![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I would suggest two separate articles: one for the literary form; the other addressing burlesque as a stage performance. soverman 02:53 03Feb06 (UTC)
It should add that Burlesque is a live and very well in the UK, where Burlesque nights attract huge audiences - the article is at the moment too US centric.. AndrewShoben 03april2006
Initial finds:
Include them if you like. pfctdayelise ( translate?) 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On 29 June 2006 editor Nino Gonzales removed the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang photos, stating that it "represents a kind of burlesque which is not the one discussed in this article," although the article clearly states that "burlesque has come to be a genre of adult entertainment, focusing on aspects of humor, satire and sexual tantalization." The photo clearly illustrates burlesque, fills a request, and the article benefits from an illustration. Accordingly, I am reinstating the photo. SteveHopson 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little unlear as to why the "notable Neo-burlesque" performers section keeps getting deleted/altered. Mikkalai, can you explain your reasoning for doing so in more detail?
I've seen that there has been a number of "photo wars" on this particular site and a lot of non-sourced photographs. So I searched for US government photographs and found the image of Sally Rand from 1934 from the US Library of Congress. It is featured on the website: The Bill: Bob Hope and American Variety (Library Congress) http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/thebill.html The photo clearly notes that the image comes from the Library Congress. : Signaleer 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the following, cos it is POV, and unreferenced and true:
Who is to say that striptease shows are not theatre? What about the shows at Las Vegas, for instance, are they not theatre? Also the famous striptease acts at The Windmill Theatre, in London WERE theatre. There is even a Film about striptease occuring in a theatre called Mrs Henderson Presents.
In reference to your threat: "If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)" I say go for it, you are clearly deleting valid information on the Burlesque site. Let me further remind you that the defition on vandalism.
-- Signaleer 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Kbthompson, thanks for editing the site--much appreciated. -- Signaleer 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the picture of the women baring her breasts for all to see. It is inappropriate, and would not stand in any decent encyclopedia.
I think the entry is miscategorized. It is misleading to call it a sexual art, especially when the entry details the non-sexual part of burlesque's history. Burlesque, as a precursor to vaudeville, belongs with the other performing arts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.110.134 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC). (Moved to bottom of page SteveHopson 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
I love how you throw that policy backing your immoral decision. -- 69.67.230.93 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Burlesque has been around since the early 1800s. Vaudeville didn't come into existence until teh 1880s yet this page indicates that Burlesque has its origins in Vaudeville. Wasn't the whole point of the Vaudeville movement that it was going to be a "cleaned up" family type of Burlesque? (anon.)
Don't see why we can't mention Bart After Dark; it's not a passing "trivia" reference, but the main plot of the whole episode... AnonMoos 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I imagine the list will get as messy down the line as all such lists get if unattended, and so I suggest that we work through proposed names here before adding them.
I've removed an incorrect link from the listing of Dirty Martini - it linked to the beverage. I wonder if she belongs in this list, though. She is terrific and well-known, but she has no Wiki page and may not be right for the list. Both she and Julie Atlas Muz should have Wiki pages, and I'd argue for Miss Saturn as well, but the list is probably something that deserves discussion rather than inclusion by fiat. Thoughts? - Corporal Tunnel ( talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused what is the difference between cabaret and Kabarrett and Burlesque - especially if we look at 1920s-30s Berlin or the Moulin Rouge? --MPetz-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.65.84 ( talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Camille 2,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.227.123 ( talk) 02:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bon-Ton Burlesquers2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 08:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please add info about Burlesque the film coming out this thanksgiving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.173.44 ( talk) 03:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Both the Burlesque article and the Burlesque (genre) article deal with the form of