Talk:Tommy Tallarico/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Awards

For the 2007 VGA's on the Spike channel, Tommy played electric guitar with the orchestra..should this be included? I did not want to do it myself seeing as I am very new and don't know the name of the orchestra or anything like that. AgentHappyDay (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Every VGA show I've seen has had him play guitar with the VGA orchestra, I don't believe it's noteworthy.213.94.204.41 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502214218/http://www.elecplay.com/holiday_1.php to http://elecplay.com/holiday_1.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Age needs to be changed

Hey guys. Can someone please change the age on this page? Tommy is 53 now.

Cheers. OneUniqueWikiUser (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFPROMOTE?

As noted by one commentor here [1], the sole contribution of User:Ashesofthought as viewed here [2] is the creation of this article. It is possible this user is connected to the subject of the article. Sizeofint (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

WP: PROTECT?

Given the possibility of Wikipedia:Self-promotion and the matters starting to surround the character of the article, it may be worthwhile to consider invoking perhaps a Wikipedia:BLUELOCK in order to ensure that only trustworthy editors unbiased of anything regarding this or the Intellivision Amico; there has been shill behavior and trolling surrounding, in many articles offsite. 2601:540:8200:92A:BEB4:D82A:EC1C:EEE0 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Awards, notable?

Are the awards listed on this page noteworthy? They seem self-aggrandizing, especially since many are self-nominated or self-awarded. Consider this a soft nomination for deleting that section of the article. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Trivia

• /vfd - archived discussion from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

What's the deal with the Trivia section? Since when do encyclopedia articles have Trivia? Salvag 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It's not an encyclopedia, it's a WIKIpedia.

"Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" --Sketchee 01:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* Trivia doesnt have to be about asking questions and getting answers. Trivia is also about random facts about someone or something. Sheesh.

WP:Trivia It isn't really Wikipedia's policy to be a repository for pointless factoids but they're not entirely verboten. Best to be avoided on non-trivial subjects like a CEO. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

he got a record for involvement in the most games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.75 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with caring about a Guinness World Record is that it's an ego surfing operation for charlatans. You can basically buy a record. Pure WP:Peacock. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious Claims

Tommy has a habit of making what could be considered spurious claims. This section aims to check those claims and refute the more outlandish ones.

In example, he claims here on AtariAge to have had some hand in launching Guitar Hero. This is an unrelated example claim that simply places his ability to tell the truth into question; a disestablishment of character.

On his first day, Tallarico caught the eye of an employee of the new video game company, Virgin Mastertronic, because he was wearing a TurboGrafx T-shirt.

Unless someone can produce a photo of Tommy working for Virgin-Mastertronic wearing this shirt, this seems a nebulous claim; one which doesn't serve any practical purpose either.

Tallarico advocated for more space on cartridges being devoted to audio, and became an early pioneer in bringing real sampled sounds of instruments into video games.

This claim is dramatically overstated. It is ignorant of an entire generation of computing (such as the Amiga), the history of digital sound in games in general, and people such as Karsten Obarski or Rob Hubbard..

Tallarico was the first composer to commercially release album compilations of video game music around the world.

This is a claim regarding semantics. There have been games which came with their music on a separate cassette, and albums released on vinyl (and other formats) well before Mr. Tallirico claims. It comes down to a question of what counts as a global release.

Point is, people have been producing albums of video game music for commercial releases long before Tallarico was even in the business of making music.

2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Source dispute resolution discussion

WP:V Let's all take a moment to remind ourselves that Wikipedia has no absolutes on the matter of reliably sourced content. It has come to head that there is a dispute over what people consider to be reliable sources here on the page of a WP:BLP. If complaints and/or scrutiny wishes to be kindly submitted here, it will be considered for editing, resourcing, or removal. Remember to sign your comments and explain in depth as to the issue with a citation or source. Just whinging on opinions won't account for anything. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

First, the issue of defining mismanagement. The Amico was announced in 2018, and was slated to release on October 10th, 2020. As of this writing, in the first quarter of 2022, the nearest mark of progress for the Amico is pilot plastics.

Plans may indeed change in an unpredictable world. However: bankrupting Fig due to non-delivery, lying about employees, juvenile behavior on public forums, mass censure of the official subreddit, rebutting against critical articles with self-aggrandizing fluff pieces, blatantly overlooking stolen content in a preview video, ghosting potential third party developers, broadly redefining what a physical release is, these are just a small selection of what could be considered issues just in production alone. There are a few more worrying signs outside of the whole thing as well.

