modernism section is large enough to make its own page. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is stands now, there is more graphic material than the article can handle. That become a problem when the illustrations are so jammed, that they don't appear near the corresponding text. The result is text about the 19th century with illustrations from the 18th, and that kind of thing. I propose to reduce the less important graphics. Any suggestions? Melchior2006 (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is not about my recent revert? Considering that was two images that corresponded to the text and it was primarily text that was removed. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: well yes, the reduction by two pictures was a part of my effort to clean up the article. Do you think we need them? There are tons of pictures in this article. --Melchior2006 (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As they compliment the current text, I don't see a need to remove them. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude I would say they "compliment the current text" if they are easily matched up with the relevant passages in the article. That is not currently the case. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the issue. Should be fine to remove just those images then. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]