Talk:Topsy (elephant)

Voltage
What kind of voltage did Edison use? Cburnett 16:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this as well. I originally heard it was DC, but many more sources since then have said AC, which I believe is correct, though I can't be sure.-Triviaa 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The contemporary newspaper article said 6,600, which was probably the high voltage side of the AC supply at the location.Edison 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Recall that Edison was in the midst of a battle with Westinghouse in which Edison claimed that DC was far safer than AC. His filming and distributing Topsy's death by AC was doubtless a way of slamming the dangers of Westinghouse's AC. 64.30.203.214 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Both 1875 births and 1903 deaths are subcategories of Category:People... which an elephant obviously isn't... so this needs to be recategorized... I'm not sure how. gren グレン 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Poisoned Carrot?
Could someone clarify that either Topsy ate the carrot but was not affected or did not eat it at all (the latter is mentioned in the article)? I've heard both sides. --65.190.140.201 01:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The contemporary newspaper article said the poisoned carrots were fed to the elephant before the electrocution. If 2.8 mg/kg will kill a person,per and if elephants have a similar sensitivity, then 480 grams would kill a 171000 kg or 188 ton elephant. The largest Elephant on record weighed 12,000 kg, so it would have been overkill by a factor of at least 14, or eating 1/14 of the offered poisoned carrots would likely have killed her. A higher dose would have killed her more quickly. Edison 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that potassium cyanide itself isn't directly poisonous. It reacts with stomach acids to produce HCN / prussic acid, which is. Not being familiar with elephant digestion, I don't know if they're more or less effective at releasing the acid through the stomach, but one should be wary of simple extrapolations. The elephant was not dead and not particularly distressed before electrocution, it was dead afterwards. If Edison had used poison to make sure of killing her, he'd also been either very lucky with the timing, or it was superfluous. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Name
I can't really find any sources on the internet naming this elephant "Topsy the Elephant" (rather than simply "Topsy"). Anyone got any sources for this? --Oldak Quill 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Topsy (elephant — Mets501 ( talk ) 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Topsy the Elephant → Electrocuting an Elephant – There seems to be no source for the name Topsy the Elephant rather than just Topsy. The animal seems to be notable mostly by virtue of having been whacked by Edison. Electrocuting an Elephant, OTOH, is a significant early film, for which we have no article. TheMadBaron 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Oppose, the article barely even mentions the film as is and I'm thinking it would probably be better to have a seperate article for the film anyway. Perhaps a better title for this would be Topsy (elephant)? Recury 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See below. --SigPig 06:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Concur with Recury: Move this article to Topsy (elephant), create a movie stub for Electrocuting an Elephant. OR, leave movie where it is until you have enough to actually make an article. --SigPig 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Recury. I would also support a move to Topsy (elephant). --Oldak Quill 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments

I notice that no-one has responded to OldakQuill's question above, and Topsy the Elephant seems to me like a strange title for an article that isn't about a children's book. I'm wondering whether Electrocuting an Elephant, as an early Edison film, isn't at least as notable as the unfortunate Topsy. I've redirected Electrocuting an Elephant and Electrocuting an elephant to the current (no pun intended) article, for now, but I propose that this be moved to Electrocuting an Elephant. If this does not meet with general agreement, then I would propose, instead, creating a seperate article to deal with the film specifically, though I think we'd be stretching the available material a bit thin.

TheMadBaron 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus is clearly in favour of moving this article to Topsy (elephant). I can live with that. I'll move it now, and withdraw my original proposal. TheMadBaron 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inappropriate external link
An anon keeps adding back a link to a constrained comic which happens to feature a dead elephant image. This isn't appropriate; I'm going to remove it, unless there's a compelling reason not to (which there isn't). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct vs Alternating Current
I have no additional references myself for the electrocution of Topsy, but I do think this article ought to mention within its text the reason for her death by electrocution, and for its being filmed by Edison.

Obviously the easiest and cleanest way to kill a rogue elephant that needs to be eliminated would have been to simply shoot her.

