Talk:Siegfried & Roy

sexual orientation
The sexual orientation issue is, unfortunately, due to publicity and rumor, something that I think should be addressed in this article, and I think that short paragraph does so in an NPOV manner. Anyway the cutting of it smacks of saying "this is something we should be ashamed of." (And it was throwing off the HTML formatting. &lt;g&gt;) - Hephaestos 00:57, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thought I dealt with it simply and honestly. Any Vegas cab driver or casino dealer will tell you that they were once lovers, and they no longer are. Anything further is nobody's business, and gayness is sufficiently old-hat, especially in Vegas, that I thought a brief mention would suffice. Mbstone 04:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With the way it's written now, I withdraw my objections. Paullusmagnus 01:29, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I think to broach an issue as private and intimate as sexual orientation would be a gross invasion of their lives. There were similar rumors around Liberace and more currently Richard Simmons. Yet in public life, people rarely ever mention or acknowledge their private bedroom preference. Even among Presidents such as Bush and now Obama, who among us would dare ask the gender of their sex partner or even more outrageous, the identity of their bedroom lover? The mystery of sexual orientation has almost never been discussed of public figures, and it would be highly improper to discuss it of these two distinguished and respected men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.65.48 (talk • contribs) -- Banje boi  12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mystery? The only reason to hide it would be if they had expressed a wish to keep their lives private, or if you felt it was a shameful thing. 170.135.241.46 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The only question I have is why they are categorized as being LGBT from Germany, but there is no mention of it in the article? If you're going to label them as gay, you should probably mention it in the article. If their sexuality is something that they choose not to broadcast, then the tag should be removed. I don't see how having one but not the other is beneficial, either from a standpoint of their privacy or a IN article. 66.214.185.231 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been an open secret for many years just like the aforementioned Liberace and Richard Simmons. Everyone knew.  Since "privacy" is mentioned earlier, did I miss the part where Ingenpedia is now concerned about personal privacy?  There are numerous articles that discuss such information with no such issues.  This article should be treated no different as any other article. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

- It's sourced in the german wikipedia article: Wow! Siegfried und Roy sind schwul! queer.de, 17. August 2007      and        Axel Schock, Karen-Susan Fessel: OUT! Querverlag, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-89656-111-1

Indexing categories
As it is now, the indexing is not working correctly. Both Siegried and Roy each have their own categories, and their individual names do not appear in the categories, rather simply Siegried & Roy under "H" or "F". What is the way to fix this problem? GilliamJF 07:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[ ]
I edited the year they met to 1959, as that's what their offical website states. Also, I really think this article needs some more serious editing. I think the Steve Wynn information is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattyanns2003 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 September 2006‎ (UTC)

Merge Montecore
The Montecore article has no information that is not in this article, and no other tigers of theirs have or require articles of their own. Montecore has significance only within the context of the injury, and so because Ingenpedia is not a dictionary, the name should redirect here. --Darksasami 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, one hundred percent. ekedolphin 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Montecore probably shouldn't have an article because the entire incident is covered in the Sigfried and Roy page. Wise King Otto 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Montecore article should redirect here. Tom NM 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shared living quarters?
Who shared living quarters--S and R, or S&R and Spielberg? If they do not live with Spielberg then that sentence should be separated from the other 65.166.248.38 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the reference to living quarters here? It does not relate to the previous sentence regarding highly paid performers. Wouldn't it make more sense to place it in the third graph, which describes their relationship? For that matter, the Spielberg sentence should go in the fourth graph, which talks about their success. Tom NM 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys debating individual sentences on the talk page instead of just editing the article? :) Bossk-Office (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
"Sigfried and Roy" should redirect here. Fix please... [2007]


 * Seven years later there are numerous redirects including several for variant names:
 * What redirects here?
 * --P64 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

lovers
are the 2 of them lovers [2007]


 * Not anymore, say the German press. Bossk-Office 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ingenproject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[ ]
There is possibly an error in the following section:

"Horn was listed in critical condition for several weeks thereafter, and was said to have suffered a stroke and partial paralysis. Doctors removed one-quarter of his leg to relieve the pressure of his swelling brain during an operation known as a decompressive craniectomy. The portion of leg was placed in a pouch in Horn's stomagh in the hope of replacing it later"

