Talk:Puppet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Srjhawar, Jpriyal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

--81.141.254.163 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)--81.141.254.163 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)--81.141.254.163 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this necessary?::

• Supercrappymation - Dubbed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone as the type of Supermarionation used to film Team America: World Police. As its name suggests, it is filmed in a way to make it look more intentionally cheap and rudimentary than is necessary.

Headline text

Cut from article ... EB ?

What would Athenæus say if he knew that it was through him alone that the name of this histrion had come down to us?

I shall try to briefly indicate the processes which permitted of these different operations being performed, and which offer a much more general interest than one might at first sight be led to believe; for almost all of them had been employed in former times for producing the illusions to which ancient religions owed their power.

The automatic movement of the case was obtained by means of counterpoises and two cords wound about horizontal bobbins in such a way as to produce by their winding up a forward motion in a vertical plane, and subsequently a backward movement to the starting place. Supposing the motive cords properly wound around vertical bobbins, instead of a horizontal one, and we have the half revolution of Bacchus and Victory, as well as the complete revolution of the bacchantes.

The successive lighting of the two altars, the flow of milk and wine, and the noise of drums and cymbals were likewise obtained by the aid of cords moved by counterpoises, and the lengths of which were graduated in such a way as to open and close orifices, at the proper moment, by acting through traction on sliding valves which kept them closed.

Small pieces of combustible material were piled up beforehand on the two altars, the bodies of which were of metal, and in the interior of which were hidden small lamps that were separated from the combustible by a metal plate which was drawn aside at the proper moment by a small chain. The flame, on traversing the orifice, thus communicated with the combustible.

The milk and wine which flowed out at two different times through the thyrsus and cup of Bacchus came from a double reservoir hidden under the roof of the temple, over the orifices. The latter communicated, each of them, with one of the halves of the reservoir through two tubes inserted in the columns of the small edifice. These tubes were prolonged under the floor of the stage, and extended upward to the hands of Bacchus. A key, maneuvered by cords, alternately opened and closed the orifices which gave passage to the two liquids.

As for the noise of the drums and cymbals, that resulted from the falling of granules of lead, contained in an invisible box provided with an automatic sliding-valve, upon an inclined tambourine, whence they rebounded against little cymbals in the interior of the base of the car.

Finally, the crowns and garlands that suddenly made their appearance on the four faces of the base of the stage were hidden there in advance between the two walls surrounding the base. The space thus made for the crowns was closed beneath, along each face, by a horizontal trap moving on hinges that connected it with the inner wall of the base, but which was held temporarily stationary by means of a catch. The crowns were attached to the top of their compartment by cords that would have allowed them to fall to the level of the pedestal, had they not been supported by the traps.

At the desired moment, the catch, which was controlled by a special cord, ceased to hold the trap, and the latter, falling vertically, gave passage to the festoons and crowns that small leaden weights then drew along with all the quickness necessary.

Two points here are specially worthy of attracting our attention, and these are the flow of wine or milk from the statue of Bacchus, and the spontaneous lighting of the altar. These, in fact, were the two illusions that were most admired in ancient times, and there were several processes of performing them. Father Kircher possessed in his museum an apparatus which he describes in Oedipus Egyptiacus (t. ii., p. 333), and which probably came from some ancient Egyptian temple.

It consisted of a hollow hemispherical dome, supported by four columns, and placed over the statue of the goddess of many breasts. To two of these columns were adapted movable brackets, at whose extremities there were fixed lamps. The hemisphere was hermetically closed underneath by a metal plate. The small altar which supported the statue, and which was filled with milk, communicated with the interior of the statue by a tube reaching nearly to the bottom. The altar likewise communicated with the hollow dome by a tube having a double bend. At the moment of the sacrifice the two lamps were lighted and the brackets turned so that the flames should come in contact with and heat the bottom of the dome. The air contained in the latter, being dilated, issued through the tube, pressed on the milk contained in the altar, and caused it to rise through the straight tube into the interior of the statue as high as the breasts. A series of small conduits, into which the principal tube divided, carried the liquid to the breasts, whence it spurted out, to the great admiration of the spectators, who cried out at the miracle.

The sacrifice being ended, the lamps were put out, and the milk ceased to flow.

Heron, of Alexandria, describes in his Pneumatics several analogous apparatus.