The president of Intellivision Entertainment is Tommy Tallarico. The argument thereby is: As the president of Intellivision Entertainment, the onus of sane management, and public image has entirely been his. With these citations in mind, it is hoped that the mismanagement of Intellivision has been established for the sake of argument. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

First off, this is going to need to be radically reworked, as you can't be using all these Reddit and forums posts, especially in a WP:BLP. See WP:USERG. Secondly, there's original research issues all across it as well. It's not enough for you to say "Here, look at this forum post/thing I found online. I deem it controversial so it's controversial." You need reliable sources taking note of said things. Something like "IGN noted (X thing) about Tallarico." Take a look at WP:VG/S for a list of commonly usable or unusable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Will these articles of which there are several provide sufficient evidence? Would this massive archive of inquiries made by the SEC be more concrete? How about this overview from GiantBomb? 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Kotaku and Ars Technica are reliable. CBR is currently labeled as "inconclusive", so I wouldn't hinge on that one too much. "Top Free" is likely unreliable. SEC filings wouldn't be able to source anything besides the fact that the SEC filings exist...you'd need further sourcing to extract any sort of meaning or importance from them or you'll be violating WP:OR again. Them by themselves doesn't really help you say much of anything you said in your paragraph above. Giant Bomb's wiki is not usable per WP:USERG. This is why your proposal pretty much needs a complete reworking. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

BLP issues

I've protected the page, as there has been edit warring regarding some blatant WP:BLP violations. Please discuss and hash out issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-upped. Discuss on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 11:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

People attacking this page

It should be noted that there is a consorted effort to negatively damage this page which goes against Wikipedia rules. There is a group of people that openly plans and attacks this person and this Wiki page while bragging about it publicly on reddit.

Trying to characterize this person as a "criminal" on a plea bargin misdemeanor is outrageous. Wikipedia rules state: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

Per Wikipedia rules: "Unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."

Per Wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." 2600:1012:B1D6:4067:7D81:D308:F139:DEBE (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've protected the page again already. I've been keeping an eye on the page for the last couple months due to being alerted to some disputes like this. You are right that that material does not meet Wikipedia's WP:BLP standards. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Stating that "Tallarico plead guilty to one count of failing to report the importation of more than $10,000 in cash, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1956, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on August 4, 2010 and was sentenced to a fine of $1,000, twelve months of unsupervised probation. In addition, he agreed to forfeit of $103,000 of cash he imported without making the required declaration." is stating facts in a neutral manner. Information both positive and negative on a living biographical subject should be allowed on Wikipedia regardless of the subject. 2601:195:101:37E0:A4D2:37AD:D828:4C46 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is a pretty succinct explanation for what's wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What about anything related to this?

https://venturebeat.com/2020/11/10/tommy-tallarico-settles-copyright-dispute-with-roblox-over-oof-sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:ACCF:D575:9459:5117 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot of substance to work with there, but I see no problem with a sentence or two that is accurate sourced to the content in that reference. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Need for 3rd Party Sources

This article, like Tommy Tallarico's life, is littered with extreme statements made and supported only by him. If I have the time I'll start going through and sorting things out, but until then I've added a label pointing out that many of the claims in the article--like being homeless before landing his first big gig--are ultimately just things he said himself. The citations link to the articles he's being interviewed in, but because they're not ultimately making those claims (just including a transcript where he made them) I believe this falls under WP:INDEPENDENT.

I think that throwing out anything that doesn't have 3rd party confirmation would solve a lot of the issues and criticism surrounding this article. Elaboration Station (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It could definitely use a good neutral, level headed review of its sourcing. I've watched over the article a bit due to being asked to help moderate some related issues elsewhere, and I don't know why, but this appears to be one of those articles that either gets editors trying to completely glorify him, or people who go out of their way to trash him and portray him in the worst light, and there's little in-between. It could use a good review by an experienced editor with no bias for or against him. Sergecross73 msg me 04:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section

As stated above, Hbomberguy recently uploaded a video about this man, that's what led me here. Obviously, YouTube links aren't a reliable source, but the video does bring into question a lot of Tallarico's claims over the years. If other sources have also objected, I feel it'd be worth compiling them + other related controversies into a controversy section. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSECTION. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As of right now, there are not enough sources discussing a "controversy" to justify such a section (which as is noted in the relevant policy, shouldn't be called "controversy" if a basis for it emerges, and we also need to keep WP:DUE in mind). However, if you decide to look at the article for yourself and find any questionable claims, unreliable or dubious sources, or phrasings that seem in breach of WP:NPOV, you're free to remove or reword them, or bring them here for discussion as appropriate. (I see you've already done some of that, so I guess you don't need me to tell you, but I may as well also note it for the benefit of anyone else who comes along.) silvia (inquire within) 18:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Listen, Serge. Lots of people, living or dead have controversies. Steve Jobs, Richard Stallman, Caligula, Bill Gates, so why should Tommy be the exception here? I commend your defense of the man, but the deck has become increasingly stacked against him, and maybe there's something a little head turning about a man trying to smuggle $100k across the border. Of course, the argument could be made that since there are few articles that are valid citations regarding him that he in fact, violates Notability policy and this whole article has no reason to exist; especially considering the previous state of it as WP:Puff.

