Talk:Mary (elephant)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes[edit]

I've researched and completely re-written this. Wyss 83.115.7.118 03:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human actions[edit]

How could you say that Mary had an intention to step on Red Eldridge's head? "stand and deliberately stepped on his head, crushing it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.9.250 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We may never know. This is an understatement: "The details of the aftermath are confused in a maze of sensationalist newspaper stories and folklore." I have heard, among other contradictory stories, that Mary performed with the circus that night or the next night, that the death was treated as an accident initially, and that the decision that Mary had to be put down was made because the next towns on the circuit refused to allow the circus to play there if the elephant that killed a man was still with the circus. Everyone who retells it seems compelled to embellish it. This has become the stuff of legends and getting at the truth seems impossible. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately can mean "slowly and carefully" instead of "on purpose." Either way, with so many different versions of the story in circulation, perhaps it is best to remove the adverb -- Foetusized (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cultural references?[edit]

Singer-songwriter Chuck Brodsky recounts this story in his song "Mary the Elephant," on his 2006 cd Tulips for Lunch. I wouldn't add it to the article unless there are other cultural references to discuss. The last verse of Chuck's song implies that their have been other ballads about the incident: "She never went to prison/ No court sentenced her to hang/ Like some storytellers told it/ And some singers often sang." Does anyone know of other ballads about Mary the Elephant? -MrFizyx 19:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article[edit]

I wish to dispute the move from "Mary the Elephant" -> "Mighty Mary." The original title was the least ambigous title, and has become a common way to refer to her, the nicname "Murderous Mary," has also become quite common, but seems rather unkind.

I a Google fight:

I vote to revert the title, but will listen to others. -MrFizyx 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary the Elephant" goes against naming conventions, and it won't stick any more than Topsy the Elephant did. Mary (elephant) might. TheMadBaron 04:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with WP:NAME if "Mary the Elephant" really is the animal's common name (which it appears to be). I gather that this was not a common reference for "Topsy". -MrFizyx 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, maybe you're right, some articles just refer to her as "Mary"... -MrFizyx 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, "the Elephant" is just a disambiguation term used so that people know which Mary is referred to. It wasn't her name. It would be strange to refer to "Martin Luther the man", and perhaps stranger still to refer to "Martin Luther the Man".... TheMadBaron 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Wikipeida was written for elephants. Even if it was read by elephants, I doubt they'd muddle Martin Luther with one of their own. Mary the elephant is the least ambiguous and most neutral name for her. Gwen Gale 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I got tired of seeing this article with the wrong name on it, and renamed it. There's no good references for "Mighty" being part of her name, so I renamed the article to match Topsy (elephant) and Tyke (elephant) - Foetusized (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Flockmeal, let's discuss this before you revert. Danny's version is a mess, and it's inaccurate.

A broken hip is not a "severe" injury, though it may be a disabling one. I would also question the references to the tusks. The photo shows no tusks. Of course it may be a fake picture, but for safety reasons it is not inconceivable that the elephants tusks had been removed years before.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Mary was an Asian elephant as stated, she wouldn't have had tusks as only the male asian elephants have tusks, females only have tushes, which aren't much bigger than one of their teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.188.116 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the source:
"A careful observer of the one photograph allegedly taken at Mary's hanging will notice that the elephant suspended there has no tusks. So either Mary's tusks were removed before she was hung -- or they were removed after the hanging and Mary was "rehung" for a photo-op. A third possibility -- that the photograph was a hoax -- ought not to be discounted; when it was submitted to Argosy magazine for publication, the photo was rejected as a phony."[3]
Based upon this source, I have removed the claim "It is clear from the photo of her hanging that Mary was either tuskless or had short 'tushes' common amongst female Asian elephants." --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk about the elephant in the room[edit]

The image we show is rather obviously doctored, The elephant (which looks like a pen and ink drawing to me) is better lit and has more details than the rather dark and murky object in the foreground and background. Plus we have a credible claim that it is a fake (see section above). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been a pretty big room. But I think you are right. But what's to be done... just amend the caption to explain it may be an "artist's impression"? Have a dedicated section discussing the image? Or banish the image entirely as "unencyclopeadic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nuke the image from our servers, but I have never quite got around to learning how to deal with a fake image. If it was text, I would go through the standard "check the sources, ask if there are any other sources, delete if unsourced" method, but what do I do with an unreliable image? As image manipulation software has improved we are seeing more and more images that are not a faithful reproduction of something that occurred in front of a camera. I suppose the next best thing is a section discussing the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would place this particular fakery well before the age of photoshop. But hard to tell. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. I was just commenting that images in general are easier to fake nowadays. I suspect that they had photo retouching very soon after they had the first photographs, and oil painting retouching long before that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image is encyclopedic. Even if it is fake, it was faked soon after the event of Mary's death, and has long been associated with her. I much prefer explaining the questionable provenance of the image over removing it from the article.
I just found an article that also includes an image of an earlier elephant hanging in Maryland (named Sport IIRC) with a caption saying it is Mary: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/murderous-mary-1916/ - Foetusized (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image on that page with the elephant in front of the boxcar doesn't look faked. Perhaps we can crop it and use it as the main image instead of the fake one. Of course there are no copyright issues on a 1916 photo.
We could also have a section that shows the fake photo with a discussion about who it was who said it was fake. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Both very good ideas. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the three images (ours and the two-in-one that Foetusized found), it really looks like three different cranes. Look at how close the base of the arm is to the front of the railroad car. Look at the large bolts on the sides of the arm near the tip. Count the cross-braces and note whether they are X shaped. Coming off the top of the crane arm is a pulling beam hooked to a wire rope block and tackle. Note the shape of the place where the wire ends and the beam begins. Look at the length of the elephant vs. the length of the crane arm. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite agree on three different cranes. How could that be best explained? Do we have good dates for all of these? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the elephant in front of the boxcar is from a different elephant hanging in Maryland, per The Maryland Historical Society: http://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/01/10/the-death-of-sport/ - Foetusized (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. So we have 3 cranes and two elephants, and the elephant hanging that doesn't look obviously faked isn't Mary. Do we have enough about the Maryland elephant to create a new Elephant hanging page with both examples and redirect this page there? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for Mary being "unique"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is a fake, please provide info about its origin. Is it a recent fake or one created at the time (1916 or shortly after). If the image can be "officially" demonstrated to be a fake, mark the image for speedy deletion. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have not read the talk page that you are posting to. If you had, you would have seen the following, posted in the section before this one:
From the source:
"A careful observer of the one photograph allegedly taken at Mary's hanging will notice that the elephant suspended there has no tusks. So either Mary's tusks were removed before she was hung -- or they were removed after the hanging and Mary was "rehung" for a photo-op. A third possibility -- that the photograph was a hoax -- ought not to be discounted; when it was submitted to Argosy magazine for publication, the photo was rejected as a phony."[4]
You would also have found out about the image on rarehistoricalphotos.com showing a different elephant hanging with a caption saying it is Mary
Also, just look at it. It is rather obviously faked; it looks like an in focus line drawing pasted on an out of focus photograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strong opinion are given by people without basic knowledge about elephants, female Asian elephants never have tusks. They may have tushes, or nothing. Many asian females I worked with had no visual tushes, since their small tushes was covered by the upper lip. I also read on one of the mantioned sources:
Her gruesome end is recorded in a photograph so horrifically surreal that some have suggested it must be a fake — but, all too sadly, its authenticity has been confirmed by other reports and photographs taken at the time.

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_(elephant)&oldid=1208845540"