Youre Juggling Me Again Norman and I Told You I Wont Be Juggled

WikiProject Games	(Inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to exist inactive. Games Wikipedia:WikiProject Games Games articles

WikiProject Circus

(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If yous would like to participate please visit the project folio, where you lot can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Circus Wikipedia:WikiProject Circus Circus manufactures  C This article has been rated equally C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid This commodity has been rated as Mid-importance on the project'due south importance scale.

Love the photo of the five brawl juggling. Never have been able to master that i! --Geezerpoop (talk) 04:03, 23 Oct 2010 (UTC) [answer]

I removed this prototype from the article every bit I feel it does not portray juggling in the same fashion that the commodity does. This paradigm depicts juggling and clowning. The ii are clearly closely related arts, however this article describes juggling as an art in its ain right. Withal, on skimming over this article again, it mentions very little of how juggling is closely related to circuses and clowning. --Colin E. 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I completely disagree with your thinking on this. Juggling is juggling. If I had a picture of a child juggling, does that mean the folio would demand to mention children and juggling? An paradigm serves two purposes: 1. It tin can describe the page; 2. It can add context to a page in its ain right; or 3. It can be a source of information itself. Aeriform views of cities requite a dissimilar perspective of what a city looks like. I would never need a category on a page called "New York City past air" but to go an aerial view. This shot doesn't just prove juggling, it shows multiple juggling, and how juggling is being washed today, at least past this award-winning, government-funded functioning. It'south a picayune shocking it down for the reason y'all propose, because it is such a limited view. And it'southward a good photo. Information technology needs to be resurrected. --DavidShankBone 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Another statement could exist made that if you lot see that clowning and juggling are closely related just you don't meet something written about information technology, the idea should be to write it yourself or put in a mention, not to remove value from the page, specially when it is patently relevant (and high quality). --DavidShankBone 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I think that some would argue that "juggling washed today" is more than circus juggling or clowning. Technical juggling and sport juggling is growing in popularity, and in my stance the article should reflect that. That being said, all the same, I do recall that there is yet a place for your movie (as well as a textual mention of juggling as clowning) somewhere in a juggling article. Your picture is indeed a good quality picture show and it is indeed a representation of how some types of juggling are done today. The place for your moving picture, however, in my opinion, is not at the top of the juggling article.

Mayhap your picture would go nicely with a picture show of technical juggling, showing the various types of juggling expert today. However, that moving picture on its ain (just as a flick of technical juggling on its own) isn't a sufficient portrayal of juggling to be the one and only picture at the top of the page. For example, we could use a moving picture of i of Gatto's juggling shows, a pic of WJF competition, and your Circus Amok picture together to show the wide diverseness of facets of juggling that at that place are today. --Rahzel 01:57, half-dozen September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Starting time, don't revert once more, considering that'due south confronting policy. You don't get a revert to tear the image down with each response. Second, what you guys are arguing over is how juggling is presented, equally opposed to WHO uses it. Entertainers. Which entertainers? Clowns. If this is a case of respect for juggling, I can tell you that you lot guys are being paranoid over a non-issue. Jugglers aren't disrespected considering clowns juggle. 3rd, information technology's a good photo, it demonstrates the art, and it shows information technology being used in an NEA and New York Land Funded prodution that is a work of public theater. It has won awards. The photo stays. Stop being ridiculous. Out of all the people who take challenged my photographs, this is 1 of the silliest. --DavidShankBone 02:nineteen, six September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I note that in the photo the first two jugglers passed the objects off to the other jugglers whilst juggling. How many people who fear for the respect of juggling can make that merits to have mastered technique when they want to take this juggling photograph off? --DavidShankBone 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Lastly, I note the 2nd sentence in the article mentions "circus skills". It's annoying yous all are wasting my time with this foolishness. I'll have it to the administrator level if I demand to. --DavidShankBone 02:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I have not removed your picture from the commodity in my edit this time (though I'm not exactly sure what policy reverting questionable content is not covered under). I think that moving the picture down the article, possibly to accompany other pictures of contemporary juggling subsequently, is an adequate compromise. If you disagree, delight reply direct to this comment every bit to why you disagree, without calling these arguments "one of the silliest" arguments you've ever seen or whatever other flaimebait-type comments. We can hash out this respectfully and without malice--in the long run, you lot're right, a picture isn't a lot to become worked over about, and at least in my comments I have tried to avoid disrespect or flamebait.

Once more, if yous don't think that moving the flick down the page (to the section on juggling styles today) is an adequate compromise, delight reply directly to these comments, without calling any naysayers against your photograph "ridiculous" or "paranoid".