"To construct an altar in such a way that, when a fire is lighted thereon, the statues at the side of it shall make libations. (Fig. 2.)

"Let there be a pedestal, on which are placed statues, and an altar, closed on every side. The pedestal should also be hermetically closed, but is communicated with the altar through a central tube. It is traversed likewise by the tube, not far from the bottom which terminates in a cup held by the statue. Water is poured into the pedestal through a hole, which is afterward corked up.

"If, then, a fire be lighted on the altar, the internal air will be dilated and will enter the pedestal and drive out the water contained in it. But the latter, having no other exit than the tube, will rise into the cup, and so the statue will make a libation. This will last as long as the fire does. On extinguishing the fire the libation ceases, and occurs anew as often as the fire is relighted.

"It is necessary that the tube through which the heat is to introduce itself shall be wider in the middle; and it is necessary, in fact, that the heat, or rather that the draught that it produces, shall accumulate in an inflation in order to have more effect."

According to Father Kircher, an author whom he calls Bitho reports that there was at Sais a temple of Minerva in which there was an altar on which, when a fire was lighted, Dyonysos and Artemis (Bacchus and Diana) poured milk and wine, while a dragon hissed.

It is easy to conceive of the modification to be introduced into the apparatus above described by Heron, in order to cause the outflow of milk from one side and of wine from the other.

After having indicated it, Father Kircher adds: "It is thus that Bacchus and Diana appeared to pour, one of them wine, and the other milk, and that the dragon seemed to applaud their action by hisses. As the people who were present at the spectacle did not see what was going on within, it is not astonishing that they believed it due to divine intervention.

We know, in fact, that Osiris or Bacchus was considered as the discoverer of the vine and of milk; that Iris was the genius of the waters of the Nile; and that the Serpent, or good genius, was the first cause of all these things. Since, moreover, sacrifices had to be made to the gods in order to obtain benefits, the flow of milk, wine, or water, as well as the hissing of the serpent, when the sacrificial flame was lighted, appeared to demonstrate clearly the existence of the gods."

In another analogous apparatus of Heron's, it is steam that performs the role that we have just seen played by dilated air. But the ancients do not appear to have perceived the essential difference, as regards motive power, that exists between these two agents; indeed, their preferences were wholly for air, although the effects produced were not very great.

We might cite several small machines of this sort, but we shall confine ourselves to one example that has some relation to our subject. This also is borrowed from Heron's Pneumatics.

"Fire being lighted on an altar, figures will appear to execute a round dance. The altars should be transparent, and of glass or horn. From the fire-place there starts a tube which runs to the base of the altar, where it revolves on a pivot, while its upper part revolves in a tube fixed to the fire-place. To the tube there should be adjusted other tubes (horizontal) in communication with it, which cross each other at right angles, and which are bent in opposite directions at their extremities. There is likewise fixed to it a disk upon which are attached figures which form a round. When the fire of the altar is lighted, the air, becoming heated, will pass into the tube; but being driven from the latter, it will pass through the small bent tubes and ... cause the tube as well as the figures to revolve."

Father Kircher, who had at his disposal either many documents that we are not acquainted with, or else a very lively imagination, alleges (Oedip. Æg., t. ii., p. 338) that King Menes took much delight in seeing such figures revolve.

Nor are the examples of holy fire-places that kindled spontaneously wanting in antiquity.

Pliny (Hist. Nat., ii., 7) and Horace (Serm., Sat. v.) tell us that this phenomenon occurred in the temple of Gnatia, and Solin (Ch. V.) says that it was observed likewise on an altar near Agrigentum.

Athenæus (Deipn. i., 15) says that the celebrated prestidigitator, Cratisthenes, of Phlius, pupil of another celebrated prestidigitator named Xenophon, knew the art of preparing a fire which lighted spontaneously.

Pausanias tells us that in a city of Lydia, whose inhabitants, having fallen under the yoke of the Persians, had embraced the religion of the Magi, "there exists an altar upon which there are ashes which, in color, resemble no other.

The priest puts wood on the altar, and invokes I know not what god by harangues taken from a book written in a barbarous tongue unknown to the Greeks, when the wood soon lights of itself without fire, and the flame from it is very clear."

