Talk:Tucker Max

• Previous deletion debate

Archives

---

1. 2005 – November 2006

Middle name

The middle name, Tibor, was added by a not registered user (just an IP), I have never seen that name used before, can we trust it? DJ John 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That middle name is used here - [1] --J2thawiki 10:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the mass media deletion

"There has also been allegations that anyone who disagrees with Tucker Max on his message board is banned, and no dissenting opinions are tolerated. Anyone can voice their opinion on Tucker Max without fear of deletion."

This is clearly not a NPOV. I am a huge fan of Max's and even I can see this. What is the point in talking about this particular aspect of Max's messageboard in this area but not other aspects of it? It's not something that can be proved or disproved without a source to back it up. Deleted it. Lauren 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)undyingphoenix

The "Blog Critical of Tucker Max"

Several people, generally from the same IPs, keep putting the "blog critical of Tucker Max" into the external links section. This doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for external links, and violates the policies regarding biographies of living persons. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that the author of that site is using Wikipedia to pimp his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljheidel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the "Tucker Max is a Douchbag" website, under US defamation law, falls under "fair comment and criticism". Tucker calls himself an "asshole" and goes on to depict himself doing a number of cruel things to regular people. This website just cements what Tucker has been saying all along. Why is a blog critical of Tucker disallowed? Does it contain inaccuracies? Maybe, but then again it's been proven that a few of Tucker's OWN STORIES contain huge holes in time and logic, thereby nullifying the "truthiness" of the stories. This blog that Tucker's own paid employees are trying to have blocked just documents the lies in Tucker's stories, as well as gives accurate accounts of "the REAL Tucker Max stories" that Tucker obviously doesn't state in his own work. So if the "Tucker is a douchebag" site is disallowed, so should his own site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

US defamation law (are you a lawyer by the way?) doesn't apply here. Wikipedia policy applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does this site break Wikipedia policy?

I'd like to see specific examples, because if this site is not legit under Wikipedia policy, then I believe the links to Tucker Max's own site should be knocked off the list as Tucker has been proven to be a flat out liar, time and time again when people do their research on him and the stories he claims are "100% true". This blog points out those inaccuracies of his stories, that is why Tucker's sycophants don't want people to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it breaks numbers 2,3,11 of the Links to normally be avoided in external links policy.

1. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The "Site Critical of Tucker Max" written by an anonymous author, and filled with comments by anonymous commenters making assertions that are entirely unverifiable. Say what you want about the truthfulness of Max's stories on his site, the Wiki page is filled with sourced, factual information.

1. 3: "Links mainly intended to promote a website." The "Site Critical of Tucker Max" was linked her to drive traffic to that site and that the link in this article is its author's primary means of promotion as seen by the correlation of the number of comments on that site to its inclusion in the Wiki article. It's essentially spam, thus the attempt by someone to include it in the Talk page as well.

1. 11: "# Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." The link, on its face, violates this section.

Furthermore, it violates just about every part of the [Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. That page begins:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Basically, there's no way that this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted this anonymous chucker once simply vandalized the link [2] rather than looking up all this to prove his point. The above is a Tucker-Max-centric single-purpose user account. BabuBhatt 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather ad hominem argument, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljheidel (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No argument was made. BabuBhatt 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but your assertations of Wiki laws should also apply to links to TuckerMax.com since:

1. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

Tucker misleads his readers by saying his stories are 100% accurate and true. This has been proven patently false. When people press and look for factual evidence to prove his stories occured, they find nothing. For example, in his "Absinthe Donut" story, he writes that he crashed into the storefront of a donut shop in downtown Chicago. Something like this would most definitely make the police reports in Chicago, but there are no such incidences like this. When pressed on the Opie & Anthony Show to prove his story true, his story changed.

This is just one such story where any verifiable evidence is nonexistant, and brings into question the truthfulness of the rest of his stories. Therefore, they break law 2 in this regard. They are factually inaccurate in that his stories are not "100% true stories" as Max claims. Also, they contain stories mostly made up from unverifiable sources.

1. 3: "Links mainly intended to promote a website." TuckerMax.com" was linked her to drive traffic to that site and that the link in this article is its author's primary means of promotion as seen by the correlation of the number of comments on that site to its inclusion in the Wiki article.

This is why people who work directly for Tucker are carefully guarding this site, because afterall, any article that might paint Tucker in a negative light have been deleted. His Wiki page is basically being used as a tool for the promotion of his own website.