It seems that I have started an edit war! In hindsight, I must admit that I was a bit hasty in removing this image. I am quite happy to see it alongside the department of the article which related to jugglig in the context of the circus. I still feel that it is not the bext image to stand for juggling every bit a whole. In my opinion, such an image would depict juggling and only juggling. Non juggling together with clowning. I would add together that I certainly respect clowning and see it as a very loftier form of art. I hope that DavidShankBone is happy with the current compromise. --Colin E. ten:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I concord to having information technology moved downwards but that doesn't modify the fact that an image should exist presented at the front of an article. I'll let you all who care more about this page than I practice decide which prototype to choose. A photograph helps chronicle the idea of the article to the viewer. Information technology'due south necessary for every article to have an image at the front. Cheers for the compromise. --DavidShankBone fourteen:27, half-dozen September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

If I was choosing the photo from the ones presented on that page, including mine, I would go with the Manuel and Christoph Mitasch. I as well don't see their names Wikified--if there isn't an article on them, it might be a skillful idea to enhance the profile of the sport by creating stubs on the masters of information technology. Otherwise, good page. I understand the passion behind wanting to protect information technology. --DavidShankBone xiv:29, half dozen September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Yep, of the images currently on the page, I call up that the Mitasch would be a good pick. I think that we also could consider finding a picture of Anthony Gatto doing 1 of his shows and putting that at the top of the page. Gatto's act combines superb technical juggling, entertainment, dazzling visual aspects, costumes, etc. I retrieve that his shows correspond to some degree many facets of juggling today, including juggling equally art, entertainment, sport, even circus to a degree. Let me know what you think, and I'll endeavour and observe a suitable image that we can use. --Rahzel 16:36, half-dozen September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I'll put Gatto on my watchlist for the side by side fourth dimension he comes through New York and I will try to become a photograph of him. The good thing well-nigh New York is that most people, especialy people of significance, seem to come through the city at to the lowest degree once in their lives. Information technology's like Mecca in that fashion. --DavidShankBone 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

If yous are going to add photos, images or animations to this page, brand sure they are of a practiced quality. It actually is no good to put a very, very poor quality gif animation at the top of the page, peculiarly as it depicts a very unrealistic style of juggling. And it looks really, actually bad. Delight don't try to add it again.

I'1000 only curious about the moving picture labled every bit "Jay Gilligan and Kristen Wanvik" because in the article almost types of juggling, it's labled every bit "Jay Gilligan and Jouni Temonen". Which is it?

I actually don't know the answer to your question myself, but I thought this might be a skilful place to drib a annotate on the animation of the basic three-ball blueprint under the juggling notation department. Its a corking animation which illustrates how to juggle very nicely - much easier than trying to explain it in words, or even pictures!

By the way, I'm glad you removed the poor quality animation which used to be at the top of the page (I never saw it, but from what y'all said information technology sounded pretty pathetic). My only proposition would be to try to replace it with something better if possible. I don't take whatever suggestions, unfortunately, simply I remember a replacement would exist nice. Information technology ever looks good to have a quality moving-picture show or animation at the top of an article - especially one of such importance. Happy Juggling! Danthur (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC) [answer]

Added additional statistic on globe tape quantity of juggling balls directly from Guinness. Lippardcc (talk) 17:17, 28 Feb 2019 (UTC) [respond]

The numbers records I've listed are from the JIS Committee on Numbers equally of September 2002, which are possibly not the most uptodate, simply are at least solidly verifiable. I've reverted the band record alter that someone made from 11 to 10 as I've been unable to find any reference to anything better than Anthony Gatto'due south unverifiable personal records listing.

If you're going to update these records, please make reference to an independently verifiable source, preferably based on video. While Anthony Gatto's no doubt the best numbers juggler effectually, his personal training records practice not plant a primary source for world records. Also, make sure you know the divergence between a wink and a juggle. Verifiable flashing records are 12 balls, 13 rings, and 9 clubs.user:oxymoron

Thank you oxy, well said. I second that.Pedant

I accept extensively changed the records section, with added references to the JISCON as well as explaining the differences between flashing and qualifying runs. Also added are bounciness records. Think, we are editing an encyclopaedia here, not a how to page or a website of our personal views on what is or what isn't juggling.

"Modern independently verifiable records for the number of objects juggled (defined as at to the lowest degree two catches per object - a "qualifying run") are 10 balls, 10 rings, and 7 clubs. The less stringent requirement (at least one grab per object - a "wink") has been reached with 12 balls (beanbags), thirteen rings, and 9 sticks (or 8 traditional clubs). Information technology has been said that the limits of man ability prevarication around the 14-brawl marker, though prove to back this upwards is understandably scarce."