The secret, or rather one of the secrets of the Magi, has been revealed to us by one of the Fathers of the Church (Saint Hippolytus, it is thought), who has left, in a work entitled Philosophumena, which is designed to refute the doctrines of the pagans, a chapter on the illusions of their priests. According to him, the altars on which this miracle took place contained, instead of ashes, calcined lime and a large quantity of incense reduced to powder; and this would explain the unusual color of the ashes observed by Pausanias. The process, moreover, is excellent; for it is only necessary to throw a little water on the lime, with certain precautions, to develop a heat capable of setting on fire incense or any other material that is more readily combustible, such as sulphur and phosphorus. The same author points out still another means, and this consists in hiding firebrands in small bells that were afterward covered with shavings, the latter having previously been covered with a composition made of naphtha and bitumen (Greek fire).

As may be seen, a very small movement sufficed to bring about combustion. -- A. De Rochas, in La Nature.

dml

Links

There's quite a history of people adding links to extremely specific companies (often commercially-oriented ones) or specific types of puppetry in this article. I have removed links to sites that focus on a specific company or type of puppetry. I feel that if these links are noteworthy, they belong in more specific articles about the respective company or puppetry style.

lerthings??

{{peerereview}} I can't find any information from other sources that puppets were known as 'Lerthings' in the 15th Century. What is the citation? In what language? Bob 17:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the absence of comment or further information on this claim I've now removed it from the definition. Bob 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reshaped page

I've started a reshaping of this page, triggered by a debate on Talk:Puppeteer about the content and relationship between the two pages. I've long thought that these pages were poor in quality and recognise that a lot of editing is needed to improve them. I hope other editors will develop the site now, as these edits are clearly only a start. Bob 09:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Puppet History

This article says Greek puppetry started in 5BC, but Plato (427-347 B.C.) mentions them in The Allegory of the Cave. "[Socrates:] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. "

That's a good quotation. But actually the entry says "the 5th Century BCE", not 5BC, and relies on information as referenced from Puppetry and Puppets by Eileen Blumenthal published by Thames & Hudson, which is a brilliant introduction to the history and development of puppetry. Bob 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 4th July '07

Anonymous editor 144.138.69.48 includes useful material to this page but also unecessarily removes information and referencing. I propose a re-edit of the page, retaining information where it is referenced or removed without debate. Bob 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob. The page is looking very good. Have not removed any information. You will find it is just a touch reorganised. I hope this causes no offence whatsoever as none is intended. This page has come a very long way due to intelligent contributions. You deserve praise. Have added more information on UNIMA and placed it in a separate section as it deserves this. It sort of gets lost in the Contemporary Puppetry section. Finneganw 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sovlaki Puppets?

Hi again Bob. Have you ever heard of these Sovlaki puppets? I never have at all. I can find no trace of this whatsoever in any of the many resources I have on puppetry. I think we should remove that section. It seems extremely bizarre. What do you think? Finneganw 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Finneganw. I agree - this is extremely dubious and I've posted notes re. citations and references about the entry none of which have been queried, let alone answered. My questions have been posted far longer than the protocol period so there should be no hesitation about removing the entry. Please go ahead - though someone out there cares for it, so let's not be surprised if we see a Return of the Sovlaki! And I appreciate the Barnstar, thanks. Bob 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I shall remove the section as agreed. You're very deserving of the Barnstar.Finneganw 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page seriously needs to be cleaned up. It needs a good copyediting and wikification. Atropos 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For Atropos - Would you please be kind enough to discuss any proposed changes to the puppet wikipedia page here before altering the page? Thanks in advance for your understanding. The page has been worked on for a very long time by Bob to bring it up to an acceptable standard. Before Bob commenced work, the page was in a truly appalling situation with huge factual gaps. It was basically an inaccurate shambles without any accurate and verifiable referencing. Recently I have been assisting in the process. Please note that Bob has been commended by many wikipedians for the work he has done in bringing the page up to an acceptable standard. We both know a great deal about the field. The layout is designed specifically to ensure that the specific photos and text make some sort of sense together. They follow a logical progression. The text and photos are completely confusing to a reader when rearranged in a cramped and out of context position. Please discuss any changes before altering the page. Thankyou for your understanding. Finneganw 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Manual of Style. That absolutely hideous header thing was simply inexcusable.

I've readded the cleanup header. Do not unilaterally remove it without actually actually fixing the problems; this is considered disruptive. Ruder editors than I would revert your edits and put a warning on your talk page.

