Talk:Tucker Max

• Previous deletion debate

Archives

---

1. 2005 – November 2006
2. December 2006 – January 2008

POV

I'm not familiar with the subject, but this article is pretty blatantly non-neutral. It has three paragraphs, two of which are 'Controversies' and 'Legal troubles'; whereas it says virtually nothing about the man's actual work, or why he is famous. At the moment, it looks a lot like a Wikipedia:Attack page; I'm going to assume good faith and assume it wasn't created as such, but it needs serious improvement to reach the minimum standard for biographies of living people. If no such improvement is made to the article in the next week or two, I'll probably just reduce it to a stub, and possibly nominate it for deletion. As it is now, this article is simply not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Terraxos (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who keeps posting the Controversies section. I am not posting it as a form of attack, but rather information. The article lists his work as nonfiction. Given the James Frey situation, I believe that a "nonfiction writer" who passes off fiction as fact is notable. I am not posting it as an attack, I am posting it as true information. A lot of the complaints (which have only recently been explained to me) about it not being extensively sourced. There are several cases where his truthfulness is argued, and even proven at times with information about places that are not relevant or insightful criticisms of the veracity of the stories. Many of these sources seem very well researched pools of information, but they are oftentimes put in blog format, etc. As such none of the information from those articles is included in what I add. The one source that is a print publication that pokes several holes in one of his stories. I'm told that this information needs to be "extensively sourced", but all the information is from the one article stating those facts about locations and information about the different bars. Do I need to add a REF tag after each piece of information even if it's to the same page? I have, until this point, assumed the removing of my Controversies section has been by pro-Tucker vandals (or perhaps Tucker himself) but now I'm just not sure what the requirement for this information is. But I must say that I do firmly believe it to be relevant to a complete and comprehensive article about this man. TheArnieC (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problems are two or threefold.

1) You're quoting the story wrong. The manager of the restaurant manager wasn't even there the night it supposedly happened and the employee that refutes it has only worked there 3 years--after the event is claimed to have taken place. So right there it's a non-starter. Having a source is great, the source just has to make sense.

2) As per the WP: BOLP, we err on the side of caution. Always. That means if we are going to post criticism it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt true, sourced extensively, no original research, no weasel words, etc. For instance, if you wanted to add that he was a drunk driver and you had a news story detailing his arrest for a DUI, that would be fine. But vague things like "his stories might not be true" need to have HARD FACTS behind them or it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Go ahead and put them on a web forum or whatever--you could be right, who knows?--but they do not fit the set regulations of Wikipedia.

That is why the controversy section counts as vandalism. Posting it over and over again is inappropriate. Not only is it just factually wrong but it violates the standard Wikipedia holds itself to.

TheRegicider (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues

I haven't contributed much to this article, but I've been watching it for over a year.

The problem this article has is that Tucker Max's anti-fans are so loathingly contemptuous of him that they feel that the article being anything other than an attack page would be unencyclopedic. The recently archived talk page has several examples of editors determined to keep the article as short as possible as an insult to Tucker.

True, the article was at one point overrun with Tucker's fans who wanted to document message board minutae, but that problem went away a long time ago. Now it's just a few people trying to hold the wolves away from the door.

I haven't messed with this article because trying to do anything with it is like stepping into a hornet's nest.

Without an admin to state, and enforce, the unencyclopedic-ness of certain things that the vandals and, for lack of a better term, "haters", insist on contributing, will never be respected. Case in point - a back and forth war over the controversies section caused the article to be protected. And two weeks later, the two sides have't even attempted to initiate a discussion. What little of a discussion there was, was there before the article was protected.

Get an admin in here to sort some things out.

Then compile what needs to be mentioned about Tucker, good and bad. And since things are so argued over that a single change causes 20 edits in the article, hammer out what's going to be included on the talk page before adding it.

As a final comment, I'd like to suggest permanent semi-protection for the article so that randoms can't anonymously vandalize. McJeff (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

fix the link

in the bibliography there is a dead link to 'i hope they serve beer in hell', however, the book does have its own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.198.91 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Film

It should be announced that Max has a film in pre-production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OPIE AND ANTHONY

why did someone remove the reference to tucker's disastrous and controversial appearance on opie and anthony? they basically outed him as a fraud and he was seemingly humiliated, enough to never mention the appearance on his website or message board again. i find it suspicious that this article no longer mentions the situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is this thing called WP:BLP, also known as Biographies of Living Persons, stating that defamatory statements must be aggressively removed from the article unless impeccable sourcing can be found. And so far, no one has managed to find any sourcing better than "some guys blog" referring to the event. Therefore, it will not be added unless someone can do it properly, which no one who wants the information included in the article has been willing to do. McJeff (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

would a direct link to a video of the interview be sufficient? it is strange that it is claimed that sources are hard to find, because if one were to simply google "tucker max opie and anthony," the first hit would be a link with HTTP://WWW.FOUNDRYMUSIC.COM/opieanthony/displaymedia.cfm/div/opieanthony/id/11955/media_search/opieanthony/page/download_Tucker_Max_Spins_Yarns_with_Opie_and_Anth ony.html and HTTP://WWW.FOUNDRYMUSIC.COM/opieanthony/displaymedia.cfm/div/opieanthony/id/11956/media_search/opieanthony/page/download_Tucker_Max_and_the_Old_mics_not_working_t rick.html, which are direct links to opie and anthony's official website and the official interview in question. If you watch the official interview on the opie and anthony website, the information posted about the video states "Tucker Max came to the Opie and Anthony show to tell some of his OUTRAGEOUS stories...that most of us think...are bullshit. Thanks to Jon for capturing the gratuitous fabrication on tape, and for going to the store and getting the shovels to dig out of Tucker's bullshit stories." So is directly from the original source good enough? Or is there a better source you were seeking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want it included, you have to be careful to not include defamatory language. I'm not a Tucker Fan (rather, I quit being one after reading BC Woods version of why he quit contributing to the "Daddy Don't Hit Me" Rudius Media website), but I don't believe that there is reason for this to be an attack piece either. Anti-Tucker resources are plentiful the net over - this should be a neutral piece of information about what Tucker actually is, not what he says about himself or what people with a vested interest in discrediting him say.

There is also a wikipedia policy called "Undue weight", see also WP:UNDUE. It would be inappropriate to make an inordinate issue about Tucker's appearance on Opie and Anthony. Yes, it happened, and it should be mentioned, but that is all.