Equally obviously, however, her owners, the Forepaugh Circus at Coney Island, were interested in making Topsy's execution into a public spectacle, with their initial suggestion of hanging(!) to death a three-ton elephant (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/pet/topsy.html). Surely the business of the carrots laced with cyanide was also a gimmick meant to call attention to the supposed difficulty in killing such a huge and resilient beast.

I have no idea how all this first came to Edison's attention, but as mentioned above in a response to the Voltage section of this Talk page, he must have immediately recognized the propaganda value of vividly showing the great danger inherent in Westinghouse's rival process of alternating current, as opposed to Edison's much safer direct current. See Wikipedia's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents for further discussion of this.

The point is that except for the value of creating a spectacle for the benefit of both Topsy's owners and for Edison, and the spectacle being filmed for exhibition around the country, Topsy would be entirely unknown today, just another anonymous rogue elephant needing to be "put down", and there would be no entry here in Wikipedia for her. It's her death by electrocution, and the filming of it, that is her only claim to fame or notoriety.

This article does presently have a link to "War of Currents" in its See Also section, but I believe some discussion of the reason for Topsy's death by electrocution should be integrated into this article itself.

Edison's 1903 film "Electrocuting an Elephant" is approximately 1.5 minutes long, and is available in DVD format on disc 1 of "Edison: The Invention of the Movies", a 4-disc set issued by Kino Video. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased in favour of Edison like all other Wikipedia articles that hides the misdeeds of popular figures. Lleoauthersh (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In your edits today, which have been reverted, you used numerous tags throughout the article and within references, disrupting the formatting of the article. These should if appropriate, have been condensed into a single or more hatnotes tagging the entire article. However, rather than provide any references countering the statements in the article, you claimed the references provided were unreliable or self-published. The two references you specifically and repeatedly tagged were (1) the book by Michael Daly, published by Grove Press, ISBN 978-0802146052 clearly not self-published as you claim, and (2) the Thomas Edison papers at Rutgers University. While you may disagree with the content, that does not make the sources either unreliable or self-published. Please provide verifiable references to support your claims of bias and read Wikipedia policies on self-published sources and unreliable sources before using those tags. Thank you. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Quality of the video
I have seen a much better quality video of this and I am trying to find the link. The contrast is much higher.188.30.203.67 (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

citation and Wikipedia mismatch
Wikipedia Article claims that Topsy killed an abusive trainer. Source linked specifically says it was a visitor to Coney Island that fed a lit cigarette to the elephant that was killed. 24.107.181.169 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In culture
An editor recently deleted inclusion of this incident in popular culture. I think the inclusion in popular culture is an interesting and informative section and should be reinstated. Please don't get me wrong - this electrocution is a horrific incident and should not be celebrated, but, if others have chosen to include this in modern culture, it says several things about human behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions in trivia sections and material lacking reliable sourcing in any section can be deleted. So its obvious why the whole section was deleted, it didn't pass Wikipedia's thresholds for inclusion. If you think there is something that was non-trivial and has a reliable source, add the item and the source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I did not check the sources. Of course I agree that unsourced material should be removed. Thanks for pointing this out.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Added an "In Popular Culture" section for the entire episode of the cartoon series Bob's Burgers which predominantly featured Topsy and was titled "Topsy". I promise I'm not making this up, and please check my source if you don't believe me. Feel free to edit wording to flow more smoothly.  Cawmaster (talk) 05:02, 08 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is not "does it exist?", the problem is "is it encyclopedic?". Articles do not list miscellaneous information, they report what some other source said about it. In this case are we trying to say Topsy is a Meme? If so WP:RS would need to be cited to that effect and added to an article section. Please read WP:TRIVIA. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed decently large enough of a reference (an entire episode of a popular TV show dedicated to the topic) to warrant mention in this article.  It's not even a minor reference, the episode is named 'Topsy'.  If TV shows aren't "encyclopedic" apparently any wikipedia page on them or referencing them does not belong in this database?  I'm not arguing this is a meme, nor does an entire episode of a TV show make it a meme.  Not sure of your interpretation of what memes are, but this is not it. This all seems incredibly pedantic, but if you feel your opinion overrules the inclusion of any major information you deem 'unencyclopedic' in an article already lacking in subject matter, so be it. -Cawmaster (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing TV shows to prove the show exists is not encyclopedic. Citing a third party reliable source about the topic in question (what is the topic?) is encyclopedic. That is what is needed re: Bob's Burgers. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fountains is correct. Wikipedia is not a repository of all that is True, or it would contain an account of what I ate for lunch. Wikipedia contains that which is notable and encyclopedic, the summary of which is WP:V. We're looking for things that third-party reliable sources report on, not things you watched on TV once. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a major expansion of the article and put back "In popular culture" section in the recommended prose style. Bob's Burgers is back in as an example of what another source noticed about an Edison/popular view. Since the episode has its own Wiki page and seems to be unchallenged for Notability it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, at least "See also". Prose insertion with a context explanation seems better than a blank drop. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Volts of current"
The volt is not a measure of current. (Current is measured in amps.)  It is incorrect to speak of "volts of current." Please see the following references:
 * http://lab-01.com/wiki/doku.php?id=science-electricity
 * http://www.diffen.com/difference/Current_vs_Voltage
 * http://www.reprise.com/host/electricity/voltage.asp Richard27182 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC) -

