Talk:Tucker Max

Please link this page to its equivalent in Esperanto
editsemiprotected Please link this page to its equivalent in Esperanto
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done —Ms2ger (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

no good source for tucker being called 'gonzo' in the lede
the first source is http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117986988.html?categoryid=13&cs=1, which should be good enough if the writer of the article called his style 'gonzo,' except the gonzo reference is just a throwaway quote from someone named "Sean McKittrick" who is apparently part of the production team for tucker's movie. this is WP:Undue weight to give a sentence in the lede about tucker being gonzo just based on a quote from a guy who works for tucker on his movie. the actual author of the article clearly did not classify tucker as gonzo. the full quote from the article is '' "Richard, Ted and I all appreciated Tucker's gonzo style of writing in his book and had long been following the project," McKittrick said. "The story's uniqueness appealed to our own sensibilities of storytelling."'' one of the producers of tucker's movie saying he appreciates tucker's "gonzo style" is just not enough for the lede.

the second source is which isn't even accessible without paying for a subscription to HollywoodReporter.com. This is a bad source for WP:BLP. BLP rules state: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If the source isn't available for anyone to verify its contents, i'd call it poorly sourced. so 'gonzo' has been removed from the lede. perhaps it could be placed somewhere else in the article with better sources?

also, according to WP:lede, '' The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs)


 * Rather than go through another talk page dispute, I went straight to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As per discussion there, both links are valid sources.  .  McJeff (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * good work. i disagree with the RSN decision, but i will accept the outside opinion rather than argue Theserialcomma (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The RSN discussion seems to agree that the source is fairly weak for a lede statement, and I actually agree with that. However, I'm not sure where else in the article to note the fact that Max writes gonzo style.  There really isn't much in the article about his actual writing. McJeff (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article dedicated a large amount of space to describe Tucker's writing style, I agree that the source would not be strong enough to support this. But, it's literally a one word mention; we don't need to apply this type of scrutiny. Besides, searching Tucker Max gonzo on Google turns up 10,800 results, so it's not like this source is some esoteric point of view that no one else holds. Svernon19 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'tucker max dolphin' returns 23,000 hits, but i'm not sure which part of the lede to put that in. anyway, on the RSN, someone said '"Max's producer calls Max's writing style 'gonzo.'" solves any NPOV and WEASEL problems.' []. i don't think that would look good in the lede either, but it's the only real way to accurately represent the source. the other source is unavailable and therefore i have no idea what it says, but if anyone can actually see it, we can quote directly from it as another alternative. if no one is willing to verify what the other source says because it costs money to purchase a login and password, it should be removed cause we have no idea what it actually says. it could say tucker max is a dolphin for all we know Theserialcomma (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the "unavailable" source, we know what it says, because it's quoted in the reference. It says this: "garnering millions of unique site visitors to read his short stories" which is exactly what's in the article. So that problem has already been solved.


 * As to the gonzo source, Metropolitan90 already put it well on the RSN discussion: "Source #1 can be used to cite the fact that Tucker Max's writing style has been described as "gonzo"; Variety magazine is a reliable source, and there they are quoting someone calling Max's style "gonzo". So it is fair to say that his style has indeed been described as gonzo." Svernon19 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * right, but variety is just quoting tucker's co-worker. it's undue weight to take a single, throwaway quote from tucker's friend that his style is gonzo, and make that part of the lede. check the rest of the conversation on reliable sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * personal attack removed []. comment on the edits, not the editor. otherwise, go away. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * since the lede is not supposed to (per WP:LEDE) "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article, i've added a mention of tucker's gonzo style in the article other than the lead.

Dispute: Pt. 2
Before you guys start tearing each others' throats out; can we please discuss this "gonzo" issue? Right now, the only source I'm seeing (the Variety one, as the other isn't up) states that his producer thinks that of him. RSN said that the sources are adequate, but I don't quite think they meant, "Go ahead and cut up the quotation to make it look like he's actually considered gonzo by the mainstream". At least, that's what the current placement looks like.

Now, that doesn't mean I support the IP side. I'm unbiased and impartial. That's just my view, and meant to stir discussion. The main goal is to stop anybody from being blocked or the page from being protected, because, let's face it; we're humans. Can we not talk this out rather than having to act out a game of tug-of-war? Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  06:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is, and always really has been, that mainstream media - things that would meet WP:RS without question and argument - doesn't pay attention to pop culture stuff like this. There are plenty of sources that call him gonzo, but... it's always been hard to find sourcing for this article.  I was hoping Svernon would be able to dig up something like he did when he found articles supporting.


