Talk:Maurice Tillet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	France Portal Maurice Tillet is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

An entry from Maurice Tillet appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 26 September 2005.

	Professional wrestling Portal Maurice Tillet is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Initial edit 2 Paranormal mask claim 3 Image needs source info 4 Other Sources: 5 Death Mask 6 Shrek? 7 Paranormal anecdote 8 Dates mistake 9 WikiProject class rating

[edit] 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)

[edit] Paranormal mask claim

The story told in the last paragraph of this article has no source and doesn't represent likely observable reality. I don't know anything about Tillet, but I do know that no reputable scientific double-blind study with proper controls has ever demonstrated the existence of ghosts. At the very least, if we're going to assert that a ghost is playing chess on an unplugged computer, we'd better have a published source for the story. And frankly, US$1,000,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation awaits the person who can prove (not merely aver) the truth of this story. Anybody out there feel like bugging Patrick Kelly for the opportunity to split a million dollars with him? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Greed is always tempting. I wonder if Randi would offer $10 mil for definitive proof of the existance of god... As for the paranormal paragraph, itself, I prefer to look upon it more as an unusual and interesting footnote to Monsieur Tillet's life (or after life)than as a definative, objective fact of it. Hence it begins with the words "A story exists that". --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

JREF (not Randi himself) offers the $1M for any proof of what is considered paranormal. The typical problem people run into is that they make statements like "God exists", which cannot be scientifically tested unless you define what "God" is and how you will prove that he/she/it exists. (It's not enough to point to the Bible; plenty of fiction has been passed off by authorities, even in today's world of instant global communication and paper trails, let alone a work written in at least three ancient languages, translated by thousands, and committeed to death during many formative centuries. Most attempts at "proof" tend to be include a priori assumptions of His existence, which is circular logic. But enough of this digression.) A basic test of the Tillet story would be to sit down with Kelly and his chess-playing computer, have an independent engineer armed with test equipment verify there is no source of electricity going into the computer, place the mask next to the computer, and start the program with the power off. Simplest way to earn $1M I've ever heard of — assuming it's true. I agree that this is an interesting anecdote, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose information is supposed to be factual. Legends should be represented as such, which is why I changed the text to "A story exists that" and added caveats throughout the paragraph. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the opening article. Unfortunately, although many people have told me how to, I still don't really know how to put my sources in. I got the story from a book I found. It was called, "The World's Most Fantastic Freaks" "By Mike Parker". I don't know if that solves anything? I don't actually know if the actual ghost story is actually real or not, but I got it out of the book, so I think it should be included in the Maurice Tillet article. Spawn Man 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Spawn Man. I've added your information to the article in a new References section, based on information I pulled from Amazon.com. You can see how it's formatted by clicking on the History tab (usually at the top) on the article page, selecting the left-column button representing your edit and the right-column button representing mine, then clicking on either "Compare selected versions" button. This will show you the changes (along with all the wiki formatting markup) that I made to produce the book entry. (I apologize if you already knew any of this; if you still need more info, feel free to contact me on my talk page.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Spawn Man