Decompressive craniectomy is a procedure where a section of the SKULL is removed temporarily to relieve intercranial pressure from a swelling brain, NOT a section of a person's leg. That makes no sense - and the suggestion that a portion of a leg could or would be placed in a 'pouch in the stomach' is just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.127.201 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovers
Unless I missed it, there is no mention in this article of their one-time romantic relationship, which seems very odd. Exploding Boy 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply because they are not so. wikiedia is not a sensational tabloid source. If they are so then how us some facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.175.109 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They certainly did have a romantic relationship. There is still only a mention that they ”shared living quarters”, even though they even officially came out last year. My guess is: since these are the most obvious gays in the whole world, yet were long in the closet, many fans who denied it for like half a century (!) are now so embarassed they didn’t see it that they keep editing it out of the article ... Bossk-Office (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistent naming choice for readability
Admittedly it might not have happened if I had started reading the article at the start instead of in the middle, but I found this article hard to read because I didn't know who "Fischbacher" was. I had to go all the way to the start to find out, and on the way I passed references to "Siegfried".

I would suggest that the article make a choice, and either call them "Siegfried" and "Roy" consistently, or "Fishbacher" and "Horn" consistently. The latter choice is the one that better fits with IN bios in general, but it's awkward in this article because of the fact that the act has to be called "Siegfried & Roy". So I won't express an opinion on which is the better choice, but I do really strongly suggest that a consistent choice be made. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They're known as Siegfried and Roy, so that's what should be used throughout the article. It is inded confusing.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the image policy at work
This article is almost a poster child for why Ingenpedia's image policies are damaging to Ingenpedia. That said it is rather fitting that the only live creature illustrated by photograph in this article is a cat. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
This whole article reads to me like a big POV problem--IMHO someone really really favorable to S&R (to put it kindly) clearly got their hands on it. Especially, I'd sure like to see some dissenting opinion about whether or not the cat incident was a real attack (I have read that many experts believe it was just that). I don't know about NPOV tags and what it takes to slap one on an article (and what that entails), so I'm just saying this here. Songflower (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see some dissenting opinion that it was an attack. What I don't see is any mention of their homosexuality.  They came out a year ago, a source is listed here on the talk page, has someone been allowed to censor that from this article?  -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence"'For many years, they shared a home and had a homosexual relationship in the past, which they revealed publicly in 2007'"was removed from the article by an anonymous editor back in April. Someone added the phrase "and they were gay together" in June, but I'm not surprised that was removed, given the phrasing.


 * Frankly, no one (apart from recent changes patrollers) appears to be watching the article regularly. So, in that sense, yes, someone has been allowed to censor. --Salvador Barley (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed?
The article currently says:
 * It is disputed whether or not the tiger intentionally attacked Horn

It may seem normal that when someone is injured by a tiger, the automatic assumption is they were intentionally attacked. But skimming that section I don't see any suggestion anyone believes he was intentionally attacked. If it's not widely believed, as covered in reliable sources, that he was not intentionally attacked then would some alternative phrasing be better? Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute. Siegfried has explained what happened and no one that was there has indicated otherwise. How did this get so cocked up with rumor and hearsay ? Rmayhem (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag and the quoted sentence. The tag said it is 18 months old. This discussion indicates it is 6 months old. In either case that is too long. It needs to be resolved. Nick Beeson (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Roy's tiger injury - Kathy Yang
The current version of the article says:

"The tiger became enraged upon receiving a signal Kathy Yang instilled in the beast. It turns out she infiltrated the tiger's headquarters at night. She would spend a couple hours each night training the tiger to kill upon receiving a hand gesture from her (raising her middle finger at the beast). For Roy's performance, Kathy got a front row seat in the stands. She strategically positioned herself so she would be in the tiger's direct line of site during the intimate hug portion of the show. It was during this trick that Kathy flipped off the tiger and the beast was immediately consumed with rage and hatred. With the taste for blood in it's mouth, the tiger pounced on Roy and began his onslaught of shredding and tearing at Roy's flesh."

