Talk:Bloody Mary (folklore)

Spanish version

Hello, I'm from Spain, and that tale here is different. The girl on the mirror is not Mary, her name in Spain is "Veronica", rumors says that she is the daughter of "Lucifer". If you can add this to the article I will be glad. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.116 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article was deleted?

Hi, I was reading the article and then it was deleted, and now it's back. What's going on? I was afraid it was deleted because it's an interesting read. Is there constant vandalism? 135.245.8.33 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was always told that if you go into the bathroom after dark, lock the door, cut off the lights, and say bloody mary 3 times while spinning around bloody mary will come and pull you into the mirror. Also, there can be no windows because she is afraid of having witnesses. Also, her sister, crazy mary is a good ghost and if you're lucky she will stop bloody mary from pulling you into the mirror. Jk This is not true!!!

If you are lying in bed and you say bloody mary three times and roll over three times she will appear in your bed and kill you.that is what happend to my friend!!!!!!

That is not true! why would she kill other people and we didnt do anything to her!Thats just wrong man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.34.146 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Bess?

Is the information on Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics relevant to an article on the the term Bloody Mary? I think it should be cut -- there are plenty of historical figures who executed large numbers of people and are not called "Bloody." Should we provide a list of every tirant who we feel deserves that epithet? Of course not! I say cut Elizabeth. Joel Bastedo 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not - they were sisters - they followed each other. As you say not all who kill are known as "bloody", but these two were. The article is called 'Bloody Mary'. Mentioning her sister shows that Mary was not unique. But to sugggest that Mary was 'bloody' while Elizabeth was 'good' would be biased. They were both killers. ClemMcGann 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's important, then sure, leave it in, but don't rewrite history. It is simply wrong to say that Elizabeth was known as "Bloody Bess." She never was, which is Tarrago's point. He chose the title for the book to shock people, and by shocking them to make them ask: why am I surprised to see Elizabeth's name prefaced by the epithet "Bloody" instead of "Good Queen", when she was just as bloody as "Bloody" Mary? The answer has a lot to do with the Protestant slant to English history, as Tarrago points out. But that doesn't excuse pretending that Elizabeth was called bloody because a historian points out that perhaps she should have been. Joel Bastedo 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, Elizabeth was known as "Bloody Bess" by those who she persecuted. ClemMcGann 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) And, btw, if you are interested in the Anglican church, see a recent article [1] 'And, by the way, "good Queen Mary" is more widely known as "Bloody Mary".' 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

She was referred to "Bloody Bess" by the Catholics? So you say. What's your citation? I don't remember reading that in Tarrago, but perhaps I missed it. More to the point, that isn't by any means Elizabeth's most common or enduring epithet. Both during her reign and in the centuries since, she has been commonly known as Good Queen Bess, the Virgin Queen, and Glorianna. The only place I have encountered her being referred to as "Bloody Bess" is in persuasive essays and historical articles that seek to highlight the unjust and inglorious side of her reign. They use the term for effect, not because it was widely used historically. That said, some Catholics probably did call Bess "bloody," quietly and when no one could hear them. But that's not the same thing as Elizabeth being "known as Bloody Bess" like her half-sister was known as Bloody Mary! I can write an article calling Richard I "Richard the Meanhearted" because it took as much intolerance and meanness as bravery to wage his bloody crusades. But it would be wrong to say that he "became known as" Richard the Meanhearted -- Lionhearted is still his most recognised epithet. Joel Bastedo 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You might not like it, but she was,

• Mary Tudor, North American Review, 1853, Vol 77, p.494[2]
• Tonne, Arthur, 1950 Talks on the sacramentals [3]
• "Elizabeth I Queen of England from 1558, lived from 1533 to 1603. Known to the Irish as “Bloody Bess”." [4]

It was not just Catholics who knew her as Bloody Bess. Free Masons also suffered [5]

While others, including (persumably protestant) Flemish fishermen knew Mary as "Good Queen Mary" [6]