Tony Gatto is perchance non the best numbers juggler, he is just the best that I've seen on videotape. I've too seen fake footage of other numbers freaks that purport to exist tape breakers. So delight verify and double check sources. I have a whole bunch of clips of video I wish we could add to this, but no permissions... if you can get GNU licenceable footage of some numbers jugglers, that would be great. I'grand going to shoot some footage of three-5 ball tricks and devilstick juggling, bones maneuvers, on up to 'squealer wild', but again, some numbers footage would be supercool. BTW I've added Toss Juggling article, intending to make this a hub article that covers the entire sport of juggling in general, you might desire to dabble with information technology. And feel free if you can write a skilful nonstub article on whatever redlinked juggling forms. I'll exist working on these articles daily this calendar week, so don't freak out if it looks dissimilar side by side time you run across it. I don't delete anything, if it'due south missing, its on one of the sub pages. Anyone know any cigar box manipulators or other less well-known forms? Pictures? Prop descriptions? More patterns? Hula hoops?Pedant 03:58, 2004 Nov vii (UTC)

This 79 hour iii brawl tape looks very questionable. Tin can anyone verify this? - Andrew Gradisher

Someone just removed the to a higher place iii brawl tape. I accept replaced it with the last verified record as ready past Terry Cole, and have done the aforementioned on the Juggling World Records page. I have also removed the 5 ball mills mess record because it does not fit well with the other records listed here which use a regular cascade or fountain blueprint.--Colin Due east. ten:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The edit was made by a user named Pedant. I asked him about his source on his user page a couple of weeks ago merely as of yet he hasn't replied. I recollect the record is most certainly untrue and I agree with its removal. Jason Quinn 18:48, xvi May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

While notation actually questionable, the lists of records are confusingly out of sync in the diverse manufactures. For instance, the Juggling article, the Anthony Gatto commodity and the Juggling world records page lists three different records for nine balls. I didn't bank check the other records. 62.181.255.64 12:xxx, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [respond]

No information technology was non my edit, I don't edit rashly like that hither is the respond on User:Jason Quinn'due south talk page, I just copied it from there... if you are gonna slander me, make sure you come up back and unslander me when y'all notice out yous are incorrect, please Jason.:

It was an honest error acquired by this edit diff of one of your edits. In that location was no malice involved. It was a new editor fault. So consider yourself "unslandered". Remember WP:Practiced Religion. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [answer]

---

juggling record What's your source for the 3-ball juggling record? It seems bogus to me. Jason Quinn 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry information technology took me so long to get back to y'all, you left your bulletin on my user page instead of 'talk', and my user folio is one page I pretty much never encounter I guess. What record are y'all talking about? Pedant 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

If you can tell me what the text was that you are referring to I can discover my source, I think... I'm not sure even which page it'due south on. If it was non googlable it was probably from Guinness World Records (Millenium Edition)... these are the ones I take handy:

Yuri Scherbina: I ball juggling 35 pound iv.v oz ball 100 times (Mountain Elbrus elev. thirteen,800 ft) July 1995 Ahmad Tajuddin: Pes juggling 3 hours nonstop, ane ball made of pikestaff (sepak takraw ball) 10,000 times with correct pes without dropping the brawl September 1996 Anthony Gatto: About flaming torches Anthony Gatto, 7 torches International Jugglers Association Festival, Baltimore Maryland July 1989 Most objects juggled Aug. 7 1998: 1508 people juggled a full of 4,524 objects... European Juggling Convention at Edinburgh Scotland Pedant 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Juggling Record exposed

this is the edit where the bogus record came from, plain the only edit from that ip accost (213.78.56.215)

For what it's worth 68.183.79.42 is my current ip address, and it will mostly hover around that.

I think it was ane of those "Wikipedia is so unscholarly that I myself have added false information to their articles" newbie tests that writers like to use to disparage wikipedia. Personally I would highly uncertainty any significant crash-land to that record, even 30 hours, since it is so inconvenient to conform for witnesses. I once 'devilstick' juggled from five:30 pm until lunchtime the adjacent solar day, through the night night at a Rennaissance Faire, and although in that location were dozens of witnesses, in that location was no continuous witness. I don't even think its a tape, but my betoken is, you lot have to suit a witness or several, and so yous actually accept to break the record, so I don't run into anyone (with witnesses) going much over 30 hours without it beingness very piece of cake to fact-check.

Anyway, it wasn't my edit and I'm really really dubious of 79 hours of juggling, witness or no witness, I couldn't even lookout man boob tube for that long. Pedant 19:08, three August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

---

Juggling tricks [edit]

I went alee and added a small-scale list of juggling tricks for expansion. Some of their names may need to exist adapted to not conflict with previously created articles. It also may exist prissy to create a whole seperate article to listing and categorize the patterns. Ok goodbye!

