Talk:Tucker Max

• Previous deletion debate

Archives

---

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

Now that the Criticism/Controversy section has been removed

It's open for vandalism again.

My thought is that the best way to deal with that, is probably to write an essay about the discussion, the various policies that are involved, and just a general breakdown on why the O&A incident shouldn't be mentioned. It's what they did to whichever Pokemon article has Mudkip in it, over the "so i heard you liek mudkipz" or whatever it was. Put the essay at something like Talk:Tucker Max/Criticism section and then put a permanent link to it on this talk page. McJeff (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

it was highly inappropriate to remove the criticism/controversy section. i mean, honestly, are you claiming tucker max isn't controversial? the fact is, there was an RfC for this very issue as to whether we should have a controversy section, and the only outside editor who commented said it should be here. then you went and removed the first RfC, and then you removed my RfC, and you removed the controversy section and kept the second RfC's anonymous blog link after 3 editors/admins told you it was a bad source. wow. looks like we need another RfC or some stern repercussions to curb your disruptive editing Theserialcomma (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC itself is what decided that there would be no "criticism" section. So I guess that yes, the claim is that Tucker Max is uncontroversial. McJeff (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, you, theregicider, and svernon19 decided that tucker max is uncontroversial. the RfC didn't really provide many comments from outside editors, just one. and he came in and said something contrary to what you decided -- that the controversy section is indeed warranted, but should be cleaned up. it was then cleaned up, and you decided to remove the whole thing anyway. we shall have another RfC, and the outside editors shall again help unbias this article, just as they've done before, and as they will every time you try to impose your will on this encyclopedia Theserialcomma (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll write the essay, post it, and then people can chime in to see if they notice anything that needs to be added. Svernon19 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's difficult to sum up the entire dispute over the controversy section, but here's my first attempt at it. Anyone feel free to chime in -- whether you have an addition to make, have a place that could be expanded, or disagree with a particular part.

Controversy and Criticism Section Explained

Here is the conclusion of nearly 6 months of good faith discussion and edits. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it is inappropriate to revert the Controversy section until new evidence or sources emerge.

Introduction and Background

Ironically enough, the "Controversy" section for Tucker Max's Wikipedia page has probably generated more controversy than the incidents comprised in the section itself. Between January and March of 2008, the page was given full protection, primarily due to an edit war over the "Controversy" section. Multiple edit wars have occurred in the page's history over this dispute. This talk page will attempt to address the Controversy page.

Much of the edit-warring relates to Tucker's appearance on Opie and Anthony in June 20, 2006, when he was promoting his book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. After telling "Tucker Tries Buttsex, Hilarity Does Not Ensue," Opie and Anthony questioned the absence of a videotape. Tucker then told the "Absinthe Donuts" story, and Opie and Anthony questioned the absence of a police report. Opie and Anthony then turned off his microphone and headset, and called him a liar and compared him to James Frey on air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAbreeMofRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc27DX7qRT0 http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/the_absinthe_donuts_story.phtml#280 http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/tucker_tries_buttsex_hilarity_does_not_ensue.phtml#278

Wikipedia Policies

Before addressing the inclusion of the Controversy section itself, a couple Wikipedia policies must be reviewed.

Tucker Max's Wikipedia page falls under the umbrella of Biography of living persons. These couple paragraphs have particular relevance:

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, 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. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

The Controversy Page

Here is what needs to happen before a controversy page may be included.

1) It needs to have a neutral point of view. It must be presented in an unbiased manner, without weasel words. State the facts, and leave it at that.

2) It must be a well-reported event. As stated above, Wikipedia is not to be the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." If Wikipedia is the largest outlet reporting it, then it is not fulfilling its encyclopedic duties.

3) It must have reliable sources. From the BLoP page: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

Problems with the Inclusion of a Controversy Page

Here are the problems with including this incident in Tucker's Wikipedia page (taken from my post).

1) It represents a minority view. As far as I know, O&A are the only people who have challenged Tucker's truthfulness -- at least the only ones with any clout. He's been covered in more than a couple mainstream articles -- The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The New York Times, Yahoo! News, Reuters -- and none have mentioned the incident, let alone questioned the authenticity of his stories. This would need to be a majority view before it can be addressed, which currently, it is not.

2) It doesn't bring any new information. Sure, O&A question the absence of information -- like the lack of a videotape -- for which Tucker provides an answer. But they don't bring any new details to light. If they had uncovered a medical report finding that Tucker was allergic to alcohol, or that he had lived in Iceland at the time of his stories, that would be worthy of inclusion. As it is, they don't provide any concrete information.

