Talk:Joseph Merrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] accuracy disputed

the article claims that merrick "spent much of his life in a circus, as a sideshow attraction", but the timeline here indicates that such a period would have been from 1884 through 1886. also, it appears from the same web site that at least his first such brush was in one or more london shops that displayed "freaks". perhaps "circus" isn't the best description, at least for the london part (perhaps half of the relevant period).

the statement that merrick "was befriended by Dr. Frederick Treves" seems to be more influenced by the movie than by the timeline (and other information toarts of content that you have identified no problems with whatsoever. I am removing the tag, making changes were appropriate. Disputed tags on the actual article are only for large problems that you have tried and failed to fix, not minor improvements. With your rationale just about the whole encyclopedia would have to be tagged as disputed. DreamGuy 00:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

an apparently admitted two years is "much of his life"? that's your "correction"? what you call "a couple of minor changes" requires real research. i don't know what the real story is. however, i do know that it appears likely the article is inaccurate. in other words, i am disputing the accuracy of the article -- thus, the "disputed" template, which is entirely appropriate. your conception of a "disputed" template is what's in error. the template marks the article as possibly (likely, in this case) flawed, so people reading it don't think what they're reading is fact. considering the proportion of errors to truth in the article, the disputes are a major flaw, especially with regard to dr. treves, however, that's irrelevant to the appropriateness of the tag. please take the time to visit this wikipedia guideline page; you'll see i followed the directions, up to requesting peer review, an instruction contradicted elsewhere. if you'd like me to do that though, i will. the "disputed" template should remain, however, until the flaws are corrected. as i said, i don't have time to research it adequately. if you remove the tag without fixing/defending the noted errors, i will follow wikipedia policy. SaltyPig 01:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
my count was incorrect. replaced disputed tag with multiple dubious tags, according to the guideline. SaltyPig 11:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
The much of his life as sideshow freak part depends upon what you think "much" counts as... The befriended by Trewes part is absolutely factual... I forgot what your other complaint was, it didn't really stand out. I do think these are trivial concerns, and ones you could fix yourself quite easily or have spelled out very clearly on the talk page instead. The disputed tag at the top clearly did not belong, and the inline tags are ugly little things I've never seen used before but will leave for now. You could just as easily tag them with comment fields so they show up during editing and not while reading. DreamGuy 20:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
The befriended by Treves is factual, but completely wrong in this article. Treves went to a private viewing of Merrick when Norman was displaying him as a freak. He then sent Merrick to London to be examined by surgeons who wanted to know the cause but couldn't find it. Merrick then returned to London where Treves gave him his business card. Merrick was then sold by Norman to an Austrian (Merrick didn't leave by his own accord) and when he returned from Belgium he was not suffering a bronchial infection but was starved and exhausted and was saved by a taunting and curious mob by the police who found Treves card on him and called the doctor. All this can be sourced from web links already sourced. This article needs a full recheck of facts and rewrite. 203.23.122.202 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How old was Merrick when deformation started?

In BBC NEWS Report it is written:

Merrick, who was born in Leicester in 1862, showed signs of deformity from the age of five.

In wikipedia it is written that mutation started when he was two.

BBC Report

It's not very important mistake, but it would be nice if the numbers matched each other in every source. unsigned, but by User:217.77.18.149

You can certainly go change it and cite the BBC as your source. On the other hand, when dealing with historical topic not every source is going to match each other. The fact that you have a source trumps not having a source, but it really wouldn;t surprise me if other sources said something different. It happens more often than you think. DreamGuy 23:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

I have called for two articles on Joseph Merrick's parents to be merged into this one, as they were not notable for anything other than being the parents of The Elephant Man. Reyk 07:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed Arniep 17:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
ditto DreamGuy 20:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
agreed, maybe call the heading simply "Family". --260 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

There is a popular reggae singer from Jamaica called "elephant man" as well. There should be a disambiguation page. (Unsigned, but by User:216.70.249.210)

The disambiguation page is already at The Elephant Man. Anyone typing in "Elephant Man" goes directly to the Jamaican singer article already, as that's the name of the page he is on. I don;t understand what you think needs to be done further. DreamGuy 22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population Tripled

Can someone explain what's going on with all of the nonsensical vandalism lately? Inserting "The population of Joseph Merricks in the world has tripled over the last five years" (or similar variations) seems to be some sort of new Wiki game. It's tremendously disrespectful and doesn't even make sense: what gives? Skybright Daye 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report told viewers on the show to change the elephant article to say that. Furiouszebra 07:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yet another validation for my dislike of Colbert then :P Skybright Daye 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Applied for and recieved semi-protected article status. Maybe we'll have to deal with a bit less nonsense around here now. Skybright Daye 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is an Eel-e-phant? --Bobak 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a two-ton gray fish that can power a lightbulb, of course! ;) Skybright Daye 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merrick's skeleton

Is it true that his skeleton is on public display today? The Royal Hospital's web page mentions that there are some of his personal objects[1] at the Museum. I have the impression that the skeleton is not on public display any more but only available to medical students. --Dada 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More detail needed