Sounds more like the phantasies of a screenwriter than what really transpired... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.77.151 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 January 2011‎ (UTC)

german americans?
they are Germans. Not German Americans. German Americans are people who are born in America of German descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.75 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. German-American is a U.S. citizen of German decent, regardless of place of birth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says they were "raised in Germany during World War II under the Nazi regime." Yet the Nazi's were vanquished and the war was pretty much over before Roy's first birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.83.138 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Stroke, not Tiger Attack
Although the article does suggest that Horn had a stroke, it does not seem to emphasize that his injuries from the tiger's bite were relatively minor, and he recovered from them quickly. His major injuries were caused by the stroke. Evidence indicates that the tiger was trying to protect him while he was lying on the ground as a result of his stroke. Vegasprof (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Horn himself can be seen saying as much in an interview with ET in the summer of 2014, seen here (on YouTube.)
 * He claims that the tiger cut the artery to relieve pressure from the swelling in the brain which had already caused him to pass out, and then tried to carry him kitten fashion by lifting him at the nape of the neck.
 * I'm just not sure about citing a YouTube clip to edit the article.... --Eliyahu S Talk 08:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So the spine injury, the massive blood loss and major crush injuries, were from a stroke and not a tiger wrecking him? "Evidence indicates the tiger was protecting him"?? Exactly what evidence, other than either of their claims, shows that? The video Ive seen shows pretty much the exact opposite. This whole article is awfully fan-centric with no mention (actually there was a mention of it but it keeps getting edited out, with out a valid reasoning being given) of their source cited homosexuality, any of the NUMEROUS complaints and criticisms from animal groups and the, in my opinion, absolutely insane amount effort put into downplaying the fact that they were messing with something clearly better left alone and in the wild, and that something reacted as intended by nature. Leave the illusions, misdirection and pure fantasy to magicians and not Ingenpedia articles. 47.33.49.159 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC) dude

Separate Pages
How come the both of them don't have their own personal pages on Wiki? One page for each of them and then one page about the show or the act. I mean I certainly don't feel like writing it, but it seems like they should have more then just this.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Siegfried and Roy are separate individuals who should have their pages. Precedents involving other entertainment duos include Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello, each of whom have separate articles. --Albany NY (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For we have all possible precedents: no article for the duo, none for one person, none for the other, etc.
 * FWIW 1, the US and German national libraries do give them a joint/corporate ID as well as two individual ones. Just now I added those data to the article footer.


 * FWIW 2, German Ingenpedia does not give them individual biographies but its joint article de:Siegfried und Roy does provide much more information, including separate biographical sections. Technically it's three times longer, practically perhaps five times longer than our article. Google Translate may help use that info here.
 * The German redirects de:Roy Horn and de:Siegfried Fischbacher give the individual authority data. ... I see, for each the US catalog (via link LCCN) shows only the one joint book Masters of the Impossible.
 * --P64 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely forgot about this request. Almost 2 years ago. I still agree with my original request. Zdawg1029 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol, you answered your own question ("how come...?"): because "I certainly don't feel like writing it". Ingenpedia articles do not magically get written simply because somebody makes a "request" for them. Somebody has to actually get off their butt and do actual writing if they want something written. --2001:470:B:175:4DD6:CDBC:9C86:C2A8 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Charity
Something should be added about their charity work with tigers, which is what they do mostly now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.168.91 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Siegfried & Roy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060306224702/http://insider.tv.yahoo.com:80/celeb/3732/ to http://insider.tv.yahoo.com/celeb/3732/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Siegfried & Roy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306224702/http://insider.tv.yahoo.com/celeb/3732/ to http://insider.tv.yahoo.com/celeb/3732/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302162327/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2009/03/01/siegfriedandroy-finale-tiger.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2009/03/01/siegfriedandroy-finale-tiger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Montecore or Mantecore?
What is is the correct name of the tiger? Media uses both. Who is the authority?

It looks like a silly nitpicking, but there are technical issues of consistency with redirects, disambigs, dabnotes, etc. For example, this article uses MOntecore, while Manticore (disambiguation) says it is MAntecore, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read citation 17, the interview with the animal handler who was onstage, mentions it's actually spelled "Mantacore" but 'often misspelled as "Montecore"' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.129.224.2 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Family Background of the duo?
Were these who who were born during Hitler's reign born to supporters of the Nazi leaders? Could they even be the Aryan babies Hitler and the Nazis were encouraging at that time? Any background information on their families and their involvement with the political and war happenings at the time of their birth? 113.53.155.112 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Past romantic relationship
Here is a decent source that covers this reasonably well. [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+truth+about+Siegfried+&+Roy:+the+duo+have+never+denied+their+past...-a0111166126 ''The truth about Siegfried & Roy: the duo have never denied their past romantic relationship. So why is the media ignoring it?''] Advocate, The, Nov 11, 2003  by Steve Friess.