3) O&A are not literary scholars and not a reliable source of criticism in this context.

4) To adequately address the authenticity of Tucker's stories, wouldn't it make more sense to have counter-references to the ones that were proved to be true? There's more than a couple of his stories with verifiable proof ("Tucker Goes to a Hockey Game" (which has a picture), "The Miss Vermont Story" (which was defended in a court of law), "The Tattoo Story" (which has another picture) and any of his other stories which have numerous witnesses). This would clutter the article, and give a disproportionate amount of attention to a small issue. Rather than include it, it's best to not address the issue all together. Svernon19 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good stuff- the thing I would change would be to remove the "I/we think" things, and include some more links to wikipedia policies. I'll help out with that later in the week (got some school stuff to take care of), but the important policies are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. McJeff (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion. Tucker Max gets by on selling exceptional claims about his life; he makes his personal history into his bread and butter. That someone can put him into a position where he's unable to defend his claims meets the "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" part of the BLP policy. As his entire notability is due to his self-promotion of nothing but his 'wacky hijinks', when he's confronted and falls apart, that's notable. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to try and find reliable sources in regards to criticism, however, the decision to disinclude a criticism section was made after no reliable sources could be found. McJeff (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

controversy over the removal of the controversy/criticism section

• please note, i have placed this message up here so that it does not interrupt the conversation. censorship is taking place in this thread and this discussion page. besides the fact that the rfcs have been removed twice prematurely, and that the results of the rfcs have been ignored, this very thread has been once completely deleted, along with the two messages attempting to note its censorship have been removed twice without mention. if this censorship is warranted, that is fine, but it *must* be noted so outside editors can examine all the facts Theserialcomma (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

**The RfC's were not "ignored" - rather, the RfC on the My Election Analysis ended in not including the source, and the RfC on the criticism section for whatever reason did not get added to the RfCBio list by the RfCBot, and can be refiled if it's necessary. RfC's are supposed to be removed when finished. McJeff (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

original thread: there was actually no consensus to remove the controversy section, even though this has been repeated as if it were true. i, thus, consider it to have been removed inappropriately. i did a quick glance over the discussion page and came to rough conclusion that there were 5 people against a controversy section, and 5 people for a controversy section. it should be noted that the RfC as to whether there should be a controversy section yielded only one outside editor opinion, who said that there should be a controversy section, and for some reason the RfC was removed, along with the controversy section. as far as i can tell, the people totally opposed to a controversy section are: McJeff, TheRegicider, GeorgeMilio, JoePawlikowski, and Svernon19

and the people who have expressed that there should be a controversy/criticism section: Marasmusine "Whilst we should have a section on criticism"; Atlantabravz "I'm not sure why you keep removing the criticism section when the stuff is properly sourced and it was done by notable entities"; Theserialcomma; Jclemens - Jclemens was the only outside editor during the RfC on the controversy section to actually comment. he said that a controversy section was reasonable, and "failure to document such doubts would impart a POV to the article"; and ThuranX

and so i believe the evidence shows that there was no overwhelming consensus to remove the controversy section. i believe that its removal was not a democratic or community decision based on overwhelming support. i also believe that in regards to this evidence, editors should not use 'rollback' and revert people's attempts to add the controversy section as 'vandalism,'nor should there be an edit war. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, I remind you that having a criticism section was my idea in the first place. Please publically acknowledge this. [1] McJeff (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i don't see what relevance this has? Theserialcomma (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you accuse me of being fanatically opposed to a criticism section, which is utterly untrue. McJeff (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A further issue with Theserialcomma's post - he quotes a fragment of User:Marasmusine's sentence to make it sound as though Marasmusine supports his position, when the entire paragraph clearly indicates something else. 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.) Nor for that matter has Atlantabravz been to the talk page since discussion of whether the sources available for the criticism section were reliable. McJeff (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