This entire page is formatted incredibly poorly. The images are all in weird places and all the excessive enters to try and make it work just ruin the page. Someone with experience formatting pages really needs to fix it. I strongly suggest you look at how other pages are structured and read the manual of style before you continue to edit it. Atropos 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added and arranged some pics using galleries, which should help keeping pics adjacent to relvant text. I have also uploaded some extra pics to Commons:Category:Puppetry that may be useful. Man vyi 12:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. The biggest problem right now is that a lot of the captions go into too much detail. I might deal with that later. Atropos 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image overload

Editing the captions, I realized that this article has far too many images. Though images are informative and useful, too many is a big problem. Kushan Empire is a good example of an extreme overload of images; I think it used to be worse.

First, someone needs to chose the image that best represents what any puppet is. That image should go at the top right.

Then we need to trim down the images. Putting them in a gallery isn't really a solution. Galleries are a good thing, because some times you do need too many images to fit in the main body. The section on Asia is a good example of a good use of a gallery: these images illustrate different types of Asian puppetry. The Sanbaso Bunraku aimage is not very useful, because it's already illustrated in the body, but the other's are useful. (I would consider cutting one other, though, maybe the Indonesian puppeteer one).

The images in Europe, on the other hand, aren't all necessary. The Siclian and Italian puppet theatres are roughly identical, one should definitely go. The Parisian theatre is also sort of redundant; only one image is necessary to show what a puppet theatre is. But the drawing of the British puppet theatre is useful even with another picture, because its a very clearly different kind of puppet theatre. The Czech images are both unnecessary, the outside of a puppet theatre isn't very illustrative of a puppet.

Et cetera. Atropos 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

At least the galleries have, I hope, sorted out the layout problems so that contributors can concentrate on which pictures are most pertinent. The two Italian pics illustrate two different traditions: rod marionette and glove - but I'm not at all hung up on that. The puppet theatre pics should go to Puppetry to illustrate types of theatre. Man vyi 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem are the flagrant violations of non-free content guidelines. Many of the puppets are from the past few decades, so images may be copyrighted. Also there are a bunch of other clearly copyrighted images taken from movies or some such. None of these can appear in galleries, and there are too many of them. nadav (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the vast majority of images are indeed copyright free. As for having too many photos, that is rather an absurd statement. Puppets and Puppetry are a highly visual art form. Words cannot explain what a photo does better. As for the statement that Sicilian and Italian Puppet are roughly identical that is simply not the case. There are many different types of puppet theatres. I would hestitate in making the page only anglo-american in slant. Puppetry in the Czech Republic is thriving, perhaps more than anywhere else in Europe. Certainly the images are relevant and a Puppet performs in a Puppet Theatre after all! Denying information is not what wikipedia is all about after all. Finneganw 12:47, 27 August 2007

There can never be too many images!!!Wasdqwerty123-123 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Puppet or puppetry?

Oh my god, writing the previous section I realized a big problem. Does this page really describe puppets or the practice of puppetry? They're two topics with separate articles, and judging by how short puppetry is, I think puppet is written to cover both topics. Anything not about puppets but really about puppetry needs to be moved to the other article. Atropos 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I also think that this article might be more logically arranged by introducing types of puppet, before embarking on the prevalence of types by region and period. Man vyi 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Been away a few weeks. Atropos, you've really made an improvement to the layout of the article - it looks very good. I picked up on the issue of puppetry/puppet when I did my big makeover of the article a while back. There's a number of issues I considered - after all a puppet is the artifact used by a puppeteer in making puppetry; puppet/puppeteer/puppetry are joined at the hip. My decision was to minimise the Puppetry entry, and put the emphasis on the Puppet. I accept that there are other solutions, but on balance I considered this was the best way to resolve a complex matter of definitions. Best wishes. Bob 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over it again and checking out the recent history of the page, it's clear that a big contribution has been made by Finneganw, Atropos and Man vyi to getting this article both reading and looking well. Despite the odd bit of heat, this is what Wikipedia is about. Well done every one. Bob 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob for what you said. The page goes from strength to strength. We have you to thank for much of its success. Puppets and Puppetry are inseparable of course. It is not possible to practise Puppetry without a Puppet. The thought that crossed my mind is that current Puppetry page could simply be diverted to the Puppet page. What do others think? Finneganw 13:39 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Finneganw. I think it's in the nature of Wikipedia that things never stay still. And that has its good and not so good sides. The Puppet article is certainly better than it was; true the image layout was a bit sloppy, and now I think there are probably way too many images. I agree that diverting Puppetry to Puppet is a possibility, but suspect that it might be controversial. Clearly the bulk of the pertinent information is in the Puppet article and so long as anybody researching information doesn't linger too long over Puppetry or Puppeteer but diverts to the Puppet page then I think that it's probably sensible to stay with the status quo. Bob 09:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed

The section Non-Puppetry related usages of the word "Puppet" really ought to be reworked into a separate disambiguation page, with a reference to it at the head of the main article. Richwales (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References

What is this citation, "ibid", referring to? If anyone knows, would they consider using Template:Cite book (or whatever) to make it explicit? Marasmusine (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look back at e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet&oldid=182220824 - the ibid.s appear to have been subsequently consolidated. Man vyi (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a stupid. I will a fix. Marasmusine (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the ibid.s altogether; looking at the history it seems in some areas new references had been placed bewteen an ibid. and the previous citation, making much wrongness. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Antimarionation?

Is there no WikiProject covering puppetry, marionettes, & Supermarionation? I'm shocked. If one is created, tag this, this, this, for starters. Trekphiler (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Light curtain puppet merger proposal

Light curtain puppet should be merged into Puppet#Light curtain puppet merger proposal since there isn't much to say on light curtain puppet that is not already covered by Puppet and Bunraku. Please add your comments and perform the merge if there is a consensus after five days. Suntag (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Light curtain puppet hadn't grown in over a year - danyoung - 09:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Black light puppet merger proposal

Black light puppet should be merged into Puppet#Light curtain puppet merger proposal since there isn't much to say on black curtain puppet that is not already covered by Puppet. Please add your comments and perform the merge if there is a consensus after five days. Suntag (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Black light puppet hadn't grown in over a year - danyoung - 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre questions

I'm among the participants in the WikiProject Theatre. The project recognises "that as it currently stands, the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles relating to theatre are quite pitiful. While many of the important topics do have existing articles, the quality of those articles is poor. The goal of this project is to improve the articles relating to theatre thus making Wikipedia one of the best online resources on the subject". I think one respect in which many current theatre articles are poor is that they have a highly Western and drama based bias, and consistently underplay the significance of non-drama forms, including puppetry.

I'm pleased that the Puppet article has been included in the Theatre Portal and considered under the project. You will see that the article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale, and as Low-importance on the importance scale. I think these ratings misrepresent the importance of puppetry, perhaps because of the biases I mention above. My own estimation, for what it's worth, is that the article is C, possibly B, -class on the quality scale, and should be considered as High-importance on the importance scale.

I wonder what can be done to improve this situation. Looked at objectively I think the current entry could be improved in a number of ways:

• a) We should reconsider whether the Puppet or the Puppetry heading is the appropriate one for a generic definition of Puppet Theatre.
• b) We should reconsider if there is a better way of separating out the information regarding various forms of puppetry from the different national puppet histories.
• c) We should reduce the number of photographs on the page.
• d) We should tighten and improve the writing to make it more objective and remind ourselves of the key wikipedia guidelines on notability and opinion.
• e) The current entry is long (see recent discussions) and will be longer if we agree with User:Suntag and merge Light Curtain puppet and Black Light puppet with Puppet.

I would be interested to know what the opinion of other contributors is on these issues. Bob (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I have undertaken changes (a) and (b) above, with some of (c) and (e) after there has been no responses to my comments above. As I left this over a month ago I take it to mean there are no objections. It means that puppetry should also be included under the Wiki Theatre project. Let's continue to work on (d)....Bob (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The latest additions from Ilovemuppets have made the main definition bloated and non-notable. It needs pruning. I'm happy to do this but would prefer the editors responsible to consider if their contributions can be better placed in the body of the article. Bob (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No Muppets?

There is not even a passing mention of muppets on this page. Seeing as how the muppets are one of the most well known 'troupes' of puppets, I find this extremely surprising, as if it were an intentional omission. Is there some puppetry/muppetry schism that I am not aware of?

From my reading, the most common muppets would be examples of "human-arm" puppets. I think they should be mentioned in that section, or at the very least in the 'see also' section. Tombleyboo (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree there is no mention of Sesame Street or Muppets and they are arguably the most recognizable puppets of the 20th century if not the most successful in terms of profit all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.24.174 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)