As, if we're having to track musicians whose only notable contribution is proliferation, then the articles on Soyo Oka, Kenichi Tsuchiya, Yūko Takehara, Tsukasa Masuko and several others need to leave the Red Link Club. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that not a single one of your own examples have a dedicated section called "controversies", so I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that. You can write about controversial things people do, you just need to do it right. That includes things like not bunching it up into one section, writing in formal encyclopedic tone, and using the types of sources Wikipedia policies and consensus have deemed as reliable/usable. As I've already noted multiple times in this talk page, I'm just an admin who largely watches over the page because of another semi-related conflict I was asked to help mediate. I've written very little of the current article. I just mediate because most editors, for whatever reason, are extremely positive, or extremely negative, about Tallarico. I'm here to remind people that Wikipedia is neither the place to build him like some sort of god, or an outlet for once's grievances on him. It's an encyclopedia, not a place to write a hit piece. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Serge is correct, the HBomberguy video should only be added if it breaks more mainstream news. It may yet happen--the Roblox sound controversy has already generated some coverage, especially among 'gamer' publications. Until then, the job is just to revise the article in light of what can and cannot be properly sourced.Elaboration Station (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As per the linked policy, it appears "Criticisms" would be a more preferable section title. I've added one (it is admittedly not rigorous nor well-sourced, but it's a start) and I have also added a section on his money smuggling incident. Anyone else's contributions to this would be greatly appreciated. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:CSECTION literally says to avoid "criticism" sections too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In any event, the hbomberguy video is, ultimately a self-published source and is not a reliable source for a BLP (see WP:SELFPUB.) Any information in the article which cites that as a source is unusable. If other third-party sources report on it (by this I mean independent reporting, not just an article saying the video exists) then it can be included. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not really how reliability works. If a source we consider reliable were to publish an article that sources facts to the video, we would assume that they verified or were otherwise certain that said claims were true, and therefore could be trusted. It's not like YouTube videos can't be reliable, but that Wikipedia chooses to not have that debate for each individual video ourselves, because that would be a huge waste of time and often quite subjective. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. I’m merely pointing out that BLPs have heightened standards for reliable sources due to the need to avoid publishing potentially libelous/revealing info about the subjects. To that end, WP: SELFPUB explicitly bans using self-published sources in BLPs even if the author of the source would otherwise be considered trustworthy. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're both wording it differently, but essentially on the same page (and correct.) This self-published YouTube source is not usable in of itself, but if future reliable sources corroborate parts of its content, then those parts could be fair game for inclusion (by citing the corroborating source.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current article takes an appropriately sanguine attitude toward Tallarico's claims, even without a dedicated section. He's clearly a serial fabulist so any unusual claims require extraordinary evidence. You can interrogate the claims, including ones from the hbomberguy video, without directly citing the video itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've mentioned elsewhere, unfortunately, the article has few regular contributors, it's mostly people in passing who are more concerned about aggressively trashing or defending him than anyone trying to just neutrally write a professional encyclopedia article. I'm mostly just here to keep out the gross BLP or COI additions that keep arising time and again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The current incarnation of this article dates from this edit, which is clearly from an SPA connected to the subject in some way. A lot of the puffery had been stripped out over the years, but I did have to gut the Personal life section---originally added under "Advocacy" by said SPA---because it basically all failed verification (and no one had bothered to click on any of the refs in all these years...). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Why CleanUp

There is just to many personal stuff in here. This article needs a good cleanup --JAranda | yeah 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The liberty has been taken to throw a mop at the article; more may be needed. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There's quite a few links to primary sources (tallarico.com, videogameslive.com, audiogang.org and even Moby Games on which Tallarico himself edits). I'm not very knowledgeable of Wiki guidelines, but I believe these aren't desirable.Zeneater (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers third party sourcing, but some first party is acceptable. See WP:PRIMARY. To give an example I give in the music world: Let's say the topic is Nickelback. A basic claim, like "Who is a band member?", could be answered by the band itself. But a claim like "Nickelback is the most critically acclaimed band in the world" could absolutely not be sourced by the band itself. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To add additional note to this; Tommy has a reputation within the industry and from critics for lying about, well to be quite frank, pretty much everything from his Guinness Awards to who actually made the SFX he claims ownership of, to whether his house was really featured in MTV Cribs. Your analogy of Nickelback is a good one, but I feel a primary source in this instance is only useful when compared to third-party sources when discussing controversies or misunderstandings on "facts" relating to him. I know I come across incredibly bias and to be honest I am as I've worked in the industry and been screwed over by dishonesty before, but for an article regarding an individual who's been dishonest about pretty much everything I do believe it is best practice to follow-up every single primary source with a third-party to confirm or deny it. 86.27.101.242 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Inadequate attribution to 'critics'

"The console has been viewed very negatively by critics, drawing criticism for its delays, development turmoil, and use of NFTs. The status of the console has been called 'grim' and compared to a car crash."