"Executed" or "killed"?
The edits by User:82.19.20.190 re: changing the term "execution" to a more neutral term "killed" looks like a good catch. Technically speaking Topsy was killed/euthanized. Execution implies Topsy was put to death for a crime. The primary and secondary sources don't show this. Topsy crime of killing a man in 1902 did not lead to her being executed, she was sold on to Sea Loin park. The reasons the owners gave for putting Topsy to death were that they could no longer handle her, having fired her drunken trainer, and that she was expensive to keep. A third reason put forward (Michael Daly - 313) was a fear of liability if something further happened with Topsy. So she was technically "put down" (euthanized), not "executed". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia from Greek: εὐθανασία means "good death". I hardly think Topsy had a "good" death.  If electrocution was a good death, most veterinarians would simply plug our pets into the power supply when their time has come.  They do not - for obvious reasons.  To my mind "kill" is the most neutral word here. DrChrissy (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the newspaper reports she was euthanized (by the quickest most humane method they could think of) and it was overseen by the ASPCA. This is as opposed to, say, turning her loose in a pen and allowing people to shoot her full of arrows. They did not use what a modern vet would use (a chemical means) because they didn't have it. All they could think of was cyanide and they knew it didn't work well. They knew strangling worked best and that is what they used, they just didn't know the AC would kill her out right first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky one.  Neither word really seems totally appropriate.  "Execution" normally refers to putting someone to death as a punishment for a crime they've committed.  "Euthanasia" normally refers to ending someone's life in order to spare them from pain or suffering.   Neither one really applies here.     I believe the reason the word "execution" is often used when referring to Topsy's fate is the fact that Thompson and Dundy more or less promoted the event as such.  Maybe a good compromise would be to use the word "execution" but enclose it in quotation marks each time it is used. Richard27182 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought "scare quotes" were frowned upon? DrChrissy (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the word "electrocuted" could be used except when it is a direct quote? DrChrissy (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"execution" (in quotation marks) was there at one point and may be a good idea. Thompson and Dundy stated their reasons several times in contemporaneous interviews, they could no longer keep the elephant. The problem I hit with this type of article is trying to avoid stating as fact motives and what people involved in historical events were "thinking" unless it is stated flat out somewhere in RS. The main source, Michael Daly, tries to tell us what they were thinking several times but I don't think he has that super power ;). We do have Daly 315-316 showing newspapers calling it an "execution" and we could infer press agent Murray was selling it as an "execution". And we got tabloids of the day incorrectly heralding it as some form of execution. Its all a bit soft, not well stated anywhere, but may be enough sourcing to state some newspapers portrayed it is an "execution". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of what is written about this case is wrong. It's worth reading one of the original newspaper reports. http://edison.rutgers.edu/webimages/TopsyNYT151903.pdf Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted "euthanize " is also defined as "Put (a living being, especially a dog or cat) to death humanely". Many animal shelters use the term and performed it for exactly the same reason as Topsy, they can no longer keep the animal. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr is quite correct in pointing out that "euthanize" has a second meaning: to put (a living being, especially a dog or cat) to death humanely. But I suspect that when most people hear or read the word "euthanasia," the first thing that comes to mind is "mercy killing."      Concerning "execute," there is plenty of evidence that at the time of the event, at least some people promoted it as, or reported it as, or referred to it as an "execution."  If we use "execution" with the quotation marks, we'd be using terminology used at that time, and the quotation marks could indicate that we do not necessarily agree with that application of the term.      Then again we could just say in plain English what they did to Topsy: they "killed her" or "put her to death."      As I wrote in my previous posting, this is a tricky issue.  