So basically a link to his personal website should be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by providing my view on the content of Tucker Max's site for those that want to argue any biases. I think that his site is a great collection of stories based in fact with quite a large amount of omissions of truth and even more embellishment. That being said, I cannot see a way to argue in favor of keeping the link to the blog that was critical of Tucker Max. That link definitely violates WP:LIVING#Reliable_sources. That leaves the issue of Tucker Max's site itself being usable. According to WP:LIVING, the site can be used if it meets [[WP:V], WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, tuckermax.com does not meet WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). This actually creates an interesting problem. Without material from his site, this page does not meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia outlined in WP:BIO. This is where the important decision comes in. Both sites should be excluded because of similar policies. So the ultimate decision should be whether the information from both sites or neither site is to be included on the page. I personally believe that neither site should be included. This is what really needs to be discussed as there is no way to exclude one or the other, but not both under policy and we need to be debating that, not the merits of one or the other. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tucker Max site and this article are relevant and appropriate because Max has become a notable personality and author as a result of the site. It's irrelevant whether his stories are true or not, because they do not play into the substantive content of the entry. These things are factual:

1. Max writes stories.
2. Max has a website that contains those stories.
3. Those stories resulted in Max writing multiple successful books.

It is because of the books, website and stories that Max is notable, regardless of their content. The existence and history of the site are part of the acknowledged, relevant NPOV biographical information about Max. If Max was famous because he had a site claiming that he shat rosewater, it wouldn't matter whether that is factual or not. It is true, relevant biographical information.

However, this piece is not about the author of the "Site Critcal of Tucker Max." When he attains notoriety, and has his own Wikipedia entry as a result of his website, it can be linked to it. Right now and for the foreseeable future, that site has no verifiable NPOV information relevant to this entry, and should not be included.

And that's why the link to Max's site should stay, and the other should have never been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to www.tuckermax.com violate WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S6789 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective reading is fun. Read WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 To quote:

===Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)===

Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Max's site does not contain scientific works about cold, hard fact, and here is no contention that Max wrote the material on his site. The contention revolves around the fact that his stories may or may not be true. That is neither here nor there when it comes to the relevance of the article, and I really don't see how it falls under the purview of the policy regarding contentious or self-serving material.

Based on the logic being applied here, it would be easy to say, "I don't believe anything the Washington Times publishes, therefore, the Washington Times website should not be included in the Wikipedia article." It's twisting logic to fit your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are taking it too far. Information from his site that is not reliable should not be used. His site can be used to assert his notability, that is true. The content of his stories cannot be used unless otherwise verifiable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All links to tuckermax.com should be deleted. They violate WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) because they are they are unduly self-serving and unreliable. S6789 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and vandalization of this page

At what point do the moderators lock down pages that are constantly vandalized? Because if that point exists, this page has to have reached it. This is just ridiculous. Because a few people have some personal issue with Max, they constantly change his page and put ludicrous statements. Why even have an entry if it is never right because vandals screw it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.215.63.44 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

"Your face here" picture

I doubt this is suitable for wikipedia, please do not readd it. If you wish for a picture, please find one which is both released for fair use, and which is a picture of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feba (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

To be fair, he's kind of a douchebag.

O&A Section

While I don't approve of Antiscian's methods, I do object to the entire O&A section being removed. It's an appearance Tucker did, and the hosts asked questions about the proof for his stories. Maybe it could be reworded to be non-biased so as to not be Anti-Tucker, but I think it's a valid mention. Also, I don't object of course to linking to TuckerMax.com, I don't think we should use it as citations of fact (which the article does right now) --Bill.matthews 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Antiscian's Fact Mission

Look, these are accurate details about Max's appearance on the Opie & Anthony show. It is BACKED UP by video evidence, which I provided. This was a public appearance for Max, who is a public internet figure. And, I strongly feel the facts must be presented.

My Methods and Wording

My goal is not to attack Tucker Max nor vandalize his page. However, I strongly insist that the factual account of this public appearance must be accurately documented to present a more complete factual picture of Tucker Max.