So the language you would want to use would be something like this. Tucker appeared on the Opie and Anthony show to promote his book "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell". During the course of the show he was accused of lying and compared to James Frey. There is currently no mention of the incident on tuckermax.com."

As I said, I'm a former fan turned relatively neutral towards Tucker Max and I'd be glad to help make the section meet the guidelines on biographies of living people, but until it does it should not be included in the article. McJeff (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was highly inappropriate for you to delete the entire 'controversy' section and remove all mention of it. Stop acting in bad faith. Your history of liking or disliking Tucker Max is irrelevant. If you wanted to edit my change to be more fair, you should have done so. You should not have deleted everything. That is vandalism. I am going to add the changes again with more neutral language this time (my previous addition, which you deleted, was from a previous edit, and not my own). Hopefully you will like the new edit and instead of deleting everything, you will contribute to the article. Do not vandalize more articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.224.173 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I contribute to the article by preventing your inappropriate edits from standing, and I suggest you go learn what vandalism is. McJeff (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In your own talk page you state "I also believe that deletionism often borderlines on vandalism" and "hardcore deletionism is vandalism." And then you deleted the entire controversy section. Very strange. Instead of deleting everything, which is vandalism by your own definition, you should have modified the questionable passage so that it was more satisfactory, and that way you would be contributing much more than just removing an entire section that you even agree should exist. I ask you to please correct your mistake. I could do it, but you would probably just revert it again and send me another nasty message. Please don't message me anymore and just just fix your mistake. You were off to a good start with your suggestion that sounded less biased. Just add that and we can work from there. The passage I tried to add was supposed to be a starting point, to be edited and revised. Instead you just deleted everything. Not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the history page, 1) you haven't contributed anything, and 2) the only thing that was contributed was the same old inappropriate BLP-violating paragraph by an anonymous IP, which was justifiably reverted. For starters, if you're going to edit the article, you ought to do so while logged in.

Since you appear to be a new wikipedian, I'm going to assume good faith and point a few things out. First is WP:AGF, it stands for assume good faith, which you ought to be doing. Second is Deletionism on WikiMedia, which if you read it, you'll find it refers to including articles themselves on wikipedia rather than specific sections within articles. Claiming that I am a hypocrite for calling myself an inclusionist while reverting your BLP violation is factually wrong. McJeff (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for asking something irrelevant, but where can I find the 'BC Woods version of why he quit contributing to the "Daddy Don't Hit Me" Rudius Media website'? I want to read it. GeorgeMillo (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It was in a post on the Freak Safari forum. I'll see if I can find it again. But the basic story is that Tucker tried to force BC into working as a prison guard so he could contribute to Fire on the Line, then stiffed him in ad revenue for the sight, and when BC complained, he fired him. Also dunno if you know but BC has a new site, dunceuponatime.com McJeff (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the post. McJeff (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't believe this can be included in the article unfortunately. According to Wikipedia standards, it can't be "proven" that the BC who made that post is the same BC who wrote for Daddy Dont Hit Me, and it could also be questioned whether BC himself is a reliable source. McJeff (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I have posted a new criticism section on this talk page. Please work with it until it is ready before trying to move it to the main page. Also keep in mind that it must be described as neutrally as possible - be sure not to include weasel words, as that was one of the many problems with the old version. McJeff (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it also all original research? I believe for a BLOP - especially with something as serious as calling the guy a fraud or a unethical boss - it has to come from a reputable news source? Even if we can verify that its BC Woods saying it, we don't really have the fact-checking resources to find out if he can be trusted. For instance, a line like "No mention of it as appear on TuckerMax.com would need to be sourced to an article that makes that assertion, not simply a link to his site. TheRegicider (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that "original research" is the most abused rule on wikipedia - just about anybody can call anything they don't like original research and wikilawyer the hell out of the phrase/statement to keep it out of an article.

As far as the BC Woods quote goes though, it was never included in the criticism section because BC didn't post it in his blog. All he ever said publically was that "he would no longer be working for Rudius Media".

For the thing about no mention of O&A appearing on Tucker's site, here's a source - google.com. [1]. McJeff (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential rewrite of "criticism" section

Tucker Max has had the truthfulness of his stories questioned. On June 27, 2006, Max made a appearance on The Opie & Anthony Show. After Max was unable to provide proof of two of his stories ("Tucker Tries Butt-Sex" and "The Absinthe Donuts Story"), he was accused of lying and compared to discredited fiction author James Frey. There is currently no mention of the incident anywhere on his website; however, videos of the appearance can be found on youtube[2].

Tucker's general responses to his critics have been to accuse them of not actually reading what he writes or knowing what they're talking about..

Perhaps you could use some of the direct quotes from the writeup on Opie and Anthony's site after Tucker's appearance. They are: "Tucker Max came to the Opie and Anthony show to tell some of his OUTRAGEOUS stories...that most of us think...are bullshit. Thanks to Jon for capturing the gratuitous fabrication on tape, and for going to the store and getting the shovels to dig out of Tucker's bullshit stories." and "In a valiant attempt to put an end to Tucker Max's endless bullshitting, Opie and Anthony pull the old 'hey, the microphone aint working' trick....which works like a charm. Tucker left in tears...almost. Thanks to Jon for the video." The quotes are from foundrymusic.com (Opie and Anthony's media site) in a blurb next to the posted video.

Not a chance that any of those quotes are going in. They called him a liar and compared him to James Frey, and he has chosen to pretend none of it ever happened - that's all that needs to be said. This is an encyclopedic article, not "The Official Debunking of Tucker Max's Established Persona". McJeff (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'criticism' section is stupid. If we're going to mention that Max has failed to provide proof for a few of his stories, then why not mention the stories where he has provided proof? (Book tour, having sex with an amputee, the miss vermont story, the tattoo story... to name a few.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMillo (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You see, this is why the Tucker Max article will never be any good. On one hand you have, for lack of a better word, haters, who so thoroughly loathe Tucker that they want the article turned into a smear/hit piece because, in their warped perception, anything less would be inaccurate. And that's not bad faith, just read the talk page archives and see it for yourself. And on the other hand, you've got fanboys who think Tucker's own sayso is incontrovertible proof of his honesty. And neither side gives a damn about writing a decent article. McJeff (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

there there, big guy. don't get all tangled up in your own righteousness and lose hope for the article. instead, i would please ask for you add the changes that you think are fair, and from there we can work to make the controversy section more NPOV. i liked the changes that you suggested, and you didn't like the ones that i re-added from before, so let's go with what you think is neutral and work from there.