theatrical entertainment. As such, Burlesque (genre) should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel like the reservations about this merger are primarily grounded in a desire to make it clear that there is a form of theatrical entertainment that is called "burlesque" and is not primarily sexual. I agree that this is important information to convey on this article. The former setup, however, made that assertion in such a way that suggested that there are two unrelated theatrical forms known as burlesque, and that is not the case. Burlesque is a form of theatre that did not start out as primarily sexual and even today is not primarily sexual in all of its incarnations. Nonetheless, burlesque that is primarily sexual is still a type of burlesque. Kleinzach's assessment is correct; burlesque is one theatrical genre that has developped in different ways over time. A section of this article should discuss American burlesque since the 1860s and if that section becomes too large, it should be split off into another article(s). The main Burlesque article, however, should be about the theatrical form in general and not specific to the contemporary American incarnation. Neelix ( talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not object to mentioning the various forms of "burlesque" here, but there is a separate article on Neo-Burlesque, and there certainly should be one for 19th century burlesque (which is linked in scores of articles as "Burlesque (genre)", which should have the redirect from " travesty", " burlesqued", etc. Also, I can only be responsible for maintaining the quality of the Burlesque (genre) article; I do not have sources to maintain and improve the quality of the rest of the "burlesque" article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why these two articles have been merged. I think they need to be demerged (unmerged?) and left as standalone articles. Each is totally different. Jack1956 ( talk) 18:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above (see notes by Jack, Tim riley and G-Tell), I have restored the article Burlesque (genre). I would rather not rename it, because then we would have to redo all the links; but we can do it if everyone agrees. Note that there is a separate article called Burlesque (literature). -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a picture of Josephine Baker, but does she really belong here? She was American, of course, but lived and worked almost her whole life in France. What do people think? -- Klein zach 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Khling151.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it very important that the Burlesque (genre) article be moved to Victorian burlesque because American burlesque is also a genre; the disambiguator does not adequately disambiguate. I don't mind going through to change the links once the move takes place. As for including the various incarnations of burlesque on this article, that is vital; the main Burlesque article should document how the form has developed all throughout history, not simply select one form of burlesque and document only that. Neelix ( talk) 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Neelix's point above, do people think we should rename Burlesque (genre)? Some possibilities: 19th-century burlesque, Burlesque (musical) and Victorian burlesque. Since this genre existed both in the UK and the US, I don't prefer the latter term. I am inclined towards Burlesque (musical), since they were a kind of musical theatre. This term was originally suggested by Kleinzach at Talk:Burlesque (genre), and I disagreed with the idea long ago but have come to agree with it, and we have indeed categorized the burlesques as musicals. I do note that moving all the links will be time consuming. Please comment. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think renaming the article Burlesque (musical) would make the most sense if Neelix is kindly prepared to change all the links. Jack1956 ( talk) 08:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that retitling is desirable in the interests of clarity. Victorian burlesque seems more natural to me, but as I have recently added something about Broadway versions in the 1840s I am obliged to admit the point made by Ssilvers above. Nonetheless, I give my first vote to Victorian burlesque but I would be resonably happy with Burlesque (musical). My slight reservation about the latter is that I assume (I have lived a sheltered life) that the American strip-tease that calls itself burlesque is done to music, so that the distinction is not as clear to the casual user as it would be if we went for Victorian burlesque. It is most kind of Neelix to volunteer to change all the links. Tim riley ( talk) 09:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Neelix and all, have at the links. By the way, as G-Tell wrote on my talk page, there is much repetition in this article. Tim riley has done a super job of upgrading the Victorian burlesque article, so you may wish to refer to that for the 19th century stuff. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