 * In fact, the claim that he isn't a gonzo writer seems to have originated from his very active hatedom at gawker.com. If anything, the few reliable sources and the massive amount of unreliable sources should indicate that Tucker not being gonzo is the minority view.


 * I have added two sources to the claim. Hopefully at least one of them will be determined by the community at large to meet WP:RS.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  07:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i still say this is undue weight to call him gonzo in the lede. one source is a quote from tucker's producer weakly saying 'he appreciates tucker's gonzo style', which is far from lede worthy, since it's only a passing mention by one guy, not even the author of the article. i'm not sure what kind of source http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/gonzo-journalists-684514.html is, but it seems terrible, and it's not even a real article. it reads like 10th grade term paper. seriously, read it. as for http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/06/darko-to-serve-beer-in-hell/, the quote says "The book (i hope they serve beer in hell) is composed of short stories narrated by the author in gonzo style." - talking about i hope they serve beer in hell, not tucker max's literary style in general. just that one book. still not lede worthy. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * McJeff: The articlebase source isn't sturdy, given that that site is also user-driven (like Wikipedia). As for the slashfilm link, I agree with theserialcomma; if Obama makes a socialist move, that does not make him a socialist president. We would say something like, "... has used various approaches to crises, including socialist and capitalist methods"; we wouldn't describe him as socialist in whole.
 * Also, while I can see what you mean when you say all the minor unreliable sources seem to agree with you; unfortunately, if we can't cite it, we can't just assume something like that. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  11:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if you put it like that, I guess I can agree with that. I went ahead and removed the "bad" source, another comment pending.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that the slashfilm source is "not representative of Max's writing style in general". I disagree.  The short stories in Beer in Hell are the exact same ones that are posted on the website minus some of the shorter ones.  He doesn't even do any other kind of writing except for the 2001 book about pickup lines.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  12:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * what you propose constitutes blatant original research. we need reliable sources to say anything in a BLP. we can't just extrapolate/speculate based on personal knowledge. i.e. verifiability not truth.  Theserialcomma (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not original research.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Master of Puppets states the issue exactly. It should not be in the lede. If Wikipedia considers praise from a financially motivated participant a reliable source, fine. But where used, it needs attribution, and cannot be in the voice of Wikipedia itself. (Or, if the producers of more movies notice that, Wikipedia will have ledes like "White Chicks is a classic Hollywood screwball comedy.") 71.201.88.145 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...according to marlon wayan's mom, as quoted by esquire magazine. exactly. hey IP guy, would you consider registering for an account? people tend to take you more seriously if you have one. i don't know why. there is something ominous about a series of numbers separated by dots Theserialcomma (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For all the reasons given above, this doesn't belong in the lead. McJeff, you linked to the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:NOTOR - can you explain which part you believe supports your view? --hippo43 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) From WP:NOTOR, Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source. I cite this essay in response to this claim, saying the stories on tuckermax.com are the same ones that were included in Beer in Hell is original research, and that Beer in Hell is different from Max's usual writing style. Mc JEFF  (talk)  02:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also from NOTOR, Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.. If the stories in Beer in Hell are the exact same ones that are on the website, then claims about one also are true in regards to the other.   Mc  JEFF  (talk)  02:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