Antiscian's Personal Jihad

The above paragraphs were added by Antiscian. That user has been warned about vandalizing this page before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Antiscian). The "bot" in question is Antiscian sitting at a keyboard and the Wikipedia staff in question most likely does not exist. --66.65.68.94 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTS FROM A TALK PAGE!!! Look, at least you could respect Wikipedia and its culture. This is NOT this is not Wackbag (or whatever forums the O&A people use these days).--66.65.68.94 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Bill.Matthews is right. I can see leaving a sentence or two about the O&A stuff on the page, but not a paragraph loaded with weasel words and opinion. --66.65.68.94 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is way better now

Max barely qualifies as notable, and the article doesn't need to be more than a few paragraphs. I'm glad it's been skimmed down so much. For the people who have an issue with him, bear in mind that keeping his article extremely short is a much better way of hurting his ego than filling it with criticism. Lcduke 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Lcduke

Stop Kissing Tucker's Ass

"For the record, Bill.Matthews is right. I can see leaving a sentence or two about the O&A stuff on the page, but not a paragraph loaded with weasel words and opinion"

Documenting the facts of Max's visit with Opie & Anthony is "weasel words" and opinion? You must have not watched the video I provided. If you want weasel words and opinions, re-read Max's stories. If you want facts, watch the video.

I assure you here and now, this Wikipedia article will continue to be monitored to ensure proper factual documentation of Max's public activities .

Glad you have the time to "monitor" this page. Guess you must have one of them there durn gizmos that lets you record the O&A show for future listening. --66.65.68.94 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am monitoring the page no more than you are. The reason for my involvement is due to the magical disappearance of the mention of Max's Opie & Anthony visit from his wikipedia profile completely. So, being that Max is a media figure, I feel the factual documentation of this radio show visit must be presented. 24.10.92.169 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Wikipedia "profile"...this isn't MySpace, man. --66.65.68.94 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you honestly resorting to semantics with this? I expected more from you and I am disappointed. 24.10.92.169 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you stop bickering over what the other one is saying. - feb^talk 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

SXSW Claims?

"At the SXSW conference in March 2007, Max admitted to spamming blogs and posting dozens of fake Amazon.com book reviews in order to increase book sales."

Do you have any evidence to back this up? 75.8.237.121 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Amazon.com specifically. 75.8.237.121 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

edit accordingly. i didn't add the sentence or the citation./ BabuBhatt 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article is too short

Yeah, it really is. Whether or not you like Tucker's writing or approve of his lifestyle and "gimmick", all the editing that's been done has reduced the article to a single paragraph. Lcduke's edit on this page proves that the deliberate attempts to shorten the article are themselves POV vandalism, but at the same time, the article a few years ago that documented message board trivia wasn't any better. Most notable among the problems with the article as it stands, is that there's no mention of either Rudius Media in general, or of the lawsuit from Anthony DiMeo.

Article should be broken up into a biography, entry about his website including message board, explanation of Rudius Media, criticism (O&A appearance, reporter trying and failing to find the sushi restaurant, not the critical blog), courtroom issues, and published works. McJeff 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my edit again. I was mainly upset because the entry was filled with pointless and irrelevant CRITICISM of Max, although the acres of trivia about him were pretty annoying too. I guess he's becoming more notable because of the book and his CC pilot, but I still don't see the article needing to be more than a couple of paragraphs. Lcduke 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be up to you to decide how long an article should be either. Please if you continue to cut this down to absolutely nothing stop coming to this article at all. It did have a lot of pointless information but it had a lot of plausable information as well. It could have been edited out of the pointless information instead of being completely stripped of all information. --LocalBandAid02 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rudius Logo Lawsuit

Does anyone have a source for the claim that Tucker is being sued/investigated over the Rudius Logo or is it just someone's defamatory idea of wishful thinking? Until someone provides a credible source, that should be removed. --70.195.132.122 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This information is defamatory and libelous. No such investigation or lawsuit exists, and thus no "source" is available. Antiscian has been warned before on his/her talk page for defacing several articles (including the Tucker Max and Gwen Stefani pages) with false and/or specious information, but has since blanked the page and continues with this behavior. This archived version of the Antiscian talk page is more accurate. Per the procedures outlined on the libel and biographies of living persons pages, a complaint has been lodged with Wikipedia. --ljheidel 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Even after the section about the logo has been reworded to be merely implicitly defamatory and libelous, it still violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV (as does much of this article...see the section below). Furthermore, it's not sourced. It's simply the opinion of one or more editors. All of this is 100% in violation of the policies on biographies of living persons. --ljheidel 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased.

This is the biggest joke of an article, and has such an obvious bias against Max. Besides the bibliography, there is not even any mention of his book which was a NYTimes Bestseller, for crying out loud. The entire article should just be deleted until someone wants to take the time to actually write an accurate, thorough, unbiased account of him that includes the bad AND the good. That's how neutrality works.

