Open main menu
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated B-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Circus (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Nik Wallenda was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed


Spinoff article?Edit

In the GA review above, the reviewer suggested splitting off part of this article into a separate one, due to its length. I think the obvious candidate for a spinoff would be Nik Wallenda's crossing of Niagara Falls. That subsection contains 24 paragraphs of text, easily enough for a separate article. This article would still contain plenty of information on his life and the rest of his career; compare for example the separate articles on Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull Stratos. Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? Robofish (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. This could probably be summarized in three or four paragraphs here, with a link to the main article. Samer (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll put a Niagara split on my agenda. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think you might want to include the recent walk, the below conversation notwithstanding. Even though it wasn't "technically" the Grand Canyon, it is part of his attempt to walk across it. Let me know how I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If the Grand Canyon information was split (which is a viable idea), it would be to a different article (a third article), not the one on Niagara. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I'm sure there's going to be enough information about it to spin off a third article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


The Career section states Wallenda always performs without a safety net or harness, yet the section about the crossing of Niagra Falls seems to directly contradict this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Niagara was the only exception. Perhaps a footnote should be included there to note the exception. Chris857 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Niagara is indeed the sole exception (and was not by choice). I removed the word "always" which should be sufficient to solve the technical contradiction - the use of a harness at Niagara is explained in detail in that section, which makes it clear it was the only time he used one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013Edit

Somebody edited the page to read "Death June 23, 2013" (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ThaddeusB dealt with it here. Thanks. Chris857 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not technically "Grand Canyon" walk?Edit