IMO the Travesty section - actually about Travesti - doesn't belong here. If there are no (reasoned!) objections I will take it out. -- Klein zach 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Burlesque (literature) be merged into Burlesque. The scope of the articles is now the same with the main article referring to literature. Material from Burlesque (literature) can easily be integrated in Burlesque. There is no longer any advantage in keeping them separate. Klein zach 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've now done the merge - that is to say the copy edit - but the first sections of the article still need research, checking sources, filling in gaps etc. Scholarly help appreciated! --
Klein
zach 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that High burlesque be merged into Burlesque. This is just an orphaned stub. Info will be more accessible here. -- Klein zach 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Done --
Klein
zach 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried an experiment with the headings. Please revert if not appropriate, but it seemed to me that the Burlesque shows on American film, the list of names in 20th-21st century burlesque and the stuff about Neo-burlesque were really subtopics of The development of American burlesque. So I changed them to level 3. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This all looks a lot better than it once did. What is now needed, IMNSHO, is a shortish section on American burlesque/neo-burlesque (to complete the overall picture) and the removal of the whole American burlesque section to its own article, together with the list of performers, many of the images and the Sexuality (?and Dance?) banner(s). The Ruy Blas parody poster would be a good replacement for the 1898 image that is still situated at the top of this article. -- Guillaume Tell 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The relevant Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre entry is called 'American burlesque show'. Is that worth considering? -- Klein zach 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if the word "show" adds anything, especially as a lot of the material is about films. So, I guess just "American burlesque" would be better. But I guess it will need a hatnote about " Neo-Burlesque". Please look at the "Neo-Burlesque" article. Is it intended to cover different material than "American burlesque"? It looks pretty similar.... -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we simplify (and correct) the present rather off-putting aggregation in the lead? As far as I can see from the sources quoted (and also the OED) everyone is agreed that:
Some sources delve further back and say that the Italians got it from the Spanish who got it from Latin. I suggest that this remote lingustic ancestry could safely be banished to a footnote, leaving something like this:
Any views? Tim riley ( talk) 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The text now says "According to the Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre, an unusual example of a longer and more substantial burlesque is Tom Stoppard's 1974 play Travesties, although Stoppard does not so refer to it in his introduction to the published text, and the word burlesque is not used of the play in Jim Hunter's 1982 book, Tom Stoppard's Plays or Michael Billington's section on the play in his One Night Stands (1993)."
Can we clarify whether Tom Stoppard should be in the article? I understand (per Victorian burlesque) that travesty is synonymous with burlesque. In that case, why is it worth pointing out that Stoppard omits the 'b' word? Or is there something here that I've missed? -- Klein zach 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have redrawn as discussed on this page. The version I have just saved looks a bit exiguous, so please add any suitable lead info that you think it lacks. Tim riley ( talk) 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A bit of a sidenote here. I had a glance at the lead, which looks OK to me. Then I noticed that a link there, travesty, led to a dab page which is entitled Travesty but lists only two articles, Travesti and Travesti (theatre), neither of which have Travesty in their titles (and why isn't the latter called Travesty?), plus a Wictionary link to Travesty ("An absurd or grotesque misrepresentation"!). I piped the link in the lead, so that's OK, but I notice that Travesty is linked from fifty-odd pages. I can't be bothered to find out who created this, um, travesty, but it would be a good idea if it got sorted out soon. -- Guillaume Tell 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Three of us have been working on the 'Travesty' problem (of whom I have probably been the least active). I think we're all agreed that the solution (so far) is not ideal, but at least we no longer have it as a confusing redirect to the narrow, historical subject of Victorian burlesque. IMO a little explanation is needed on the Travesty disambig. so that the reader understands that the word can mean (a) a bad representation (basic modern usage), (b) a burlesque or similar, or (c) an alternation in dress, a disguise. Given that " Wikipedia is not a dictionary" I wasn't sure how to do this. Any ideas?