There are five articles sourced for these statements, four of which are from the same website.

Unless more sources can be found which share these criticisms, they should be attributed to Kotaku (4/5) and TechRaptor (1/5) respectively. 'Critics' is too vague when the criticism is mostly coming from one source. Shoutout hbomb. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty more sources at the Amico article. Hbomb doesn't belong in there until professional publications publish him. See multiple sections on this talk page that already discuss that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Sergecross73. I think the better change would be to vary the sources cited here with some from Intellivision Amico/new sources instead of removing or changing the wording. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes suggested and I think the current "Intellivision Entertainment" section is now fine. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Free warning: Hbomberguy uploaded a video on him.

It's an amazing two hour deconstruction of his entire career, and it even doesn't touch on all the little lies he's told though the years. But I imagine there's going to be a zerg rush of people eagarly looking foreward to try and use the video as a source instead of following WP:Original policy. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

By definition, nothing attributed/attributable to a Nebula/YouTube video can be WP:OR. Technically Harris's video is considered to be self-published, so it cannot be cited in this article, but the relevant policy is WP:BLPSPS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully it at least spurs people on to double-check all the sources in this article. The video did cite proper sources which are fair game to use here. Antiaverage (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This would not be a reliable/usable source by Wikipedia definitions. Unless reliable sources start covering/corroborating, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source for the opinions of the notable personality in question, and even for general factual claims (Harris has a pretty good reputation for critical reading of sources, making him at worst a WP:TERTIARY source), at least by the standards of Wikipedia's pop culture articles (which generally rely nearly exclusively on the kind of dubious sources discussed at various points in the video). The problem with citing it directly in this article is that, as a self-published source, we are explicitly banned from citing it in a BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm largely referring to that last bit - this being a BLP and the source being self-published WP:YOUTUBE source. That's not even close to acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's talk about Alexander Lasarenko. He was practically an unknown man that until a few days ago, was rapidly being forgotten thanks to the way the larger industry works. There's only so few sources that could be found that states he existed, and one of those is an obituary. The main reason anyone is going to know about him is due to a video that Kevin Perjurer made. Nobody is going to make a news article on Alex. Trying to define the strength of a source though it being put on a television screen is an obsolete metric.

The way how news is diffused and how culture pops has changed. Let me posit this: Do you consider Kevin to not be a reliable source, in spite of the massive undertaking he went though, just because he's a "Youtuber"? 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB if you need more help understanding why this isn't even close to a usable source to anyone who understands how Wikipedia works. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Nebula self-publishing? There's editorial oversight of who their creators are. 108.16.57.129 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the streaming service, then probably not. There's generally a difference between websites that have mods/admin that censor rule-breaking content (Youtube/Nebula/Twitch etc) and actually being a publication that full on publishes content with actual editorial staff, editorial policies, employees with professional credentials, etc, IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc), which is more what we're looking for. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Nebula would probably still be self published. It seems more a collective of self-publishers than an independent editor of its content creators. But that's just my first impression and not a detailed analysis of their editorial standards. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Lasarenko and the Defunctland video are clearly distinguishable from Tallarico and the Hbomberguy video. WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP clearly prevent a self published source (like a YouTube video) from being a source on the biography of a living person. You're missing the arg if you think the problem is "because he's a YouTuber". The arg is its self published and this is a biography of a living person. If Defuntland/Hbomberguy had published the video in DVD form its still a WP:SPS. The problem isn't the medium, its the method of publication (specifically how it lacks a clear editorial process to verify claims). However, if Defunctland is " an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," then their video could be citable for Lasarenko because he is not a living person. For Hbomberguy and Tallarico, the problem with his video and why it's definitely uncitable, despite the fact Hbomb is arguably a subject matter expert, is because Tallarico is a living person. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Cousin of Steve Tyler? On whose word?

The citation linked doesn't really provide any factual idea that Steve Tyler is actually related to him.

He said that although he didn’t have much in the way of formal training, he learned the accordion due to his family’s Italian heritage. Still, he was exposed to music early, including trips to the Springfield Symphony. In addition, Tallarico growing up would watch one of his cousins, Steven Tallarico, play at shows in cities like Worcester with his band that people would come to know as Aerosmith.

