Talk:The French Angel

Initial edit

What a facinating and rather sad story. The only edits I'd make are my usual wording "polishes"..mainly at the beggining. For instance, it is standard in a biography article to have the birth and death,if applicable, dates right following the first mention of the subject's name. The final paragraph seems fine as is. Now there's a Ghost in the Machine! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

POO

Image needs source info

R.D.H., it's great that you did more research and added some info to the article. That's the one of the best things about Wikipedia, IMHO — you get involved with an article for a side issue and find yourself doing general improvements. But I thought I should point out that the Tillet image you uploaded has no usage tag on it, per the annoying new "identified source and appropriate copyright information" message prominently featured at the top of some maintenance pages. (I see it every time I check my Watchlist.) It seems that all untagged images will be deleted within 7 days of upload unless they're properly tagged. You might want to check Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. Obviously, we're getting serious about avoiding copyright infringement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So you get that annoying warning too...good to know it's not just me :) This photo was a bit problematic since I really did just find it on a site. I'm sure that site found and added it from somewhere else too. In terms of copyright infringement, though, it seems obviously a publicity photo, so if not directly in the public domain then it should certainly be subject to fair use. I seriously doubt we will be hearing from attorneys of the Tillet Estate on the matter. Monsieur Tillet's spirit, however, is another matter :)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

According to what I read at the above link (while researching another publicity photo), without an explicit justification on the image description page, it doesn't even matter if the image is unquestionably in the public domain — it will be speedily deleted. Also, publicity photos cannot be assumed to be in the public domain, despite what one might think. They may be considered "fair use", but WP policy now says that it won't accept such assumed rights and insists on explicit justifications.

I meant "annoying" somewhat sardonically; I have to agree that the burden of proof that an image is legally included on Wikipedia is properly on the person who uploads it, just as it's up to each editor to ensure that they text they add doesn't violate copyrights. Clearly, WP has been getting far too many folks uploading whatever images they could find and just ignoring policy about documentation and justification. Also, we shouldn't fall into the moral quagmire (and legal error) of thinking that something isn't illegal or unethical just because it's unlikely someone will be prosecuted for it. Even one big lawsuit could materially affect the WikiMedia Foundation, and they're the ones who make Wikipedia possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sardoncisim noted. So given the info, how would you attribute it? I found it on a site, I gave full attribution to said site and it is being used fairly in a NON COMMERCIAL way. If it gets deleted, so what..myself or someone else will just upload and add it again with a different attribution. This new policy is both ridiculous and unenforcable without destroying everything the Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to stand for. Instead of The free encycleopedia anyone can edit, it will become the carefully controlled, policed and regulated encycleopedia only Philidelphia Lawyers who are thoroughly familiar with all copyright laws and policies can edit. I don't think, my dear Jeff, that the problem is with Wikipedians uploading images to be used here freely and fairly. The REAL problem rests with (para) sites such as THIS Which blatantly take Wikipedia images and use them for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. That is where Wikipedia becomes legally responsible. And it is highly unfair to punish its contributors, when we are not the ones misusing the images. Perhaps the Wiki powers that be should go after the true villans of the peace here, instead of making our lives and work here more difficult and complicated. (Exit Rant mode) But back to the problem at hand. what do you recommend? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, R.D.H., but you've got several things wrong:

1. The Tillet image is not appropriately attributed. If you'd read the policy link I gave above, you'd find that it requires that Image:M Tillet.jpg have an explicit justification for fair use in its description, not just a URL in upload summary. I'm not going to repeat or paraphrase it here, because people shouldn't be uploading images without reading the policy.
2. WikiMedia material licensing is specifically designed to allow any kind of distribution, including commercial, as long as appropriate credits are given. The WikiMedia Foundation holds the rights to this material and funds the projects that make these wonderful works possible, so it is their decision. (I'm not too happy about the commercialization myself, but to paraphrase Nicholas Petreley, those who want information to be totally free of commerciality should create (not copy) some information and make it free. Anyone fool can copy; the rights to material come from the hard work of creation.)
3. Wikipedia contributors agree (by participating) to allow their material to be used without any benefit other than editorial attribution. Any other policy would require the Foundation to enter into half a million contracts with individual editors, and the Foundation has enough challenges just buying and maintaining equipment working well enough for the projects to be useful. The hard work of creation in this case gets split between the Foundation, which creates the overall project and makes global decisions, and the individual editors, who implicitly accept the edit-history credit as their reward.
4. The entire WikiMedia metaproject is based on the desire to avoid a select committee to make editorial judgments, which form a severe bottleneck in the timeliness and breadth of material. (This is how Wikipedia took only a few years to become the world's largest encyclopedia, when many print versions take a decade even for a single publication.) Since it is impossible for any small group to examine everything that's contributed, it makes perfect sense to create a means to enforce compliance with necessary rules when possible. In this context, the decision to add that "annoying" step to image uploads makes plenty of sense.
5. WikiMedia's legal exposure frequently comes from people persistently and incorrectly treating anything on the Web as if it were public domain. This is dangerous wishful thinking, and the Foundation must protect itself from this kind of errant behavior. (I highly recommend reading the Public domain article, especially the section on Public domain and the Internet that I started a while back.) In this specific case, publicity photos are not universally recognized as fairly used in any desired context. Someone must make a specific claim that this is fair use and why; the appropriate person to do so is the person who uploads the image. No one else should have to shoulder that responsibility.

It's very easy to criticize the decisions made by others; it's vastly more difficult to implement a "better" way. It's been my experience that the vast majority of folks who don't like what they see are much more willing to complain about it than to create something new. (Indeed, I've been in that vast majority on many occasions myself.) The one thing I can say about Jimbo Wales and the other creators of Wikipedia and the other projects is that they put their money (and others' donations) where their mouths were and made a great thing. I'll reserve my own criticism of their decisions until I've created my own global encyclopedia that doesn't allow itself to be sold — just as soon as I can get funding to build it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Sources:

So far this is one site I have found, but I will add others if I can find them. [1] Spawn Man 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything Maurice Tillet, including a 4th Death Mask made from the man can be seen here: http://deathmaskofmauricetillet-theangel.blogspot.com/

This is the Marj Heyduck article that mislabelled the picture of Phil, the Swedish Angel, as Maurice Tillet: http://darwinscans.blogspot.com/2010/12/official-wrestling-august-1951-mike.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interested in the Angel (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey that's at least SOMETHING, which is more than I could find on the subject. So we have one mention in a book and a four year old posting on a message forum. I'll keep hunting too. So tired...so very tired --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. "Whilst looking for more information on the Maurice tillet death mask story, R.D.H. fell asleep, his head pressing on the 'z' button...."

See, now look what you've all done to poor old R.D.H. You've run him ragged, we should stop looking for the story, & just focuss on expanding the article... Spawn Man 06:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Death Mask

I'm very curious about these death masks, I think I have one of them. Is all the info on them from the book listed as a source?

Interested in your possible death mask

There is only supposed to have been three that exists. I know now, with much research, that I have a 4th. After much study mine appears to have been the bust that was molded to create the other three. I would be very interested in sharing details. It is possible that there is more out there, however it is much more likely that you may have one of the Louis Linck busts created in 1950. It still would be an amazing treasure, if that is the case. I will put in my blog, it is a comprehensive study on everything Maurice, my mask, those out there, and his supposed inspiration of Shrek.

Shrek?

I'm not sure if this could be verified, but people claim that Shrek was written from Maurice Tillet [2]

If it is true, this info should be added. --Monk 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does look like Shrek. But, he isn't green. -The Bold Guy- 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I read somewhere, Shrek was allegedly modeled from one of the three lifecasts that were cast off Tillets head before he died. The said mask is located at the York Barbell Museum. 80.217.91.247 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats true you heard right. You can google to verify it the CGI of Shrek was modeled like Maurice Tillet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.203.55.24 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the source that is currently cited for the fact that Shrek is based off of him makes a comparison between him and Shrek, it does not serve to directly verify the claim. There is no actual evidence on that page that Dreamworks used his likeness to make Shrek. Does anyone have an alternate source?CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am an extreme skeptic, however I have come to believe Maurice was an inspiration for Shrek. Suspect they use a few inspirations for Shrek, however I have come to beieve Maurice likely was a primary, by look, and by character development. I go into detail about this in my blog. It is everything Maurice Tillet, as well as the Masks, and his inspiration for the Shrek film. I do have a recently 4th Maurice Tillet death mask I am marketting and it is how I got interested, however I have become far more interested in Maurice. I will source my blog for anyone looking into any of this.