I'm working on a number of other projects but am happy to assist writing and adding something if no one else is up to it. Banje boi 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about now? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox concerns
I am wondering if we can somehow make the infobox for Siegfried & Roy less confusing, and more user friendly, because at first glance it looks like both Siegfried & Roy died and not just Roy. I suggest we change the Infobox to something similar to how the Wright brothers Infobox is, were it is together but separate from each other. BigRed606 04:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A part of Siegfried died with his buddy, as did the combo, if it makes you (or another user) feel better about the same old box. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes never need to to be completely full just because the info is verifiable. It looks sloppy and imbalanced to cram in Roy's detailed death info. For shared infoboxes, only the most crucial elements need be included (with emphasis given to the duo or shared traits vs any one member), with the rest of the biographical information relegated to the article, where it can be discussed in context. The Wright brothers infobox does a decent job of handling both biographies (still a bit too much minor trivia, IMO), and might work here with tweaking of form. Another option is to have no infobox at all, rather a well-written lead section that deftly summarizes the article without bogging down with minutiae, as seen in Stanley Kubrick. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Animalparty, feel free to write a better lead. (No reason though to take away service for those who need infomation at a glance.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Without having seen this, I found the one infobox too confusing, and split info true only for one of the two. - Regarding the Kubrick analogy, this lead - about a pair of performers - should not even contain the death of one of the members. (Compare the discussion for Dmitri Smirnov: no lead material, other than the date.) Saying that the act died with Roy's death would be strange. Didn't it "die" when they retired? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The act died back when, the underlying duo/combo/team lived on (until it died). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, the article structure at the moment is terrible, The Wright brothers structure needs to be followed here. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a go at improving the info box, do you guys prefer that? Govvy (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The looks are fine (but Horn's birth name is missing), but the coding looks confusing, and would some program looking for a person's death ever find Horn's death? - Can infobox person be embedded, into what - the duo is not a person? - Calling for help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * hmm, well I added field for Birth name, info box person has all the correct fields for one person, however because the article is about two individuals it has to use the modules as far as I can see. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps have a different type of infobox, embedding two "person"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It still seems imbalanced. Quite simply, both performers should be given roughly equal detail and visual space, even if that means some omission. We need not bend over backwards to cram cause of death, birth names, or any other data just 'cause it's true. Sometimes less is more, in the aims of making an article and infobox that looks professional. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem is that we haven't sufficiently separated the concept of a performing act with multiple people from the concept of the biographies of the act's members. Yes, of course, we could create an infobox for two people. That would allow us to give information about the act (a duo) and its two members. But what about trios? Look at Wilson, Keppel and Betty, which concentrates more on the act than the biographies. Betty Knox has her own article, but not the others. There's no problem when each individual member has their own article (Simon & Garfunkel, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc.) because you can move all the biographical information into the individual articles.
 * Until we have individual articles for Fischbacher and Horn, there's no good solution beyond trying to fit both individual bios and the act into an infobox using sub-templates. To be honest, I think you've already done as good a job as is likely to be possible. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a good solution: generate consensus here to have a tastefully balanced infobox. There is no rule that every or any field must be filled out, nor that inofboxes are required in biographies at all. We should not assume readers are incapable of reading a prose paragraph, nor let recentism dictate which fields are fleshed out. Decisions should be based on what makes makes the most sense for a given article, not what any other articles have done. I don't think 2 separate biographies are or will be warranted given that the most noteworthy aspects of both subjects is largely identical (should we also separate Bonnie and Clyde?). Individual articles would likely give disproportionate emphasis to relatively trivial details (birth place family, fluff), and be largely redundant on the content that matters. A comprehensive, well-written single article can deftly cover shared and individual aspects as warranted. This article still needs expansion and structural improvements, and is miles away from needing to be split due to size alone. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Usos have a similar act (physical coordination, pageantry, illusion) and one infobox works for them. Not sure inventors, singers and bank robbers are as alike. Could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death
