Talk:Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

Working on it
I'm working on this article. I still have a lot more work to do. I'll take any comments. I'm also going to write a separate article on the pre-merged Barnum & Bailey circus. Joe 18:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * kudos. I have a decent pic to add.  I'll put it up later this weekend. SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

corporate espionage section?
Looks like some weird stories about espionage deals there, against this lady and also PETA. Do these belong in a section, or maybe an external link?

Washington Post 11/2005

Salon 8/2001

i am looking for any pictures or posters of the great red dale, this was my grandfather, (charles kenneth dippel)

removed animal abuse allegations
I removed this text: In support of these charges, critics point out that Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus has failed to meet 

 minimal federal standards for the care of animals used in exhibition as established in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Ringling paid $20,000 to settle U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) charges of failing to provide veterinary care to a dying baby elephant. The USDA has also cited Ringling for failure to possess records of veterinary care, failure to provide animals with sufficient space, failure to provide animals with exercise, and endangering tigers who were nearly baked alive in a boxcar because of poor maintenance of their enclosures. Ringling is under investigation for the death of a 2-year-old lion who is believed to have died from heatstroke. In less than two years, two baby elephants died, a caged tiger was shot to death, a horse who was used despite a chronic medical condition died during Ringling’s traditional animal march and a wild-caught sea lion was found dead in her transport container

from the article. All this stuff may be true, but it's also fatally one-sided for our NPOV. PETA has their own attack pages for the circus, they don't need Wikipedia to be their mouthpiece as well. SchmuckyTheCat 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

question about removed animal abuse allegations
I don't understand how publishing documentation of Allegations of Animal Abuse at RBBB either supports or attacks the circus; or what it has to do with PETA. It is simply documentation of the topic. Please explain. Bob98125 09:35 23 march 2006

I also don't think it violates NPOV (and it doesn't go nearly as far as PETA would). If nobody objects, I may put it back sometime soon. If people do thhink it is too one-sided, then instead of removing it, add some information from whatever you perceive as the 'other' side to balance it out. puppies_fly 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I say, add it back. It is fully cited, and neutral. 67.87.83.149 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's back. puppies_fly 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it. It gives undue weight to the animal rights POV.  How does this list of complaints stack against other large organizations that keep animals?  Nothing here states whether this is more or less than normal for farms, zoos, other circuses, etc.
 * Additionally, fix the citations so they work. SchmuckyTheCat 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The allegations seem to be from the early 90's and are not balanced with any response from RBBB. Is there any recent news on how RBBB treats their animals? Mytwocents 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

either way, the current statement about animal rights abuse allegations leaves a lot to be desire, saying that it's a "waste of time" and that the leaflets have "false information" without any documentations of either, especially the second part.

there's lots of recent news about Ringling Brothers treatment of animals. There is a pending lawsuit against Ringling Brothers and evidences are coming in from as recent as 2006 http://www.circuses.com/ringling.asp, http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/ringling_memphis.html


 * hsus, and peta. yeah, that's a neutral source. SchmuckyTheCat

SchmuckyTheCat clearly is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.71.36 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please protect
The animal right zealots keep attacking it.--Hailey 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken link
The new format link in this sentence no longer seems to work. Is it appropriate to simply remove it?

"In 2006, for the 136th edition, the Blue Tour started with an entirely new format.[1] "

Recent edits
Sorry, I accidently reverted the "as advertised" text - that is good you're replaced it.

I don't see too much difference between "The circus was a success..." compared to "The circus was a resounding success" but there is no way to quantify "resounding" so I really think that it expresses a point of view that can't be documented, but it 's not a big deal. You could say it was a "financial" success if there was a reference to back that up, or "attendance increased" if that could be documented. It's just that "resounding" is a bit of a wesal word.

The sentence "He immediately began making other changes to improve the quality and profitability of the show." is not clear at all. Who does "he" refer to? In the previous paragraph four or five people are mentioned. Which one is he? I imagine that it must be one of the Felds, but who "he" refers to really should be clarified. I guess that he made changes to improve the quality as he saw it, but there is a bit of a judgement involved which makes it slightly POV - but again, no big deal.

" 2008 will see the Blue show beginning a two-year tour with the "All-New" 138th Edition titled "Over the Top" featuring a "tug-of-war" between ringmaster Chuck Wagner and clown Tom Dougherty." Unless this has already happened, it can't be correct to say it will happen unless you're a fortuneteller - it makes more sense to say that these are the plans for 2008, if they happen, it can be changed, but as it stands it sounds like a prediction more than a plan.