Why don't you take your paramount grammar skills and re-write it if it is bothering you so much?75.8.237.121 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone bother re-writing it? It will be trashed again within 24 hours. This is where the Wikipedia concept breaks down. --70.195.0.160 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Paramount grammar skills? Are you retarded? Why don't you take your "paramount" editing skillZ and go back to your counter-strike forum. This is a discussion about an encyclopedia, not a sweet place to pwn newbs. If you can't contribute to the discussion or offer a valid opinion, don't be a troll.

Way Too Short- Please Revert

I am not nor will I ever be a Tucker Max fan but this article is way too short considering what he has done. I have read his book and thought it was horrible and checked out his Wikipedia article about a year ago and found out a lot of information on him. It was a good article that described what he did without glorifying his practices. I come back to check a couple of things after a friend quoted him and it has been reduced to this. This is barely an article and whoever decided to delete pretty much all of it obviously does not like Tucker Max and is going against Wikipedia's POV policy. Most authors that reach the Best Sellers list have at least a few paragraphs about them on here and about there book but there is barely any mention about him at all. This is an encyclopedia and people come on here to find information about something/someone. Please revert back to the old article. This is absolutely ridiculous. --LocalBandAid02 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Format

I didn't add much additional information (best seller, etc.), but I just formatted the page so it is more organized and readable. The earlier blob of a paragraph was unwieldy and kind of pointless. The current format can at least be more easily updated in the future when/if the show is ever put on the air, new books come out, more criticism, etc. Bluefield 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This looks a million times better. --LocalBandAid02 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we not send this article through another round of death by consolodation? Some editors seem to want to eliminate it by shortening it until its no longer usable. The new format is much better. --ljheidel 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Max Not a Real Person

It is pretty common knowledge now that Tucker Max is the pseudonym of writer James Orville Carter and that the character is fictional, yet for some reason this article is still written as if Tucker Max were a real person. I have edited it accordingly as such.

Source? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your next edit can tell us a lot about how much attention we should be paying to this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Consolidation

It really doesn't make a lick of sense to not have separate sections for Books and for Online Content. Yes, generally WP policy states that you don't need to have short paragraphs in their own section, but this seems like one of the clear instances where this general rule should be ignored. Lumping the book into the biographical section is muddled and unclear, and doesn't help to make this entry have an encyclopedic feel to it. The reason it has been boiled down to only a few sentences is because of the constant editing by some editors here, and this is just another example of "death by consolidation" as described by ljheidel above. I'm not going to revert again, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Bluefield 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The sections never grow beyond a few sentences apiece, which the guide to layout is against. There is simply not enough info about the subject to require so many subheads. How is consolidation a "death" of the article when all of the information is retained, but unnecessary subheads removed? It seems to me that because LJheidel is directly involved with Tucker Max, that he should recuse himself from editing the page. It is a clear conflict of interest as I see it. BabuBhatt 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Death" is a reference to the slide back into a muddled and unclear entry. "Death" as in the ending of an organized page and a return to a cluttered and haphazard entry. Whether LJHeidel is involved with Tucker Max in a professional manner doesn't seem to make this subheading debate any less important. And what exactly does he have to do with this at all? I'm the one that brought this up today, so what bearing does he have on it other than me referencing his "death" phrase? Bluefield 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not L J heidel brought up the issue on this particular day is of no relevance to the question of whether or not someone who is a paid employee of the subject of the article should see the breach of ethics involved and recuse himself from editing the article. BabuBhatt 03:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the Biographies of Living Persons page:

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email.

While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts:

"...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."

I'm not sure whose ethics are being breeched. I haven't added "expanded (this article) significantly," only made changes to the format and removed libelous information. Wikipedia policy seems to allow me, as a "representive" of the subject, to do those things. I believe that it is fully ethical to remove slanderous information and provide balance to the article.

The sectional arrangement of the article lends itself to the creation of an clearly-written article of reasonable length. The rapid consoldation of the article creates disjointed paragraphs which either omit information or leave the whole article muddled and of little use. I'm not here to write some glowing, ten-thousand word essay on Max, only to remove unsourced and/or libelous statements and to (try to) keep the article usable. I have not (since becoming an employee of Rudius Media) expanded the article and have no intention of doing so. --ljheidel 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)