To which literally proves nothing. The citation (54) points to an article of an interview with Tommy Tallarico which is as meaningless without actual confirmation from peers or his own family. If anyone wishes to ask Steve Tyler if Tommy is his cousin, consider it a challenge. 2601:540:8200:135:2B28:91AD:BE72:32B8 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that a normal thing to ask for? That isn't particularly a standard used on...anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No it is quite irregular, but Tallarico is an exceptional man. Posing on what was supposedly a Lamborghini, turns out it's a kit car. Searching for evidence of his alleged awards in magazine archives often turns up bupkis. (Cool Spot never won an award for sound/music.) He's often graceless, and with all the things he's lied about, it would give credence to doubt any claim he has made in his life, ever. (Such as appearing on MTV Cribs.) 2601:540:8200:135:2B28:91AD:BE72:32B8 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that directly questions or contradicts it, your other option would be to reword to your show proper attribution - that it's a claim made by him. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, here's one. Genealogical records seem to indicate a likelihood that Steven Tyler isn't his cousin; and are at the very BEST, tenuously related. Had Mr. Tallarico not been ousted as a massive pathological liar, his claim could have been shrugged off, but here's some evidence that flies in the face of the claim, and even supposedly reputable sources like the LA Times. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant a source that Wikipedia deems usable. As has been discussed up and down this talk page, Reddit and YouTubers don't qualify. I do not understand the hang up on this minor, trivial talking point. Claiming you're related to a member of Aerosmith is not some huge bragging point in the 2020s. I honestly don't see a strong reason to remove or keep adding it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the person who did that Reddit investigation, the current wording of "Tallarico has claimed to be a cousin of Steven Tyler (born Steven Tallarico), lead singer of the band Aerosmith" is adequate to me. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Guinness world record "(Gamer's edition)" clarification incorrect.

As far as I understand the Gamer's Edition is a series of Guinness world record books, not a type of record. Tallarico has been awarded two "regular" world records, and I don't think leaving out the clarification necessarily implies he appears in any of the Guinness world records books. If anything the "(gamer's edition)" thing implies he appeared in one those books for his records, and he only appeared in the 2008 book for an interview. So unless he also appears in one of the other books, this bit also implies something that is incorrect. I'd change it myself but can't due to it being semi protected. ApollyonicCicerone (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to submit a change WP:EDITREQUEST-style. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve edited the section to reflect the above edits (and also did some minor wording improvements as well.) I’d also add that the sentences following this one seem somewhat editorial—they exist solely to correct Tallarico’s claim that he holds the record for the largest “symphonic” performance (which he does not). It’s my opinion that this is probably not fit for the neutral tone of this website; however, given the extraordinary claims this man has made otherwise, it’s worth discussing whether it makes sense to address it in some fashion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The "800,000" record used to contradict Tallarico's record is just an estimate: 756,000 people for Tallarico vs "an estimated 800,000" for the Philaharmonic does not indicate a clear front-runner. The text in this Wikipedia article reads "as the largest attendance at the classical music concert was 800,000 at the New York Philharmonic performance in New York in 1986." "was 800,000" is not accurate. It was an "estimated 800,000." The round number was a dead giveaway.97.127.44.143 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And now he's been sued. (Again.)

I know, this isn't supposed to be a chronicle of the meaningless or the meandering, but it involves another six digit figure. [3]https://imgur.com/gxV1vlJ Here is an image of the docket image with case number, along with the names of the plaintiff and the revelation that Tommy signed for over 100k$ worth of furnishings. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC) This of course also applies to Intellivision Amico and their cosplay offices.

Happy New Year! Primary sources like these are generally discouraged over other sourcing and citing court documents in WP:BLP usually violates BLP (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). If there is any reporting in a WP:RS we can add details, but without it I don't think either source provided meets criteria for inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly something to keep an eye on, but we need to wait until reliable sources start reporting on it before it belongs in Wikipedia articles, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Found a source for the lawsuit: https://www.timeextension.com/news/2023/02/ex-intellivision-boss-tommy-tallarico-facing-lawsuit-over-office-furniture GamerPro64 00:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice find! Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles that cover the hbomberguy video are not reliable sources