This article doesn't really tell me what I wanted to know. What did he look like? The "weight of his head" is mentioned, but what does that mean? How much more did it weigh than a normal head? In the Michael Jackson image, the imitation skeleton seems thick and stocky, but short. Is that how it really was? Also, there's no record of what he did in sideshows, or how he acquired the name "The Elephant Man." Why exactly was he famous? What did people say about him? What do they say now? What does it mean that he was a "favorite" of the Queen? Favorite what? Entertainment? Conversationalist? Poet? Speaking of which, what happened to his writings? Did they survive? Has anyone ever talked about them? I'm going nuts about how much I want to know that I don't! --Masamage 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but if you want that much detail, find a book. It sure would be nice to have it here, but given that Wikipedia articles are freely created & edited don't expect a wealth of useful knowledge in them unless you're willing to contribute it yourself. Seaworldpunk 06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is abundant information - including a section of rather morbid photographs - in Ashley Montagu's The Elephant Man : A Study in Human Dignity (Acadian House, 2001) long out of print but now available at Amazon and elsewhere. Seduisant 13:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Condition - PTEN Gene

The article claims that Merrick definitively had Proteus Syndrome. However, it then states he did not have a mutated PTEN gene, although this is usually a condition of Proteus Syndrome. So he was a bizarre case of this disease, where there was no mutation? This part of the article doesn't make sense as it is written. Plus, the information is not cited. For my part, I did a little quick research and was not able to find much info. I'll try to do more another time, but can anyone fix this??? JeffreyN 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says the PTEN gene is "often mutated in the Proteus syndrome". Often doesn't mean usually, and usually doesn't mean so likely that for it not to be mutated is "bizarre", so I see no problem with this part of the article as it's written, aside from the need for a cite for Eng's result. Also, Proteus Syndrome mentions genes not at all: should it? Cheers, Doctormatt 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt reply! My point was that as written, the language seems to imply that Merrick WOULD have a mutated PTEN gene. The language does not flow as is. There is no wording such as "although a mutated PTEN gene often accompanies Proteus Syndrome, Merrick's PTEN . . .". When I first read it, I wanted to simply be sure this statement was not a typo or vandalism. Obviously it is not! Thanks for letting me know :) I will clear up the language if that is alright. Also, I will also look more into PTEN; perhaps it should be included in the article on Proteus Syndrome. If a DNA sample was used to definitively determine that Merrick had Proteus, then there must be some genetic component. Also, as a side note, "often" and "usually" CAN be used as synonyms though I admit one may be stronger than the other. JeffreyN 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Found article that states that PTEN mutation is "uncommon" in Porteus syndrome (PTEN mutation not common). In light of this, I don't feel anything at all on PTEN is currently appropriate. Will remove statement on the gene if necessary and add more information later when I fully understand involvement of the gene. JeffreyN 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sprotected >>>

due to mention on glenn beck show and recent vandalism, I have set the article to a protected mode untill further notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.206.69 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Trivia Section

I agree with User:149.142.103.63 that there is far too much trivia in this article. Let's go through and decide what information is notable and worthy of mention. JeffreyN 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One other remote possibility: The popular-culture references are so many that to incorporate even a portion of them into the article could overtake the real subject. One alternative to pulling them out completely would be to turn them into a list article. The main one that might be worth keeping in the main article is the first portion of the item about Michael Jackson. The incident was widely covered and is still one of the things that comes to mind when many of my generation think of Mr. Merrick. (The second portion, about Jackson's use of a Claymation version of the bones, is far more expendable.)
It might be enlightening to read the arguments on the Talk page for Helen Keller to see the discussion there of how to handle the constant stream of editors who try to re-add the section on jokes. It is pertinent to this article's handling of the pop-culture trivia.Lawikitejana 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Any source for the Michael Jackson thing? Flapdragon 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I think that the entire trivia section should be removed. It detracts from the article, which in of itself is a serious topic. The Behnam 03:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see some of your arguments are quite good and reasonable, however just because you may not like how the information has been portrayed or that it may seem to you to be poor taste, does not nescessarily mean others feel the same. Put it to a vote-that way the majority rules rather than some opinions dominating.--Read-write-services 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to keep in mind that the only reason there is a Merrick article at all is because Merrick was, and is, part of "popular culture". Had he not been, he would be a medical curiosity mentioned in some old textbooks, and most people would not have heard of him. So, I think a section describing his place in popular culture, both now and in his own time, is crucial to giving the full encyclopedic story of him. I agree though, that a mention of every song with a reference to "elephant man" needn't be included. I recommend re-writing the section into paragraph form; the bulleted list encourages additions of every little thing. Note that the last paragraph of the "Life" section could be taken as the seed for a proper "popular culture" section. Doctormatt 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The new popular culture section is a good compromise between total deletion and including every single last bit of fictioncruft anyone can come up with. The most important and well known mentions are listed, as well as a smattering of others. DreamGuy 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I reinstated your version Doctormatt until such time as we all agree that it should be removed, I believe the section should stay-the section was removed by a new contributor without prior discussion as I asked for earlier-please comment.--Read-write-services 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a "new contributor" by any stretch of the imagination, having controibuted to this article off and on for years, and this is a pretty clear cut issue. The discussion of a few people here does not in any way change the fact that Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:Listcruft, WP:NOT and WP:ENC specifically say these kinds of long, trivia-based, fictioncruft sections simply do not belong here. Please do not just blind revert the entire edits of another editor enforcing policies it is clear you have not previously read. If you would like to make a justification for why individual removed items might be encyclopedic and maybe should be restored on a case by case basis, go aheda and make an argument. DreamGuy 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will explain, just for you DreamGuy. a) you removed sections from this article after a specific question/statement was made about IF THERE WAS CONSENSUS ABOUT REMOVAL-there was no great discussion or consensus. The actual statement was "until such time as we all agree that it should be removed". Regardless of YOUR interpretation of WP:Listcruft, WP:NOT and WP:ENC or even my interpretation of the same, shouldn't there be some flexibility from the thought police-I thought Wikipedia was a community effort rather than a police state. Furthermore, isn't an editor who is "enforcing policies" by removing the greater part of the trivia section in question, guilty of EXACTLY the same crime as the original "perpetrator" (myself and others)?