---

Thanks, that works for me. If you lot know of whatever articles remotely related to juggling, feel free to link them at least to the Juggling commodity which I am considering a hub for the other articles. Might want to take a look at the (currently mostly lists) commodity at Circus and run into if yous can do anything on some of those redlinked references. If you feel similar it. My goal is to bring Circus and Juggling upward to featured article quality earlier the yr ends. anyone up for that? Pedant 03:58, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Jokes [edit]

This line:

"Information technology has been said that jugglers are quite low down in the hierarchy of entertainment and performers... just below magicians but slightly in a higher place mimes. Jugglers, of grade, disagree entirely. Then practice mimes, though their objections are rarely heard."

I like.

It has been "proven" to increase the size of your brain

Isn't it incommunicable to make your brain bigger but past engaging in a stimulating action? And why put "proven" in quotes? Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? --Gypsum Fantastic nineteen:12, eight August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

To quote from the BBC, 2004-01-22:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/one/howdy/health/3417045.stm

"Juggling 'tin can boost encephalon power'

"The skills we learn may shape the structure of our brains"

"Learning to juggle can cause changes in the encephalon, scientists take establish. Using encephalon scans, the researchers showed that in 12 people who had learnt to juggle, certain brain areas had grown. But 3 months later, during which fourth dimension people stopped juggling, the brain had gone back to its normal size.

"Writing in Nature, the researchers from the University of Regensburg, Deutschland, say their findings challenge the view that experiences do not affect the brain."

It doesn't 'increment' the size of your brain. 'Boost encephalon ability' is definately a better mode of putting information technology. I have seen 'makes physical changes to your brain' used most, as saying it increased in size would persumable exist suggesting that brain cells have been gained, which is rubbish.

Gatto Photo [edit]

Hiya I'm non a fellow member nevertheless, just I notice that in the Gatto photo of "12 rings" I can count 13!!! Tin someone please explain... preferably in the explanation of the photo... or else set up it to say 13??

Information technology is 1 of his holsters where he keeps a ring at the beginning of his juggling the 12, that can wait as a ring in the picture. Yous can observe that it is only half.

In reference to Gypsum Fantastic'due south question for clarification, I accept heard of research that confirms a link between juggling and an increase in the ability to sight-read in piano playing students. I note that a quick spider web search turned up the following reference to the Suzuki Piano school that states "Juggling classes which amend dexterity and coordination... ", but does not reference the study this data is gained from directly... http://core.ecu.edu/hist/wilburnk/SuzukiPianoBasics/News/PB22-Mar97.htm ...the argument seems to imply, although not directly state that they have admission to such inquiry...

...I tried a search at the JIS (http://www.juggling.org/) just they're busy right now...

I am not a comunity member every bit all the same but I can be contacted at oz_juggla@yahoo.com

I would become a community member now, just I accept programming homework, and have already used an 60 minutes on this :)

Cheers Monique sixteen/viii/v five.55pm Australian Eastern Standard Time

Since I've no idea where this comes from simply I'm certain I've heard it somewhere, would anyone care to comment on the following argument?

Some purist insist that true juggling just begins when the number of objects in the air at any given time is greater than the number of hands juggling the objects. For example, the standard 5 ball cascade is true juggling as at whatever given bespeak there are at least 3 balls in the air with only ii hands manipulating the pattern.

Illiterate? Write for help ... P.O. Box ... Washington D.C. ...

visit me at http://tepy-at-houston-lake.blogspot.com/

Nope Absolutely untrue. Even assuming you mean Toss juggling, every bit opposed numerous forms of juggling where no objects are tossed at all, simply about ANY juggler will hold that Mills Mess is juggling. Mills' mess doesn't fit your description. User:Pedant 17:51, seven September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Help Desk received the post-obit e-mail from Steve Mills of the Dazzling Mills Family unit.

Nether patterns a trick is refered to as the double lubman known improve as the mills mess. There is no such affair as a double lubman. This was submitted by a unknowlegable person. Please fix this. I am the inventor of this trick and the juggle.org will adjure ot there being no mention anywhere else of this being called a double lubman.

Capitalistroadster 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Is the Egyptian cartoon serious, or some sort of in-joke? I followed the references to hither [ane], but the drawing shown on this folio is not the same (similar, just clearly different). If this is a joke, I don't recall it belongs on the page. If it's not a joke, why are at that place ii versions of the cartoon? --Allen 19:24, half-dozen January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It is serious. At that place is a existent tomb, the Beni-hasan tomb, that has juggling depicted on the walls. I don't know why the 2 versions are different. There'southward an extra juggler in the Wikipedia one that's not in the other! Dunno. Jason Quinn 20:00, half dozen January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I have always explained this to myself equally being considering they were pictures all the way round. If you call back of how egyptian paintings were designed they were often washed in stripps, with s scene circling the whole room. I don't know if this is true or not though...--Seonaidbeaumont 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The caption on the prototype "1794-1781"..I assume it denotes when it was discovered rather than when it was created? Its misleading equally it stands.--Hooperbloob 17:17, eighteen June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It's the 15th tomb in the Beni Hassan surface area of tombs, the appointment should read "1994-1781 B.C", I'll set information technology. The image disparity is that one prototype is a cropped office of an earlier image.User:Pedant 18:03, seven September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I have seen this line cartoon of the "Egyptian wall painting" depicting juggling reproduced in many places only I have non been able to find an actual photograph of information technology anywhere. It seems certain that some juggler would have photographed it past now. Has anyone seen a photo or rubbing or anything only this line cartoon? Oldhairface (talk) 17:fifty, 27 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