Two articles have been cited in this article describing the hbomberguy video under the personal life section. Consensus here has established that the video is not a reliable source, and the cited articles are merely summaries of what the video says. I would think that the addition of those sources to call out Tommy's alleged "misleading or dubious" accomplishments violates WP:BLP and are an instance of WP:LAUNDER. Additionally, the articles are by the gaming websites "Time Extension" and "TheGamer", whose reliability and independence is questionable. My suggestion is that unless better sources can be used to verify Tommy's apparant lying, that the statement in the section be removed. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the Time Extension source, which is coverage of the hbomberguy article, is used to support the claim that 'Joey Kuras... created the "oof" sound effect for the game Messiah. Tallarico has at times claimed that Kuras created the sound, that it was a collaboration between the pair, and that he created it himself.' My suggestion would be to rely on the PCGamesN source, which says that Kuras and Tommy developed the sound together, or remove all reference to who exactly created the sound effect. The dispute with Roblox concerns ownership, and it's not disputed that Tommy's studio owns the sound. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've revised the text so that it does not specify who exactly created the sound effect, just that both individuals were involved, and also noted the exact date of its creation with the addition of another source. There should be no issues now. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Time Extension is reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S, and is simply being used to neutrally say note that the video of criticisms exists. I see no issues with this. It shouldn't really go any farther than that, but it's fine as is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The video itself is not a reliable source, but the articles about the video are. I wrote specifically that "Brewis found [the claims] to be misleading or dubious," in order to avoid any potential BLP issues and clarify that these were his independent findings, per WP:ASSERT. While I believe that to delve into the specifics of the claims that Brewis scrutinized would be WP:UNDUE, and should not be done unless further sources in the future cover the video in more detail, I do not think there is any problem with the text as it stands. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. i do not know much about Wikipedia. I understand you cannot use the YouTube video or its derivatives to change the article much but can we atleast add a simple line of "He has some controversy regarding his claims" somewhere? the way the article is written right now makes him look like a simple composer with nothing too weird going on. At the very least have something to give more of a balanced approach from a outsider's perspectives who is just wants a quick read. 14.139.185.181 (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is kind of as balanced as it gets. Since media has reported on the hbomb video, and Harris is a notable public personality, we can say that he said stuff, but as far as I can tell no one has yet reported on a controversy. Wikipedia is not the place to break news, it's the place to record the news after it's broken, and since no reliable source has broken the news yet, we haven't any legs to stand on in making such a statement, however true it might be. If and when more such sources report on such a thing, then anyone can update the article citing those sources, but in the meantime, this is what there is. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, (think professional publications) and much of the detail of the criticisms come from random people on social media, Reddit, YouTube, etc, which is not usable on Wikipedia for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this analysis. There is not consensus that the hbomberguy video is not WP:RS; there is consensus the video is a WP:SPS. It's not the reliability that is at issue, its the WP:BLP policy on SPS. Specifically Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. There was even a discussion if Nebula provided editing oversight, because if so it might not be a WP:SPS, but there was consensus that Nebula does not appear to provide editorial oversight. Independent articles about a WP:SPS are not barred by the WP:BLP policy (and for good reason, if a SPS uncovers something true and then other sources follow up on its reporting its a good sign the SPS found something real). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. There's not consensus about the video not being a WP:RS, just that it's self-published and therefore cannot be directly cited. I think any point I'd want to make here has already been made by the people above.
-Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Tommy Tallarico is a fraud, but nobody can be bothered to write an article on the matter.

In the weeks since a certain video was released of which the WP:BLP policy stubbornly refuses to modernize on, several "accusations", (which we'll call politely in spite of them being the direct word of their composers) have come forward which in short, [4]https://twitter.com/user/status/1647314027788267525 nigh on prove the falsified claims of composure that Tommy has made.

I don't know if there is a policy on Wikipedia regarding "Reasonable Doubt*" but now would be a good time to invoke it.

*For clarity, this is when someone makes so many statements which are so beyond base lies that it causes every statement by the person to fall into doubt, ex gr "If he tells you the sky is blue, double check outside". As there's even audio evidence of him using piped audio at his allegedly live concerts. 2601:540:C780:48AC:83C3:6D2D:B31A:249 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's actually not that important. The article has been cleared already of many things that were dubious, mischaracterized, or unverifiable, and it isn't our duty to expose people as "frauds" on Wikipedia. WP:NOTSCANDAL, also we do not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If more reputable sources write about Tallarico's false claims to the point that covering them would be due, we'll acknowledge it then. We're also not on any timeline to update the article, nor is there any urgency in doing so. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Its been explained up and down this talk page what's included and not included in this article, and why. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or somewhere where Redditors and YouTubers come to write hit pieces. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's moreso that we have to wait until we can get WP:RS that comment on all the claims he's made. Wikipedia's job remains collating and simplifying a range of sources, not engaging in drama. If and when his claims are proven or not by a range of WP:RS, then we can go and update that with the new information. In Wikipedia's eyes, the only information that exists about WP:BLPs are reliable sources. As has been mentioned multiple times across this talk page, WP:SPS such as the hbomberguy video do not count as such, nor do accusations posted on Twitter. We can only wait until the full picture is revealed!
-Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A biased mod is protecting this article way too much