If you look at the full OED (rather than Google advertizing pages!) it explains the French/Italian origin of the word. 'Burlesque' is the oldest meaning at least in England. The term is dated to Paul Scarron's 1648 Le Vergile Travesty en vers burlesques (Virgil translated in burlesque verses) which was (quote) "made known in England" (unquote). 'Travesti' is not in the OED. P.S. That also, of course, implies that the word 'burlesque' reached England by mid 17th century. -- Klein zach 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent rewrite of the first American section, Tim. I made a few edits to try to clarify the chronology. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I also think that the film section is not bad, except for the lack of references. Newspaper reviews of these films would be helpful. Can we steal any refs from the Betty Page article or elsewhere? Thanks to your efforts, I think that the American burlesque sections can now be separated into a main article, adding in a little more history at the top and taking with it the long list of names. Then we can cut down what is here to a summary. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've summarised as best I can, and invite improvements. Tim riley ( talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've twice separated the unrelated examples of ragtime travesties ("Well known ragtime travesties include . . . ."), presumably parodies, from the section of (non-parody) classical music burlesque (the, now former, 'Burlesque in European music' section). Each time they have been recombined. Hmm. Perhaps the Jazz information should be in the American section? Or developed by someone with knowledge/reference material about Jazz? It is out of place where it is now. -- Klein zach 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this a few minutes ago from the end of the lead:
and I now think perhaps I ought to have left it. Views invited. Tim riley ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Note, I disambiguated several dozens of the links to this article, many of which should point to either American burlesque or Neo-burlesque. Would someone please help with some of this? There are hundreds. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The pic of Arabella Fermor is crooked. Can that be corrected? Or maybe another image substituted for it? -- Klein zach 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
A visiting editor has added a third image to the American burlesque section of the article. I think this adversely affects the balance of the article. Two illustrations a section is surely the most the article can comfortably accommodate. Any thoughts? Tim riley ( talk) 09:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The person depicted may have a following, but she does not have the name-recognition among the general public of Gypsy Rose Lee, so I think the images we have currently (and I agree that 2 are enough for that section) cover the most important territory. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burlesque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Burlesque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
https://worldradiohistory.com/Billboard-Magazine.htm
Oko5ekmi5 ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Oko5ekmi5 ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Event is not notable. |
https://thenationaldigest.com/brightening-coronavirus-lockdown-with-launch-of-world-burlesque-day/
https://www.maddyness.com/uk/2020/06/06/12-creative-freelancers-pivoting-amid-lockdown/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/burlesque-dancer-organises-a-worldwide-exotic-dance-amid-coronavirus-blues/vp-BB11GPTU Sapphira8 ( talk) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: Greetings! My rationale for elevating the importance of this article for WikiProject Theatre is that it is a fairly broad topic, encompassing Victorian burlesque, American Burlesque, and recent revivals, and also that it's one of the more popular theatre-related articles when ranking by pageviews. These things made me think that the rating should be higher than "mid." I don't agree that just because a genre is mostly forgotten necessarily means that it is unimportant. I wouldn't, for example, make the same argument about classical Greek theatre. But I'm not looking to revert. Since you disagree, I'm content to leave it as is. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I would suggest two separate articles: one for the literary form; the other addressing burlesque as a stage performance. soverman 02:53 03Feb06 (UTC)
It should add that Burlesque is a live and very well in the UK, where Burlesque nights attract huge audiences - the article is at the moment too US centric.. AndrewShoben 03april2006
Initial finds:
Include them if you like. pfctdayelise ( translate?) 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On 29 June 2006 editor Nino Gonzales removed the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang photos, stating that it "represents a kind of burlesque which is not the one discussed in this article," although the article clearly states that "burlesque has come to be a genre of adult entertainment, focusing on aspects of humor, satire and sexual tantalization." The photo clearly illustrates burlesque, fills a request, and the article benefits from an illustration. Accordingly, I am reinstating the photo. SteveHopson 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little unlear as to why the "notable Neo-burlesque" performers section keeps getting deleted/altered. Mikkalai, can you explain your reasoning for doing so in more detail?
I've seen that there has been a number of "photo wars" on this particular site and a lot of non-sourced photographs. So I searched for US government photographs and found the image of Sally Rand from 1934 from the US Library of Congress. It is featured on the website: The Bill: Bob Hope and American Variety (Library Congress) http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/thebill.html The photo clearly notes that the image comes from the Library Congress. : Signaleer 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the following, cos it is POV, and unreferenced and true:
Who is to say that striptease shows are not theatre? What about the shows at Las Vegas, for instance, are they not theatre? Also the famous striptease acts at The Windmill Theatre, in London WERE theatre. There is even a Film about striptease occuring in a theatre called Mrs Henderson Presents.
In reference to your threat: "If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)" I say go for it, you are clearly deleting valid information on the Burlesque site. Let me further remind you that the defition on vandalism.
-- Signaleer 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Kbthompson, thanks for editing the site--much appreciated. -- Signaleer 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the picture of the women baring her breasts for all to see. It is inappropriate, and would not stand in any decent encyclopedia.