Did he really cross the Grand Canyon? Or was it the "Little Grand canyon"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really participate in these "talks" so I'm not sure how these things work. I've read a few articles, including one from Forbes & one from the Detroit Free Press, that note it is not actually the Grand Canyon Nik will be walking across. It is the Little Colorado River Gorge. The articles make it clear that it is NOT at the Grand Canyon (it's even part of the headline of the Forbes story). Perhaps this should be corrected, or noted in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion/definition. It's all the same rock formation, but since its outside the Nat'l Park some people consider Wallenda's location to not be part of the GC proper. The AP chose to say "near", which was picked up by many reliable sources (RS) as a result. However, the majority of RS do not make this distinction. We should go with the majority of the sources say, which is "Grand Canyon". The details (outside the national park, over Little Colorado River gorge, etc.) can be and are explained in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to totally agree with the first two editors. Wallenda is unquestionably not crossing the Grand Canyon as this article from Forbes, and several others, clearly explain. Obviously, Wallenda and Discovery want to call it a Grand Canyon walk for marketing puproses, but this is an encylopedia and we need to explain that. Granted, the walk is impressive whether it's across the Grand Canyon or not, but let's not, as editors, fall into the hype. The content should be written so it presents the facts. As editors, we cannot say... well, it's close enough to the Grand Canyon that we can call it the Grand Canyon. Editing like that hurts the project's credibility. So, please, adjust the wording in the lead that says, "On June 23, 2013, he plans to become the first person to high-wire walk across the Grand Canyon." It's simply not true; it's a misrepresentation. And while the "Grand Canyon walk" section does include a line that says, "He will cross the Little Colorado River Gorge in Navajo territory outside Grand Canyon National Park's borders and about 40 miles east of the main tourist facilities", it is casually stuck in the middle of the section rather than being clarified at the very beginning. This is a very important fact and hiding it in the middle of the section like that violates our undue weight policy. The Forbes article says, "The event would not have been approved in Grand Canyon National Park,” says Maureen Oltrogge, the park’s public affairs officer". That fact alone tells the story. Thanks. -- (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Numerous reliable sources say it is the Grand Canyon without qualifiers (far more than qualify it). Neutrality requires sticking to what reliable sources report. (Also, Wikipedia's article on the Little Colorado called the gorge a part of the GC long before the walk was announced, so quite clearly some sources have always considered it a part of the GC.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
See also earlier comment on the issue by User:Traveling Man discussing the same sources: "article talks about Little Colorado River Gorge, but never says that isn't part of the Grand Canyon -- because it is" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thaddeus. While I respect your viewpoint on this, you are the only editor in this discussion who feels that way (so far). And while you claim the Little Colorado article says that it's part of the Grand Canyon, there is absolutely no text in the lead or body of that article that says that. In fact, a photo of the area has a caption that says, "Little Colorado River gorge near Grand Canyon National Park" (emphasis added). The Little Colorado/gorge is not part of the Grand Canyon. And I don't see see any comment from the edtior you alluded to; you didn't show a diff. And the articles do in fact say that the walk is not in the Grand Canyon. -- (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
CTV News just reported, "1,500 feet above the river on the Navajo Nation near the Grand Canyon" (emphasis added). It also says, "Wallenda says he has wondered what it would be like to cross an area he considers the Grand Canyon since he was a teenager" (emphasis added). Obviously, they wouldn't need to say that if it actually is part of the Grand Canyon. ;) -- (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The AP story headline is, "Nik Wallenda To Cross Little Colorado River Gorge, Near Grand Canyon, On Tightrope". Near. The Arizona Star, the state's biggest newspaper, says, "Tightrope artist Wallenda readies walk near Grand Canyon". Near. CBS News say, "Daredevil Nik Wallenda is using the Navajo Nation as a backdrop to one of his most ambitious feats yet — crossing a tightrope 1,500 feet above the Little Colorado River Gorge near the Grand Canyon". Near. -- (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The Little Colorado River Gorge is not part of the Grand Canyon according to the wiki page for Little Colorado River, considering they clearly use the word "near" when describing it. Also, I've seen many more sources claiming it isn't part of the Grand Canyon than those saying it is. A number of those sources have been cited here. Could we be offered links to the reliable sources that claim it is The Grand Canyon, making sure those sources aren't connected to the media outlets promoting the event? Jerichomccune (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For reference, the line of the Little Colorado I was referring to is " The canyon spreads wider as the river runs farther north, becoming an arm of the Grand Canyon, then the river merges with the Colorado deep inside the Grand Canyon, miles from any major settlement". Clearly the article is saying part of the L. CO is part of the GC.
Yes, we have already established that the AP and all sources that reprint it (which would include the Arizona Star) say "near". Most other sources (such as Reuters [1] and all that use it, AFP [2] and all that use it, most papers that write their own articles [3][4][5]) do not make this qualification. Like I previously said, the facts are that 1)its the same rock formation; 2) its outside the Grand Canyon National Park. Anything beyond that is a matter of terminology.