I like the changes you made and the help with the reference. Thank you. I also agree about the difficulties in proving god exists. However, many of these problems apply as well to the existance of ghosts. Namely, we can't agree on exactly WHAT they are. Are they really spirits who have not fully "crossed over" yet? Are they some sort of psychic energy residue which attaches itself to certain places and objects? Projections from another dimension entering our own through some sort of rift? It is also conceiveable they are products of multiple phenomenia. In which case no single explanation could adequetly explain them. Like you and Randi, I'm highly skeptical, but one should keep an open mind. Just because something is rare or improbable does not mean it is necessarily impossible. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• The paranormal mask claim is dumb and should be removed; it says something about Patrick Kelly but nothing about Tillet. Tempshill 05:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Great use of words. Well I for one don't think it's "dumb". However, I would gladly move it to another page, such as "Patrick Kelly & his story of the chess machine that he thought was inhabited by Maurice Tillet's ghost". I would do that, but the title isn't that catchy. The only other place to put the story is on Patrick Kelly's article page. But he doesn't have one. Nor do we have any information on him. There has to be at least 1,000 people named Patrick Kelly, so finding him would be prolonged & probably fruitless. So at the moment, the paranormal story remains, as it has no other page to belong to. Spawn Man 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Tillet's DEATH MASK. Which makes it relevent to the article. Apart from that why do you find it "dumb"? There's a better known "dumb" story featured in the article on Frederick Barbarossa. According to it he did'nt really die but sleeps in a mountain near one his his castles, waiting for a sign so he can awake and return. Would you have that removed as well? I think it is fascinating stuff, and I doubt you would have even known about the article or bothered if it was'nt for the mask.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Easy boy, easy... :) Spawn Man

As I suggested above, there is a place in Wikipedia for well-known legends, as long as they're identified as such. But if this Patrick Kelly is so unnotable, it begs the question of just how well-known the Tillet mask legend is. Does it only appear in this single book? How notable a source is Parker's book? Since I don't know anything about either Kelly or Parker, I don't feel comfortable removing this cited material, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did. It might be a good idea to find a second source to bolster the case for the legend. (Another brief aside: the question about Tillet's ghost [or whatever it is] ultimately isn't whether ghosts exist; it's whether the mask does what Kelly claims [or rather what Parker claims that Kelly claims]. If I tell you that I can flap my arms and fly like a bird, you'd be inclined not to believe me. But if could demonstrate this ability in front of a skeptical audience, it wouldn't really matter that we have no theory of how this is possible — my action itself would prove it possible. That's why proper tests are so important. Humans beings are remarkably able to convince themselves of anything without evidence. Indeed, in some circumstances, it even seems to be a survival trait, which may explain its persistence in the human psyche.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, good points Jeff. I've done some quick and dirty Googling, but can't really find anything more on the Kelly story. Still, I was able to find some more "facts" along with a good pic and added them to the article so it will have some more besides the paranormal stuff we can't seem to agree on. I do think the para adds to the article,though. So many articles, including ones I've started or expanded, suffer from dryness. Of course we want credibility, NPOV and accuracy, but we also want articles which are interesting and make people want to read and re-read. The search continues. On a side note, I vaguely remember as a kid watching pro-"rasslin" on TV Saturday afternoons, Gordon Soley and some of the old timers talking about "The French Angel". Also remember his countryman, Andre The Giant, mentioning in an interview once how The French Angel was one of his heroes and inspirations.

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice work with the picture & additional info R.D.H. The book which I got most of my info from, see sources on article, has many other biographical stories about other "freaks" or abnormal people. Checking with other sites & articles actually on Wikipedia, I found that although the book didn't have as many facts on the subjects, it's data was accurate. So if all of the other stories in the book are correct, I don't see why Parker would be wrong, or even make the story up. I will keep on looking for a second source however. Spawn Man 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, argument from authority (i.e., reputation) is another logical fallacy, assuming that just because someone is right about X, they must be right about Y. Einstein overturned 19th-century physics with his radical but provable relativity theories, but some of his beliefs about quantum physics didn't hold theoretical water. As far as authorship goes, it's quite easy for someone to write well about one topic and fail miserably on another, even without intending to. Another common misconception is that someone "has no reason to make it up" when one cannot find an obvious motive (e.g., self-interest, pushing a cause). People tend to ignore the most obvious reason of all: fame from sensationalism. The spate of pseudo-reality shows and the popularity of National Enquirer-style stories provide ample demonstration of just how strong a boost to one's career can come from "making it up". I wish there was a copy of Parker's book in my local library system; I'd like to check it out to see just what it says. I've put in on my list, though, for the next time I stop by the Library of Congress. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ^{[citation needed]}

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)