ClemMcGann 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, re: Irish Catholics and Flemmish fishermen. It certainly didn't stick, presumably because of the dominance of Protestant Anglicanism under Elizabeth and since. So does the current wording of the article work? Joel Bastedo 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading the sources you provided, I see that only one of them (the Irish website) actually claims that anyone called Elizabeth "Bloody Bess." The North American Review article makes the same point that Tarrago makes: any impartial reader of Tudor history would conclude that Mary's ugly epithet "Bloody" is unwarrented, and that Elizabeth's gentle-sounding appelation, "Good Queen Bess," is unearned. But the reviewer's point is to praise the book he is reviewing for disabusing the "popular mind" of its prejudice against Catholic Mary and in favour of Protestant Elizabeth, a prejudice which has earned them their unfair epithets. Moreover, the reviewer's criticism of the book is that its author goes to far: if readers took the book seriously, he warns, the two objectionable epithets would not be discarded as the should be, but they would be reversed, and people would start talking about "Bloody Bess" and "Good Queen Mary." That criticism only makes sense when the reader knows that Elizabeth is commonly called "Good Queen Bess" and Mary called "Bloody Mary," rather than the reverse! Surely you see that? Anyway, I put a reference to the review in with the Tarrago article, since the two authors are making the same point. Joel Bastedo 16:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

South Pacific lyrics

The article says, "A song about her makes U.S. Navy sailors sing, Bloody Mary is the girl I love, her skin is as tender as DiMaggio's glove" -- I remember the lyrics being "tender as a baseball glove", but I don't have the song handy. Is my memory wrong on this one? -Phoenixrod 22:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is DiMaggio. Anyway, are you sure that baseball had even been invented in the time period the show took place in?

World War II? Yeah, it's been around since the 19th century.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

Looking for information on Bloody Mary the legend, I searched wikipedia. As Mary I has her own article, I say that we completly seperate them. One for the myth, and one for the real person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Apparently bloody mary was pushed down a well and died down there. I also heard that if you whatch the ring, the phone will ring and say seven days to go which meant that you only had seven days to show someone that film in, and if you didn't, in seven days time, if your watching the t.v it will turn of itself, and if you weren't it would still do the same thing. Apparently so' a picture of a well will come up, and bloody Mary will come climbing up the well, will climb out of the t.v and will scratch you to death.

Is that true?

What on earth are you talking about? You appear to have no real question about this article; The Ring has nothing to do with this. You're gettting bloody Mary confused with Samara Morgan. And the legend doesn't say watching the movie 'The Ring' causes anyone's phone to ring. In the movie there is a fictional short tape that causes the phone to ring, but it is the plot of a fictional movie.

Question

Why doesn't a Wikipedian try this, see if it works, and edit the page accordingly? This is a serious question.

Why don't you try it, then? 66.193.238.1 06:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be original research. Once three girls did the bathroom version at my little sisters dance school. They all came out yelling wildly, and one had scratches. I could add that she was later institutionalized, but that'd be a lie. She just was freaked out, and grew up to be a nasty ho-beast. Basejumper 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Add Section

Could it be done that a section should be written where we list all the places she is allegedly burried. I know of one in Neshanock Village outside of New Castle, Pennsylvania. If others could add enough other locations it would make for an interesting article. Basejumper 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to follow WP:RS policy. So real sources, not just what you heard. DreamGuy 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Mary

This ghost is supposed to be that of Mary I of England. Of course, it's completely bullshit, but that's who it's based on.

bloody mary is a story told about a woman in the 1800's that walked in on her sister and boyfriend having relations in the bathroom. she then killed them both and committed suicide in the bathroom. thus the legend of the bathroom and the mirror. the dark is spell caster superstition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.96.127 (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange

Why do the same people remove vandalism and then add the same thing back in again later? That's just weird.

external links

Probably unsupported per WP:EL, but need verification and consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

External links

• The Face in the Mirror is an article with information about the various Bloody Mary ghost legends.
• Bloody Mary FAQ at ghosts.org
• The legend of Bloody Mary is an article that discusses the legend from a folkloric perspective. blog
• R U Bloody Mary is a part of Ghost Whisperer describing about Bloody Mary.

discussion

Nobody responds, so I took the liberty of adding these external links. If it is settled by vote, I would vote yes. w_tanoto (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have re-removed them. No one has provided any evidence that the inclusion in the article is supported by our guidelines or that any of these have such overriding value that we should ignore our guidelines.