According to this article at Buzzfeed, Shrek's appearance was based on Tillet. Not sure where they got the info, though. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Belief, even correct belief, is insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshilson (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Huffington Post asked DreamWorks (the film company) directly. DreamWorks did not reply. DS (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This Is True.

Paranormal anecdote

A story exists that, in 1980, 25 years after Tillet's death, Patrick Kelly installed a computerized chess machine which he frequently played against, next to Tillet's mask. One morning, Kelly played against the computer. That morning, the computer deviated from its set program and used a different style of play, including the French 18th Century Opening chess move. On further inspection, Kelly observed that the computer wasn't even plugged in. This supposedly happened on numerous occasions, but only as long as Tillet's mask was nearby. Kelly claims that he had engineers X-ray and check both the mask and the computer, but that nothing unusual was found.

This needs a reliable source to be added to the article. Tim Vickers 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates mistake

Unless his condition included ageing faster, I don't see how Mr. Tillet could die at 51 in 1955 if he was born in 1910. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.177.33 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maurice was born 1903, in Russia of French parents, his disease took it's toll over his lifetime and he did not enter into wrestling in Europe until 1937. He came to the U.S. in 1940, amd he wrestled until the end, when in 1954 he passed on the same day his manager and close friend Carl Pojello did. They are burried in the same plot with a joined headstone. The wrestling community pretty much wrote the book on the guy, unfortunately copies are not out there for purchase anymore. I keep hunting for a copy.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AWA

Tillet winning the AWA Championship should be clarified because that's not Gagne's title and likely has nothing to do with Gagne's title. Which region or territory are we talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.197.143 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nickname?

In this article about Tillet, he is called "The French Angel". I've found one image where he is actually called "The Swedish Angel" (Which wouldn't make any sense though, since he wasn't Swedish.) Image source: http://slices-of-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/mauricetilllet_headsize.jpg 80.217.91.247 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a wrestler (Phil Olaffson) who competed as The Swedish Angel, but I think it's likely that the image caption is just a misprint. Tillet only competed as The French Angel from what I can tell. NiciVampireHeart 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the above detail. I have gone very deep into the life of Maurice and everything about him. The above is absolutely correct. The author of that article or her (Marj Heyduck) paper really screwed up on the caption. And it made a mess on down to us. It is Phil in the caption with Marj. Someone just screwed up and mistaked Phil for Maurice on the caption. Maurice was the original Angel wrestler, before all others, and he was marketted as, "The ugliest man in the world", "Freak Ogre of the ring", "The Angel", and finally "The French Angel". Maurice's mother called him "Angel" for his childhood. He was a very athletic, angelic looking child, and hence his mother gave him the title. Seemed someone realized, "The Angel", was an incredibly smart way to market Maurice, with his look being so different. Later a competing manager realized money could be made on the Angel gimmick, they brought in a bunch of Angels, including Phil. Reportedly Maurice was not very happy about it. Likely Maurice, the original, Angel Wrestler, had to remarket using, "The French Angel". One of the other widely reported mistakes is that Maurice was in the 1949 version of Mighty Joe Young. Again, it is likely due to the article and picture from Marj misrepresenting Phil as Maurice. Phil played in Mighty Joe Young and hence people are seeing his picture from the film and thinking it is Maurice. Everything I have updated I have put into my own Blog about Maurice. What is a little sad is that most say that Maurice went to college to be a lawyer, and then was interested in going into film. However as his disease progressed his vocal cords stretched. If anyone has heard Andre the Giant speak, it was similar, as they had the same disease. If you add to that Maurice primary language was French, and he spoke, up to 14 languages, depending on who you believe, you can see how hard he would be to understand. It likely put a serious damper on film acting, and for certain his desire to be a lawyer. Again I will source my blog so that all these details and a ton more can be referenced.