to georgemillo: other biographies have controversy sections. tucker max should be no different in that sense. the fact that he has haters and fanboys is a testament to the fact that he might be controversial, now it's just up to us to cite sources and use NPOV if the controversy is legitimate.Theserialcomma (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for a rewritten criticism section:

Several critics have questioned the truthfulness of Max's stories; Jane Skinner of Fox News remarked while interviewing Max: 'My first thought reading [Max's book] was "James Frey in A Million Little Pieces" - there is no way that anybody can have a life this crazy. Is it true?' Max has provided prood for several of his stories, however many stories remain unproven. Notably, when Max appeared on Opie and Anthony, he was unable to provide proof for his stories 'Tucker Tries Buttsex' and 'The Absinthe Donuts Story'. After Max left the studio, the hosts criticized him and compared him to James Frey. GeorgeMillo (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Several critics have questioned the truthfulness of Tucker Max's stories. When Max appeared on Opie and Anthony, he was unable to provide proof for his stories "Tucker Tries Buttsex" and "The Absinthe Donuts Story," which led to Opie, Anthony, and comedian Jim Norton to accuse Max of lying. The talk show then hosts compared Max's supposedly fictitious stories to the work of discredited fiction author James Frey Theserialcomma (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If we want to talk about NPOV, I feel like its dishonest to call Opie and Anthony 'critics' and doubly false to use the word several when you're really only reference a single incident on a single show. And most importantly, with this article's history of trolls we should probably be careful when someone with no edit history tries to create a controversy section around a single damaging point. If this is such a big controversy why can't we just wait until they inevitably show up in print or are reported on elsewhere? TheRegicider (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

you are correct that it is inaccurate to use the phrase 'several critics' when referring to only one single entity (opie and anthony) as a critic. we must therefore add more critics (if we wish to retain the word 'several'), such as Jane Skinner of Fox News, and the criticisms from March 27, 2006's NYPOST article entitled "BLOGGER BAD BOY'S GOT DIRTY LAUNDRY" (see [3] for paid access to the article. it's in the nypost archives and more than 30 days old, so it's not available directly for free. search "BLOGGER BAD BOY'S GOT DIRTY LAUNDRY" in google to see references to this piece. The interviewer in the NY Post article accuses Tucker of misrepresenting how he actually looks on the internet. The reporter wrote that Max's "pale, bloated face and flabby body were a far cry from the stud pictured on his Web site" and that he "seemed shorter than his supposed 6 feet." Max ended the interview by stating that "Eight times out of 10, if you come to my Web site (tuckermax.com) to have sex with me, there's something broken about you."

Are these better criticisms? I think it's a legitimate criticism that a reporter points out that he is meeting girls on the internet to possibly have a romantic tryst with (which is true - see his dating application), but yet he misrepresents his looks. That seems like a relevant criticism, even if it is a bit of a harsh reality. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

stop reverting

I added the new criticism section and McJeff swooped in to revert it within minutes. McJeff, you are not contributing anything positive by reverting the criticism section. As it was mentioned previously, you should edit and correct any sections that you think are wrong, not just revert to deletionism, which you even refer to as vandalism in your infopage. So I added a new criticism section, with some of the wording that mcjeff even recommended, and it was reverted without any specific reasoning, just a vague accusation that it violated every single wikipedia policy (yeah, okay). I anticipated that mcjeff would do this, as his reputation from his talk page and the discussion pages of his articles has other complaints of him doing this same type of insta-reverting when he doesn't like something. so I undid his revert, and told him to come to this discussion if he wished to engage in civil discourse on the criticism section, instead of just insta-reverting. i have been talking about adding/revising this criticism section for over 2 weeks now in the discussion, so it's not like i declared today surprise-criticism day. so anyway, when i undid mcjeff's revert, i forgot to add my sources (they were all in this discussion, but i didn't add them to the main page. anyone who read this discussion page could have added the sources themselves, but instead someone else reverted me again. it was still my bad for not adding the sources) at that point i went in and added my sources to the article, except i realized that this was my third edit, and in order to avoid 3R, I undid my third edit and left the article without the criticism section. i intend to add the criticism section back again soon, and hopefully we can come to a consensus of what is acceptable for a criticism section, instead of just deleting the entire section. the bottom line is, this guy is controversial, and he deserves a controversy section, so stop reverting it. instead, fix it if you think it's done poorly. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, it is uncalled for. As we have already established, I want a properly done criticism section in the article. This discussion page exists so that we can get the criticism section to adhere to neutral point of view and biographies of living people, and to contain absolutely no weasel words before it is included in the article. Yes, I think your criticism section was done poorly. I appreciate however the link to the Jane Skinner article, and it should be included - not including the borderline libelous dialogue about him being short and flabby of course, that doesn't meet WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. She criticized his physical appearance is all that needs to be said of her actual quotes.

However, as all points of view should be represented, someone should see if they can find the post on his message board where Tucker declared "I am not going to address any of the accusations that my stories aren't true until I am ready, and once I am I will demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're true". McJeff (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologise if you believed my words to be a personal attack. However, as much as I agree with some of what you've stated, when I asked you previously to add the changes that you've proposed, you have failed to do so. I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what you think exactly would be fair, or what you believe to be borderline-libelous (which, btw, a reporter publishing the opinion that someone is chubby and short is not libel, or even borderline-libel), and therefore I don't know how to avoid your insta-reverting. So again I ask you to add what you think is fair, and we can work from there. Let's work together to make this a good article, starting with you adding the changes that you think are fair. I will re add my changes again later and try to make it more neutral if you are still unwilling to do what you've proposed, although I am hoping that you will do it instead, and that you will stop reverting my sourced changes. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst we should have a section on criticism, we need to make sure the references are as suitable as possible (per WP:Reliable sources) and the text as neutral as possible, particularly with articles on people (WP:BLP). Perhaps a third-party reference can be found for O&A's radio show interviews since they don't exactly seem "neutral" (compared to Jane Skinner's comments, for example.) I'll have a go at a rewrite later. Marasmusine (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I saw it is that while O&A themselves aren't a notable source, the incident itself is notable - however it should be described as "an incident" rather than "Tucker Max getting proved a liar", so in my original version I sourced that the incident happened but phrased it to carefully make sure it didn't sound like the article was taking an opinion on it one way or the other.

