Talk:Poe Toaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Poe Hoaxer is more like it[edit]

The same guy has visited Poe's grave every year for over 50 years? Not bleeding likely. --Tysto 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read the article, you'd have noticed that it states that most people agree that the mantle has been passed onto someone younger than the original toaster. Sleeper99999 21:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh thanks. That explains everything. Now I totally don't believe that this is just various members of the Poe Society hoaxing gullible reporters. --Tysto 02:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As my TARDIS is currently in the shop for a tune-up, I am unable to visit 1949 and see if anyone actually visited Poe's grave then. As far as the Vast Poe-Loving Conspiracy, who knows. It seems to have been pretty well documented that someone has been visiting the grave for decades. Sleeper99999 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the new guy is really a football and republican loving jock and not a poe-esque romantic Theducks 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having found this from another webiste(Neil gaiman's blog) I am intrigued - having re-read the history on Labyrinth13 and other sites, I'm reminded of a book called The Ultimate Quest - anyone want to share ideas/discussion? Crescent 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked the "An essay on the history of the Poe Toaster" external link at the bottom of the page lately? Using Firefox (if that matters), it redirected to a profanity-filled criticism on miserableprick.com. Feel free to delete this when someone more knowledgeable than me fixes the link. --206.174.156.129 04:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and removed, the link added nothing to the article as a external refrence/source/site. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw everyone's attention to this particular notice left by the illustrious Poe Toaster: "The sacred memory of Poe and his final resting place is no place for French cognac. With great reluctance but for respect for family tradition the cognac is placed. The memory of Poe shall live evermore!" Family tradition? Hm. If the original Poe Toaster incarnation has indeed fallen victim to the forces oft associated with old Edgar, then perhaps this young fellow is his son. I am so inclined as to agree with a former comment made against the romantic nature of this greenhorn, and emphatically doubt that Poe would care for such mundane happenings as sporting events. ~T

Added detail from CNN story on 2007 toast regarding son and note with link, but not sure how to properly call references section, maybe somebody can clean up. Link is in tag source. Am surprised at those who scoff at the possibility one person could do this for 58 years; no imagination or sense of literary power on the reader, but suit yourself. 69.145.82.2 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

A picture would be helpful. I did a simple Google search, but nothing turned up. It's hard to believe that for 50 years no one has taken a picture of this person. Zendik 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.comnet.ca/~forrest/cognac.html has what is apparently a picture of the toaster. Not sure about usage in relation to copyright laws, though. 68.238.135.173 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work... and I think the EA Poe Society makes sure they don't get pictures of the Poe Toaster. Midnightdreary 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a picture of the Poe Toaster taken in 1990 http://www.prairieghosts.com/cognac.jpg. --unsigned, from IP address 81.76.34.239

Interesting image. It claims to be from a 1990 issue of "Life" magazine. Can anyone confirm? Here's the caption from the web site: The "Phantom Toaster" was captured on film in the July 1990 issue of LIFE Magazine. This mysterious figure comes to the burial ground every January. His identity remains a mystery. I wouldn't be opposed to putting it on here, even with some disclaiming terms like "allegedly." --Midnightdreary 03:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. However, you may want to heavily scrutinize any image or story coming from the Prairieghosts.com as they are financially interested in giving "ghost tours" and drum up business by presenting "a mystery."
Kendra\TALK! 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's Anniversary[edit]

Seems tomorrow is the anniversary again. I can't make the trip up this year so, Saturday morning when all the news has gotten in, can someone post what went down? - The Alpha Couple


All references give January 19 as Poe's birthday, however, the gravestone says October 9, 1849 to November 17, 1875. This needs to be addressed. Famosa (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)famosa[reply]

That's the original grave marker. The dates are the dates that he was buried in that plot before he was moved, not his birth/death dates. ArakunemTalk 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which grave?[edit]

Does anyone know with certainty which of Poe's graves the Toaster visits? Is it the original marker or the large 1875 memorial? Once that's solved, we can get an image of that on here. Midnightdreary 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to the actual cemetary, but have followed this story closely for years. In the "External links" section of this entry, there is a link to my website, The Tale of the Poe Toaster on Labyrinth13 where I have posted a photograph that was taken of this year's tribute left by the Toaster. (See image at the bottom of the page once you have followed that link). Perhaps someone who knows the difference between the two grave sites can have a look and say which one that it is? Labyrinth13 18:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was very helpful; I've already added the image. I've visited the grave several times - you should make the trip some day! Midnightdreary 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Visiting Poe's grave is on my list of things to do prior to shuffling off this mortal coil, so I envy those who have made the trip. The photo looks nice on the entry, by the way. Thanks for posting it. Labyrinth13 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well something seems not right with the article. The bottom picture clearly shows the tribute left at the current grave marker, though the intro paragraph and first picture imply that they are left at the original marker. (The first picture is the original marker, as you can see by reading it at full resolution.) ArakunemTalk 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

It seems like the 2004 paragraph was just lifted from http://labyrinth13.com/Poe_Toaster.htm

It clearly says on the top of the page: "First publishing, September 2001. © All rights reserved. This article now appears as Chapter 5, The Tale of the Poe Toaster, in the book Labyrinth13. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express, written permission of the author (permission to link to this article on the world wide web is hereby granted)."