P0lyglut, why do you call back the fire image was inane? To me, information technology seemed like a bully analogy of the bones figure eight design of toss juggling, which in my experience is a key insight for people who know very picayune well-nigh juggling, and who often imagine more of a circular design. --Allen 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Really, looking through the history of this article, I run across that you've removed the film at least twice before, both times with the same edit summary. Though you were reverted both times, you have still not explained what yous think is wrong with this epitome. And if that weren't enough reason to expect that you won't respond on this talk page, I meet from reading your own talk page that "chances are [you] don't give a flying fuck well-nigh [me], and also will not respond to whatever shit [I] might accept to say." Therefore, I'm going to get ahead and just revert your last edit. --Allen 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

i call back the image is inane because information technology is far removed as a picture of juggling. It is a fancy picture, and information technology'south value is perchance proficient every bit a extra prototype at the bottom somewhere illustrating juggling with fire torches, if ane wishes that. A more proper image fit for the top of the commodity, would be a person juggling say iii balls. If the cascade motion is desired, then perchance finding a image with time-exposure is proper. Xah Lee 08:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Thanks for responding. If you come across a practiced picture of someone juggling iii balls, I agree that would be a fine image for the top of the article. --Allen 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unique Interactive Juggling Simulation Programme [edit]

An excellent juggling simulator can exist institute here. Iii keys are used to control each manus. The user presses the keys in rapid succession rather like tapping fingers on a desk-bound. The program is customisable assuasive many dissimilar patterns. It is dissimilar from other juggling simulation programs in that each hand is controlled by the user. Instead of just watching the program juggle, the user is actually make the program juggle..

86.213.15.234 14:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I think there are plenty stubable articles relating to juggling for a 'Juggling Sutb' template to be fabricated. Minglex 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Me too, merely I would name it "Juggling Stub", if you are going to make one. Non me, I'll try to aggrandize the stubs instead. User:Pedant eighteen:05, seven September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

"Ioculr" is non a Latin word. The word "ioculari" ways to joke or jest. I've corrected this in the article.--68.250.176.85 03:23, vii July 2006 (UTC) [respond]

"The majority of hobby jugglers can exist split into i of two groups. The outset are those who learned to juggle at university or college juggling clubs. These people are often mathematicians, scientists, and reckoner programmers. They like juggling considering information technology tin can be very structured and information technology tin be analysed and modeled easily past mathematics and physics. Juggling has established itself equally a very useful model for researchers studying motor skills and learning techniques. The second group are from the counter civilisation or alternative culture scene. They enjoy juggling because, while it can be very structured, it tin can as well exist equally complimentary as you want it to be, with a about infinite scope for individual personal expression. Fire juggling is a common appeal."

Does that concluding sentence make sense or is it merely me? Besides - how relevant is this paragraph? I don't find the value judgements of why people like juggling (seemingly stereotypically based on their degree choices or lack of them) specially helpful.

A more than helpful breakup of jugglers would mayhap include 'numbers' and 'technical' jugglers? Laurence9993 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The article says that: "Brawl juggling can exist broken downwardly into the following styles: Contact Juggling, Numbers Juggling, Pattern Juggling, Trick Juggling, Technical Juggling, Bounce Juggling and Football Juggling."

Is it just me or are blueprint juggling, trick juggling and technical juggling notwithstanding thing? I didn't want to get directly ahead and edit because there could well exist some subtle difference I'm missing. Cheers! Ian F. 17:44, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC) [reply]

New links of dubious quality seem to get added to this folio on a weekly footing, many of them are simple three ball tutorials. I have removed them all and replaced them with a single link to what I think is the best 3 ball video tutorial. I feel that one single link is enough. If anyone finds a better tutorial, feel free to replace this link, however I don;t think we need to link to every poorly written 3 ball tutorial with blithe GIFs! --Colin E. 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [respond]

What do you lot guys think almost putting Juggling.goggle box inside the external links department ? Information technology is the biggest and all-time quality video site on the net dedicated for juggling with over 2000 videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.35.93 (talk) 16:50, xviii August 2009 (UTC) [respond]

Conspicuously looks edited, the balls colors are also vivid, the image motion paths, the illogical ball placement, all looks to exist an obvious joke not meant for this commodity.