umm. if A is in district B, and district B is in C, then A is in C. right. but that has nothing to do with tucker's books or website. Tucker's first book was about pick up lines. Is A in B (gonzo)? No. Are all Tucker's stories on his website the same style as IHTSBIH? I don't know. I haven't read every story. I'll wait for a journalist to do so and make comparison. it's common sense that a book of pick up lines wouldn't be gonzo style, however. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're losing sight of the real issue. If the best source we can find describing his writing as gonzo is from a colleague, then we don't have the evidence to put it in the article. If an author is really known for a particular writing style, then there will be plenty of good quality, independent sources which confirm it. I can't find any in this case, so I'm taking it out of the article for now. --hippo43 (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The slashfilm article is not quoting a colleague. The variety article is, but it is not the article I used to source the claim.   Mc  JEFF  (talk)  03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede reads He chronicles his drunken and sexual encounters in the form of "gonzo" short stories on his website . I have provided a reliable source - the slashfilm link - that backs this claim up. This sentence has nothing to do with the book about pickup lines, so don't bother bringing that book up. The sentence is true and cited. Mc JEFF  (talk)  04:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this slashfilm blog is misleading at best. i'm not saying it's not a reliable blog, just that it doesn't claim what you insist it does. "The book is composed of short stories narrated by the author in gonzo style." - slashfilm. "This book" being the key phrase. perhaps you might want to use that source on the book's wikipedia article? cause this article is about the author, not the one particular book mentioned in the article. as far as i know, tucker has authored more than this one book, along with a website. one of his books is a book of pick up lines, which is not 'gonzo.' so therefore, how do we extrapolate this blog which states 'I hope they serve beer in hell was written gonzo style' to 'therefore, tucker max's style is gonzo'. one part does not equal the whole - and that's a logical fallacy to make that jump.


 * this is original research. we need to stop this circular argument. also, see the uninvolved admin's comments above. he has said the same things i have been repeating since january "As for the slashfilm link, I agree with theserialcomma; if Obama makes a socialist move, that does not make him a socialist president." if you want, contact him and have him come back and clarify. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody is claiming that all his work is gonzo. The statement very clearly is only referring to the stories on the website. You are the only one that is circling here.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  04:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i suggest you revert yourself. you are edit warring against consensus - me, hippo, and the uninvolved admin (who came here after you posted a 'page protection request.' ive asked the admin to come back to clarify his position, just to be sure. furthermore, i suggest you revert yourself based on the fact that you messed up your logical deduction. if A is a part of B (if tucker's book is gonzo, and it's derived from his website, then his website can't be called gonzo unless A = B exactly. it isn't exact, it's plus or minus some stories.) furthermore your A is in B is in C; Therefore A=C does not apply here, because you are attempting to do an incorrect reversal based on a part being representative of the whole, which it isn't Theserialcomma (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your wikilawyering aside, I found a source that says the stories on the website are gonzo. Mc  JEFF  (talk)  05:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The slashfilm blog post is neither a reliable source nor written as serious literary criticism, a considered examination of Tucker Max's prose, etc. It's a breezy blog post (sourced to Variety) meant to announce that a movie is in production based on his book. It's also absolutely not true to claim that "mainstream media doesn't pay attention to pop culture stuff like this" when there is a New York Times link on the page, and the NYT took the time to coin "fratire" to describe him. The reason no reliable sources call Tucker Max a "gonzo" writer is because he isn't &mdash; or else you wouldn't have to abridge "journalism" from the Wikipedia article title every time you stick it back into the lede. Gonzo is journalism, not short stories. Look at the practitioners cited on Gonzo journalism. A guy writing stories wherein he drinks & screws & whatever does not gonzo journalism make any more than every car accident is a Greek tragedy. It's missing the whole thing: the reporting. 71.201.88.145 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this is 100% on point. mcjeff's argument doesn't make any sense, and i don't know why he is continuing to edit war against consensus, common sense, and when an admin specifically said not to on this exact issue Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * McJeff; though I'm not saying that you have to agree with them, consensus appears to be determined on the issue. As for my opinion, just because a source says something doesn't mean it is law and should be republished by Wikipedia. If the source says that he's gonzo, then that's great; it's also subjective. Stating that Max is "...referred to as a gonzo journalist by some" is fine, but the current method of inclusion in the lede implies that this is something the widespread media agree on, and not that it's a minority view (as 88.145 said above, NYT refers to it as fratire, not gonzo journalism).
 * Of course, that's my opinion. From a purely consensus point-of-view, I'd appreciate it if you allowed Theserialcomma and Mr. IP to make their changes. Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when does an offsite POV-pushing IP's opinion have anything to do with consensus? By my count, there's two editors, myself and Svernon19, who are against the removal, and one, TSC, who is for it. The claim that Max isn't gonzo originated from Gawker, a website that specializes in anti-Tucker Max garbage of various kinds, and should be viewed with extreme skepticism from the start - treated like it's a fringe view rather than the commonplace view that needs to be disproven.   Mc  JEFF  (talk)  15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My take on this, and I know nothing about any Gawker business: There are a couple of poor-quality references which describe some of Max's writing as gonzo - they should certainly be mentioned (and attributed) later in the article, but there simply isn't enough support in reliable sources to flatly describe his writing style this way in the lead. As MoP said above, this is not something that is widely accepted in the mainstream media. --hippo43 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * McJeff: I'm not saying that we should include the whole bit about how people have contested that he's gonzo. There's no sense in doing so unless the debate is noteworthy. All I'm saying is that we should clarify (not in the lede) that he's been called gonzo, but in a manner which makes it clear that we're attributing it to somebody.
 * Also, please don't demean other peoples' opinions, be they IP or editor. There's no difference. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i am pretty sure that calling tucker 'gonzo' (a type of journalist, which tucker isn't) in the lede, based on 2 super tenuous sources, is the ONLY pov pushing going on here. the gawker thing is 100% irrelevant to this subject. even if they did a whole article on how wikipedia calls tucker gonzo erroneously, it doesn't mean they are wrong. the fact is, they did no such thing. there is a one sentence line in a gawker article about how tucker tries to compare himself to hunter s. thompson and why that's funny. that is it. you think this whole argument comes from that? no one here cares about gawker, and i hadn't even read that until i googled it just now. gawker's not even a reliable source, and no one's trying to add a gawker source whatsoever, so it's extra irrelevant to mention that. but speaking of reliable sources, gawker is probably more reliable than the internet blogs you are trying to pass as a source. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't read Gawker either (or any other of Nick Denton's terrible blogs), and I don't think it's particularly constructive to make lists of whose opinions do and do not count &mdash; or speculatively impugn the motives of people who disagree with you (much less assign them to a membership in a cabal of blog slaves). Neither I nor anyone else involved in this discussion has trashed Tucker Max or tried to insert anything negative about him into the article. In accordance with the RSN, the attributed quote from his movie producer remains in the body of the article. From the RSN onward, people have been saying it doesn't belong in the lede. Nothing fringe about it. 71.201.88.145 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