Did we get permission to use an excerpt?

Mattwolf7 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that information was added by a user named Labyrinth13 - my guess it was the author hoping for free publicity. Even if was the author, though, copyright is held by publisher. Feel free to fix it. --Midnightdreary 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?[edit]

Hmmm... http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-08-15-poe-fan_N.htm?csp=34 ~CS 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great article! The recent "revelation" has already been added and sourced in the article. I'm wondering if more information will be coming out soon. --Midnightdreary 15:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I need my eyes checked! I could have sworn it wasn't in the article yet. Sorry about being hurried and redundant. ~CS 02:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or Not, He's no Laveau[edit]

The tradition of using red xxx's to mark one's grave, toasting of spirits, and the use of Cognac (a traditionally French alcohol) may originate from the Voodoo practice of honoring famous priestess Marie Laveau.

This could be someone who honestly believes in the practice attempting to do several things: hoax, media sensation, voodoo, or some other form of spirit calling to assist with someone's writing, or just honor the spirit with spirits! "Spirits" in voodoo practices generally crave blood, alcohol, tobacco, and any other vices that once tied them to being human.

Either way, I'm glad someone honors him. Kendra\TALK! 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

I was there personally, there was quite a crowd, but I checked with other people there, and they agree that it was closer to 130, not 150, and that number rapidly decreased the further we got away from midnight. Still quite an impressive number. In the future reporters may want to either actually attend the event, or perhaps talk to someone besides Mr. Jerome, who has a definite motivated interest in keeping this tradition alive.

Also, a gentleman who wandered away from the crowd was mugged early in the morning, so if you go in the future, make sure you stay near the crowd and the police, and dress warm. --68.49.122.194 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited news link[edit]

The news link for the 2008 visit was a dead link. Replaced with a live one and edited metadata. Abpillai (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the links in the "References" section are now dead. Fixed one, but had to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.130.184 (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense...?[edit]

These two sentences: "In 1967, Porpora says, he told a reporter that the tradition dated back to 1949, though the article to which he refers actually was printed in 1976.[3] Jeff Jerome, of the Edgar Allan Poe Society, however, says the earliest newspaper article about the Poe Toaster dates back to 1950, predating Porpora's claims" If Porpora claimed that the tradition dates back to 1949 and Mr. Jerome says that the first article published about the Toaster dates back to 1950, where's the problem here? Nothing 'predates' Porpora's claims, as the newspaper article only proves that in 1950 the traditison had [i]already[/i] existed and not that it was actually started that year. Or alternativey, if what the editor who wrote these lines meant was that the 1950 article predates the 1976 article, what does that prove? The 1950 article is the first documentation of the Toaster, and the 1976 article is about someone claiming to be that Toaster. I believe these two sentences need rewriting. Or maybe it's just that the dates are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.23.23 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 1949 date is wrong; I think that would straighten it out. I'll check and get back to this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified it. What Porpora was saying was that he made up the whole thing out of the blue in 1967, claiming that someone had done it since 1949 (implying in 2007 that there was no such tradition prior to 1967). Jerome has proof that it began as early as 1950. Does this make more sense? Good catch on noticing it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mugging[edit]

I do not think it is wise to whitewash this event. The Vigil for the Poe Toaster is a great thing, and people should know that it is generally a safe event, but a mugging did happen in 2008, to a participant.

Perhaps the organizers, or at least the "old hands" should let participants know that it is going to be a long, cold night, that people may want to walk around the block to warm themselves up, and that the restrooms in the hospital can be used instead of an alleyway. If they leave the group, they should do so with friends, and make sure they are aware of their surroundings. Learning from this event is better than getting publicity for the 2009 murder or rape. People MUST take care of each other.