I particularly oppose the ulblog. Perhaps some information in the miaminewtimes may be of value as a content source for the article itself. (although currently the link is no longer pointing to any Bloody Mary article at all).-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

no probs. I am neutral in this view, but I am inclusionist (explaining why I attempted to add it - I don't know if those links were previously in the article itself). So, I'll just wait and see if the others voted. w_tanoto (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of ulblog, and originally included the link because it contains (at least in my opinion) commentary that adds value to the topic. I have chosen to respect it's deletion, since I'd prefer to not have my interest interpreted as self-promotion, but to add some details to my background: at one point I ran a web site called the Urban Legends Research Centre, which attempted to be more of a reference point than a blogging platform on topics very much related to this one. Now, I generate content in blog format, and I accept that there's a guideline questioning the value of blog content in general, but I'd like to add that my content on topics such as this have been quoted in a number of news articles and at least a couple of text books (or, to be as accurate as possible, my permission was sought for same). I mention purely because it's a shame that the format of the content has become an issue in its currency as reference material. --Planetthoughtful (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COI for rules against promoting your own site. I remember the ULRC. Its article ofn Bloody Mary was highly derivative of the other sources out there, and even as it exists now also seems to almost plagiarize the Snopes and Face in the Mirror articles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input DreamGuy. I'll keep it in mind. Not sure I can agree regarding the claim of plagiarism, except in that I definitely plagiarised content I wrote in 1999, and also in the sense that most content on the topic from that time probably relied, at least in part, on very much the same source content -- you'll notice that many articles mention Jan Harold Brunvand's writing on the topic. If by plagiarism you mean I discussed content from other sources, then I guess guilty as charged, but to the best of my knowledge these were always appropriately attributed. It may also be worth pointing out that one of the edits I made to this article was to discuss speculation by Alan Dundes on the topic of the Bloody Mary ritual itself, which is mentioned in my content but not, to the best of my knowledge, in either Snopes, MythologyWeb or any of the other usual resources. But I appreciate the feedback all the same, will always try to do better, and it's nice to see that someone remembers ULRC, even if it's not in the most positive light. --203.35.135.136 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposing a couple of links doesn't justify removing all of them. Luckily, most of the good ones were already references for the article so still exist on the page. DreamGuy (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over xkcd reference