I think the entry is miscategorized. It is misleading to call it a sexual art, especially when the entry details the non-sexual part of burlesque's history. Burlesque, as a precursor to vaudeville, belongs with the other performing arts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.110.134 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC). (Moved to bottom of page SteveHopson 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
I love how you throw that policy backing your immoral decision. -- 69.67.230.93 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Burlesque has been around since the early 1800s. Vaudeville didn't come into existence until teh 1880s yet this page indicates that Burlesque has its origins in Vaudeville. Wasn't the whole point of the Vaudeville movement that it was going to be a "cleaned up" family type of Burlesque? (anon.)
Don't see why we can't mention Bart After Dark; it's not a passing "trivia" reference, but the main plot of the whole episode... AnonMoos 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I imagine the list will get as messy down the line as all such lists get if unattended, and so I suggest that we work through proposed names here before adding them.
I've removed an incorrect link from the listing of Dirty Martini - it linked to the beverage. I wonder if she belongs in this list, though. She is terrific and well-known, but she has no Wiki page and may not be right for the list. Both she and Julie Atlas Muz should have Wiki pages, and I'd argue for Miss Saturn as well, but the list is probably something that deserves discussion rather than inclusion by fiat. Thoughts? - Corporal Tunnel ( talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused what is the difference between cabaret and Kabarrett and Burlesque - especially if we look at 1920s-30s Berlin or the Moulin Rouge? --MPetz-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.65.84 ( talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Camille 2,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.227.123 ( talk) 02:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bon-Ton Burlesquers2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 08:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please add info about Burlesque the film coming out this thanksgiving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.173.44 ( talk) 03:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Both the Burlesque article and the Burlesque (genre) article deal with the form of theatrical entertainment. As such, Burlesque (genre) should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel like the reservations about this merger are primarily grounded in a desire to make it clear that there is a form of theatrical entertainment that is called "burlesque" and is not primarily sexual. I agree that this is important information to convey on this article. The former setup, however, made that assertion in such a way that suggested that there are two unrelated theatrical forms known as burlesque, and that is not the case. Burlesque is a form of theatre that did not start out as primarily sexual and even today is not primarily sexual in all of its incarnations. Nonetheless, burlesque that is primarily sexual is still a type of burlesque. Kleinzach's assessment is correct; burlesque is one theatrical genre that has developped in different ways over time. A section of this article should discuss American burlesque since the 1860s and if that section becomes too large, it should be split off into another article(s). The main Burlesque article, however, should be about the theatrical form in general and not specific to the contemporary American incarnation. Neelix ( talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not object to mentioning the various forms of "burlesque" here, but there is a separate article on Neo-Burlesque, and there certainly should be one for 19th century burlesque (which is linked in scores of articles as "Burlesque (genre)", which should have the redirect from " travesty", " burlesqued", etc. Also, I can only be responsible for maintaining the quality of the Burlesque (genre) article; I do not have sources to maintain and improve the quality of the rest of the "burlesque" article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand why these two articles have been merged. I think they need to be demerged (unmerged?) and left as standalone articles. Each is totally different. Jack1956 ( talk) 18:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above (see notes by Jack, Tim riley and G-Tell), I have restored the article Burlesque (genre). I would rather not rename it, because then we would have to redo all the links; but we can do it if everyone agrees. Note that there is a separate article called Burlesque (literature). -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a picture of Josephine Baker, but does she really belong here? She was American, of course, but lived and worked almost her whole life in France. What do people think? -- Klein zach 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Khling151.