Talk:P. T. Barnum

Museum

As I understand it, Barnum's "American Museum" in New York was not a museum in the modern sense: it was a combination of a theater space, sensationalistic side-show type exhibits, and a bit of a freak show. Does anyone have anything more solid on this? And on its dates of operation? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC) According to author Candice Fleming §, Barnum bought the failing John Scudder American Museum, on the corner of Ann and Broadway Streets, based on a promise to pay over time. The museum opened with great fanfare on January 1 1842. The building exterior was transformed the night before the opening by hanging bright colored plaques on the walls and dozens of flags around the roof. He installed a large spotlight, illuminated by burning lime (Limelight) on the roof that could be seen for miles. On the second floor balcony he hired a brass band to play, but not as you might expect. The music was played in an ear splitting disagreeable manner. To the folks who complained about the racket Barnum said, "What else do you expect for nothing?" He then invited them to pay a 25 cent admission price to behold the wonders inside. There were 9 distinct spaces, seven of which he called Saloons: Entrance Hall, Seven Grand Saloons, and The Moral Lecture Hall (to distinguish it from the bawdy reputation of most theaters of the time). The museum was a huge success and a New York attraction until it burned July 13, 1865.

 Bobcoiltrb (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)bobcoiltrb

References

What is the meaning of success?

In the last paragraph of the article we read: ... Barnum was elected to the Connecticut legislature in 1865 as the Republican representative for Fairfield and served two successful terms. Could someone elaborate on the meaning of "successful" in this context, which is not really obvious. Hi There 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was vague and subjective; I removed it. Staib 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was simply the wrong word. Author meant successive, i.e., back-to-back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:5321:CD81:81AE:8CD5:C525:559D (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Examples of hoaxs and more citations needed

As he was so famous for his hoaxes, I think that more mention or a list of them is needed to make the article better. I would also like to see citations for sentences such as his autobiography being 2nd only to the New Testament, as this certainly seems like some self promoting hoax that he would have perpetrated, and could have travelled down history in mythical fashion. A photo of one of the hoaxes, or of his menagerie would give some flavour to the article, as he was such a colourful character.

AmyNelson 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that examples of hoaxes won't/shouldn't be included, but I agree on just a little more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.45.58 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe he died twice!

I noticed that at the top it states death "April 12, 1891" and at the bottom it states "April 7, 1891." Which is it? 96.39.82.183 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Susan

Now I'm curious. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC) says April 7. Not sure where the April 12 date is coming from yet. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC) NYT obit (subscription only, but dated April 8) agrees with 7th. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From most sources that I found, they all say he died on April 7, 1891. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.45.58 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal life and death

Dates for first child's birth: both 1830 and 1833 are listed - which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzQ! (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Most pages I saw said 1833, and I saw much less sources say 1830. I personally think it's 1833 50.227.45.58 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Author and debunker section grammar

The phrasing "as long as the public was getting value for money" should probably be "as long as the public was getting value for their money" Thisdaytrivia (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discovered Plagiarism and How to Fix it

I have found that the section titled "Role in politics and minstrel shows" was copied from New World Encyclopedia. Before discovering this I was going to mention some additions such as P.T. Barnum's campaign speech addressing slavery and some tricks Barnum pulled while in the general assembly to provide more political information. With my recent discovery, I am going to find more citations and restructure this section, separating the two topics and providing more information on minstrel shows as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorn2 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Barnum in the Connecticut State Legislature

There is quite a bit of confusion in the article regarding Barnum's legislative service. There's a reference to Barnum's serving in "Congress" which I assume is an error and should refer to the Connecticut State Legislature. There is a reference to Barnum's being elected to the Legislature for two terms while in another place it said four terms. The article states that Barnum served in the Legislature from 1866 to 1869, but there's a discussion of his being the legislative sponsor a law passed in 1879.

Before I try to untangle this from scratch (probably after the library here reopens), is there anyone who's been editing the article who has the sources handy and could help clean this up? Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

This article should be checked to ensure a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Barnum is painted in an overwhelmingly positive light, and all mentions of the famously documented abuse of his so-called "freaks" are omitted. There is also no mention of Joice Heth, the African American woman who was sold to and exploited by Barnum. According to the Wikipedia article on Heth, her "toothless mouth was a result from Barnum forcefully extracting her teeth so that she would look older." It is shocking that this article does not include any of the examples that have been cited of him being a manipulative, exploitative, and potentially racist person. AzureWizard (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I think specifically WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE are not being followed in this article, since it makes no mention of his negative qualities or alleged human rights violations that are well-documented. AzureWizard (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Archive?

There is a lot of sections in this talk page, some new, some old, so i'm looking for consensus to use a archiving bot, would anyone agree to proceed? Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think we will be getting many responses though. 50.227.45.58 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Joice Herth

Why is there no mention of Joice Herth and the abuse she suffered at P.T. Barnums' hands? There's a direct link from Joice Herth Wikipedia to this page so why is she not mentioned? Thanks. 176.35.19.219 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

how he was viewed

it doesn’t say how he was viewed as a person during the 19th century. 82.40.31.152 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I really wanna know…

In the movie “the greatest showman” he was portrayed as a kind guy who liked giving chances to many others who looked different from society. I wanna know, was he really that kind? Tobygee023 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section

With all the controversy surrounding PT Barnum, his mistreatment of people like Joice Herth and other people he "employed", and his portrayal in the "Greatest Showman" being a bit "public image washing". Why not create a Controversy or Critical backlash section on this article like it was done in Marion Zimmer Bradley or Enid Blyton's page? (Marion Zimmer Bradley#Child sex abuse allegations and Enid Blyton#Critical backlash) 45.133.127.9 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I second this idea. I think a "Controversies" or "Criticisms" would be a good section to add. AzureWizard (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I third He's too glorified by people like hugh Jackman and such. 49.3.1.103 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

He's the human embodiment of Pure evil and should not be viewed as a role model 49.3.1.103 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the guy who called him a con artist

I was genuinely going to do worse 49.3.1.103 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)