more sources to check out
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=9055&volume_id=398&issue_id=446&volume_num=43&issue_num=48 calls hims a misogynist and a "figurehead" in the fratire movement http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/movies/story/1407530.html describes his novel as 'somewhat true'. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-tucker20-2009sep20,0,1269489.story - i think there are enough new sources to start adding new content to the article Theserialcomma (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving information
I moved the deleted information regarding the movie protests into the I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell article as it seems to fit better there. The removed information regarding the May 2009 speaking engagement is still without a home, and I'm not sure where to put it in the Tucker Max article without causing a concern over negative balance. Atlantabravz (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * i changed the 'legal battles' section to 'legal battles and protests'. i think this should solve the problem. the article had the material in two different sections before, but maybe that was better. i am not sure. we should try to get some consensus here about this issue so there is no further edit warring. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep it under "legal battles", nor am I sure why you wish to combine the two completely different subjects. I see no commonality in the subject matter. If you wished to make it a very broad subtopic regarding controveries surrounding Tucker Max, then create a controversies subtopic and include both. In addition, Max threatening litigation (without filing) isn't a legal battle. It could be argued that Max threatened the legal action to promote his movie, or moderate criticism of his movie.
 * the section was once titled 'controversy', but it was amended to be more specific to lawsuits. we can change it back to controversies. i'm not opposed to that. i'm only opposed to the removal of neutrally worded, properly sourced material. if it's in the wrong section, move it somewhere else. if the section title needs to be change, then change it. but don't just remove the content Theserialcomma (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I share the same concern, but this article suffers from not being neutral. Many of the supporting statements about Max are A) self-referential (sourced from his website or message board); B) from paid sources that cannot be verified (Lexis Nexis); and C) from sources that lack the journalistic standards of a metropolitan newspaper (example: Variety). As it stands, this article looks promotional rather than informative, and drawing support from the references is a dicey proposition.

In the meantime, I'll merge the sections under a "Controversies" subtitle. That should give contributors more leeway on a rather controversial subject.

