Talk:Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circus WikiProject 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.
High This article is on a subject of High-importance within Circus.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] minimal federal standards for the care of animals used in exhibition as established in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [2] Ringling paid $20,000 to settle U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) [3] charges of failing to provide veterinary care to a dying baby elephant. [4] [5] The USDA has also cited Ringling for failure to possess records of veterinary care,[6] failure to provide animals with sufficient space,[7] failure to provide animals with exercise,[8] and endangering tigers who were nearly baked alive in a boxcar because of poor maintenance of their enclosures.[9] Ringling is under investigation for the death of a 2-year-old lion who is believed to have died from heatstroke.[10] In less than two years, two baby elephants died,[11] a caged tiger was shot to death,[12] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Please protect

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

[edit] 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] "

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)