Additionally, people come to wikipedia to learn about the event. Most do not bother reading the discussion page. It is a disservice to remove potential dangers from the main article and pretend that somehow the event is held in an alternate Baltimore where crime does not exist. It is also wise to point out that there is police protection tasked for the event, so people are safe if they stay with the group, however, people tend to wander off alone during the night, which is the risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.7 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What event? The article is on a person known as the Poe Toaster. How does a mugging that occurred on the same day he does something have any relevance to an encyclopedia article? We're not for news, for a tour guide, an invitation to view the Poe Toaster, or for warnings against doing so. Read more about Wikipedia to learn what we do here. We can't assume what people come here for, we just create an encyclopedia article. It's not being "whitewashed" because it is a negative event or because we are hiding a crime. It's just not relevant to this person's history or biography (unless he was mugged or he was the mugger). Consider another Wiki if you'd like to create a "How to visit the Poe Toaster" guide. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least adding to the discussion. I would put forward that the mugging occured to a participant, who was there watching for the toaster, and that this information is AT LEAST as relevent as the numbers of people who showed up that year, or some of the other "fluff" in the article. It isn't that a mugging happened to take place near the toaster, or on the same day, it happened to someone who was there specifically to see the toaster. I have restored the article as it was. Instead of this back and forth edit war, perhaps there should be neutral arbitration? Isn't that how Wikipedia works? Please do not remove my contribution until we have actually discussed this, you do not "own" this content. Also, who is "we"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.7 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very correct; I don't own this article, or any other. This particular piece of fluff was such an obvious piece of irrelevant info, I don't see how any Wiki-policy could support its inclusion here. I do agree with you: this mugging incident is as relevant as the number of people which attend the vigils. If you're suggesting we remove the attendance info on the vigils, I would support removing all of that along with this info on the mugging - of course, the biggest piece of information that might say Wiki-policy supports including these numbers more than including the mugging is simple: it is verifiable due to cited sources. The mugging info is not. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, regarding discussion: it seems that most concesus disputes support leaving the article at the status quo, as in whichever version of the article has withstood editing for the longest amount of time. Since the article most often did not have info related to the mugging, it should probably be left out until concensus is reached. You seem to be the one pushing point of view here by deciding that we should include disputed new information before we agree that it should or should not be included. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for discussing this issue. I do not support removing anything from the article, short of future vandalism. I also strongly support updating the article with a 2009 events section, whatever that may hold.
Since you agree that the mugging is as relevant as many other items in the article, most of which has been there for YEARS, then it should remain, in that it fits in with the "spirit and intent" of the article.
I put forth that it would be just as much as a disservice to remove the number of vigil holders, as to remove the other information about the events surrounding the Toaster, including such things as the changing of the guard, international recognition, commentary by Poe experts, and the claims by mister Porpora. It is these sorts of details that give life to the article (including, unfortunatly, the mugging). Without the events, explainations and expansions the Toaster article would be very short and dry. I think it would be a disservice to dismantle the article at this time.
Since we have moved away from the discussing the relevence of the information, we are now discussing whether or not it should be included. If strict citation is required, then most of the article would have to be stripped out, because there is an awful lot of conjecture and second-hand information. The article would not meet academic or professional standards for publishing, BUT IT NEEDN'T. This is Wikipedia, not a journal. --98.169.199.7 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as providing a direct link to an online source, the Baltimore PD does not provide a directly accessible link to police reports, and the Baltimore Sun police blotter archives are only accessible for a few weeks without paying, and, in any case, cannot be linked to. Is a copy of the police report required? Applying such strict citation requirements would mean stripping almost everything out of the article, (for example, many of the comments by Mr. Jerome are not directly cited) not just the mugging, which, again would be a disservice. Applying such strict standards is a double-edged sword which would only serve to harm the article. Further, the original argument (made almost a year ago, and continued now) is that the mugging is "irrelevant". We have agreed that it is not, and now the goalpost has been moved.--98.169.199.7 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misunderstand me: I still am not even remotely convinced that information regardig this mugging is relevant. This is, at best, an ancillary anecdote to the true purpose of this encyclopedia article. And, regardless of what my personal opinion is, the strict citation requirements for Wikipedia are what keep the project credible. If anyone sees information without a citation, it is always a candidate for immediate removal - and the editor who removes it would not be wrong to do so.
Again: this is an encyclopedia article on a person known as the Poe Toaster. Someone who went to see the man and was shortly afterwards a victim of crime is not directly related to the Poe Toaster. Please make your case as to why it should be in an encyclopedia article on the Poe Toaster. Has a reliable source you can cite argued that the Poe Toaster is responsible for this crime? That this victim would not have otherwise suffered this crime if he was in Baltimore for something else? Remember, this is not a "how-to" guide on visiting the Poe Toaster or Baltimore in general. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet in your comments above, you agree that the Mugging is as relevant as other parts of the article that have been present of years, and that you likely contributed. Let me quote: "I do agree with you: this mugging incident is as relevant as the number of people which attend the vigils". Your words, not mine, though of course I agree.
You have again moved the goalpost, and are arguing in circles. Let me reiterate that the article is good as it stands, that future expansion of the events section is desirable, and that no changes are needed. It seems illogical to suddenly want major revision or dismantlement of a article you mostly wrote/write and have been maintaining for years, simply to exclude a negative event. If citation is absolutely necessary, I will cite the offline Baltimore Sun Police Blotter for the relevant date. If that will clear up the issue, please let me know.--98.169.199.7 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I stand by my words: the mugging is just as relevant as the number of people who attend each vigil year after year. In other words, neither are relevant. I didn't write the entirety of this article; read the edit history to confirm this. The information that I personally added actually conforms to Wiki-policy - basically anywhere there is a footnote to a reliable third-party source (just like Wiki-policy demands), it's likely that I added that information. The fluff stuff without footnotes throughout is probably from someone else. Adding a cite to the info on the mugging is certainly a start (especially if the source says clearly that the mugging was a result of the person's attendance of the vigil for the Poe Toaster and this person would not have been a victim of crime if he was in Baltimore for something else), but still doesn't excuse how ancillary it is from the subject of this article. My point that the info does not belong here does not, nor has it ever, been because it is a negative event - please stop making that accusation and pay attention to what I'm saying. What if someone leaving the Super Bowl XL was mugged? Does that get in the article on that SuperBowl? I think policy on what Wikipedia is not would support me. My assumption, of course, is that you are actually looking at these links that I'm showing you which support what I'm saying. Let me know if I'm wrong in making that assumption. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, until this issue arose, you did not feel it necessary to remove any of the other information, which you admit is just as relevant as the mugging. You also continue to add conditions and modifiers to what you feel must be done to include the mugging along with the other content. If "irrelevant" information should have been removed, and you are the most frequent editor of this article, why have you not removed it before now? I feel I have jumped through all of your hoops, and even got you to admit the relevance of the inclusion of the mugging, however you keep slapping more hoops up for me to jump through. Beyond citing the blotter, must I produce witnesses? Must I produce the victim to give a sworn statement? Must I track down the mugger and bring him to justice? Even if I did so, what minutia would you site next? What interpretation of "wiki rules" would be twisted to purge this from your article? I again support leaving that article as-is, as written and extensivly reviewed by you, and continuing to add to it.--98.169.199.7 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my comparison of the relevance of the mugging and the number of people who attend a vigil that the Poe Toaster did not organize. I hope you'll get over it soon. Let me be clear one last time so you won't throw my words back at me again: I support the removal of all of this useless, irrelevant fluff. I would do it in a heartbeat myself if I didn't know that you would instantly revert me anyway. It didn't bother me enough before to remove it but it is quite ancillary to the story of the Poe Toaster. The mugging, of course, spurs me to action because it is so very far outside the realm of interest of an encyclopedia article on the Poe Toaster.
I do not doubt, nor have I ever doubted, that there was a mugging on that fateful night in Baltimore. Cite it with whatever the hell you want (with the exception of witnesses or the victim; again, you show that you are unaware of Wiki policy despite the many, many links I have offered you). It still does not make the connection I keep pointing out: is this person been a victim of crime because of his interest in the Poe Toaster? Would he not have been a victim of crime if he was in Baltimore for any other reason? Let me know when I start sounding like a broken record. My argument has not changed. I have not given you additional hoops to jump through; it's really ONLY that. And I am truly sorry you feel that I am making you jump through hoops when, in fact I did not create a single policy on Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your question: “is this person been a victim of crime because of his interest in the Poe Toaster? Would he not have been a victim of crime if he was in Baltimore for any other reason?” can be answered:
The victim was in Baltimore for no other reason than his interest in the Toaster, and was mugged while participating in waiting for the Toaster. So EXACTLY, he was a victim of this crime because of his interest in the Poe Toaster. Further, he would not have been mugged in Baltimore for any other reason that morning, simply because he would not have been in Baltimore that morning (or likely at any other time) for any other reason. Please let us stay away from hypothetical questions. The fact is that the mugging is tied DIRECTLY to the events surrounding the Toaster and fits quite well into the article as it stands, (and has stood for years under your watchful eye).
Since this will likely not be enough for us to agree to leave the article as is, I have gone ahead and requested mediation.
As an aside, I am sorry if you are taking any of this personally. It is not I who feels the need to modify and explain your simple statement of agreement. There is nothing personal against you in my desire to add content (which you admit is just as relevent as previously included, long-standing, and unremoved content) to an article which you have contributed to and edited for years. You are correct in that I would likely revert any deletions or major edits at this point simply to prevent damage to an excellent and time-tested article out of misplaced concern. Since this has become somewhat personal and emotional, I think outside mediation is the best course, as we are the only two in disagreement, and neither of our positions seems to be shifting. Sorry we could not come to a mutual agreement. I honestly appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue.--98.169.199.7 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decline your offer for mediation. The truth is, as a user without a user name and whose IP address edit history shows your only activity on Wikipedia is related to this article and no others, I have no reason to believe that you are familiar with any Wiki-policies as you have no track record which proves otherwise. You are welcome to review my credentials, if you so wish. However, there are much more important articles besides this one. I will acquiesce to your refusal to consider that you are not sure of how policy dictates we should treat this topic. My guess is that, some day, this article will be cleaned up and brought to higher quality in a way that falls in line with policy. Until then, I am not that concerned. But, for the record: this info on the mugging is not at all relevant to this encyclopedia article on the Poe Toaster; information on the number of people that attended a vigil on any given year is equally irrelevant. The number of people never spurred me to action before to remove it, and I admit that. But you must admit that accusing the Poe Toaster of being responsible for a crime would get any concerned editor's attention. Anyway, I hope I'm damn clear on this and that my own words won't be used against me again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have already put in for mediation. I, for one, and interested in an outside opinion. Also, I registered to file the mediation request. I have contributed in the past using different computers in different locations, so naturally not everything I have done or contributed shows up in one place. Until now I have never felt the need to register, but, so be it. --Wikipedian1286 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, welcome to the world of registered Wiki-users! I've struck my name from mediation. This might be a request for comment instead. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to come upon this little dispute. I fully agree with Midnightdreary. Even if there were reliable sources about this mugging, I'm not convinced it'd be worth including. Shall we include every time a police blotter reports a mugging after a game at Camden Yards? That a mugging happened is completely incidental to the subject of the article. Even if there are reliable sources about the mugging, do they demonstrate that the mugging is related to the Poe Toaster? --JayHenry (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello random wanderer to obscure article discussion pages! I added the mugging into the events section of the article (in january, and then agin more recently) because it fits well into the theme, content and, I feel, intent of the article. The article is not and has not been strictly about the Poe Toaster, but mainly about the events surrounding his vists, including people rushing him in '06, the number of people at the event, the numbers of visitors, the nature of the visitors, and even commentary from Poe experts, etc. Those are the details that make the article interesting, and help "flesh out" the Toaster, who is, admittedly, a contrived individual. Basically the events surrounding a person, make that person, and I think even moreso in this case. A mugging occuring to a participant is noteworthy not only by itself, but as a milestone of something interesting (even though that may be slightly ghoulish) that happened during the 2008 vigil to someone waiting for the Toaster, (a rather macabre event in itself). If say, part of the church collapses during the 2009 (or some future) vigil, I would think that would be noteworthy in the same way. (Ex. In 2008 160 people and a mugging, in 2009, 200 people, and part of the chuch collapsed, narrowly missing participants). The mugging not only happened to a particiapant, but to a participant who was actively waiting for the Toaster, on the night of the vigil. That is what makes it part of the events surrounding the Toaster. I hope that helps clear it up for you. I also wish you had stumbled upon this discussion earlier, before Midnightdreary excused himself, I am sure he would have appreciated the support!