b) All right, let's look at it from your POV (which I thought was covered under the WP:NPOV policy, however, let's go with your edit. The section you chose to keep included the Michael Jackson rubbish, the Leviathan album information and this

"The Avant-Garde guitarist Buckethead makes numerous references to the Elephant Man, including a song on the album Bucketheadland 2 called "The John Merrick Elephant Man Bones Explosion" and an album called The Elephant Man's Alarm Clock. During live performances he will sometimes play a sampling of dialogue from the 1980 film. The Elephant Man is a supporting character in Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's graphic novel From Hell."

I fail to understand where your distinction of encyclopedic content versus non-encyclopedic content of other parts you have chosen to "edit" out, fits in. However, if there is majority vote on this aspect of the article I will accept your changes gracefully and will argue no further. best wishes--Read-write-services 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Thought police"? "Police state"? Come on, get serious here, because that's just over the top.
The Michael Jackson stuff in my version was decreased from the old version but, quite simply, if there's ANYTHING in pop culture notable about the Elephant Man, it's the movies (already mentioned) and Michael Jackson. It's been discussed worldwide in news media. Compre that to one off gags on cartoon TV shows. There's no comparison there. The mention of Buckethead, while in my mind minor, stayed because he apparently didn't just do one reference but has multiple songs and albums and i appears to be a significant influence. The From Hell mention is brief in this version, but it is probably notable because it did play a significant thematic part in the work.
As far as "if there is a majority vote on this aspect", Wikipedia is not a Democracy. DreamGuy 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Here is some information from the policy section, perhaps we BOTH should read it I will read and adhere to the first. May I advise you read the second?

Wikipedia is not a democracy Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. NOTED--Read-write-services 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.


Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

enough said.--Read-write-services 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence

What does this mean: "After making his way back to Ulanbator..." The capital of Mongolia? Surely not. Is there some other place in England with the same name? Either way, there's no previous foundation in the article for how Merrick could have made his way "back" there. Is this the result of vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.109.58 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Suicide?

This could be totally bogus, but I've heard people toy with the idea that Merrick committed suicide. Even if this is false, it would still be nice if the wikipedia entry dealt with it in some way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nvader90 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

If you have some references to this theory, you could add this yourself. If there are no references to this theory, then this is just a rumor or OR, and hence not Wikipedia worthy. Cheers, Doctormatt 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This was the story in the David Lynch film.

[edit] Joseph or John

Just a idea that I would like to throw in here, from practical experience:-

Joseph Merrick suffered from acute facial deformities including assymetrical enlargement of the lower jaw, and a lump that grew from his upper jaw and protruded from his mouth. Although Proteus Syndrome can manifest itself in various ways and may be limited in the area affected (Merrick's left hand was entirely unaffected), there are other people in whom the deformities are similar. In such cases, the deformity of the jaw seriously affects the clarity of speech. You have to imagine it as like talking with a lamb cutlet in your mouth, bone and all.

So Merrick's speech must have been rather difficult to understand. Even the most well-intentioned Doctor can have no talent for understanding the speech of people with severe disabilities, resulting in misunderstandings.

If Joseph Merrick had introduced himself as "Joe" rather than Joseph, (for the sake of brevity) it is quite possible that the Dr might mistake the single syllable for John and call him that forever after, introducing him as John with a conviction that made it difficult for Joseph to contradict.

Researchers, on the other hand, taking an interest in his writing and documents pertaining to him, know what his name was. --Amandajm 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds plausible. Doctormatt 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Witches of Chiswick

The Elephant Man is a supporting character in Robert Rankin's fictious book 'The Witches of Chiswick'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witches_of_Chiswick -JimmmyThePiep 21:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)