It might not even be possible to come up with terminology that completely addresses and deals with all of our issues and concerns. Richard27182 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anyone have anything more to say about this subject? I'd hardly say we've reached anything resembling a clear consensus. Richard27182 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't really notice consensus for a change so it seemed dead. "euthanized" would describe putting down an animal under the supervision of the ASPCA in our modern, businesslike language, a term in the sources (Samuel Hawley) and prescribed by the Oxford Dictionary (word usage should follow dictionaries, not talk page comments). Other unambiguous language would be they "killed" or "put to death", just so long as it doesn't sound like Topsy tread on a power line one day;). We could write a paragraph on how this was portrayed as an "execution" but we can't do that examining differing coverage in contemporaneous newspapers, we need RS on that. Readers can read the sources so they can always draw their own conclusions on how it was promoted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the change to the introduction of the article made by is a very good one.  I believe it is much more in the spirit of neutral point of view than saying she was "euthanized."  And I believe it is much less likely to mislead readers not already familiar with the story of Topsy.  Good work, Fountains of Bryn Mawr!      However that still leaves the rest of the article primarily utilizing variations of the word "euthanize."  I think we've agreed that "euthanize" has two meanings:
 * To kill (a person or animal) in order to spare them from further pain or suffering; or
 * To kill (normally an animal) in a humane way, for whatever reason.
 * The first meaning can hardly be applied to Topsy. And that leaves only the second meaning which, in my opinion, does not really apply either.  It certainly appears that those who arranged the "execution" were much more concerned with promoting it and attracting a large audience than they were with performing it in a humane manner.  Do other editors agree with me?  And if so, what additional changes to the article could be made to address this issue? Richard27182 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this was under the supervision of the ASPCA demanding they use the most humane way they could think of given 1903 technology, it fits exactly the second def given of euthanization so no change needed on that account. In encyclopedia's we describe what happened, we should not get into motives, although the article gives enough detail for the reader to surmise what the motives were. Turning an animal's euthanization into a public spectacle (which they obviously tried to do - hey, its Coney Island) does not mean it wasn't a euthanization. A private hanging of a person and a public hanging of a person are both still "executions", they don't change state just because you add an audience. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . You have me a bit confused.  Why use one term ("put to death" [ which is my preference]) for the introduction of the article, but use another term ("euthanization") for the rest of the article? Richard27182 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead sections are usually written at a more accessible level than the body per WP:MOSINTRO so I was following that re: the claims the word euthanize was problematic for some editors. In a prose style we can use varied wording but if the terms need to be even throughout the article we could always switch it back to euthanized (my preference). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi      Since I am one of those editors for whom (in this context) the word "euthanize" is problematic, my preference would be to use "put to death" or "killed" throughout the article.  But if the options are use it in the introduction only OR not use it at all, my choice would be to at least keep it used in the introduction. Richard27182 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If "it" = keeping current version with "put to death" in the lead, sounds good to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . My preference would be to use "put to death" or "killed" throughout the article.  But I guess I'll have to settle for just having it in the introduction. Richard27182 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

video repeats, which increases load on wiki back end
Rather than playing the electrocution vid  in my browser, I downloaded it and played it through VLC. I noticed it seems to repeat maybe 8 or 9 times identically. Size is > 77meg. Is there a reason for this duplication, and should it be removed, and if so, how? 78.144.73.120 (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)