Talk:Hartford circus fire

Connecticut C‑class Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Disaster management Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Stars and Stripes Forever

The link to John Philip Sousa's "The Stars and Stripes Forever" takes me to a disambiguation page, and when I tried to change it to link directly to the March, it didn't work (red link). Can somebody fix this? 24.17.77.57 23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - worked first time for me :-) Dominic Jackson 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC) hi[reply]

Waterproofing

Can someone pin down what was used to waterproof the tent? It just seems odd to me that in time of war, 6,000 gallons of gas would be available for such a purpose. I also understand from somewhere that the Army had denied Ringling Brothers some type of better, more flame retardant material because it was needed for the war effort. However, after the fire, the Army supplied the circus with the material. Does anyone have a source for that? --As for a source, see the State Fire Marshal report filed at the time. Cmr Hickey obtained detailed testimony from Ringling officials about the annual treatment of the big top at the "sail loft" in Sarasota before each tour. That testimony is available for public review at CT State Library in Hartford.

According to NPR: "It was waterproofed with a mixture of gasoline and wax, causing the tent to be completely consumed in less than 10 minutes." [1] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-06 13:41Z

A common waterproofing at the time was paraffin mixed with gasoline or kerosene. It may have been the only waterproofing they could get. 6000 gallons of gasoline is not a huge amount compared to what a circus burns. The circus probably had a ration of fuel, and some of it was used for waterproofing. Randall Bart Talk 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable survivors

Was Emmett Kelly the clown a survivor of the fire? The Wikipedia article for Kelly mentions a famous photo of him trying to extinguish the flames of the circus fire. — Mmathu 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) --Emmett Kelly survived the blaze. The famous photo shows him assisting in the battle against the fire by using water from a bucket, but the fire was already beyond control. Most circus troupers participated in firefighting efforts. Willow2448 5-30-14[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Htfdcircusfire.jpg

Image:Htfdcircusfire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basics

This article contains virtually no in-line citations, many unattributed claims and opinions, and a tone suggesting personal essay/research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.157.102 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1565

I have heavily researched this project, partly alongside Don Massey, author of Matter of Degree, who was my mentor as a young writer working on another fire disaster piece. There is no doubt that he and Davey believe 1565 to be Eleanor Emily Cook. According to a first hand story I heard, Mrs. Cook was far too ill for at least six months to even be told of the fates of her dead son and missing daughter. Mrs. Cook left Hartford for good after the fire, so was not subject to the years of newspaper stories while living in Mass. Even so, she was shown no publicity. Apparently, she became very upset at the mention of Eleanor, and refused to believed she had perished. When she did speak of Eleanor, it was of hope that one day she'd simply show up at the door, as if the Circus Fire did not happen. Apparently, she remained in a deep denial for years. This kept her family from even trying to convince that the carefully-taken photos of the girl buried unburned in Hartford known as 1565 were those of Eleanor. Donald Cook thought 1565 was his sister, and in young adulthood, he tried to claim the body, but was blown off by cops. Years later, Rick Davey spent years trying to nail down 1565's identity. Careful examination of the photos show it certainly could be EEC. Davey compared photos of her ears, a very unique identifier, and they were said to be an exact match. There was never a positive identification on teeth, because that would require significant work by a forensic dentist, removing the lower mandible to make such. Looking at the teeth, as O'Nan said happened, would not be enough. --willow2448 adds: there were claims by O'Nan that there were two dental charts but that is not true. The only other chart would have come from the Cook family dentist, who was out of the country during the post-blaze inquiry and was not subsequently contacted for comparisons. Only one chart exists in the public record, as created by a dentist during on-site reviews of dead victims. These charts were cursory at best, and do not reflect facts known by the Cook family. Such facts include that Eleanor kept all eight of her baby teeth in separate envelopes at home, a fact that conflicts with claims that only a few teeth had erupted...the teeth were already gone, assisting in the proof of age for 1565. Willow 2448 5-30-14// This fact is according to one of the same dentists who worked at the site of the World Trade Center attacks and other high-profile cases, Dr. Haskell Askin. As far as being a brunette, every photo of EEC I've seen showed her as at least a dark blonde, and she was described as such. As the story goes, an out-of-town relative who hardly knew Eleanor was the one who made the split-second morgue decision that it wasn't Eleanor, and the coroner stated that he didn't feel the woman was qualified to decide either way. Additionally, from what I remember, and this was years ago, 1565 was unburned, but badly trampled to death, altering her facial features somewhat. When Mrs. Cook was very elderly, Davey and her surviving son showed her the photos of 1565, and she caved, finally agreeing it was Eleanor. That's why the body was exhumed and reburied in the family plot. According to Don Massey, Stewart O'Nan contacted Davey when he was first writing his circus fire book, complimenting Davey's research that led to the discovery of Little Miss 1565. Since a first book contract was already in the works, Davey couldn't legally speak to O'Nan, or share the resources and information he had. According to the story, O'Nan was mad, and added a few harsh sentences about Davey in his book, and making the last sentence something like, "The reason Mrs. Cook never picked up the body was because it was not her daughter." O'Nan's book was released first, and then Davey/Massey re-tooled Matter of Degree for more than a year to rebut the claims O'Nan made about 1565. If a 2005 investigation was looking into O'Nan's claims, they must not have amounted to much, as a half a decade has passed with no change to the formal identity of 1565 as Eleanor Emily Cook. Since the 1565 section quotes no sources, and disparages the reputations of Don Massey and Rick Davey (I believe it says their work is "revisionist fiction"), an editor who knows how to (I do not) should flag this article as not neutral, possibly biased and unverifiable. 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

If that's the case, then who is/was this Sarah Graham that the note on the grave mentioned? 99.149.116.143 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

The lede says "attended by approximately 6,800 people" but later text says "about 7,500 to 8,700". Randall Bart Talk 01:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an excellent but...

It is just full of repetition (tautology). No info box. There is hardly a lede, and the so-called "history" section says what is repeated in the other sections. (It's not a history it's what happened) Unless a few hours on one day is substantial enough to be called a "history". Furthermore there are no inline references from reliable third-party sources. So separating fact from fiction is impossible.

This work needs to be done! I don't know anything about this event, so I can't do it but this article is very, very poor at the moment.

Needs a major shake down from top to bottom.31.52.210.43 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Fiction & Fiction

While not a fan of Davey & Massey's theories, I'm puzzled as to why the book isn't listed in Non-Fiction & Fiction ??? Irish Melkite (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]