Thanks to SchmuckyTheCat for adding other references. The one from Feld against cruelty accusations is pretty self-serving and POV, however as long as it says that they claim or insist about this, I think that balances it out.Bob98133 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding AWA reference, cleanup
Details of change 1/18/08:

Removed "conservation and (see below)" text from section on accusations of animal cruelty since that is covered elsewhere.

Removed wordy text from reference by corporation that owns Ringling and replaced with title of section on which reference appears. The page itself is not clearly named (Untitled document).

Added reference to Animal Welfare Act about the handling of animals during public exhibition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob98133 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert this.


 * 1) conservation: This isn't removed. I'll remove the "see below" self-reference as bad writing.
 * 2) wordy text: this answers the criticism. If the text doesn't belong in the reference, it belongs in the article next to the claim.
 * 3) animal welfare act:this is unreliable and original. In essence, YOU are claiming that the circus is violating the law, but the law enforcement is not claiming this.  You're citation is to the law itself, a primary source that isn't making any claims about the circus.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Why would conservation stay in the section about accusations of animal abuse? It is discussed immediately below and bears no relevance to the subhead.


 * 1) long reference - I thought that it was normal to cite the source, not to quote an entire section of the source. When you look at the reference section at the bottom, it looks like a whole new paragraph, not a reference. The title of the document it comes from would be sufficient, but the doc doesn't have a title, so I thought that the sub-head made more sense. I don't recall seeing many references that go on and on like this (although I obviously haven't seen most references)
 * 2) AWA - I didn't claim anything - my text stated that critics of the circus claim this. The rationale you're using could be used to remove the entire section since it is "accusations" not law.

I think your changes should be reverted (not the *see below* thing - that's terrible) but the rest of it, but let's see if there is more discussion and if we can reach some concensus.Bob98133 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
The animal section is now on the other side and seems just to be a sheild for Ringling and mentions nothing of past court cases. I'll remove the section if nothing can be fixed. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The AWA violations, lawsuits, etc were in there awhile ago, along with abuse accusations, but as I recall they were challenged as POV or not properly documented. I agree that this section should be expanded. Since the head is "accusations of.." I think that a credible accusation should be sufficient.Bob98133 (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals
This article appears to be very biased toward the circus, dismissing the very true allegations against Ringling Bros. The "Greatest Show on Earth" has been cited many times by the USDA on animal cruelty charges, including preventable deaths of elephants and tigers, failure to provide proper food and veterinary care, and many others. Most animals in circuses are captured from the wild and separated from their families. They spend their whole lives in chains and in cages they can barely turn around in. To force these animals to perform unnatural tricks in shows, they are whipped and punctured with bullhooks. I would recommend someone edits this article to mention some of the circus's violations of animal welfare laws. They can site as a source the great amount of material on this subject on websites such as PETA's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PETA is not exactly a reliable source. They're known to stretch the source and mix footage and claims.
 * I don't think the article is biased towards the circus. But to people who come expecting a lot of negative material about animals, it will seem that way.  The article has the right amount of material now, in balance to the entirety of the subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I agree that PETA has an agenda, so isn't a great source for facts about circus cruelty. however, as a major animal rights group I think that their opinion that the Ringling circus is cruel to animals can be included, as long as it is noted that "PETA claims..." However, I think that documented evidence of problems with animal treatment should be included. Unfortunately, sometimes these documents only appear to exist on PETA or other advocacy group websites, but if they are .pdf's or exact copies of USDA or other government documents, I think that they should be included. Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem sourcing to PDFs. The current paragraph could use a source or two just to flesh it out (though what it says is obvious and non-contested).  This section could be expanded, the problem is keeping it NPOV, balanced in length to the rest of the article, and not a laundry list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * If PETA is not a reliable source, why is the Circus's own web page a reliable source? No company will have damaging information on its own web site, especially concerning a touchy topic like this.24.118.170.221 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to have the circus POV in the article, provided it is noted that it is their claim or contention. The circus web pages are only reliable insofar as they describe the circus POV. If the circus POV is included, then it is reasonable to include referenced objections or news items which dispute this. A PETA web page saying the cirucs is cruel is not of much use, but if they post a .pdf of a USDA Inspection Report or some other acknowledged 3rd party authority, that would be acceptible, per discussion above. Bob98133 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PETA's view does not matter in the least and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be written about in an article on another subject. The subject is the circus. The subject is NOT about animal cruelty or PETA's views. You need to learn how to write articles before you try and add politics into one. This article is also NOT a political agenda like PETA. PETA has views on a lot of things and if that's the case, write it in their article but leave it out where it doesn't belong. Their views do not matter and have not made any influence on the circus whatsoever, so they do not belong here. End of story. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not insert your discussion into an existing discussion. Please refrain from personal comments. Please reference your ridiculous remarks. If there are accusations of animal cruelty about the Ringling Brothers Circus, then PETA is a valid source for claiming those, provided they are presented as claims and the source is noted. Excuse me, but isn't Ringling on trial right now for animal cruelty and alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act? Maybe Ringling web site doesn't mention that, but it does seem relevant to an article about this circus. Bob98133 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I am not allowed to join into the conversation? I still say that the subject is Ringling Brothers and NOT PETA. Calling my remarks ridiculous doesn't make PETA valid at all. This is not a forum for political debate neither should that be in the article. I still stand by my word despite you trying to belittle me. PETA has made no influence in Ringling Brothers and so it does not belong here.MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Having been involved with other (non-Wiki) discussions about animal rights, animal abuse and PETA, may I make an observation? There are (at least) two completely irreconcilable positions, here: Those who believe that animal suffering is on the same level of importance as human suffering, and those who believe is it not. These are adamant "faith" positions, and I have never, in discussion, observed someone change -- or even shift -- their point of view in any material way. To one group, animal abuse is a crime, and to another, it largely doesn't make a difference. I suggest this is WP:BATTLEGROUND, and can never be resolved. It suffices for the article to mention briefly that there have been repeated challenges to the circus' statements it treats animals well, and that the challenges have resulted in a large fine. Leptus Froggi (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference
I had no choice but to remove what was reference 10. The URL was http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIvnEu-D_CqeGOboBYNAvQvp8EvQD96MTJS80 and says the article was removed. I checked the Internet Archive who also has no record of it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was an AP article that appeared lots of places. I replaced it with a new link that works. I also added a ref for that ph above that alleges mistreatment by animal rights groups. Since this is a remark about what animal rights groups allege, the reference from a PETA web site should be acceptible, even though it would normally be considered POV, it states their alleged objections. Bob98133 (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ringmasters?
Drawn Some - good job on the ringmaster table, but is all that info necessary in this article? It doesn't really say anything about the Ringling circus, per se. I think that this section bloats the article without providing much real info. Perhaps it could be spun off into a separate article of Ringling Brothers Ringmasters? Bob98133 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The separate article was deleted and someone decided to push the information here. Nice of anyone to notify the regular editors here of that possibility, it belonged as a separate article like you suggest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I just want to say, that Alex Ramon is NOT an official ringmaster! He was credited as Zingmaster and does not appear in the ringmasters-list on ringling.com. After Chuck Wagner there comes Brian Crawford Scott and not Alex Ramon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringmaster93 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

