Talk:Tactical frivolity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tactical frivolity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Year[edit]

september 26 what year??

If you're referring to the anti-World Bank/IMF protests in Prague, the year was 2000. Regards, Skomorokh 12:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification[edit]

Regarding this edit, I believe the claim in the reference "The most likeable group were the pink and silver bloc, who adopted an approach termed "tactical frivolity"." verifies the association in the article between the phenomenon and "pink" and "silver" blocs, as in "Sometimes associated with 'Pink' and/or 'Silver' blocs or womanist and gay-themed marches, tactical frivolity blocs...". Skomorokh 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. but the text supposedly supported by the source is,

"Tactical Frivolity is a form of public protest employing whimsy. Sometimes associated with 'Pink' and/or 'Silver' blocs or womanist and gay-themed marches, tactical frivolity blocs use drumming, samba, dance, radical cheerleading, clowns and fairies to create an atmosphere of festivity and humor during street protests."

This is your work, correct?24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are conflating failed verification with partial verification. The material in question needs further verification, yes, but I do not see the issue with the verification that is there. As to who is responsible for what, that is discoverable in the article history. Regards, Skomorokh 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're adding cites to sentences which aren't actually supported by the sources you're adding?24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sentences are complex collections of distinct propositions; some propositions in the sentences in question are supported by the added reference, others require further referencing. This is why in well-developed articles, sentences are often followed by multiple citations. This article is a n early stage of development, and requires a lot of further work. Skomorokh 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add sources to support things they don't actually support, period.24.22.141.252 (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged for references since 6 January 2008. This is proof that merely asking for references isn't enough: we must remove everything that isn't supported by the cited sources.24.22.141.252 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed several irrelevant links, and rewritten the article to hew closely to the cited sources.[1] I still believe it should be deleted: based only upon the sources currently used, this appears to be a handful of non-notable people who happened to get their buzzword in a few news stories by behaving oddly at one protest (the linked story about the Prague "Carnivalistas" doesn't even say that they ever made it to Prague.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London G20[edit]

FeydHuxtable wrote, "its still a current method, used for example in the 2009 London G20 protests."[2]
Great, do we have a source?24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not specifically for London 09, but i've added some sources to show the technique didnt fade out in 2001. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the relevant Skrimshire material? From what I can see on google books, "tactical frivolity" is again merely quoting the protesters, not asserting that this is an established tactic.

Our use of the Harris article here is deeply misleading. You wrote, complete with Wikilink:

"By 2007, in an article by journalist John Harris about protests against the air industry, tactical frivolity was described as a "tried and trusted" protest technique"

This sounds like Mr. Harris is calling "tactical frivolity…a 'tried and trusted' protest technique," doesn't it? But here's what the article actually says:

"Meanwhile, a group of drummers bash out what may or may not be a samba rhythm - an example, says one protester, of a tried-and-tested technique known as 'tactical frivolity'"

Would it not be more accurate to write that, at this protest, "drummers attempted to play a samba, an action which one protester characterized as tactical frivolity?"

A single anonymous protester isn't a reliable source, nor is his/her assessment notable - even when quoted by John Harris.24.22.141.252 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavy Gravy[edit]

I was surprised to see no mention of Wavy Gravy. I believe he used and popularized tactical frivolity (although he didn't call it that) at events like Vietnam War protests, as described in the documentary Saint Misbehavin'. --66.201.47.2 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, looks a most interesting character, I added him to the see also section for now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Halli the Sarcastic[edit]

There is an Icelandic saga, The Tale of Halli the Sarcastic, in which the titular bard successfully agitates for a change in the policy of the court at which he finds himself employed by eating his stew very rapidly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.27.140 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening photo[edit]

@FeydHuxtable: As a thumbnail where we can't read the banner, File:Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army.jpg looks like a regular crowd standing around at any old protest or festival. Even full size you can only see a few funny wigs and a feather boa in this shot. Isn't File:Clown Army (6029797786).jpg clearer, for depicting what the article is about? Or could we use some other photo of CIRCA? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I was hoping you wouldn't notice or wouldn't bother to argue. The points you make are of course correct. I have other reasons for prefering my original pic & caption (e.g. CIRCA is specifically described in sources as practicing tactical frivolity, whereas I'm not sure about those Scandinavian clowns.) But have just noticed another situation that needs attention, so don't have time to list all my reasons. Happy to concede this to someone who at least is following policy is a civial manner :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Scandinavian clowns are blocking a road at an anti-war protest, checking the source album on Flickr, so I think they're okay for the article. (They're listed in the CIRCA category on commons but I can't find any clues that they're formally part of the group.) Agree that a clear CIRCA picture would be better, but I think this captures the mood best from what we've got. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]