While I am the only person to comment here (in 2 hours, a very short period of time), several editors have explicitly and implicitly supported the unqualified version. User:Radiojon, User:Stuntguy3000, User:23haveblue, User:Mozo182, User:Stismail, User:Elizium23, and User:Anna Frodesiak have all edited the article since the walk - none felt the need to adjust the wording and a couple have endorsed it by updating tense or adding crossing the GC as an accomplishment. User:Traveling Man has explicitly endorsed the wording, removing an aside that said the spot isn't technically part of the GC. The previous consensus is not overridden by an agreement between 3 people in a conversation that is less than 3 hours old. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The Detroit Free Press has updated the article I previously read, removing information. However, the CTV News article (cited above) mentions a protest by some residents, as well as a quote from a community president. They were protesting the advertising that it was a "Grand Canyon" walk.
"Mr. Wallenda needs to buy a GPS or somebody give this guy a map," said Milton Tso, president of the Cameron community on the Navajo Nation. "He's not walking across the Grand Canyon. He's walking across the Little Colorado River Gorge on the Navajo Nation. It's misleading and false advertising." It says something when the locals themselves protest the promotion of this stunt as a "Grand Canyon" walk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
One person complained, that proves nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear - it quoted one person. As I said, it also mentioned a collective protest: "Before the walk, a group of Navajos, Hopis and other Native Americans stood along a nearby highway with signs protesting the event." I do agree on your idea below regarding a compromise, as it is clear that may be the only way to come to some kind of agreement.
Ideally, we need a wording that reflects both that it was described as a Grand Canyon walk by most sources and that it was not universally viewed as such. I am open to suggestions for specific wording. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to chime in again, and maybe put this to rest. According to United States Geological Surveys, "The Little Colorado River eroded deeply into Paleozoic strata exposing nearly 580 m (1,900 ft) of Mississippian to Permian strata and is physio-graphically part of the Grand Canyon area, which begins about 11 km (7 mi) west of Cameron, Arizona." (Page 3 - ) So, according to science, it's perfectly acceptable to call it the Grand Canyon as long as the qualifier explaining that it's a different section than the main grotto is present. I concede the point. Jerichomccune (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
ThaddeusB, it's disappointing that you are ignoring the basic fact, but at least you are open to discussing changes. I'm sorry, but listing a bunch of random editors who have edited the article and claiming they all agree with you simply because they haven't made any changes to the specific content being discussed here is, frankly, ludicrous. That's quite a creative way of attempting to convince us that others agree with you. "Implicitly" is a huge understatment. It's also interesting how you slid in the comment, "removing an aside that said the spot isn't technically part of the GC". Hello? So even an editor who you claim supports your view admits that is not part of the Grand Canyon. Again, "the spot isn't technically part of the GC". I don't understand why you are so fighting so hard to defend the claim that the walk was is in the Grand Canyon, when clearly it was not. -- (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, the comment he removed said it wasn't part. His edit summary said that comment was wrong. That is 100% an agreement. And someone who adds the text "first person to cross the Grand Canyon" most certainly does implicitly endorse the position. (You've also ignored all sources that disagree with your stance.) And User:Jerichomccune has now provided a US Gov't source saying it is acceptable to call the are in question part of the GC. Again, what is needed is wording that adequately reflects the situation - not simply sated GC w/o any explanation, but also not saying it is not part of the GC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, he removed accurate information. You keep spinning what sources and editors say and do. Jericho showed a primary source that said it is part of the area, not part of the Grand Canyon. Of course it's in the Grand Canyon area, but it's not part of the Grand Canyon. But you merged your comment out of chronological order above my example about living in Los Angeles vs. living in the Los Angeles area. I guess you're saying that the biggest newspaper in Arizona, where the Grand Canyon is located, chose to print an AP story that is incorrect? Because it says the Wallenda's walk was near the Grand Canyon, like dozens of other reliable sources. -- (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion, he removed accurate information. I seriously doubt that is his view of his edit, and it certainly isn't mine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Jerichomccune, thanks for your input. Exactly, part of the Grand Canyon area, but not part of the Grand Canyon. That's like living in the Los Angeles area, but not actually living in Los Angeles. -- (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
And if you live in the LA suburbs and say "I live in LA" no one will say "you liar, you don't live within city limits". If you could specify wording that will satisfy your concerns, while addressing all the available info, I would appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Coasterghost (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Already listed above. Numerous sources go both ways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Correct Coasterghost, Navajo Tribal Park is on the land of the Navajo Nation, near Cameron, Arizona. The tribal park, while a close neighbor of the Grand Canyon, is not, not, not part of the Grand Canyon. -- (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, If you could please suggest wording that satisfies your POV while taking into account all facts I would appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Although most sources used the terminology 'Grand Canyon Walk' to describe the event, this is contentious to some because the Little Colorado River Gorge is located on Navajo Nation land and the Grand Canyon proper is located on land owned by the United States National Park Service.CTV News Although the area is technically part of the Grand Canyon United States Geological Surveys, local naming conventions describe them as two separate geological features." Jerichomccune (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the primary source I cited states "The map area is locally subdivided into six physiographic areas: the Grand Canyon (including the Little Colorado River Gorge), Coconino Plateau, Marble Plateau, Little Colorado River Valley, Moenkopi