--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would any of that be any different than if any other person went to Baltimore (or any other city) for any other reason and got mugged after an event? If indeed it is noteworthy, than why is it not noted by any sources? In fact, it may be because according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are roughly a staggering 500,000 such crimes a year. A friend of mine was mugged just two weeks ago, in fact, on her way home from a venue that has a Wikipedia article. She'd not have been on that street corner otherwise. Should I also make a note of this? (By the way, have you read the page Wikipedia:Verification? Do you disagree with its contents?) --JayHenry (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mugging cited, that should help. I believe I have addressed the noteworthiness of the inclusion of the mugging (please read ALL of the discussion so far) and have even got the the author and main editor of the article to agree to the noteworthiness of its inclusion. As far as citing statistics, how many people gather at graveyards? How many people hold vigils? I think the content of the article proves that the events surrounding the Toaster are what make the Toaster. By following your logic, no event would be special, or noteworthy, unless it was completly unique, which is certainly not the case. As far as your friend being mugged, I am sorry. However, but was she at the venue? Was she a participant in the event when she was mugged? If so, it would probably be appropriate to add it to the venue's wiki page, especially if there is a section set aside for such things.
I have added the citation as requested, and am awaiting unbiased mediation. I enjoy continuing the discussion, but please do as has been done, and leave the article as is until the mediation takes place. An "edit war" at this point is senseless. Thanks.--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unbiased here. I don't care about the Poe Toaster, but did see an example where I could offer my outside opinion. You are welcome to take my advice, or to leave it, as you see fit I guess. Midnightdreary does not agree with you, by the way. He has patiently pointed you to a number of Wikipedia guidelines (that he did not write), and you are welcome to read them and ponder them. I'd also encourage you to look at other articles on Wikipedia, and determine how many items in those articles are from police blotter incidents. Then ponder whether or not there have ever been police blotter incidents pertaining to those articles. So Camden Yards. Has anyone ever been mugged after an Orioles game at Camden Yards? More than one person perhaps? Any other stadiums? Every other stadium? In the world? More than once perhaps? What about other festivals? Other events? Other locales? If Midnightdreary is wrong about how Wikipedia generally responds to police blotter items, then it will be easy to find other muggings detailed, won't it? And traffic accidents. Heart attacks. Drug overdoses. Conversely, if you look at most articles and aren't seeing such details, might Midnightdreary not be correct? I don't really care about the Poe Toaster. But I can tell you from some experience that mediators are probably going to care about the same Wikipedia guidelines that Midnightdreary pointed you to, and might even look around to see how police blotter items are generally treated. --JayHenry (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightdreary's quote: "the mugging is just as relevant as the number of people who attend each vigil year after year". If the main author and editor of the article agrees with the relevence, compairing it directly to previous additions that he either made or approved, how can I disagree? Again, read the quote above. I did not force Midnightdreary to write those words. So two of us agree that it is relevant, and all of us agree it should be cited. I have cited it, so what more is required? now that it is cited, meeting Wikipedia standards, that isn't good enough? I seem to be jumping though the same hoops, and even seeing the same arguments I have seen before. Again, I await unbiased mediation. Even if you randomly wandered in here and agreed with me 100%, I would still want unbiased mediation, and hopefully it is forthcoming.--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting him out of context, and you know it. He says explicitly that what he meant by the comment was that neither are relevant. He clearly disagrees with you, but you know this also. I fear that you are going to find Wikipedia a frustrating experience. I hope I am wrong. Best wishes. --JayHenry (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap! Are you still using my quote against me?? I am having difficulty assuming good faith; you continue to mis-read my words despite the numerous times I have corrected you. Please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, don't quote me again unless you understand what I was saying. Here it is, one more time, for the sake of posterity: the mugging is just as relevant as the number of people who attend each vigil year after year = NEITHER ARE RELEVANT. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, JayHenry said he was offering his opinion as an unbiased editor; you declined to hear his words. What difference does it make that you asked for opinions if you intend to ignore those that don't match yours? Further, the problem here was not citation; certainly, adding a source is an important part of the policy. But Jay and I are both arguing the same problem: this event is not relevant to this article. When will you at least consider that this is a possibility? --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another uninvolved opinion here. (Saw this at MEDCAB, though I think RFC is probably the more appropriate place at this stage of the dispute). I feel that the mugging is pretty much irrelevant to the article. He wandered away from the group and was mugged in the middle of the night in downtown Baltimore. If a mugger had tried to rob people while still in the main group, that might be more relevant, but even then as an aside. However, I do feel that the count of the spectators is relevant to the article. The Toaster and his visit is an internationally known event, and the count of spectators, to me, serves as a kind of reinforcement of this as more than a curiosity event. I'd be happy to formulate an RfC if everyone would like. (If not, I still suggest going there before heading to mediation.) ArakunemTalk 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the discussion. You make good points. I will go ahead and remove the edit, and cancel the request for mediation. In any case, the edit likely violates WP:OR, and possibly WP:NPOV despite the citation. I really wish someone had pointed these rules out to me earlier! Here is another: WP:IAR, perhaps my favorite.
Midnightdreary, if you can be bothered, please do clean up the rest of the article. I do feel that the events surrounding the Toaster are relevent, but you may be correct in saying that an events section may not be relvent to a biographical article about the Toaster. Should there be a seperate article about the Vigil? Or perhaps an unitary article with a section about the Toaster, and then a section about the Vigil? It would be nice if the Toaster article could be brought up to the high quality of your other Poe articles. Regardless of the final form of the article, I will no longer push to include the 2008 mugging (unless it turns out that the mugger... was the Toaster!). Thanks again for the discussion.--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I remove the mediation template, or let the committee do it?--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Two Cents are that the person and the event are one and the same. What happens at the event is relevant to this article. However, I think someone leaving the event and being mugged afterwards is tangential. It's as if I attended a baseball game and was mugged outside the stadium. The fact that I attended the event is central to my mugging, but my mugging is not central to the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.130.184 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster doesn't show up in 2010[edit]