As far as the Jane Skinner comments go - a lot of times Tucker responds to things like the interview with her on his message board, and I'm unsure about sourcing things like that. I've been in discussions where it's been claimed message board posts can't be used because it's not 100% proven that the person posting is who he claims to be. McJeff (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something starting Max's stories have been likened to those of James Frey (citing FoxNews and O&A), then something like referring to "wild nights with women, drinking, etc" and to the possibility that some of the stories have been fabricated (citation to O&A) But I'm not entirely sure how to word it, not being familiar with any of these people's works. Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:McJeff. Surely we can cite from Tucker himself's posts on the RMMB? Is there really any reasonable doubt that he is the one typing those posts? GeorgeMillo (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the policy in regards to people posting on message boards. I was involved in a case once. "zombie", the webmaster of the zombietime.com website, is a poster on the blog Little Green Footballs. On a post there but not on his website he claimed he was targeted by hacker groups, and it was eventually decided that it wasn't proovable enough that the "zombie" posting on LGF was the same guy who owned and edited the zombietime.com site. Of course, one of the people involved in that issue was a now-community banned tenditious wikilawyer, so I don't know. This is a big part of why I asked an admin to come help out - I don't know exactly what's in the rules and what isn't.

At any rate I'm concerned about finding the posts - the RMMB is so huge it's like looking for a needle in a haystack to find something. McJeff (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

although i would agree that direct quotes from owners of websites on their own message boards should be weighed more heavily than other random quotes from message boards, i would still say that a source from a message board is generally about as poor of a source as a chatroom. depends on the controversy surrounding the quote and the specifics of the situation, i guess. also, the (paraphrased from mcjeff's paraphrased) quote in question "i shall address all claims of me being a liar when i feel like it" or whatever, is a pointless quote. that is like saying "i will prove that i can telepathically fly to the moon ... when i feel ready. until then, just assume i'm legit. please?" instead, a quote that actually says something important would be useful. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, I'm not sure why you keep removing the criticism section when the stuff is properly sourced and it was done by notable entities. Like I said on your talk page, the newspaper article could possibly be debatable as to its notability and it was just one person's opinion, however, the criticisms from O&A and Fox News DID happen. I thought we were supposed to talk about this stuff rather than do blanket removals, especially if stuff is from NPOV and sourced.Atlantabravz (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section 2

What follows is the edit that Theserialcomma has been inserting, along with template-related markups as to what is unsuitable.

Several critics have questioned the truthfulness of Tucker Max's stories. When Max appeared on Opie and Anthony, he was unable to provide proof for his stories "Tucker Tries Buttsex" and "The Absinthe Donuts Story," which led to radio hosts Opie, Anthony, and comedian Jim Norton to accuse Max of lying. The hosts then compared Max's stories to the work of discredited fiction author James Frey. In a separate incident, Jane Skinner of Fox News also compared Max's stories to James Frey when she remarked, "My first thought reading [Max's book] was James Frey in A Million Little Pieces". While Max has consequently provided proof for some of his stories, many of his stories still remain unproven.

Tucker was also criticized by a New York Post reporter for misrepresenting his physical attributes on the internet. The reporter wrote that Max's "pale, bloated face and flabby body were a far cry from the stud pictured on his Web site" and that he "seemed shorter than his supposed 6 feet." At the end of the interview, Max revealed that "Eight times out of 10, if you come to my Web site (tuckermax.com) to have sex with me, there's something broken about you."

I can't find the inline-synthesis tag, but I use that because I believe Max's comment at the interview may be being taken out of context or used to give the wrong impression of him. The weasel words should go without saying, of course. McJeff (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was under the impression that as long as it is not a test edit or pure and unadulterated vandalism, that we are to work on the article on the article and not within the talk page. I agree with Theserialcomma in that we need to keep it in there and then clean it up to standard based on debates and discussions we have in here. If you think that the article needs work, put it back on the article and fix the parts that you perceive to be broken. Or you can fix them on here and then re-post if that suits you better. Either way, I think the stuff needs to go in there as long as it is sourced and written from NPOV. And even if you perceive it to NOT be written from NPOV, there again, let's fix it as a community. The article itself is the work in progress as we all hash it out. I thought that was the whole intent of this project.Atlantabravz (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, I am officially accusing you of vandalism. In the interests of civility, and because I don't know the proper course of action to have this situation reviewed by an admin, I am going to continue attempting a dialogue with you, even though you are blatantly vandalizing this article based on invalid premises. Someone neutral with higher powers needs to look into this.

You wrote on my talk page that "Several" is a weasel word. Are you sure? I said "Several critics have questioned the truthfulness of Tucker's stories" and then I cited 3 separate critics (opie and anthony show, jane skinner from fox, nypost), and it would be 6 critics if you want to count jim norton, opie, and anthony separately, as they all criticized him and called him a liar (but they are from the same show) . Several is defined as "More than two or three, but not many." Are you sure that several is a weasel word? Because if you would prefer that I wrote "3 critics have questioned tucker max" instead, that is a little ridiculous and inaccurate. I don't believe "several" to be a weasel word in this context, but i'd like to hear your take on it.

You then complained about section: "While Max has consequently provided proof for some of his stories[citation needed], many[weasel words] of his stories still remain unproven.[citation needed]"v. I'll be honest, I am perplexed by your objection to this sentence. This is the one sentence that defends Max for being a liar, and you object to it? You keep reverting the whole section, and you object to any sentences that defend him! this is absurd. are you really claiming that a citiation is needed for this sentence in his defense, or are you just trying to filibuster and complicate the entire criticism section? i don't know what your intentions are, but if it makes you happy, we can remove the line in tucker's defense until someone finds the sources for it.

Then you claimed that "Tucker was also criticized by a New York Post reporter for misrepresenting his physical attributes on the internet[weasel words]. The reporter wrote that Max's "pale, bloated face and flabby body were a far cry from the stud pictured on his Web site. Are you sure those are weasel words again? The full quote from the article is this:

"I was stunned - not because I'd been scooped or by his gruffness. Max's pale, bloated face and flabby body were a far cry from the stud pictured on his Web site. He seemed shorter than his supposed 6 feet, smelled like a locker room and had a fleshy mole on his right nostril. Wearing baggy jeans, a gray tee and a black nylon, zip-front jacket, he looked like a convenience-mart cashier, sans the Redman chewing tobacco hat." So are you accusing the reporter of using weasel words? which ones and how? Or was my paraphrasing that reporter claims he misrepresented his physical attributes on the internet somehow misrepresenting her point? Please make sense of this.Theserialcomma (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by responding to Atlantabrvz - I am under the understanding that Biography of Livin Persons articles is an exception to the rule that work should be done in the article. It says that unsourced and inappropriate statements are not to be tagged, but must ruthlessly be deleted. That is why I will continue to ruthlessly delete it until either the section is in proper condition, or I am instructed to stop by an administrator. But like i said on your talk page, I'm the person who initiated all this and proposed trying to get the section rewritten so it was suitable instead of being axed every time it was posted.