People keep trying to add verified/confirmed information about Tommy and his personality and his controversies but one mod seems very biased and won’t let you add anything if it isn’t positive or complimentary towards Tommy. It comes across as very biased and unprofessional. Can we please try and keep emotion(s) out of this? 2600:1001:B0E8:353:9868:9314:D2FF:E10F (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the frustration of trying to add things and not being able to, but this is not about Serge (or any admin) being biased - it's that Wikipedia has particularly strict policies on how to handle biographies of living people, compared to other articles.--Alexandra^IDV 21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no bias. The people who hate him think I'm too soft on him, and the people who love him think I'm to harsh on him. I can't think of any greater sign of neutrality. Also, for the record, I've written almost none of the current article, and have largely just been undoing egregiously policy-violating edits and informing people of police's and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Really, if someone wanted to go out of their way to complain about his wacky escapades, there would need to be definitive proof from every acceptable source that he's a complete hack and a fraud, and even then there would be the issues of NPOV, not making an article just a pile of quotes, and the good things he actually did (like being a competent composer). As is, I don't think there's much reliable proof of... really anything he's done post-Guinness interview, good or bad, besides public events and his own word.

Even ignoring all of this and believing every secondary source, the article would be an overly positive or negative mess, which would inevitably get reverted and protected even harder.

Tommy's a man who says he's done a lot of things, and is said to have done a lot of things. I don't think it's possible to make constructive changes to this article until we can be 100% sure what's actually true about him. cogsan (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

“Competent composer” is false. Investigations have been unable to find any evidence that he actually composed a SINGLE tune, yes, not a single one. He stole an existing Beethoven midi, this has been proven, for “his” EJ track alongside tracks that were composed by other people. https://twitter.com/Muku99567/status/1647314027788267525

And of course his musicianship and VGL project is also a lie, documented on (banned link in the Talk page, for some reason) YouTube video where 4 performances *across 6 years* have the exact same duration to the millisecond. He’s faking the guitar, and if the orchestra is playing at all they’re behind a backing track.

Also pretty much everywhere he is credited for anything, meaning official instruction booklets or end-game credits, there are other names for the same role despite every other role (and every comparable role on random other videogames) being just one person. Note that “Tommy Tallarico Co/Studios” is the only music credit I’ve ever seen in a videogame that credits a COMPANY, which of course conveniently gives him “ownership” of other people’s (his employees) work…unlike literally every other videogame in existence which credits direct people for music/sound regardless of whether they are on staff or external independent.

You can also listen to his comments to see he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Unfortunately, the lies go “all the way down” so to speak. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RGW. This isn't the place to "set the record straight". Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting advice, but correct me if I’m wrong, we are on the Talk page…not a wiki entry?

Seems like the ideal place to “talk” about the fact that wiki subject has been revealed as a pathological liar and fraud. Almost like if it was discovered that Albert Einstein was an alien, to hash out what an eventual revision would look like? Correct?

You made a verifiably misleading comment on the Talk page, and I corrected you on the talk page. There is no evidence, now that people have checked carefully, that Tommy is a real composer or musician.

Note that every musician on YouTube has videos of themselves clearly playing an instrument. Tommy doesn’t. (Only VGL clips where he his hiding his guitar, the classic giveaway for a faker.) RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are strictly for discussing writing articles. Writing articles requires using reliable sources. WP:BLP have even stronger sourcing standards. You have provided zero reliable sources. Thus, none of whatever all this is, is getting you anywhere. You can get mad at me all day long, but I'm merely explaining the already established basics to you. Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

this is the 85rd time this discussion happens, can we please just wait while the reliable sauces look into the situation (and hope they're doing so in the first place)? cogsan (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ima Prophet, LOL!06:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs)

Yes, congrats, you too made baseless, evidence free accusations that failed to gain any support from other regular editors. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What happened this time? cogsan (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The above editor who failed to sign their comment, has also accused me of bias in the past. The irony being is Dalton only writes very positive commentary on Tallorico and the Amico, while this IP is mad about now allowing negative content in the article. Dalton was so eager to try to take a cheap shot at me that he didn't realize he was actually proving my point I made in my first comment in this section. The truth is just that each side of the debate is just getting mad at me when I moderate their efforts to POV push. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Tommy was being "not very [[BIG SHOT!]]" again.

So there was no prophecy, and this is just a petty debacle over what anyone outside of Tommy's friend circle(s) says is either a scam or something Thomas Vandrew Tallarico didn't have the knowledge or attention span to do.