longest privately owned trains
A quick search revealed that Ringling circus trains are not the longest privately owned trains. Ringling Brothers is an unreliable source for information like this - any business claim of the largest, biggest, greatest, etc. must be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, there are probably other, longer privately owned trains elsewhere in the world. Ringling can call themselves "the greatest show on earth" because it is an advertising slogan, however unlikely it may be. Bob98133 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it four or five Ringling Brothers who started their circus?
The article mentions "Five of the seven Ringling brothers started a small circus in 1884" and then later "the four who founded the circus".  D r e a m Focus  22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the answer on the official website.  It was started by five of them, another joining two years later, and the seventh two years after that.   D r e a m Focus  22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy links are not references?
Schmucky - I agree with your removal of the EL to the PETA anti-Ringling page - that's not an appropriate EL here. However, your removal of the link to the Ringling video taken by PETA should stay, I think. I put that link up - I thought it was just to the video, not to other advocacy stuff - I don't know where only the video might exist. I think that a link to the video is appropriate when referencing the existence of a PETA undercover video, even if the video is only available on a PETA website, since the text states that PETA allege's mistreatment. If it's just the video, as released, I don't see any down side, or reason it shouldn't be referenced as long as its source and alleged content are clearly noted. Bob98133 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This recent brouhaha with PETA accusing Ringling so far is just PETA making noise. I'm more inclined to think animal rights accusations don't belong here unless followed up by regulatory organizations. As written it is two sentences, and the existing single reference is to PETA's media press release. That single reference is all that is necessary.  The second link, to the video, is not just a link to the video.  It is a link to an advocacy page, urging people to fill out a web form, write letters, and make phone calls to government officials.  That is not an appropriate reference and if people want to see the video, they will find it from the press release. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Sorry about misspelling your name (I should stick to cut-and-paste). As I said, I agree about advocacy link being inappropriate, but still think that direct link to the video is acceptible. However, I agree that this can wait to see if any action is taken by regulatory agencies. Bob98133 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal Care
This section is confusing--partially, because the events are out of chronological order. If it's going to be like that, then at least the events should each have a year attached (for example, the issue with Benjamin and the lion who died when traveling in the desert) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.103.145 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Gold Tour
Shouldn't the Gold Tour be listed on the main page under the Ringmasters section? Dawg1279 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had the data, I don't see why not Epistemophiliac (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved talk content from Talk:Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus
I've moved content from Talk:Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus to this page ... for whatever reason the talk page doesn't seem to have been moved when the article was. Everything up to the Neutrality heading is from the old talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Animcal care trimming
I just removed several items from the animal care section based on the following criteria:
 * one-sided complaints that weren't substantiated by the regulating authority - specifically two complaints by PETA. PETA can make as much noise as they want and always will, but it doesn't belong here if it had no result.
 * deleted image is deleted.
 * a lawsuit with no relevance or substantiation after several years. In the United States anybody can sue anybody. Unless this suit had some result, it's just another venue for shock and publicity.
 * added a cite tag to an investigation. All other investigations in the article had a concrete finding and a fine or other regulatory action. This sentence needs one.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why Three Different Articles
about the Ringling Brothers circus?