any way you look at it, the removal of the section was not based on anywhere near complete consensus as claimed, yet now when people try to readd it, it is called vandalism, which it clearly isn't. and in reference to marasmusine's point that it needs to be NPOV, i believe we spent a long time making it NPOV, and by the time of the RfC, the argument was not over whether it was neutral, which it clearly was (we spent a long time removing weasel words and citing every claim), but the RfC was rather about whether the section was warranted. also, the sources for the opie and anthony interview were directly from their official media website when in the article, but in your writeup above, it is just linked to a youtube video. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the Opie & Anthony is that it is highly debated that they are a reliable source, and there is no third party coverage on the Tucker Max/O&A incident aside from the "Tucker Max Doucebag" blog. If a third party source could be located, I'd be fine with including the incident in the article, as I feel it is itself notable as you can see from reading the discussion. As for my statement that consensus was against including the incident - consensus was against including it if reliable sources could not be found. They couldn't be, thus, no section. McJeff (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been mentioned as not being back here since the discussion began, so I will add my feedback to make it clear. I support having a criticism section in the same vein as ThuranX. The guy makes his living on this stuff and falls apart when confronted. Just like Theserialcomma has mentioned, O&A and Jane Skinner aren't the only ones who have questioned his stories. Some folks out there have done some of their own digging and found some falsehoods. Granted, there hasn't been a huge investigation by a well-known entity yet (O&A and Skinner didn't exactly conduct an investigation), but if the movie is a success then that might change. However, I'm not sure why this article is being ignored though (is this a third-party source that you were referencing?): Sushi pants story criticism. On another note, here is a blog post that mentions contacting the Embassy Suites in Austin regarding the famous bathroom incident: Austin Road Trip Hotel incident. This guy here does a critique that makes one wonder as well: Criticism of Tucker Max by Canadian author Craig Davidson Also, one thing that has been overlooked, even by me, is that O&A asked him to produce any sort of police report for the "Absinthe Donuts Story" and he couldn't do it (the clip that goes around only talks about the "Buttsex" story). The local police where that allegedly happened also had no record of anything like that happening, but I can't locate the story where I read that. While the latter of those does not constitute being added according to wiki standards, then I posit that the myelectionanalysis.com blog should be removed as well. And although this isn't really being discussed at length, just because Tucker had his photo made at a hockey game doesn't prove he did all of that crazy stuff at the game. It only proves he went to a hockey game.Atlantabravz (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

None of those sources even begin to meet WP:RS. There was just an issue over whether a blog that contained nothing controversial was acceptable as a source and it wasn't - we're still debating over whether it's ok as an external link. But those controversial, unsourced blogs are not acceptable sources as per reliable source guidelines. You in fact linked to the "Tucker Max Doucebag" blog, which actually got the article locked down for 3 months to stop vandals from adding the link to it. The only one of those sources that might be worth considering is the Miami Times source, and I seem to remember it being debunked when someone noted that the manager who claimed it didn't happen wasn't employeed by the restaurant in question until several years after the incident. McJeff (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Craig Davidson post [2] might be ok. I read the article and it reads mainly like a rant and an ad-hominem attack, though, so it might be against WP:BLP. McJeff (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, I wasn't saying in my earlier post that I thought those sources should be included. The only one I thought could merit a mention was the Miami New Times article, and it wasn't a big endorsement at that. I said, "While the latter of those does not constitute being added according to wiki standards..." indicating that everything that followed the New Times article doesn't meet the standard. But thanks for the input. By the way, if it's not good enough for a source, then why is it good enough for an external link?Atlantabravz (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that external links are subject to less vigorous standards than sources - however since I'm arguing against the inclusion of blogs as critical sources I can't in good faith continue to argue for the inclusion of the My Election Analysis link. I removed it from the article as my most recent edit to it. McJeff (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For the Miami Times link, it might be ok, as I can't find the debunking article, and that might've been done by a "guy with a blog" also. The Miami Times interview and the Craig Davidson one should be enough to put together a criticism section without BLP violations. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I may have to dig for it, but over one the WP:FRINGE talk page, there's a bit about parity of notable sources, in that for pseudoscience, if the only claims to notability on one side aren't peer-reviewed journals and such lofty sources, then the countering, balancing criticism need not be so high a source either. I think the same should apply here, in that Tucker Max is reponsible for the 'this really happened', and Tucker Max is also a majority player in the 'this didn't happen', as well as O&A. Thus he can be considered to be part of both parts. If he's a source for the claims, how can he not be a part of the criticism? Seems ridiculous that a source both can and cannot be a source on the same article for the same sets of topics. ThuranX (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember this discussion vaguely. I believe the story is dated 2002 in the book and the article interviews someone who worked there for 3 years as of 2006.TheRegicider (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How is the Craig Davidson one ok? From his website: "I'm Craig Davidson, and welcome to my blog set up by the fine folks at Penguin." A) It's a blog. B) It's a blog by an author that has probably sold under 5,000 books, if that.