If I haven't misread the rules, it's probably fine to have less than savory info on his business strategies if reliable sources prove they're not really very poggers, but even then there's the POV thing to keep in mind, with the reverse also being true for good things he's done (like making the good musicsounds). cogsan (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're on the right track. We have to follow WP:NPOV. The problem generally comes down to the basic premise of Wikipedia - verifying all content by use of reliable sources. Most of the claims of bias are coming from editors who don't understand what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources. The people who want to add negative content often want to use this content created by Youtubers or Reddit that pretty clearly violate WP:BLPSPS. But I'm the bad guy when I tell them about their basic policy violations. Same thing when editors just want to ignore/remove content that does come from reliable sources, but doesn't match their preferred stance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The only real reason I don't think any edits CAN be made right now is because alleged MTV Cribs star Tommy Tallarico seems to have lied or greatly exaggerated about nearly everything he's done off-camera, ever. So this might be a stupid dumb suggestion for a case like this, but I'd rather wait until reliable sources somehow figure out what actually happened before jumping to protect or talk shit about him, which I don't think will be happening anytime soon.

tl;dr for everything I said thus far: I think about 60% of everything we know about Tommy, good or bad, is questionable-at-best hearsay, and am not good enough at this Wikipedia thing to verify half of it.

...but seriously, what letter does his middle name start with? cogsan (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a prophecy. I said Serge was going to get accused of being biased and having a conflict of interest and this came to pass. And I wrote very little about the Amico and nothing in this article: mostly just removing or making more neutral comments in the Amico article when the parade of people posted negative comments with no good source, the same as Serge is doing. The poorly sourced negative comments are probably 100 times the positive. Also, I never accused Serge of bias. I just think the "experienced" editors have a thug-cronyism mentality toward amateur editors and their system is deeply flawed. Daltonsatom (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You were not "doing the same thing as me". I'm a neutral mediator asked to intervene from a Wikiproject. You were an active participant in one of the disputes I was asked to look into. And you stormed off when you didn't get your way, and now spend most of your time here grumbling about Wikipedia to no one on your user page and making vague passerby comments that don't make any sense to anyone. That's not something a neutral mediator does. Anyways, regardless, please stop, you've derailed this discussion enough as it is, as you don't really appear to have a constructive contribution to the discussion other than talking about a prophecy no one knew about to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not a prophecy. Also, where did the CoI thing come from? cogsan (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Dalton was accused of having conflict of interest (COI) because virtually every edit he made to Wikipedia articles was in regards to adding positive sentiment or removing negative content related to the Intellivision Amico/Tommy Tallarico. No one has accused me of that, nor would anyone have reason to, so I'm not really sure why he brought that up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So he somehow misread accusations people made of him as being accusations he made against you?

I don't get it, and I should probably keep not getting it. cogsan (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to just let this discussion sink into the the talk page WP:ARCHIVES. The original complaint was frivolous, and has only attracted further frivolous comments. The only redeeming parts were our talks on policy really. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The difference with people who love him and people who hate him is that people who love him are objectively wrong. Having both sides criticize you the same isn't neutrality, of course people who criticize him are also editing without reliable sources, but then the sign of neutrality is holding claims that paint Tommy in a negative or positive light to the same standards, not how other people interpret your actions. 2800:810:596:5D7:B52F:F352:1D11:8653 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Cogsan — the subject of the article is Thomas Andrew Tallarico, as referenced in the federal lawsuit which is not permitted here because it’s “original research.” The subject’s late father is Thomas V. Tallarico (d.2022), who wrote a letter to the judge in support of his son. There’s no “Vandrew” nor is this particularly complex. TAT born 1968. Spyrus (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no section about his controversies?

I've read this talk page and you guys are claiming that since he is currently living, there can't be a section about his controversies and that's just silly. TJ Miller is currently living and has one on his article, so does DaBaby, so does Eminem, etc.

The person that mentioned bias seems right on the money. 72.9.0.101 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION and WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So then what about the 3 examples I gave? Why doesn't this apply to them? 72.9.0.101 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Re-read WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Or you could just give me an answer please. 72.9.0.101 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia generally doesn't allow for stuff from Reddit or Youtubers to be used as sources.
2. The bar for sourcing is raised even higher when dealing with a biography of a living person (WP:BLP, WP:BLPSPS).
3. Guidance advises against creating dedicated "controversy" sections. (WP:CSECTION). It's not that controversial content can't be added, it's just that it should be integrated throughout the article, not piled into one dedicated section.
4. Just because you can find other articles that don't follow guidance, doesn't make it right, and doesn't make for a valid argument for ignoring guidance elsewhere.

Combining all of this together explains why there's no controversy section here - the lack of reliable sources to construct it and the guidance to not group it all together in one section like that. And observing other articles doing it wrong isn't a valid argument for doing it wrong here too, it means those other ones should be cleaned up.

If you've got some constructive additions you'd like to add, feel free to use our WP:EDITREQUEST system. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)