Nope, this paradigm is real. Critchfield and Jones are two of the best bounce passers in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling_World_Records (they hold the tape for 18 bounce balls (thirty catches), as well as http://www.bouncepage.com/records.htm (link to video of 18 balls being bounced for 30 catches). Please do 30 seconds of elementary internet enquiry earlier making a claim like this once more. Regards, Rahzel 02:24, xi Jan 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I never said they don't have the tape, those videos show it, only that motion picture looks to be an obvious edited one, thats all.

It does await quite unconvincing.Minglex 11:56, fourteen Jan 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:BradBeattie/Userboxes/Juggling

Enjoy! --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great image, but the caption is wrong. That isnt a 3-D epitome! :-) [answer]

What about drum stick spinning? I think information technology's popular enough to deserve an own paragraph 88.73.4.152 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://www.giocoleria.org/ It seems to be a fine website, with up-to-date information and lively discussion taking place in Italian. Nonetheless an English linguistic communication encyclopedia page nigh juggling is not an appropriate place to annunciate it. I am surprised that the site does not have a link from the Italian version of this page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giocoleria Josephmcginley fifteen:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [respond]

I've created {{Juggling-stub}} and tagged several stubs accordingly (see what links here). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [respond]

Traverse Metropolis Westward Senior highschool has had an active juggling club. Presedents Ted and Andrew run the social club. The meeting are every Tuesday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added past Nateisonsomething (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Congratulations on having an agile juggling order - you should brand certain it's listed at world wide web.jugglingdb.com/clubs. I have removed your link from the 'organisations' section of this article since this is non an appropriate place to list it. Best of luck with the club, Josephmcginley thirteen:23, ii April 2007 (UTC) [answer]

Does everyone have a citation for the alleged fame of the WJF? I hadn't heard of information technology until I read the article. Seems at risk of falling nether WP:PEACOCK.

entering the most difficult kinds of juggling contests such as the famous WJF Competition

Johnjlee fourteen:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [respond]

Delight add on the XX century part of article: "the art of juggling is country supported as high art on the Chinese People'south Republic" (citing a book from 1986) [ii] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) [respond]

It looks to me like a lot of the information in the juggling annotation article is duplicated here, likewise as in the additional siteswap page. Maybe the note page should just be merged here? --Superfly Jon (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

It's too bad that we can't make information technology then that the Sabre Dance from Katchaturian's Gayane automatically plays when one views this commodity (non to mention the i on plate spinning). --Modus Ponens (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

When Wikipedia merges with MySpace, nosotros can have Sabre Dance, seventeen YouTube instructional videos, and that vi minute video of the guy juggling along with Beatles songs, all playing automatically while a loftier-resolution groundwork epitome of Anthony Gatto'south grin confront loads. Let's enjoy the silence and promise that solar day never comes. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 21:59, thirty December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I've proposed a merge of Juggling pattern and Juggling note. Please discuss on the talk page. Fences & Windows 03:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC) [answer]

Is there whatever relevant, cited information for the infromation listed under the "Park" heading in this article? Seems by and large similar pure opinion to me.

The text is: "Juggling tin can add a whole new dimension to a ring performance in the park."

I've added a citation needed tag in the concurrently but until someone tin can give a reference or a reason why this is relevant, I suggest removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.xiv.250 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC) [respond]

This page appears to defy the XKCD Police of Wikipedia (mouseover bubble on http://xkcd.org/903/). A link for the word "Entertainment" in the outset judgement would fix that. — Preceding unsigned annotate added by 213.95.68.62 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

dwell fourth dimension? dwell_time_juggling? dwell time_(juggling)? dwell fourth dimension? .. sry .. I exercise'nt look through information technology anymore .. plz help!
(I was similar shocked - moderately - to not find an existing article nearly dwell time for juggling .. alter information technology! .. do with what you want! .. but, delight, make °°dwell time for juggling°° an existing article!

Assistance me to make an article for dwell time_juggling, this:

---

In juggling , the dwell time is an important parameter, meaning the fourth dimension a and so called 'prop', especially a brawl, a band, a club, or annihilation alike that are defenseless and thrown once again, (.. not so much a diabolo, devil-stick or anything alike that are being handled with tools .. prop = requisite? propulsator? propulsion chemical element? propelled thing?) stays in the paw that catches and throws it (respectively the time information technology is in contact with the tool handling it).

Juggling pingpong assurance with pingpong rackets thus would requite a dwell time near 0 or a minuscule fraction of a second, while a huge glass marble contact juggled by a contact juggler gives a dwell time of similar upto minutes.

