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)

Maurice Tillet paranormal Death 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).

First let me say that I have been studying everything Maurice Tillet, as I am marketting a 4th, recently discovered death mask of Maurice, so I have studied up on every possible detail I can find on Maurice. His friend, Patrick Kelly, donated both his masks in 2006, one to the Dan Gable International Wrestling Museum, and the other - likely the one with the paranormal story, to the Warren Anatomical Museum at Harvard. Patrick donated the masks under the name Patrick Leonard. I suspect his name is Patrick Leonard Kelly, and we know he lived or lives in Braintree, Mass. According to one source, he was 89 in 2006, when donated. I will source my blog as I go into every last detail I can collect on Maurice, The death Masks, and the very likely claim that he was the inspiration for Shrek

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)

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)