Wikipedia has articles on Ringling Brothers, on Ringling Brothers Circus and on Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. Suggest they be merged. What other commercial venture gets this much play? 4.246.200.154 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Too much material to merge and each article is clearly distinguishably independent subject matter. There are also articles about the clown college and elephant sanctuary. You must have missed some. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hartford fire
"The great irony of the fire was that the performance took place under canvas. Had the crowd realized it, safety was no farther away than ducking out under the sidewalls of the tent." -- This statement not only is grossly inaccurate and unsourced, but it directly contradicts the separate Wikipedia entry on the Hartford fire. 24.118.76.70 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it. Looks like it was someone's best guess. Dcs002 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. 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/20110912051800/http://www.changthai.com/information/famous-elephant.php to http://www.changthai.com/information/famous-elephant.php

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 19:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Animal care section changed
In the paragraph starting 'Many animal welfare...' the very last sentence read 'These claims are refuted by the circus.' I have deleted this sentence since there was no source backing it. The attached reference to circuses.com is associated with PETA, it is no longer an active URL, and a check on the Internet Archive shows it had nothing to say about Ringling Bros' alleged refutation of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honey.r.almond (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Desperado's terrible leap for life
as I mentioned here (before a page move), it looks like there should be a mention of this act, and possibly a link from the disambiguation page for desperado to that section too. I should probably get around to it but I've not found time for it yet. EdwardLane (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Soooo is it ever possible to find out what actually happened to Desperado?? Thank you very much in advance. 174.251.64.93 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Last performance
After 146 years 1 month and 11 days April 10, 1871 Ringling Brothers Barnam & Bailey "The Greatest Show On Earth" last performance May 21, 2017 can be seen on YouTube:
 * May 21, 2017 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Final Preformance {YouTube}

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/master.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalhistorymag.com%2Fhtmlsite%2Feditors_pick%2F1951_10_pick.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611203430/http://www.ringling.com/explore/history/bailey_2.aspx to http://www.ringling.com/explore/history/bailey_2.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2003%2F05%2F11%2FBU18813.DTL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514181208/http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/08/30/circus/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/08/30/circus/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011%2F11%2F0494.xml&contentidonly=true
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigstory.ap.org/article/df575148221544f4adaf3bea2adbb635/apnewsbreak-ringling-bros-eliminating-elephant-acts

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Suzy, the tiger.
In says in the article that Suzy was a Siberian tiger. https://nypost.com/2017/09/07/tiger-killed-in-suburbs-was-a-circus-star-named-suzy/ This link and many others state she was a Bengal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.78.140 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

history of barnum&bailey || mentioned at television broadcast ARTE germany
this day, 9th of december 2021 a program by ARTE TELEVISION concerns about the caribean island MARTINIQUE where about 1909 cc happens an outbreak of its most spectacular volcano.

in this episode is shown an original poster of a tour by barnum&bailey circus with one of only two survivants of that outbreak at all - - - although assumingly a legend.

obviously the b&b circus management persuaded 1 of the survivants from MARTINIQUE to join that tour with the interest to bring to consciousness this dramatical event for the spectators of their own show format concept.

2.247.252.211 (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)