I removed the "Influence" section and here's why

The "influence" section had

Some have speculated that Maurice's appearance and behaviour inspired the likeness of the main character in the DreamWorks film Shrek (2001) of the same name, but this rumor is not confirmed.

It's ref'd to Huffpost. And google says there are are a couple similar articles; there's clearly been some level of copying but not completely.

Bot, nobody's actually speculated that the Angel was inspiration for Shrek, if they did it's not recorded that I could find. A writer, or maybe more than one, saw the Angel's picture and said "hey he looks like Shrek". Lots of people look like other people, but so. It's easy for a writer to change "I speculate..." to "People speculate..." but I don't trust HuffPost's independed fact-checking operation to confront the writer with "well, what people? Name some."

Anyway, the movie Shrek is based on the book Shrek! by William Steig, and Steig drew Shrek kind of like the movie one, and that's what he's based on, Steig's drawings. If the movie's artists did look at people with acromegaly for inspiration on details (not that that would have been necessary) there's no reason to believe that the Angel in particular was the main one. So a couple rando hobos woolgathering about things that aren't so aren't worth reporting, so I removed the section, restore it if you like and we can talk. Herostratus (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Shrek redux

There are a number of sources saying that Tillet was the model for Shrek. So, he wasn't. I'm pretty sure. So, the problems with the sources is first of all, a bunch of people speculating on their own dime means nothing. Most of these sources are unnotable people and whop cares what some rando hobo thinks? There's zero actual evidence that the Shrek people even knew of Tillet. If someone associated with production had something to say, that'd be different. But there isn't.

Also, I mean there's no reason for Tillet to be involved. Shrek looks pretty much like in Steig's book, if you family-friendlied him up some. If Tillet had never existed, what would Shrek look like? Same probably. It's all just simian pattern-matching most likely. If people keep putting him in maybe we should have a section about how there's baseless speculation about that.

Some refs:

http://deathmaskofmauricetillet-theangel.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

https://neuronerdz.com/the-real-life-shrek-maurice-tillet/

https://historydaily.org/maurice-tillet-inspiration-shrek-acromegaly

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/real-life-shrek-inspiration-maurice-tillet-french-angel-photos_n_6391422

Herostratus (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks nothing like him, you on crack??

I think he looks more like a that bloke off that sitcom in the 90’s…can’t think…..had the funny ginger woman in it? Fuck sake what was it called!?

this is awkward

bare with me, it’ll come to me

ah that’s it!

JOSEPHS LIVELY SHED

think they only made a couple of episodes 2A00:23C7:9B89:D201:858A:A165:5D0D:957B (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Documentary sources?

I'm curious about what sort of sources we have for his origins? The claim that he was born in the Ural mountains to French parents seems only to be supported by anecdotal evidence. Also, the Urals are an incredibly long mountain range, so I would think that any kind of official documentation of his birth would provide a more specific record of where, precisely, within that mountain range he was born. Also, do we have any kind of idea why a French couple was living in the Urals in the first place? I would assume that his father's job as a railroad engineer would have something to do with it, but is there evidence of the practice in other sources? I know that the Russians routinely engaged western Europeans in various roles as part of the project of empire, but I was curious if it fit a specific pattern? Evansknight (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Favourite food

7 oxo cubes a kilo of cous cous 3 field mice and a dime bar 2A00:23C7:9B89:D201:6164:1FFA:AE10:7A40 (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit

I saw him eat a “Jenny’s juicy Detroit style ranch burger” once in Plymouth 2A00:23C7:9B89:D201:6164:1FFA:AE10:7A40 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Never in a million years would you see him hoover up let alone clean windows…. Fuck - wrong topic 2A00:23C7:9B89:D201:6164:1FFA:AE10:7A40 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Who put 50cent in the dickhead haha 2A00:23C7:9B89:D201:6164:1FFA:AE10:7A40 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)