At juggling clubs, balls or rings, the dwell fourth dimension is normally fractions of a second. It is - looked at information technology exactly - the fourth dimension from contacting the prop when catching, unto leaving the hand when throwing.
Information technology can be varied by the juggler, by using dissimilar techniques of catching and throwing: east.g.
A ball can be caught with the whole hand - similar gripped entirely -, so thrown again = long, slow dwell time.
Information technology can be caught using the paw or fifty-fifty simply the fingers like as a handbasket - without gripping information technology entirely, only like braking it to catch it, then giving information technology its direction when throwing it = average dwell time.
The brawl tin be ticked or flicked by using the mitt like as a racket to propulse the ball back into the air, without even seizing it in whatever way = shortest dwell fourth dimension.
.. where these techniques in their definition transition rather fluently into ane another.

The dwell time must not be dislocated with the juggling speed:
.. a certain juggling blueprint juggled at a certain height with a certain speed can be achieved with pocket-size (short) or loftier (long) dwell fourth dimension by using different of the higher up techniques.

Varying a three-brawl-cascade ( .. the article exists! ) or a 5-ball-cascade in speed or improving from 3b-casc to 5b-casc, will automatically improve a juggler's dwell time abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.233.97 (talk) nineteen:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I call up its useful like to add C.E. Shannon'due south juggling equation inside a short theory department (its a very simple ane!) [3][4]. At that place'southward aready lots of social and historical info (which is of course nessersary and good, I take no problems with what's in the article). It follows like this:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

${\displaystyle (F+D)H=(Five+D)Northward\,\!}$

where (in his notation):

• F = Fcalorie-free time (time a ball is in the air i.e. out of hands),
• D = Dwell time (time a ball is in contact with easily),
• H = Hand number (full number of hands manipulating the design),
• V = Vacant time (time a hand is empty),
• Northward = Due northumber of balls juggled.

Here is what the equation means.

H and N are dimensionless numbers. D, F, V are times, e.g. measured in seconds.

The total number of hands manipulating the assurance is H, from any number of people contributing to the design. If one person juggles, H can be ane or two. If more people were to enter the pattern H can be greater than or equal to 2.

The total time taken for all balls to be in contact with all easily, and thrown upwardly in the air, is F + D.

The total time taken for a brawl to not exist in contact with whatsoever hands and thrown up in the air, i.e. time taken when no hands are on any balls, is V + D.

If F + D > V + D, i.e. (subtracting D from both sides) F > V, the juggler has the ball in his/her hand for a longer time then when a ball is not in any hand, the design is slower. Likewise F < V implies the juggler has the ball in his/her paw for a shorter fourth dimension then when a ball is not in any hand, the pattern is faster.

As the throw hieght inreases, F increases, the ball is in the air for longer.

Equally the pattern becomes faster, D decreases and V increases, the balls are in the hands less and not in the hands for longer. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What practice people think?

-- F = q(E + v × B) xv:07, xvi December 2011 (UTC) [respond]

• Reply Practice you have a few references for this? Dennis Brown (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) [answer]

Those external links are the referances. One extra I didn't add is this one [5]. I havn't whatever books on this. Have it the answer is no, for inclusion to the article. =(

-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:46, sixteen December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Wasn't saying that at all. Quite the reverse. I just don't know plenty about the theory, and not sure how to work it in. What I was actually thinking is that if you know enough about the theory, it would not only make a decent paragraph, but if information technology has enough references (ie: more than 1) it may really be a good stand alone commodity. Good project to start in your ain sandbox, create the article, then put a quick paragraph in this article that references the whole new article. Bold this is a notable theory, which I was guessing is very possible. It is a bit technical to include too much in this general commodity (excepting a summary), but the stand alone article would allow the inclusion of all the technical data. Sounds like a good addition to Wikipedia if you are upwards for information technology. I don't know enough tech. data to be helpful in that expanse, but will assistance where I can, cleanup, format, etc. Get out a note on my talk page if you are interested. Dennis Chocolate-brown (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

First-class! I was actually thinking the same near creating a new article for this, there is more mathematical theory to juggling equally outlined in link [3]. Your point is fair eneogh, on second thought it does detract from the primary topic of the article too much. Cheers for your offer to assist wherever you can also.-- F = q(East + v × B) 09:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I removed a large department of the article and wanted to explicate why. The data is already covered in Juggling world records, which is noted in that department. This article really isn't the place for an exhaustive listing of records, that article is. That article has the citations, this one didn't, which might explain concerns about vandalism on this folio previously. Being that this is a general article on Juggling, this much detail is excessive, and either information technology needs to stay in the Juggling globe records article, or the manufactures be merged. Since I don't think a merge is a skillful thought, I just removed the questionable and improperly referenced cloth here. In short, I think this commodity needs to focus on the concepts, types, influences and history of juggling, non the records. Dennis Chocolate-brown (talk) fourteen:01, 6 Jan 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As an editor of the Juggling World Records page, I agree with Dennis. The records should be kept in just 1 location, to avert duplicate work, and to ensure that records are properly sourced and kept up to date. The records previously listed hither were non. Thanar (talk) 20:54, eight January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