There's two separate citations for the same article -- http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-poe-toaster0119,0,2325798.story. One's footnote #1, the other's footnote #12. Please fix. Kthanx. --MicahBrwn (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There. Hope I didn't screw anything up, I'm still learning. - Zmdi (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the duplicate citation's back. I tried fixing it, but it didn't work. --MicahBrwn (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it seems like there's THREE duplication citations... one of which doesn't work. I've tried fixing it, but I'm obviously doing something wrong. --MicahBrwn (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68.47.123.45 is constantly reverting to the old version where the problem is. Zmdi (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"poetaster"?[edit]

Im not sure the dictionary can be used to indicate a link between "Poe Toaster" and "poetaster". Other than being remarkably similar in spelling, there is no real connection. Poe Toaster doesn't even sound like poetaster (which is properly pronouned like "poet-ass-ter"). Unless there is some real source other than the dictionary we can use, I think that reference should be removed. Vyselink (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same point occurred to me this morning when I was doing some tidying of the article. I hesitated to remove it because the reference was titled "Poe Toaster and poetaster", as if the author of the referenced source had made the comparison in print; but the citation appears to be a dead link, so I was going to do some more digging before removing the sentence and reference. I agree, however, unless we can locate a reliable citation, it should go. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I can find no authoritative reference for the statement -- so unless someone has a strenuous (and fact-based) objection, I'm going to remove it in a couple of days. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. I had never seen the connection before this Wikipedia page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1849/1949 and "apparent last years"[edit]