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it very important that the Burlesque (genre) article be moved to Victorian burlesque because American burlesque is also a genre; the disambiguator does not adequately disambiguate. I don't mind going through to change the links once the move takes place. As for including the various incarnations of burlesque on this article, that is vital; the main Burlesque article should document how the form has developed all throughout history, not simply select one form of burlesque and document only that. Neelix ( talk) 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Neelix's point above, do people think we should rename Burlesque (genre)? Some possibilities: 19th-century burlesque, Burlesque (musical) and Victorian burlesque. Since this genre existed both in the UK and the US, I don't prefer the latter term. I am inclined towards Burlesque (musical), since they were a kind of musical theatre. This term was originally suggested by Kleinzach at Talk:Burlesque (genre), and I disagreed with the idea long ago but have come to agree with it, and we have indeed categorized the burlesques as musicals. I do note that moving all the links will be time consuming. Please comment. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think renaming the article Burlesque (musical) would make the most sense if Neelix is kindly prepared to change all the links. Jack1956 ( talk) 08:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that retitling is desirable in the interests of clarity. Victorian burlesque seems more natural to me, but as I have recently added something about Broadway versions in the 1840s I am obliged to admit the point made by Ssilvers above. Nonetheless, I give my first vote to Victorian burlesque but I would be resonably happy with Burlesque (musical). My slight reservation about the latter is that I assume (I have lived a sheltered life) that the American strip-tease that calls itself burlesque is done to music, so that the distinction is not as clear to the casual user as it would be if we went for Victorian burlesque. It is most kind of Neelix to volunteer to change all the links. Tim riley ( talk) 09:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Neelix and all, have at the links. By the way, as G-Tell wrote on my talk page, there is much repetition in this article. Tim riley has done a super job of upgrading the Victorian burlesque article, so you may wish to refer to that for the 19th century stuff. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
IMO the Travesty section - actually about Travesti - doesn't belong here. If there are no (reasoned!) objections I will take it out. -- Klein zach 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Burlesque (literature) be merged into Burlesque. The scope of the articles is now the same with the main article referring to literature. Material from Burlesque (literature) can easily be integrated in Burlesque. There is no longer any advantage in keeping them separate. Klein zach 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've now done the merge - that is to say the copy edit - but the first sections of the article still need research, checking sources, filling in gaps etc. Scholarly help appreciated! --
Klein
zach 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that High burlesque be merged into Burlesque. This is just an orphaned stub. Info will be more accessible here. -- Klein zach 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Done --
Klein
zach 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried an experiment with the headings. Please revert if not appropriate, but it seemed to me that the Burlesque shows on American film, the list of names in 20th-21st century burlesque and the stuff about Neo-burlesque were really subtopics of The development of American burlesque. So I changed them to level 3. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This all looks a lot better than it once did. What is now needed, IMNSHO, is a shortish section on American burlesque/neo-burlesque (to complete the overall picture) and the removal of the whole American burlesque section to its own article, together with the list of performers, many of the images and the Sexuality (?and Dance?) banner(s). The Ruy Blas parody poster would be a good replacement for the 1898 image that is still situated at the top of this article. -- Guillaume Tell 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The relevant Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre entry is called 'American burlesque show'. Is that worth considering? -- Klein zach 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if the word "show" adds anything, especially as a lot of the material is about films. So, I guess just "American burlesque" would be better. But I guess it will need a hatnote about " Neo-Burlesque". Please look at the "Neo-Burlesque" article. Is it intended to cover different material than "American burlesque"? It looks pretty similar.... -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we simplify (and correct) the present rather off-putting aggregation in the lead? As far as I can see from the sources quoted (and also the OED) everyone is agreed that:
Some sources delve further back and say that the Italians got it from the Spanish who got it from Latin. I suggest that this remote lingustic ancestry could safely be banished to a footnote, leaving something like this:
Any views? Tim riley ( talk) 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The text now says "According to the Cambridge Paperback Guide to Theatre, an unusual example of a longer and more substantial burlesque is Tom Stoppard's 1974 play Travesties, although Stoppard does not so refer to it in his introduction to the published text, and the word burlesque is not used of the play in Jim Hunter's 1982 book, Tom Stoppard's Plays or Michael Billington's section on the play in his One Night Stands (1993)."