There is room here in the department to explain records better, perchance aggrandize the requirements to brand a record official, etc. just once more, keeping the actual records on the other page. Dennis Dark-brown (talk) 21:01, eight January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

To explicate what'south going on in external links I have already discussed with an admin who reverted my change:

Merely curious almost your edit on 21 June 2012 on Juggling. You removed a link to the Juggling Edge that I'd put upwardly a short while earlier to supplant the Internet Juggling Database which has recently airtight down. I don't know if you are a juggler or not so I don't know if yous are aware that the link that yous left at the summit of the list (JIS) has not been updated for over a decade. The Juggling page states that conventions & festivals are the 'courage of the juggling scene'. The festivals folio on the JIS http://www.juggling.org/festivals/upcoming/ points to the now defunct IJDb. The JIS clubs folio is a major bone of contention in the juggling community because and then much of the information is out of engagement. The IJDb was considered the most important link considering it had the near up to appointment information. All the IJDb festival & lodge information now exists at the Juggling Border. I don't understand why y'all removed a site with up to date info & promoted an inaccurate source?

If annihilation you should delete Juggling Universe (forum launched last year that never took off) & the pedagogy links & put in:

• Juggling Edge - for authentic event & gild listings.
• Juggling Information Service - for the old articles.
• rec.juggling - the most active juggling forum. Learn to juggle 3 assurance
• YouTube id T16_BVIFFPQ - all those instructional sites are a fleck redundant, this video provides the all-time instruction IMO

          * I might take been too hasty. Go alee and put them back, and I volition leave it to the opinions of others. I endeavor to always trim unnecessary links, but y'all brand a good instance. Dennis Dark-brown - 2¢ © 23:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)        

That modify was so reverted past a Bot, presumably because of the Youtube URL, then I take now made the change again but included the all-time of the multiple tutorials from the original links - unfortunately this page uses quicktime so is less attainable than the youtube video that was blocked *shrug* — Preceding unsigned annotate added past lxxx.189.19.164 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This commodity requires pregnant editing and referencing. I hope to practise this on an ongoing basis - chip by scrap. Please discuss whatever changes I practise here before reverting them. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) xv:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [answer]

I tried to display the video entitled "Two men juggling", but the video would not play. An error message was displayed: "For a better video playback experience we recommend a [ html5 video browser]."

Yet, my browser is Cyberspace Explorer 9 which, co-ordinate to the Internet Explorer 9 article, "supports the HTML5 video and audio tags". Wideangle (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I take reverted edits placing Penn from Penn and Teller as a notable juggler. He may be noted to exercise juggling in his magic act but that is not the same thing equally beingness a notable juggler. He is a notable magician. Please exercise non include him every bit a notable juggler unless you first brand your case hither in the talk pages for his inclusion. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Juggle Wiki is a popular, established, reasonably comprehensive and useful juggling resources that should be included in this page. Juggle Wiki K6e6n6n6y (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, only as a general dominion Wikipedia doesn't link to "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I don't think that site meets that threshold. There's just not enough activity there notwithstanding. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC) [respond]

Ronald Graham researched numbers juggling,juggling paterns.

Sum of juggling paterns in the case, cycle p and b balls

(b+1)^p-b^p ^[1]

1. ^ ピーターフランクルの中学生でも分かる大学生にも解けない数学問題集2. Nihon Hyoronsha.

I removed the above because of misspellings and no clarification of the equation or the term cycle. Hyacinth (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Sum of juggling paterns=(b+1)^p-b^p

for example of juglling paterns 5balls (seven,4,iv), 1ball like 7 balls,rest 4balls (7+4+four)/3=five--Takahiro4 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Do you lot mean "possible patterns" rather than "paterns"? What does the variable b represent? What does the variable p stand for? Hyacinth (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Yes,here is more details.[6]--Takahiro4 (talk) 14:37, 23 Feb 2016 (UTC) [reply]

How-do-you-do fellow Wikipedians,

I have only modified one external link on Juggling. Please accept 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:

• Added annal https://spider web.annal.org/web/20120217090129/https://www2.bc.edu/~lewbel/jugweb/history-1.html to http://www2.bc.edu/~lewbel/jugweb/history-one.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.juggle.org/history/athenaeum/jugmags/39-ane/39-1%2Cp42.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, yous may follow the instructions on the template below to fix whatsoever issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. Later on Feb 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot . No special activity 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 folio sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, merely see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If y'all have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, yous tin can study them with this tool.
• If y'all constitute an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Study bug) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC) [respond]

The following Wikimedia Eatables file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jugglers Circus Amok by David Shankbone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination folio. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:58, 25 Nov 2018 (UTC) [reply]

nicholsetwithe.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJuggling

Share this post