Plateau, and the San Francisco Volcanic Field as defined by Billingsley and others..." which seems to me that, geologically, the LCRG is part of the GC - at least according to geologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerichomccune (talkcontribs) 04:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I just found this PDF, which is the formal announcement of Wallenda's walk from the Navajo Nation's official website. It's listed on their Press Releases page as "06/11/13 - A Dream Come True". Not a single mention of the Grand Canyon, even though it was fully hyped as a Grand Canyon walk. -- (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you think people who visit that tribal park (but not the Grand Canyon) tell people that they went to the Grand Canyon? Of course not. And obviously, if the tribal park was part of the Grand Canyon, don't you think the Navajo Nation would fully exploit that point for marketing/advertising purposes? They don't even mention the words Grand Canyon. -- (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, if you don't supply a wording - there is nothing to act on... I have changed the description to On June 23, 2013, Wallenda crossed the Little Colorado River Gorge in Navajo territory outside Grand Canyon National Park's borders about 40 miles east of the main tourist facilities.[20][90] Some media reports described the location as simply "the Grand Canyon", while others described it as a "gorge near the Grand Canyon."[91][92] The United States Geological Survey describes the location as part of the "Grand Canyon area."[93] I think that accurately reflects the situation. If anyone disagrees, please say specifically how you'd like it to change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I supplied wording earlier (Although most sources used the terminology 'Grand Canyon Walk' to describe....), but yours is just as good (or even better), so no worries. Jerichomccune (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thaddeus, I just saw that you made some edits to clarify the situation, which is a great start! All I'm asking for is fairness, balance, and accuracy. However, I strongly object to the line in the "Canyon walk" section that says Wallenda "secured permits to walk across the Grand Canyon". At it's worst, that's a complete lie; at the least, it's a gigantic misrepresenation. That wording is extremely misleading to the average reader. He never got permits to "walk across the Grand Canyon". In fact, many sources explain how he did not get permits to walk across the GC, including park officials being quoted. The article needs to explain this. In any case, from what I've seen so far, I greatly appreciate your willingness to remedy the clear problems with some of the wording! -- (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The permits in question were from 2008, likely not even the same location. The only source on said permits says "Grand Canyon" without qualification. However I will change it simply to "canyon". But, please stop with the hyperbole about "complete lies" and such. As has been clearly demonstrated, different people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions. To say one position is a complete lie is insulting and unnecessary. Technically, he did get permits to cross the Grand Canyon (rock formation). Granted, that is not what people think when they hear the words "Grand Canyon" which is why it needs explained. I have also said from my first comment on that we need to explain the situation, reflecting RS as best we can.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the "complete lie" reference was about the text only, so I stand by that comment. I was in no way implying that any editors purposely added that content with the intent of misleading readers. :) -- (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I would kindly request that the Forbes story, which mulitiple editors have mentioned, be used as one of the sources in the opening paragraph of the "Canyon walk" section. If we're being neutral, we must agree that for every source that calls it Grand Canyon, we can find another source that says it's near the Grand Canyon. Many of the media outlets are simply reciting the catchphrase used to hype the event ("Grand Canyon walk"). The ones using the qualifier "near" obviously did so strategically. Let's be honest, Wallenda and Discovery knew that calling it the "Little Colorado walk" wouldn't have been nearly as impactful as calling it the "Grand Canyon walk". ;) -- (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Both of the cited articles already make it pretty clear that they disagree with it being called the Grand Canyon. The article from The Telegraph even quotes the "buy him a GPS or give him a map" line. I think adding Forbes as a third source would just be redundant. Jerichomccune (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It's highly contentious content, so more cites than normal should be used. And the Forbes story quotes the Grand Canyon official and explains why Wallenda did not get a permit from them. Please add the Forbes cite. I think Thaddeus is doing an excellent job in helping to bring this matter to full resolution. Thanks. -- (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thaddeus, you asked for specific wording suggestions, so for the lead I would request the following. Instead of saying, "On June 23, 2013, he became the first person to high-wire walk across the Grand Canyon (crossing Little Colorado Gorge up river from Grand Canyon National Park)", I would change it slightly to match the good wording you used in the body. My suggested wording would be: "On June 23, 2013, he became the first person to high-wire walk across the Little Colorado River Gorge in Navajo territory near Grand Canyon National Park." Doing this, and adding the Forbes cite to the opening paragraph (which I requested above), should put an end to this matter. :) -- (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have used a bit different wording that suggested for the lead to (IMO) better make the GC connection, while not stating is was the Grand Canyon. I also adding the Park's spokesman's comment. Let me know if all concerns are met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Nicely done! This is obviously a contentious issue, so the fact that you patiently and courteously endured this process, and continued to make corrective updates, is highly commendable. Thank you. -- (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Great. Thank you (and Jerichomccune) for helping to make the article better by working out a wording acceptable to all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot of the Grand Canyon WalkEdit