And in no way is the Miami Times acceptable. It presents no criticism or controversy within the article. To get that from the article, you'd have to do a fair bit of conjecture and original research.

I think the thing everyone is forgetting here is that the title of the section is CONTROVERSY. If the best you can find is a Canadian author who knows how to work a blog and a peripheral two sentence reference in the Miami Times, there's no controversy. Svernon19 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

here's an exercise you can do to see if tucker max going on opie and anthony was controversial. go on tucker's message board and try to search for a reference to his appearance. nope, it's all censored and removed. now try to find a reference anywhere in tucker's site that talks about his appearance. nope, nothing. don't you think that's notable, based on the disastrous appearance he made, and the cover up? if there is no controversy, why is he hiding the appearance? and you just named 2 more sources that were put tucker in a controversial light. you still think there is no controversy? Theserialcomma (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

to say that opie and anthony are not notable or reliable sources would also be to say that howard stern radio interviews should not be used as a notable or reliable source. actually, there are many examples of howard stern and opie and anthony being cited in other wikipedia articles. e.g. [[3]] dana plato [[4]] david pakman [[5]], [[6]] patrice oneal, [[7]] andrew dice clay, [[8]] andrew johnson (reporter)) Theserialcomma (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to pass off the fact that Opie and Anthony aren't on Tucker's site as a source? Are you kidding? And you are so far from the point on your Howard Stern reference that this is becoming unbelievable. He is used as a source because the person he interviewed said something relevant about themselves. He is not used as criticism, unless the story picked up as controversial from other news outlets. You are creating something out of nothing. There's no reason for this debate to continue. Svernon19 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

wait, you don't think it's strange, and maybe even controversial as to why tucker max's website has no mention of perhaps one of his top 5-10 biggest media interviews? you don't think it's a little questionable as to why there is no reference whatsoever from tucker as to the fact that the interview even happened? don't you think that maybe this is a little weird? opie and anthony seemingly humiliated him on the show, and repeatedly called him a liar, and yet as far as tuckermax.com and his message board goes, the interview never happened? this is notable, big time. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a notable controversy, find the sources that suggest this. Deciding that because his website has no mention of an interview there must be controversy would be original research. This discussion has been continuing for long enough that you should be aware of the policies. - DigitalC (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

you misunderstand. i was not trying to amend original research into the article, nor was i suggesting it were worthy of inclusion. i was only discussing the idea that there is no mention on his website of the interview, which i personally found to be curious. such conjecture won't be added to the article until there are sources to warrant it, i was just making the observation. here are the links to tucker's official appearance on o&a [[9]] and [[10]]Theserialcomma (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

SVernon said, speakign of Howard Stern: "He is used as a source because the person he interviewed said something relevant about themselves." Well, isn't that what happened on O&A? Max was unable to support his stories when asked in an interview. How is O&A/Max different? ThuranX (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Tucker didn't say anything. Hell, they didn't even give him a chance to defend himself, they tricked him into thinking his mic was broken and whispered the accusation so he wouldn't hear it. O&A are shock jocks, not journalists, and while I still think the incident itself is notable (I.E. Tucker had an appearance on O&A that didn't go well), O&A themselves are not literary critics or reliable sources for criticism. McJeff (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

if you see listen to the interview, he did try to defend himself. they were laughing in his face. they asked him directly about factual inconsistencies, and he failed to provide evidence. i think if you listen again (the links are above but out of order), you'll see that they directly challenged him, and after they were unsatisfied with his answer, they started playing the 'broken microphone' trick on him Theserialcomma (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Right - the stories that came under question were "The Absinthe Donut Story" and "Tucker Tries Butt-sex" (which also was the story criticized by Craig Davidson). The stories in question happened well before Tucker became whatever level of famous/infamous you consider him to be, and he has been fairly fastidious of providing proof of his later stories. Although in the case of being asked to provide documentation of crashing into the donut store - assuming every word of the story being true and the event fully documented, how quickly would he be able to provide the proof he wasn't expecting to have to provide when he went on the show? My personal opinion is that he came off the appearance looking very bad and the circumstantial evidence seems to show that he was lying, but circumstantial evidence isn't the same as real evidence...