Rockchalk717, the claim you made here is incorrect: Template:Infobox_person/doc explicitly states that cause of death "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability", not just if sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the cause of death is no topic here for lead and infobox, compare the discussion for Dmitri Smirnov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SARMOTI
In the 'Other names' section of the infobox it gives the name "SARMOTI", but this doesn't appear anywhere in the main article. I can work out what it stands for (though that's probably IN:OR !), but does the use of the abbreviation serve any useful purpose? JezGrove (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess "Siegfried and Roy, Masters of the Innerverse". Somewhat confident of the first part. But yeah, infoboxes shouldn't hint at things left unsaid. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checked, six out of seven. Not bad! Since the answer is right there, the acronym is fine (presuming they were ever called that, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doh! There's a SARMOTI disambiguation page which explains a lot but none of the claims are referenced or mentioned in the S&R article. JezGrove (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Got me thinking...is it Siegfried and Roy or Siegfried & Roy? Because as I've said countless times in my years of edit summarizing, ampersands suck. But they're tolerable if they're brand names, I guess. Someone should count up everything ever published on the matter, someday. For now, thanks for sharing the true meaning of "I". Good luck with that box, one way or another! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Original Tiger Kings
Is there any indication that Joe Exotic modeled his persona and his career on these two Tiger Kings? This book contains many parallels between these men, but that could be simply a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.99.62 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the book itself compares somehow, that could be noteworthy. If it only reminds you of the new guy, it's something to think about, just not something for the article. Like how Battle Cat and Battle Kat are strikingly similar once you look past their petty differences. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Who?
I though it was Roy who was attacked by the tiger in 2003; the article says it was someone named "Horn". Who the hell is Horn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I could tell you, but then I'd be blackballed by the copyeditors' guild for spoiling the trick, just sit back and be dazzled, everything is assuredly under control and part of the act. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Release!
 * It is a good question though. Is there evidence that Siegfried and Roy were as mononymous as Beyonce or Madonna? Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One is one, there are no oner, so yeah, mononymously the same. For stage folk, Ingenpedia often uses the shoot surname when things get personal. When Dale "Buddy Roberts" Hey died, crowds were genuinely convinced Ingenpedia had mispelled "he", and took matters into their own hands, repeatedly, until the working name prevailed two Februarys back. But Vader and Hawk are still called "White" and "Hegstrand" where the going gets real. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points. They are way more famous than I thought. I just added a few references because I do that for everybody who comes up in Deaths in 2020 with "German". Few of those (if any) have page views of a million in a month, but Roy 700k+ one day. I saw the show once, - impressive, I must say. Back to the question, Siegfried, Roy, when talking about them as performers on duty, but surnames in private life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, when I first discovered the Internet, I was blown away to learn Vader and Hawk were considered "world champions" for wrestling in actual tents like North American carnies of a century prior. Germany and Austria, small "world", but full of wonder! Also coincidentally (or not), Vader and Buddy died of pneumonia and Hawk complained of fatigue and malaise before going to bed, so if they'd have been Deaths in 2020, they might be considered COVID figures like Roy. Also, two mononyms went down in the record books as COVID mortals yesterday, a different sort of wrestler and a strange kind of singer, two Japanese and one Mexican, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As it relates to style, Yoshio (singer) is simply referred to as generic "he" and Coronavirus is was treated as a proper noun. But pay no attention to the editors behind that curtain. Every article and performer screws up when it's new, practice makes perfect! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Siegfried
https://m.bild.de/unterhaltung/leute/leute/siegfried-fischbacher-tot-magier-stirbt-nach-schwerem-krebsleiden-in-las-vegas-74888518.bildMobile.html

The magician, who became known together with Roy and his white lions, closed his eyes forever on Wednesday evening at 11.30 p.m. German time. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , sorry. BILD is an unreliable source, see Ingenpedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Blablubbs | talk 13:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

How about these sources?

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/duo-siegfried-und-roy-magier-siegfried-fischbacher-ist-tot-17145802.html https://www.innsalzach24.de/bayern/landkreis-rosenheim/magier-siegfried-fischbacher-aus-rosenheim-nach-krebserkrankung-gestorben-90168410.html https://www.nettavisen.no/artikkel/3424074400 https://www.telegraaf.nl/entertainment/54526778/siegfried-81-van-roy-overleden MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo
In the section "Aftermath and retirement": "On March 19, 2014, Montecore died after a brief illness. He was 17 years old.[24]"

The 2nd sentence should be: "He was 71 years old." WDeeraa (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * do you really think the tiger lived to be 71 years old? -- WikiMax (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)