I took a few snapshots of the walk, should we include one? Coasterghost (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, there are plenty of free images of Wallenda available - it is not crucial to have a GC image. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

High quality images of Nik WallendaEdit

Please see:

These are great shots. The photostream is:

I would like to upload some or all of these Nik Wallenda images, but want to be absolutely sure they're okay. It's unusual to see such good shots tagged as "Attribution", which they are. I want to be sure they are his. I personally think they are. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

These are press photos. The user is inaccurately claiming the right to release them under CC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Phew! I'm glad I asked. Thank you very much for the quick reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominated to appear on "in the news" section of front pageEdit

I have nominated Nik Wallenda to appear on the "in the news" section of Wikipedia's front page. Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Nik_Wallenda_high_wire_walk_across_the_Grand_Canyon to comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

German rootsEdit

I would be good if we ad that he as German roots. --Thaodan (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Birth nameEdit

The official Flying Wallendas website at refers to "Nicholas Troffer dba Nik Wallenda." In other words, his name is Nicholas Troffer but he does business as Nik Wallenda. This seems like a valid reference and also makes sense logically. His mother's last name is Wallenda and his father's last name is Troffer. This is an undisputed fact. Also, in the recent Discovery Channel documentary about his grand canyon stunt, his mother, Delilah Wallenda Troffer, repeatedly referred to him as "Nicholas." I think this fact should be included in the article. It's fine to keep the title as "Nik Wallenda" since that's his stage name. His real name should also be referenced. --Crunch (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, its not the official website of the Wallenda family, as there is none. It is a page set up by a Wallenda, sure, but its not reliable for Nik's legal name. There are actually some in the family who view themselves as the only true Wallendas (stemming from a messy divorce a couple generations back) and thus would seek to diminish the claim to the name of others. Delilah is on the "wrong" side of the family. I'm not saying that is going on - just that we can't be sure. Equally possible, the person wrote off their memory or understanding of the situation. Whatever the cause, they are wrong as a matter of fact - Nik is not now doing business under an assumed name.
The articles of incorporation for Nik Wallenda's business (Wallendas Inc.) lists his legal name as "Nikolas Wallenda". That means if he was born Troffer, he legally changed his name at some point (and meaning he most certainly is not "doing business as" currently). Early press reports (from when he was a kid performing with the family) variously list name as "Wallenda", "Troffer", "Wallenda-Troffer", or "Troffer-Wallenda", so it is very difficult to determine what his birth name was. It is better to say nothing than to engage in possible inaccuracies when the truth is unclear. (His first name almost certainly has always been Nikolas not Nicholas, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, that doesn't cut it. A small explanation would be appropriate.Longinus876 (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A small explanation of what? My original research doesn't belong in the article (and is inconclusive). If you know of a reliable source that says anything about Wallenda's birth name, I would love to see it, but without a source we can't say anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A small explanation that Wallenda is not his original name, and that he chose to use the name instead of Troffer.Longinus876 (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As explained above, we need a source that says he was born Troffer if the article is going to make that claim. I put a good deal of effort into researching this last year and could find nothing close to definitive about whether he was born Troffer or Wallenda or Wallenda-Troffer. While I think it is probable that his birth certificate reads Troffer, I have no source that says as much, so it is my original research/speculation and doesn't belong in the article. It is well within the realm of possibility that early sources that say Troffer were simply wrong b/c the author inferred he would have the same last name as his father (an equal or greater number of sources from the same time period use Wallenda and a few use Wallenda-Troffer). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In your "good deal of research" did you happen to notice that his fathers name is Troffer? That would indicate that HIS name is Troffer. Not WALLENDA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, babies don't automatically inherit the name of their father by law or something - parents decide what name their baby takes. While rare, children sometimes are assigned their mother's last name at birth. Is it probable that Nik's last name was Troffer at birth? Sure. Do we need a source that says it before we can assert as much in the article? Absolutely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The man is from this country. Here, that's what we do. What is your problem?
My "problem" is that according to policy, we need reliable sources for information. "Here" (Wikipedia) we don't just write whatever we think is true. (And for the record, not all babies born in the United States share the same last name as their father. In particular, when the baby's mom is famous and its dad is not [like here], often the mother's last name is chosen.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. If you don't believe me that it is NOT a given that Nik's birthname is Troffer, please see this 1987 New York Times article which notes "Parents are free to devise any name they wish for their children" and lists numerous examples of children (of married parents) getting their mother's last name at birth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't this section be split per WP:FORK? Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Return to "Nik Wallenda" page.