Theserialcomma. First of all, you need to display civility. Accusing me of vandalism is not assuming good faith, despite what you claim. And there already is an administrator looking into the article - Marasmusine is an administrator, and I personally requested he come here. Furthermore, as I have stated before, removing BLP violations from an article is not vandalism and doing so is exempt from the 3RR (see WP:GRAPEVINE).

Three is not "several". At any rate, several can mean anything from three to two dozen, depending on the context and the way the person in question chooses to use the word. I would prefer the word "some", which means basically "more than one" without being leading in any direction.

As for the sentence While Max has consequently provided proof for some of his stories[citation needed], many[weasel words] of his stories still remain unproven.. Every statement in the section, both critical of and in defense of Tucker, needs to be cited. And again, I object to words trying to quantifiy - "some of his stories still remain unproven" is acceptable, but "many" is both Weasel and non-NPOV.

In regards to the New York Post article, I'm rather of the opinion that it shouldn't be included at all, on accounts that I fail to see the relevance of it as anything other than defamation. Even if it was a reliable source that doesn't make it appropriate. McJeff (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, i can't imagine why you think it's appropriate to undo someone else's talk contribution just because they made a perfectly valid objection to an invalid and false point that you made. just because you don't agree with something, doesn't give you carte blanche to censor it. every point that person made is true and i'm going to show you on a cite by cite basis.

1: "tucker max claims to be an asshole" [4] quote from page: "i am tucker max, and i am an asshole.

2. tucker claims to have sex with a lot of girls. see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and so on. a huge theme to his stories is him having sex with girls.

3. tucker claims to have sex with girls he meets on his website's dating application: [13] "This page is only up so attractive girls that want to fuck me can easily accomplish this goal."

4. he claims to date models: [14] where he answers the question, why do the pictures on your website of your ex-girlfriends look like models? he answers, because they are models.

5. tucker claims to have sex with a lot of girls, yet misrepresents his attractiveness on his website . see [15] for the source of the nypost reporter who met tucker and wrote the article.

By the way, you claim that "several" is a weasel word, and "three is not several." first of all, see [16] and count how many times that article uses the word "several" in the wikipedia article about criticisms of wikipedia. next, check the actual definition for the word "several" [17]: # S: (adj) several ((used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many) "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident." seriously dude, you need to stop. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, simply claiming that "removing BLP violations from an article is not vandalism" doesn't mean that you are actually removing legitimate BLP violations. you can't just claim it's a violation of BLP because you decided that it is. it has to be true, too. an admin really needs to step in here and fix this. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm the one that's vandalising, you have the option to write me up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you think your edits are legitimate and don't violate WP:BLP, then file an RfC on the article.

But you appear to be utterly unwilling to read and learn the wikipedia policies I cite, and so I have come to the conclusion that attempting further dialogue with you is useless. I will continue to revert the criticism section as a BLP violation until we have removed all the weasel words and cited all the statements in it.

For your further reading. WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:WEASEL, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:COATRACK.

For anyone else, I'll be happy to continue working with you to improve the article.

McJeff (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So Tucker 'misrepresents his attractiveness on his website' because one reporter said that he wasn't very attractive? How can he be misrepresenting his attractiveness when he has DOZENS OF PICTURES OF HIMSELF all over his website? Someone please explain to me what that nytimes article adds, or why it is relevant. GeorgeMillo (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It adds nothing. I posted a criticism section, but that part assuredly isn't in it. McJeff (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff,

I totally agree with the work you've done here but I think you have to admit that the Skinner remark is taken out of context. I watched the interview, she wasn't accusing him of much. That being said, if you do include it don't you need to include his response? Since his response defends the truth of the stories, it raises the issue of including it at all. Back at square 1, the only way to follow the BLoP is to leave it to be decided by other media outlets. TheRegicider (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and I think you're right - I should have checked the article out more completely. I rewrote the section, how do you think it reads now? McJeff (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"she did not question his truthfulness again." irrelevant. i mean, what else didn't she do? did she not question him about aliens or time travel? why would we mention what she did not do? let's just stick to what she did do and how he responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely is relevant, since the section purports to be questioning his honesty. Furthermore, I noticed your edit actually changed Jane Skinner's quote, which is extremely unacceptable. McJeff (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff -

Can I ask that you read a couple lines from Biography of living persons?

"to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article."

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link

Again, Skinner's question and response makes a serious implication that takes is not supported by additional third party sources. Opie and Anthony is of dubious legitimacy, includes original research (a transcription and retelling of events), and is solely their for its contentious nature. It also presents a minority view as a majority since not a single other reputable organization has publicized the event.

In this case, there is no way you can in good faith post that criticism section. It's not even close to acceptable by any of the agreed upon rules. In fact, this article was locked down for months specifically to prevent exactly what you're attempting to post. Max very well be a fraud and a James Frey, however, not enough people have picked up the story to make it Wikipedia true. TheRegicider (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree entirely.

First, the article was not locked down for the reason you are describing. The original criticism section was a much longer, unsourced, rambling attack against Tucker Max, and the people who wanted to readd it refused to address the issue on the talk page.

As far as the Opie and Anthony incident goes, my take - as it always has been - is that while O&A should not be considered a reliable source, the incident itself is notable, non-contentious, and should be discussed. I went to the trouble of noting that he was even accused of lying while off-microphone, and I don't see what the continuing issue is.

Jane Skinner's comment I take at face value - it was her initial impression rather than a learned accusation, and Tucker was given a chance to defend against it.