DoctorJoeE has tried to changed the "Recent Events" section to read "The (apparent) last years" a couple of times now. I have several problems with that. A) It is guessing, as for all we know it may start again next year. B) It is highly unencyclopedic. I have several sets of encyclopedias going back a hundred years, and not ONE of them has a subheading that is even close to "(apparent) last years" or something similarly inane. Recent Events is the correct way to head the section, as until it is proven that the tradition is over (when the name could be changed to "The last years"), they are recent events.

As for this sentence "The tradition is said to have begun a century after Poe's death (under mysterious circumstances) in 1849...", I believe that it is incorrect, as the subject is the tradition, NOT Poe's Death, which began in 1949. The way it is worded above makes it sound as if the tradition began in 1849 which was a century after Poe's death, which is obviously incorrect. It should read "The tradition is said to have begun in 1949, a century after Poe's death (under mysterious circumstances)...". That sentence gives you the date of when the tradition started (which is the subject of this article). Vyselink (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, is this really worth quibbling over? I don't see anything in WP guidelines requiring everything we write to conform to the writing style of the encyclopedias on your bookshelf. I've spent a lot of time on this article, and I've tried to make it a bit more "timeless" -- i.e. these "recent events" won't be recent, eventually, they will be the "last years" of the tradition, and until we KNOW they are the last years, we only know they are APPARENTLY the last years. Of course we're guessing, we don't know the eventual outcome. As for your other complaint, I said it began 100 years after Poe's death, which was in 1849. 1849 + 100 = 1949. That's just silly.
I'll wait to see if anyone else even cares enough to weigh in on this, which I doubt. We're really picking nits here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will comment! :P The original sentence regarding the origin was too garden-pathy for me. Your compromise revision flows much better, even as two sentences. The "recent events" are still such, so are fine as they stand, imho. Calling them the "apparent final years" though, is technically original research and/or synthesis. At some point it will be logical to re-name them, or delete them outright. Ten years from now, who will care that the crowd was smaller in 2009, after all? For now though, it seems ok. That's the beauty of a constantly evolving article, no? ArakunemTalk 01:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll concede the "apparent final years" thing, not because of WP:OR or WP:SYN -- maybe I'm just dim, but it frankly makes no sense to me that either of those would apply in this situation -- but because on further review, it's just clumsy writing (which Poe abhorred). I'm still not thrilled with "recent events", which isn't particularly encyclopedic, but in the absence of something better, it will have to do. I'm going to make the other sentence a bit more precise as well, to avoid any confusion about Poe's date of death and date of birth. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1809?[edit]

In 2010 the Poe Toaster failed to appear. Jerome, who had witnessed every visitation from 1976 on, had no explanation, but did speculate that if the Toaster intended to end the tradition, the 2009 bicentennial would mark a logical ending point.