My understanding is that for wikipedia's standard, we'd need something like an article by an actual investigative journalist, who actually interviewed a non-anonymous person from the police department who claimed that no such event happened, for the story to be "proven false", and without strong proof, we're not allowed to say it per WP:BLP

I think we'll probably need another RfC in the end, but it'd be best to get the issue narrowed as much as possible first so the outside opinions don't have to sift through as much stuff. McJeff (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

i think we're making progress here. i agree that we need an RfC, but i disagree that we should be concerned in any way with proving his stories either true or false. that's not the goal of the criticism/controversy section, as far as i am concerned. i just wish to make the article balanced and show that tucker makes some outrageous claims, and his claims have been called into question by notable people such as o&a). whether he was actually lying or not is really out of the scope of the fact that some controversy exists and should be noted. if tucker proves his stories true, we can add that source to the controversy section as a rebuttal. controversy doesn't need to be 100% proven true or false to be controversial. for example, michael jackson was proven not guilty 2 times of molesting children. it's still controversial. see what i mean? if the crux of this argument is over whether the o&a interview itself, without any outside reporting, is a valid source, then we must get to the bottom of this. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks like we are heading towards something positive. I think that this will eventually play itself out if the movie does well next year. I'm pretty sure someone notable will then investigate the stories to see if they are true. After all, it is Tucker who has adamantly said that they are true while almost daring someone to question their veracity, so that is just asking for someone to dig into them to find out if they really are. Then, as we all have discussed, if there are good third-party sources then we can add them. It would probably make for a good contrast with stories that were proved to be true to maintain balance to the article (assuming this hypothetical investigative report covered all aspects both true and false). Time will tell and we shall see this either live or die. I'm all for a controversy section because I think he has merited one so far, but I also wouldn't be against keeping it as is with it removed until the aforementioned events occur or don't (I think they will). Trust me, thesmokinggun.com or someone will do this and we won't have to worry about RfCs then.Atlantabravz (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do, then we can have a discussion about this. Until then, the article stays as it is. Svernon19 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

time for an RfC. in the rfc i'm going to request a comment on whether a controversy section is warranted, and if opie and anthony's interview directly linked from their official site qualify as a valid source. if so, the controversy section gets added. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Links/Sources under debate

Tucker Max appearance on Opie & Anthony

Miami Times article questioning the truthfulness of one story

Criticism of Tucker Max by Craig Davidson

Discussion

Opie & Anthony

Involved editors

• a brief synopsis with some questions to clarify the RfC: tucker max "chronicles his drunken, sexual adventures" on his website. he went on the opie and anthony show a while ago and they called his claims into question. that is putting it mildly. the hosts, along with Jim Norton called him a liar, played tricks on him, and it really was just not a good appearance for tucker. now, over a year later, there is no mention of his appearance anywhere on his website or message board. i realize this is not an encyclopedic point, but it provides some context to the situation. the point of this RfC is: should a direct link to opie and anthony's interview be considered a reliable source? is this appearance on opie and anthony noteworthy? should it be included in a 'controversy' section? are nationally syndicated shock jocks reliable critics worthy of having any stake in a controversy section? should there be a controversy section at all? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• This involved user's opinion is that the appearance itself is notable, but that no individual comment within the appearance is notable. O&A are shock jocks, not literary critics, and their claims that Tucker Max is a liar should hold no weight, however they are extremely notable shock jocks, and the fact that Tucker Max appeared on their show is notable. On the other hand, we have been unable to locate any notable third party sources discussing the incident, so perhaps on that grounds the incident can't be called notable. However, the primary issue is that the article must meet biographies of living persons first, and everything else comes afterwards. McJeff (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I feel that the prejudicial value of this source not only compromises the entire article but makes a grave accusation against the author. Additionally, it should be noted that in the years since the event occurred, Max has been profiled in The Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, Variety and dozens of other sites and none of them have written about the incident or raised the same concerns. It's gotta be a "minority view presented as a majority one." TheRegicider (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Miami Times

Involved editors

The author's book dates the story "Famous Sushi Pants" in its chapter heading as occurring and being written in "July 2001". The article in question was written on February 02, 2006 and states "an employee who had been there at least three years had no recollection of Tucker Max or lingerie nights." The article continues to say ""You know, Tucker is kind of a crazy guy. That could be a true story," he says."" The only way this source is accurate and not out of context is through the confirmation bias. TheRegicider (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Craig Davidson

Involved editors

• Craig Davidson is an author of enough notability that he has a Wikipedia article. He posted a blog entry where he criticized the truthfulness of Tucker Max's writing style using extremely abrasive language. He did not actually come up with any proof that none of this happened, the point of his entry was that he felt it was so unrealistic that it couldn't have happened. In other words, the Davidson post is speculation, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. McJeff (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)