However, I'm willing to file a Request for Comment about the article rather than edit war. I've suspected all this time that an RfC would be necessary. McJeff (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's give that a shot. And for the record (even though your edit is clearly better than the previous one), I think the event could be notable but the fact that it happened over 2 years ago and numerous profiles and interviews have passed since without mention leads me to think that it isn't. If this was a well documented part of his history, it would be appropriate. Since it's really not, that means Wikipedia is making it one. That's not the article's job. TheRegicider (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

to TheRegicider, because it happened 2 years ago, does not take away from the incident. it isn't like in the past 2 years he's totally exonerated himself from the opinions and claims made by opie and anthony. in fact, all he's done is deleted any reference to the interview on his website, but not exonerated himself in any way from their claims about him lying about those specific stories.

to mcjeff, to say that she did not question him again on the issue is somehow to imply that his response to her accusation definitively removed all doubt from her mind... and then she never dared ask him about it again. this isn't the case. actually, she just brought up the point quickly, he responded, and then they moved on. why would you add "and then she never asked him about the incident again." btw, as far as your accusation that i 'changed' the skinner quote, i meant to add an ellipsis in her quote, but left it by accident. i will fix it. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't accusing him of anything in the first place. Saying "my initial impression was..." is not an accusation of any sort. And I add the fact that she did not repeat the statement again because it is true, it is relevant, and it adds perspective to the incident. McJeff (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Skinner interview if anyone wants to watch it. Tucker Max on Fox News It pretty clearly was not a hardball question. TheRegicider (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very new to talk pages, so if I commit any faux pas, please point them out. My first question pertains to why Opie and Anthony are being considered for criticism. Their show is not an authority of any kind. Their goal is to attract as large an audience as possible. If calling out Tucker Max furthers that goal, then they will do it. That does not make it a valid criticism, though. In fact, Opie and Anthony could be considered an extremist or fringe source (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), and therefore their views should not enter the main Tucker Max article.

Second, in regards to the FOXNews interview, is this really being considered a valid criticism? Why would this be included at all? It was one line in an interview questioning the accuracy of Mr. Max's stories. I'm sure there are a number of people who also wonder how accurate these stories are. This is a valid question from an interviewer. It is not, however, material for the criticism section of this page.

Criticism is good, and can help us realize the truth. However, the two aforementioned criticisms do not accomplish that. The first is from a questionable, at best, source. The other is a mere interview question. Neither brings any new facts to the table. I would hope that when construction biographical articles, we can keep the shouting pundits out of the criticism section and reserve it for sound, reliable, and factual sources. --JoePawlikowski (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1 million hits per month?

i question the accuracy of the claim that tuckermax.com gets 1 million hits per month based on the 3 sources listed. first we have [[18]], which is from some guy's blog. the blogger claims that tuckermax.com gets 1 million hits a month, which is nice, but he cites no source. anyone can claim anything in a blog, so i don't think this is a reliable source. then we have [[19]], which is a website that estimates how many ad impressions a site generates and makes financial estimates about how much the impressions are worth. it has over 5.3 mil ad impressions per month for tuckermax.com, but this is not a measure of hits. according to alexa.com, 90% of tuckermax.com's traffic comes from his message board, and i counted 4 necessary ad impressions to get to a single message board posting starting from www.tuckermax.com. if you view other threads, you view more ads. the estimation of 5.3 mil ad impressions is not an accurate way to assume 1 million hits. the third source is alexa, [[20]], which does not give an estimation of how many hits he gets at all, so it's an invalid source. so those are the 3 sources for the site getting 1 million hits, and i think there is a problem with every one of them. finally, if you go to http://www.trafficestimate.com/results.html, a website that estimates actual hits for a website, which none of the cited sources do, it says 453,600 visits were estimated in the previous 30 days. i don't necessarily doubt the site gets 1 million+ hits a month, but the cited data do not support the claim. i would like to see more accurate sources added and the poor ones removed. anyone have any comments or better sources? Theserialcomma (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC) — theserialcomma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Find a reliable source giving different information than what's stated and we can talk. McJeff (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

as i stated, the sources that are listed in the article are invalid, so the 1 million hits claim is dubious. then i stated the results of http://www.trafficestimate.com/results.html, which is also contrary to the 1 million hits claim. are you claiming that trafficestimate.com is not a reliable source, or did you visit trafficestimate.com and find that it indeed said 1 million hits? so, can we talk now? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

just a quick correction, the article stated he received 1 million unique visitors, which is different than one million hits because one million unique visitors is much more difficult to achieve than 1 million hits. this further brings the poorly-sourced claim into doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, what you are doing is beginning to feel quite a lot like POV pushing. I feel not the inclination to respond to any of this at this time.

The blog is an official Comedy Central blog, so it's notable. It was also written in December 2006. This is a year and a half later.

Based on your very own research. If using the message board gets 4 ads per hit, and it has 5 million monthly ad hits, that's... over one million visitors.

Honestly, I am not familiar with Alexa or how to read it at all. But based on your edits so far I am frankly inclined not to trust your interpretation. I will not consider that source invalid without someone else whom I trust backing you up on it.

As I have done with the criticism section, I will revert you every time you try to make that edit. McJeff (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

you have failed to understand the edit that you are reverting and you also have failed to understand my objection to it, mcjeff. first of all, you claimed that "based on your very own research. If using the message board gets 4 ads per hit, and it has 5 million monthly ad hits, that's... over one million visitors." this is logically/mathematically incorrect. there is no way to assume one million visitors from 5 million monthly ad hits. second of all, and much more importantly, the wikipedia article for tucker max claimed 1 million UNIQUE visitors, not 1 million hits. they are different. and from where did you get the information that tvsquad.com is an official comedy central blog? not only is that untrue (see TV_Squad, but in the tvsquad.com FAQ it states "4. There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." so why should we believe a blogger's assertion that he gets 1 million hits? and finally, the source will be valid or invalid based on only the facts, not whether you trust me. look into it yourself, but don't bring your own bias against me into a perfectly valid objection to a poorly sourced claim. that is inappropriate. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

pl3se, the Serial Komma. Your behavior here is making you appear to be a WP:SPA in the bad sense. while this is not a ba dthing, the fact that ayou are engaging in edit warrioring with other users called bad perstimation in editing WP:TENDENTIOUSly might cause trouble in the future. I am not rying to scare you off the page but merely to help you recaftor your commenst so that we can engage in a more patient, polite, and reasonable consensus dispute. Smith Jones (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

smith jones, would you please review the evidence on the "1 million unique hits" situation. do you think the evidence and sources for the site receiving 1 million unique hits are good enough to warrant mcjeff's automatic reverting of my edits? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Criticism

The charges of the criticism section are pretty serious to only have two sources in a 30+ sourced piece no? A criticism section IMHO needs more or like Jimmy says, it's better not to have it. Svernon19 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC Bot has yet to add this RfC to the RfC Bio list. I left a note about it on the RfC talk page, but nothing has been done yet. McJeff (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot did another pass last night and still did not add this section. However, I think there might have been a problem in the template parameters. I have fixed it, and we'll see if RFC bot does the right thing on the next pass... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, looking at the criticism section as it stands now, it seems reasonable--"Guy who claims a lot is doubted by some" is hardly stunning news, and the article does not take the position that he is a liar, only reporting on what RS (well, and notable talk show hosts) have doubted him. Failure to document such doubts would impart a POV to the article.