Please discuss here, I've fully protected the page for 24 hours so consensus may be reached. This is not an endorsement of the current version. –xeno (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the two three different editors who removed it -- it obviously doesn't belong here. xkcd is only relevant in an article on xkcd, not any other article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree: xkcd doesn't suddenly become relevant to a topic because Randall wrote a cartoon about it one day. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me if you're referencing South Park as a cultural reference, then XCKD is hardly of less merit. 168.122.191.133 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC) South Park, in fact, did not even reference Bloody Mary specifically. xkcd did. I would suggest removing the South Park reference or including the xkcd reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.169.124 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the XKCD reference (or South Park reference either) adds any information about the folklore aspect of the page, but at the same time using cultural references do make user's experiences richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.10.28 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Per the current wikipedia article on Folklore, these could be specific examples of current folklore, or "Internet Folklore". That said, we do not have to document every single time something is mentioned someplace, probably only the notable instances of such. Thus it becomes a matter of determining how important xkcd is as a part of the wider culture vs Internet culture, vs the reference in South Pacific, or a future reference by some major political figure. PsuedoName (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiction is not folklore. A mere reference in one web comic, for crying out loud, is nothing. South Park at least is bigger, but probably doesn't belong either. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. One of the most irritating ways that an otherwise good article gets marred is by having a list of TV shows, cartoons, web-comics and films that mention or refer to the topic. That is simply not encyclopedic information. I am a fan of XKCD, I read every episode, but I would not for a moment suggest that the XKCD reference should stay. --Slashme (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, xkcd has long since indicated its views on the matter: [7] Okloster (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy, Slashme, and Okloster. Sometimes there are just too much, often inappropriate, cultural references. My feeling is that referencing every popular cultural production isn't necessarily what's being looked for. Twipley (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but the comic gives clear reference and examples of the game that many of us younger kids grew up with. To sit here and say it has no relevance in this wiki simply because of the nature of its source is to deny so many interesting articles. And while I don't profess that XKCD is on par with say - political cartoons, propaganda, and the like - the fact remains that the comic stands as a perfect example of what many generations perceive as the only way to relate to 'Bloody Mary.' A reference like this would actively engage, and allow kids to relate and explore the relationship between the Wiki articles their own notions of the legend. As a simple high school professional, I say - To deny educational curiosities by any means is a mortal sin. - Yours truly, Summer Glau. <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.238.13.93 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Summer Glau... rightttttt. Well, we sure know what someone on a variety of anonymous IP addresses thinks, but the actual Wikipedia editors have a pretty clear consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning the xkcd cartoon if the movies and South Park are also going to be listed -- xkcd is a long-running web comic with a large audience and is most definitely part of internet culture. It's gotten widely known enough that it rated an article in the New York Times. I personally enjoy reading the lists of cultural links when they appear in an article, I find it interesting to see the different places a given topic has made an appearance. YMMV, of course.--Zola (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You may enjoy them, but that's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. The fact that the NYT mentions a web comic once doesn't mean anything it ever does a web comic on becomes notable enough to be listed in non-web comic articles. This is a long established common sense rule we've had here, and just saying you like something isn't a reason to ignore our rules on such matters. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a long established common sense rule to avoid venting one's spleen on an innocent party. Like the other posters after this comment, I had come to the page to read more after seeing the comic, I made no edit at all.

Since Wikipedia does require "notablility", I offered you the NYT article as a piece of evidence that xkcd had crossed the boundary from "just a web comic" to part of the cultural mainstream, and then I gave you my personal opinion, which was clearly marked as personal opinion. I fail to see how any of this broke or ignored any rules.

If you would like to have an actual discussion (as opposed to WP:SOAP) on the notability/cultural importance of xkcd, you're more than welcome to post to my user page and I will research the matter further and see if there are other "outside" mentions of the comic that would further support the "notability" requirement--the NYT reference was just one that had quickly come to mind. --Zola (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC

So xkcd was mentioned in the New York Times and other stuff making it notable... great, so xkcd should have an article in this encyclopedia. Guess what, it already does. That doesn't mean every freaking topic it every mentions in any comic should have a mention in that article that xkcd had a cartoon on it. This isn't xkcdpedia. And I'm not venting my spleen at innocent parties, I'm pointing out that people making the same ridiculous argument you do haven't even bothered to read Wikipedia's most fundamental principles about what belongs here and what doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I too thought it was a perfect thing to include the xkcd cartoon as an external reference, and in fact seeing that it wasn't there, I added it. Then in reviewing the page history, saw this dispute. For what it's worth, I wasn't familiar with the legend, and that I did a search on Bloody Mary and found this Wikipedia article certainly made it seem a reasonable external link. But not wishing to reignite the war, I deleted the reference on my own. But - I really DO think that current cultural references to a source in Wikipedia are fine content to include. GibsonCRG (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:EL for our actual rules on external links. DreamGuy (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I just did the same thing, and for the same reasons. CrimsonLine (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that linking Bloody Mary (folklore) to XKCD makes about as much sense as linking Eurasian Badger to Badger Badger Badger. Let's not get carried away by silliness, gang. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)