Can we clarify whether Tom Stoppard should be in the article? I understand (per Victorian burlesque) that travesty is synonymous with burlesque. In that case, why is it worth pointing out that Stoppard omits the 'b' word? Or is there something here that I've missed? -- Klein zach 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have redrawn as discussed on this page. The version I have just saved looks a bit exiguous, so please add any suitable lead info that you think it lacks. Tim riley ( talk) 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A bit of a sidenote here. I had a glance at the lead, which looks OK to me. Then I noticed that a link there, travesty, led to a dab page which is entitled Travesty but lists only two articles, Travesti and Travesti (theatre), neither of which have Travesty in their titles (and why isn't the latter called Travesty?), plus a Wictionary link to Travesty ("An absurd or grotesque misrepresentation"!). I piped the link in the lead, so that's OK, but I notice that Travesty is linked from fifty-odd pages. I can't be bothered to find out who created this, um, travesty, but it would be a good idea if it got sorted out soon. -- Guillaume Tell 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Three of us have been working on the 'Travesty' problem (of whom I have probably been the least active). I think we're all agreed that the solution (so far) is not ideal, but at least we no longer have it as a confusing redirect to the narrow, historical subject of Victorian burlesque. IMO a little explanation is needed on the Travesty disambig. so that the reader understands that the word can mean (a) a bad representation (basic modern usage), (b) a burlesque or similar, or (c) an alternation in dress, a disguise. Given that " Wikipedia is not a dictionary" I wasn't sure how to do this. Any ideas?
If you look at the full OED (rather than Google advertizing pages!) it explains the French/Italian origin of the word. 'Burlesque' is the oldest meaning at least in England. The term is dated to Paul Scarron's 1648 Le Vergile Travesty en vers burlesques (Virgil translated in burlesque verses) which was (quote) "made known in England" (unquote). 'Travesti' is not in the OED. P.S. That also, of course, implies that the word 'burlesque' reached England by mid 17th century. -- Klein zach 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent rewrite of the first American section, Tim. I made a few edits to try to clarify the chronology. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I also think that the film section is not bad, except for the lack of references. Newspaper reviews of these films would be helpful. Can we steal any refs from the Betty Page article or elsewhere? Thanks to your efforts, I think that the American burlesque sections can now be separated into a main article, adding in a little more history at the top and taking with it the long list of names. Then we can cut down what is here to a summary. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've summarised as best I can, and invite improvements. Tim riley ( talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've twice separated the unrelated examples of ragtime travesties ("Well known ragtime travesties include . . . ."), presumably parodies, from the section of (non-parody) classical music burlesque (the, now former, 'Burlesque in European music' section). Each time they have been recombined. Hmm. Perhaps the Jazz information should be in the American section? Or developed by someone with knowledge/reference material about Jazz? It is out of place where it is now. -- Klein zach 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this a few minutes ago from the end of the lead:
and I now think perhaps I ought to have left it. Views invited. Tim riley ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Note, I disambiguated several dozens of the links to this article, many of which should point to either American burlesque or Neo-burlesque. Would someone please help with some of this? There are hundreds. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The pic of Arabella Fermor is crooked. Can that be corrected? Or maybe another image substituted for it? -- Klein zach 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
A visiting editor has added a third image to the American burlesque section of the article. I think this adversely affects the balance of the article. Two illustrations a section is surely the most the article can comfortably accommodate. Any thoughts? Tim riley ( talk) 09:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The person depicted may have a following, but she does not have the name-recognition among the general public of Gypsy Rose Lee, so I think the images we have currently (and I agree that 2 are enough for that section) cover the most important territory. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burlesque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Burlesque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
https://worldradiohistory.com/Billboard-Magazine.htm
Oko5ekmi5 ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Oko5ekmi5 ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Event is not notable. |
https://thenationaldigest.com/brightening-coronavirus-lockdown-with-launch-of-world-burlesque-day/
https://www.maddyness.com/uk/2020/06/06/12-creative-freelancers-pivoting-amid-lockdown/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/burlesque-dancer-organises-a-worldwide-exotic-dance-amid-coronavirus-blues/vp-BB11GPTU Sapphira8 ( talk) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: Greetings! My rationale for elevating the importance of this article for WikiProject Theatre is that it is a fairly broad topic, encompassing Victorian burlesque, American Burlesque, and recent revivals, and also that it's one of the more popular theatre-related articles when ranking by pageviews. These things made me think that the rating should be higher than "mid." I don't agree that just because a genre is mostly forgotten necessarily means that it is unimportant. I wouldn't, for example, make the same argument about classical Greek theatre. But I'm not looking to revert. Since you disagree, I'm content to leave it as is. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)