On the other hand, I have problems with TSC's proposed version. Weasel words are doubly inappropriate in a BLP criticism section--name names of critics and doubters, and source their doubts. An intelligent reader can deduce that there may be other critics. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Tucker on the RFC bio thing. This seems like a pretty clear case of presenting a minority view, highlighted by the fact that is is often the single issue for vandals, as a majority. The Opie incident is not sourced besides a link to the video and Skinner asks Max good-naturedly if his stories are true and he says "YES". That would make Wikipedia essentially the biggest outlet to publicize these accusations and that is not what criticism sections are for. I totally understand the desire to mediate concerns and find a good way to word the section, however a reasonable conclusion stemming from a false premise is still wrong. TheRegicider (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree with you when you say that Wikipedia is 'essentially' the biggest outlet to publicize these criticisms against tucker. Actually, if you google "opie and anthony tucker max," you'll see 10,800 links to blogs/various websites mentioning the incident. Although these might not be good sources, it is incorrect to claim that wikipedia is the only place publicizing the incident. Furthermore, to respond to svernon19, it is correct that there are over 30 sources in the tucker max article and only 2 of them are criticisms, except i have counted 14 of the 30 sources to be coming from tucker max's own websites (tucker's blog, message board, and sites he owns), so 30 is a misleading number of sources to base that decision on. also, it is not as if tucker has not been called controversial before. if you google around, you'll find plenty of people who call him a liar, a fraud, etc. google "tucker max liar" or "tucker max fraud". although most of these sources are not citable for the reasons mentioned above, they still exist. the fact that only a few real sources have criticized him in the media just shows that the big media just might not consider him notable to interview to begin with. i can only find a few actual (with the real media) interviews with him, probably under 10. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree, though, that the Skinner incident should be stricken from the criticism section? Clearly, the Opie & Anthony debate won't be solved easily, though I have expressed that they could certainly be considered a fringe and extremist source, given the nature of their program. Let's leave that separate for now and focus on the Skinner portion. Including the Skinner interview question in the criticism section sets a poor precedent. Essentially, this would mean that we can go find any old interview question and insert it into any living person's bio page. Once again, it is understandable that some people might find his stories unbelievable. Does that mean we should be citing Jane Skinner's question? Absolutely not. There is no fact in it. If she had dug up proof that one of his stories didn't happen, then maybe you'd have something there. She did not. Thus, this should not be included. JoePawlikowski (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I've added six more references to the article. The "Criticism" section needs more sources to fit with the rest of the article, especially due to the controversial nature of it.Svernon19 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Svernon19, I reverted your edit. Your references were only repeating the same claim about "millions of visitors" that has been made without providing any evidence. Often times, something out of a press release or article gets copied by someone else without any investigation. The discussion is below in re: hits per month and visitors, and I feel that while I assume you had good faith in adding those references, they are really just "cookie cutter" articles whose purpose is to announce details about the movie. As far as him writing in "gonzo" style, while that may be true, your reference mentioned nothing about him writing this way and it would probably constitute original research for us to make that proclamation without seeing a legitimate source saying this.Atlantabravz (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlantabravz, I put my edit back in. First of all, the mentioning of "gonzo" is actually in the article. I quoted the appropriate part in the references. Second of all, to question the validity of major news publications like THR without providing any counter-reference is the very definition of original research. I added another source to back that claim. It may be hard to verify that he gets a million unique visitors a month, but the claim that he gets "millions of viewers" is a fair compromise, I would think. Also, you reverted parts of my edit that added to the article, like the Czuchry reference. It's vandalism to revert an entire edit when the opposition is only to a specific part of that edit. Svernon19 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

svernon19, you've readded a link to the blog that claims he receives 1 million unique visitors, even after the link was removed because it was not a reliable source, and even after an outside editor came in to remove it. you should not put that back in. it is a blog. you also added a link to another blog [[21]]. adding two blogs isn't a better value than one blog. then you added the hollywood repoter link [[22]], which is also an inappropriate source for how many visitors he receives. i think it's better to leave out any claims to his traffic unless it comes from a reliable source like alexa.com. feel free to put the alexa.com rank in, although i truly believe that it adds nothing to the article and one who adds it might be doing it just to prove a point. i could be wrong though, alexa ranks might not be as obscure and hard to understand as i think they are, so that is up for debate by someone who is more familiar with the importance of alexa.com rankings in wikipedia articles. as far as adding in the fact that he is a "gonzo" writer, well, the previous sentence to your "gonzo" sentence already says "he chronicles his drunken, sexual adventures in the form of short stories," so calling him gonzo seems redundant. finally, sverenon19, you reverted an edit that you should not have reverted. what does "widespread fame" mean? does that mean that people in australia know who he is? does he have articles written about him in Tibet? it was a weasely sentence and deserved to be removed or at least heavily modified. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

svernon19, you wanted to know why I did an undo...see above comments from Theserialcomma. I had formulated a response but it was eaten by Wiki after I hit the "save page" button. For the benign edits you made, there were also a couple of errors, including one involving a citation error. I figured an undo would be the best way to get it back to square one, although I do admit I overlooked the one about Czuchry.Atlantabravz (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the small item first, referring to Tucker as "gonzo" is not redundant -- it identifies him with a specific writing style. It's like referring to Camus as existentialist or Ezra Pound as a modernist. It does nothing more than bolster the article, and give context to Tucker's writing. Removing it is unnecessary, especially when the grounds for the initial removal have been addressed.

Now, in reference to the "millions of viewers": refuting the blogs is fair. I agree with that. However, refuting The Hollywood Reporter is not. THR is a widely reliable, third-party, published source, which is the definition of a [source]. I've also added another source from the New York Times which states "Mr. Max said that despite receiving approximately 60,000 visitors daily at TuckerMax.com..." 60,000 x 30 days in a month = 1.8 million viewers. Unless you can find a reliable source that states otherwise, the claim that Tucker's site gets "millions of visitors" stays.