Bicentennial of what? —Tamfang (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence right before it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nature's way of telling the world that I haven't been getting enough sleep. —Tamfang (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone forced your clocks to change by an hour? With that said, though, those two sentences probably would make more sense in a single paragraph. The "list" style isn't prose enough. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use an alarm clock; I'm sleep-deprived because of a cold. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]


Jeff Jerome's introduction is a little choppy. he's introduced as "of the edgar allan poe society" and then a paragraph later is called "curator", without an explicit connection between the two. i'd say get your descriptions of jerome over with in the first sentence and then stick just to his relevancy thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.23.219 (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed this in a way that should satisfy you. He's actually from the Baltimore Poe Museum, which makes more sense than the Poe Society. I hope this answers your concern. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies[edit]

Their seems to be some pretty big inconsistencies in this article. This Toaster is claimed to show up at the same place (in the middle of a open cemetery) every year, and it is claimed that crowds gather to watch this event, but it is further claimed irregardless of the fact that this person must stand in plain sight (right in the middle of a crowd watching for him) that he is hardly seen by anyone. And furthermore, it is claimed that Jerome is the only one who is familiar with the details of his ritual, irregardless of the large following he apparently has (who come out and stand around the grave all night, but somehow miss his appearance and ritual at said grave). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisnoskij (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps unclear in this article that the ritual took place within the cemetery, with Jerome watching from within, and the crowd gathered outside the fence on the sidewalk. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discoveries I have made[edit]

I have done significant research on the Poe Toaster and have discovered several inconsistencies in the story that is presented here. I made a YouTube video summarizing my findings, but I am not entirely sure how much of the article should be changed. Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUAl0w1Ka_g all of my sources are provided in a document in the video description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingeworthy00 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No changes should be made here, even if you had been something less than vague. For one, crediting your own work would be a violation of WP:COI. Additionally, YouTube is not considered a WP:RS. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to cite my own video, I told you I have sources in the description. These sources cite reputable newspapers. I am only linking to it as an aggregator. As for the contents of the video, I demonstrated clear inconsistencies in Jeff Jerome's story, like the different liquors used, and the years prior to 1999 where eyewitnesses describe different "toasters" appearing than the original. Also, during the time when you could have clicked that link, I only got one view. My YouTube analytics say that whoever that view was only watched for a total of 36 seconds, so I seriously doubt you absorbed the full contents of my video. Bingeworthy00 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not judging your work. I'm reporting to you Wikipedia policy. See WP:OR. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." - Except I do have reliable sources. Again, I am not trying to cite my own video, I am trying to cite reliable newspapers from which I have done my research, which is absolutely allowed under Wikipedia's rules. Bingeworthy00 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Undent] I think you're misunderstanding the policy. Because you are drawing conclusions, it's a violation of the OR policy on synthesis. Please don't be defensive; that's just how the project works. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding my words. I am not trying to present my conclusions in the article, I just want the information that I discovered to be displayed. I recently made an edit to the article with one of the examples, being the different liquors left in years past. That is not a conclusion or interpretation, it is reporting from verifiable sources. Bingeworthy00 (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to help you any more than I have. Maybe look at WP:RS? WP:UNDUE? I can't tell if you're actually receptive or not. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to convey to you that these are not my opinions, analyses, or conclusions I am referring to. I am speaking of absolute facts, like those which I have outlined in the article and in my previous comment. They have reliable sources from major institutions, such as the Baltimore Sun and the Associated Press. I am not asking for my conclusions to be presented, I am asking for the facts which I discovered to be presented. For some reason you are so quick to disregard these, even though you obviously don't know which facts I am talking about. Bingeworthy00 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously do not. Which specific facts are you concerned about that aren't currently in the article? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of why I wanted someone to check my video, but here are some examples:
-The 1950 article (the one that refers to a bottle "of excellent label") claims that the stranger comes on the anniversary of Poe's death, not his birth
-In two interviews with Sam Porpora in 1976 and 1977, he claims that a bottle of scotch whiskey is left on the grave every year, not Martell cognac
-In the first instance of contemporary reporting of the incident in 1977, a bottle of De Kuyper cherry brandy is left, without roses
-The quote "Edgar I haven't forgotten you" also includes the signature of "W."
-In 1979, a bottle of Harvey's Amontillado is left instead of cognac
-1981 was the first year that three red roses were left with the liquor, it states in the article "The roses are new."
-In 5 different years prior to the 'son' taking over, eyewitnesses claimed that a man different than the regular dropped off the items. These years are '87, '88, '89, '92, and '98.
There may be some other facts that I have forgotten, but those are the major points. None of these were derived from my conclusions, and all have reliable sources that I can point you to. Bingeworthy00 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated which facts I have discovered. I originally was asking for help for how the article should be changed. How should the article be changed because of these facts? Bingeworthy00 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Poe Toaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poe_Toaster&oldid=1204797074"