Talk:Edward Mordake

message: According to source of this legend, he was Edward Mordake - not Mordrake:
So, could someone move the page to 'Edward Mordake'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.77.116 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason this article is Edward Mordake, and in the lead it is spelt Mordrake, and uses the displaytitle template so the title appears as Edward Mordrake. Can someone explain this? I assume it is just something that was overlooked. Now there is a television episode at Edward Mordrake, which is based on the subject of this article. I'd say this article is the primary topic, and should definitely be moved, or at least moved so his surname is correct. Melonkelon (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is still wrong and inconsistent, two years later. Can it be fixed? Equinox ◑ 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconsistencies still exist throughout the article. The article title is Mordake, yet Mordrake (emphasis on the r) is used throughout the article. It needs to be one or the other. I'd suggest either moving this article to Edward Mordrake, or changing all instances of the surname to Mordake. The Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine source spells it Mordake. Melonkelon (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed all the prose instances of "Mordrake" to "Mordake" as "Mordake" is the earliest spelling. I've left alone the URLs and article titles "for obvious reasons" and any quotes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Mordake, not Mordrake

message: It needs them. --V2Blast (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: The article states his extra face "could neither eat nor speak" but it "it whispered horrible things." 76.121.211.59 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory things 

message: "...and also frequently ask for a cigarette."
While the second face whispering in the night may be a colourful term from the rather tormented Mr Mordake, the face that could not speak would clearly not be asking for a cigarette.  The external link (http://thehumanmarvels.com/?p=125) presents quite a balanced account detailing what seem to be very few solid facts, but does state "While no voice was ever audible..."
--Prodromoi (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the case of extra head's eyes that could not see but there is an account that states they can follow the motions of anyone in the room. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mordake#cite_note-3 Darwin Naz (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further contradiction 

message: The article states that he committed suicide at the age of 23, and then proceeds to quote Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine stating that he committed suicide in his 23rd year, i.e. at the age of 22. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the age of 23 part to follow the source.  My feeling is that "23rd year" probably means "age 23" in English, whereas something like "1st year" probably does, as you imply, mean "age 0" in English, but I can't find a source and it doesn't matter much anyway, so I think we should just let the source do the talking.  Is OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your "feeling"? I mean given how much BS that source is giving us I wouldn't be surprised if he was actually age 48 but as it currently stands, the source says "22". --178.202.203.79 (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the source says "in his 23rd year."  The article used to say that too, until someone changed it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of death - self contradictory 

message: I just found this picture on a source site.  I know nothing about uploading images to Wikipedia but perhaps someone does.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/83858344/  
Photo # 28 or 28. 222.125.0.22 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a fake to me, but what do I know?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to add this picture? 

message: I have to admit that I've considered deleting this picture several times, but now that it's done, I'm having second thoughts. Specifically, I haven't been able to find any other attributions for that image. Basically, while the image may be fake, I think it may also serve a useful purpose as an illustration, similar to illustrations included on the pages of other urban legends, such as Slenderman. Care to discuss? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care so much either way, but I think if it's fake, it ought to be labeled as fake, and since we can't find a source either way it seemed better to me to remove it.  But if you want it back in I won't argue with you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the same boat: I don't care much one way or the other. I'm convinced the image is fake (not least of all because I'm pretty sure Edward Mordake never existed), but I can't find that image being attributed to literally anything else. Even a tineye.com search shows that it was first picked up by their crawler in 2008, as a purported depiction of Eddy here. So the question is this: Is this image a 'fake' or an 'illustration'? Let me know what you think. I'd like to see if we can get a few opinions on the matter. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do an RfC!  How does that seem?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what an RfC is. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my God, it's super fun! (some sarcasm there, but not all sarcasm, especially about a low-stakes case such as this one). Read WP:RFC.  We figure out a neutral statement of the question, put a template in a section here, a bot spams it all over noticeboards, and then the kind of editors who like that kind of stuff drop by and offer their opinion.  I can do the technical part, but we should work out a nice neutral statement of the question that incorporates all elements, like does it matter if it's fake, does it matter that we don't have a provenance, does it have value as an illustration, what can we say about it in the caption given that we don't know where it came from, and so on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. As far as the specific question goes, I think it's really one of relevance. Does being fake render this image irrelevant to this article, considering that it has no other attribution? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: My concern has nothing to do with the photos of Edward Mordake (Mordrake), all of which are fakes of photos of wax “recreations.”
I'm concerned about the statement that the story of Edward is “apocryphal” (not true). However, at the end of the paragraph—after the part where Edward reportedly committed suicide when he was 23 years old—gives one citation: to the medical encyclopedia ‘Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine’.
Let's examine whether ‘Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine’, by George M. Gould, M.D., is a Reliable Source. According to our own article on Dr. Gould, “[A] collection of papers about his life are held at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland.” There is not a stitch of information in the article on Dr. Gould calling into question his veracity or the truthfulness of any of his life's work. 
Furthermore, even though, the full text of the medical encyclopedia at Archive.org (search on the spelling “Edward Mordake”), states … it goes on to also say that “”
There is no weight to arguments that the story should be called into question just because the parasitic face reportedly had a feminine appearance (which would supposedly be inconsistent with a parasitic twin in the minds of wikipedians who play doctor on Wikipedia); a smaller parasitic face may have all manner of distortions and could have appeared “monster like.”
The current practice of citing ‘Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine’ as an RS and also of writing that the story is “apocryphal” is schizophrenic; it can't be both ways. Given that the document cited is classified as a “medical encyclopedia” and given that one of the two doctors who co-authored it clearly had a respectable career, it is improper to write that the story of Edward Mordake (Mordrake) is an apocryphal one; such an assertion constitutes cherry picking which parts of an RS one prefers to believe and amounts to WP:OR
Let's not confuse faked modern photos with the account itself, as told by what is clearly an RS. I've deleted the bit about the story being apocryphal. Any RS stating otherwise should be every bit as reliable as George M. Gould and the medical encyclopedia he co-authored. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine seems to be an RS 

message: The article presents Mordake as real ("...was born in the 18th century"), and apart from the vagueness of the things stated there is nothing in the article to point out that this might not be a real, until you come across the Categories tag (Fictional English People, Urban Legends, etc). Either there is factual evidence to support that Mordake was real, in which case the category tags with fictional should be removed, or there is not, and then this should be made clearer in the article (e.g. "is subject of a popular urban legend and was allegedly born in the 18th century. The story goes on to say that he was born with a second face on the back of his head").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.214.255 (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Fictional English People 

message: Is this snopes article on Mordake (they spell it "Mordrake") which pronounces the story false. The last paragraph is notable:
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly of interest... 

message: Duplicates subject. Danrok (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that subplots of American Horror Story are not notable enough for their own articles, so I'm okay with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Note, you might want to post a note to the talk page there: this article is not widely watched, AFAIK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

text: For some reason I thought both articles were about the TV episode. Danrok (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope! This one is about the urban legend that inspired that one, lol. For what it's worth, I'd be okay with merging that article into this one, but probably not the other way around. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Edward Mordrake (television episode)]] 

message: he existed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oratorio (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's not a legend 

message: I've seen what people think is the only existing image of Edward Mordake. I was wondering if we should add it. (You can find it easily on Google) XInspectrEx (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image