I'll leave out the "widespread fame" part for now, even though I think it's appropriate, in the interest of moving past a stale debate. The fact that Tucker's site is widely read, in addition to the fact that he is making a movie out of his bestselling book should speak for itself. Also, your Reuters reference to the TV show being dropped was good. I cleaned it up a little bit. Svernon19 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

from the link you provided on WP:reliable source "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." so are you claiming that the hollywood reporter is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in estimating website traffic? because that would qualify it as a reliable source about website traffic. otherwise, you should try checking websites that estimate website traffic if you want reliable data about website traffic. for example, www.compete.com says tuckermax.com gets 242,914 visits a month, http://www.quantcast.com/tuckermax.com claims tuckermax.com gets "42,976" hits, and http://www.trafficestimate.com/results.html claims 453,600 visitors. As you can see, the traffic estimation business is pretty complicated stuff, especially when a site doesn't provide its own traffic stats. i would not trust hollywood reporter's claims over the aforementioned traffic-estimation websites, and neither should you. the claim about his traffic should be removed or sourced better. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

i still object to your sentence "He is known for writing in "gonzo" style." He is known by whom for writing gonzo style? One reporter? Two reporters? everyone? whom? where? the way the sentence is written currently, it seems POV and poorly written for an encyclopedia. personally, i know of tucker from the frivolous (imo) lawsuits he's defended himself against, not for his gonzo style. maybe everyone else knows him for his gonzo style? Theserialcomma (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Svernon19, I'm not sure if you have read the other discussions in re: website traffic (like, don't have an edit war on this), but I have to agree with Theserialcomma on this. These articles that have been written are simply passing off things that they have been told, but it doesn't mean that they have done the research to verify it. Personally, I think Tucker has done a great job of making himself famous because I'm pretty sure he started the story about "millions of hits" and then the story caught on. Now, everytime an entity writes an article about him they put that in there just like someone writing a textbook just copies the previous version and changes a few things to make it their own. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You said that until others can refute it then the claim should stay. That is faulty logic. It is up to your sources to prove that great of a claim, and is not up to anyone else to try to disprove it. That being said, Theserialcomma has posted some pretty good sources that cite some web traffic estimates for Tuckermax.com and they don't come anywhere near "millions." So, actually, sources have been produced which refute the claim and it should be removed.Atlantabravz (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it boils down to. Two published articles from organizations large enough to have their own fact-checking capabilities say Tucker has at least 1 million views a month. You have three citations from estimation websites which wildly contradict each other.

This is the quotation, in its entirety from Wikipedia's entry on what a reliable source is: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

I'm not going to further provoke an edit war. Would someone else like to weigh in on this? Svernon19 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but leaning towards Svernon19's take - still I think it's preferable to make no statement one way or the other in the absence of firm proof. I noticed however that one of the sources that was mentioned during all this provided a direct link to Alexa along with the "million hits per month" claim. Perhaps we should ask an expert in interpreting Alexa data to weigh in? McJeff (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my points (twice above) regarding the validity of the Jane Skinner interview question, I have removed the paragraph. Once again, if we're opening up simple interview questions for criticism sections, it leaves far too much room for vandalism. Just because someone asked a question in an interview does not mean that it's a valid criticism. In this case, it was a question, which was answered, and they moved on. Completely irrelevant to a criticism section of a biography. JoePawlikowski (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

mcjeff, i don't understand how you can say you are neutral, then immediately say that you lean towards Svernon19's side, and then immediately say it's preferable to make no statement without firm proof. that sounds like 3 statements in a row that are contradictory. could you please clarify? cause if you are claiming you are neutral in the sense that you are uninvolved in this matter and just randomly dropping by, that's just false. anyone who read the discussion would know you are involved in this. if you are claiming you are neutral in the sense that you are not taking a side, then that's also false, because your next sentence was the side you took. and then finally you said that no statement should be made. what?? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand there is a RfC on this article, but please, Theserialcomma, give me a reason why the Skinner bit is at all relevant. I deleted the one section (note that I did not delete the Opie & Anthony part, though I disagree with its inclusion) for reasons stated. No one has refuted this argument. If you can tell us why one interview question in one interview is relevant for citation, please do. Otherwise, please concede the argument on this front. This isn't about who wins and who loses. It's about creating an accurate and factual biography. For a third time, if we're including this one interview question (in which the accusations were flatly denied), it opens up any and all interview questions to be included in any and all criticism sections of biographical articles. JoePawlikowski (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hits per month

mcjeff, here is some further evidence that tuckermax.com does not get 1 million unique visitors per month. www.compete.com says tuckermax.com gets 242,914 visits a month (not unique hits) http://www.quantcast.com/tuckermax.com claims the site gets "42,976 U.S. monthly people." http://www.trafficestimate.com/results.html claims 453,600 visitors, not "unique" visitors, per month. compare this to the fact that all 3 original sources in the article claiming 1 million unique visitors are invalid (see the evidence above) and then there is no justification for your adamant inclusion of the false datum. also, you were wrong when you claimed tv squad was an official comedy central blog. i've yet to see you accept that error, and the claim remains as if it were true. it's now time that we act civil and accept that this must be removed from the article. reverting my changes after the preponderance of evidence contrary to the claim is just completely inappropriate. you can make the change yourself if you would like. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And I will repeat. You may be right, but I want to hear from editors who are not you before we remove a long argued over, well sourced entry. McJeff (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

it is the article that is long argued over, not this phrase. do not confuse the facts just to suit your own agenda against me. the phrase in question is nether long argued over nor is it well sourced. the facts are the facts: based on my evidence, and until someone provides evidence otherwise, the phrase about 1 million unique hits is not supported by its sources. if you hold animosity against my previous editing, that doesn't mean my future edits are automatically invalid. the facts speak should speak for itself and you should not let your own biases and emotional responses impede the facts. you are not the dictator of this article. please stop this behavior. please act civil.Theserialcomma (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for the RfC to play out, please. Please do not edit war over this in the meantime. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the specific issue on the number of unique hits, I have to agree with TSC. One of the sources offered is a blog, so fails WP:RS. I am not sure how to interpret the blogads source, and I am concerned that it requires WP:SYNTH to come to the proffered conclusion. I am removing that claim unless/until a better source is found. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to inclusion of text to the effect of, "As of such-and-such-date, TuckerMax.com had an Alexa rating of some-number." I don't particularly care for such statements, but there is precedent for it in other articles, and in that case the assertion would at least be clearly supported by the source. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)