Just wondering, Tucker has taken his message board down, thereby making the links to a bunch of the article's bookmarks null and void. Also, it nullifies his entire section of speaking about Rudius, since those sites have also gone down as well. Shouldn't those parts of the article that are linked to defunct websites or boards be removed from the article? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.74.3 (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non reliable citations
I would say that site http://www.quotabletuckermax.com is not a reliable source for content in T Max's BLP. and that they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the citations, there are other not reliable citations, if there is an experienced editor interested in and working on this article the citations need to be tidied up so that they can be seen for what they are and improved or removed as required. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have started the work and removed the three quotable tucker max cites and the comment, it was only being used to say, look he was wrong and we don't need to add that, we can let the reportings and the movie returns etc speak for themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This also 45, http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=6720& another message board, not a wiki preliable source for any content, also needs removing, as I said, an interested editor needs to tidy these refs. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This has clearly been tampered with and should not be used. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to remove it, but Theserialcomma put it back in saying he would replace it with a better source. Which he didn't. Seth Kellerman (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I will work through the citations tomorrow to sort the chaff from the wood. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * in regards to your decision to revert tucker's message board source as 'unreliable' for his middle name, i think you are mistaken about the policy here. he posted a picture of his license to his own message board. his license has his date of birth, middle name, and other uncontroversial and uncontested facts. using information that he has posted to his own message board (he posted a picture of his license), is perfectly acceptable use of a self published source. src: []


 * per


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sps#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. " this is not a controversial use of a self published source in any way. you should not be edit warring over it []Theserialcomma (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected
I protected the article for three days due to excessive edit warring over the middle name. Please come to some consensus over the issue in this talk page rather than continuing to revert and re-revert. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuckers message board
It is a good source as long as we are talking about Tucker posting something not controversial like his full name. This is aligned with wikipedias rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanholliday (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fratire
Since this has turned into an edit war over a minor issue at best, we should address it here. Theserialcomma seems adamant that Max is not considered "a founder of fratire," despite the profile on him by the very article that coined the term: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/fashion/sundaystyles/16CADS.html?_r=1

In my opinion it's a common-sense implication, but look at this quote in particular: "...they collectively represent the once-elusive male counterpart to so-called chick lit, and so perhaps deserve a cheesy epithet of their own. How about: fratire."

If "they collectively represent" this new movement, how is it shocking to declare them the "founders"? I don't see how this is an issue of contention whatsoever. Col. Sweeto (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * listen, this is a blp violation and original research. because they "collectively represent" this new movement, that doesn't mean he's a founder. it means that one article states that he "collectively represents" the movement. you cannot extrapolate "represents a movement" to conclude he's a "founder". stop your edit warring, and stop taking liberties in inventing creative interpretations that dont precisely represent the original source. wikipedia isn't the place to include dubious extrapolations; wikipedia only reports what 3rd party, reliable sources unambiguously state. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article created the word fratire to describe the work of three new authors and their literary genre. It is not a "creative interpretation" that they are the founders, it is the direct and deliberate assertion of the NEW YORK TIMES. This fact is sourced and settled in the article, and your attempts to remove it are considered vandalism until you can provide a SINGLE substantive source attributing the credit to someone else. (By the way, I noticed you are only adamant about removing Max from this list of names, not the others.) Nonetheless, I just added 3 other sources describing Max as a fratire founder, which are only a small sample of the hundreds out there. I trust that this settles the issue. Col. Sweeto (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"The advertisements themselves were also vandalized in multiple cities"
vandalized partly by Ryan Holiday..the maker of the advertising campaign  Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Planned parenthood
the section in controversy has "In April 2012, Max reportedly offered $500,000 to Planned Parenthood if they named an abortion clinic after him. Planned Parenthood declined."

also included tax reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.187.206 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * if you meant that you had put the 'tax purpose' info into the article, someone deleted it. as it was in both the Huffington Post article you have here AND in the Daily Beast article that was already used as a source for the PP sentences, i put the info back in this article, and added your Huffington Post article as a source.Colbey84 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy - the DiMeo part
it seemed that none of the 4 sources used for this bit about the Philadelphia socialite, DiMeo, and the lawsuit are working. the first one may require registration (but i couldn't tell because i couldn't seem to get to a login page), while at least one of the others was completely dead. sorry i don't have time to fix all those, but i did find 2 other sources while just trying to read about the lawsuit. hopefully someone else will have some time to take care of the existing sources, and add in these 2:

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case433.cfm

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/78423822.html

Colbey84 (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tucker Max. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080106075033/http://messageboard.tuckermax.com:80/showthread.php?t=19304 to http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=19304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tucker Max. 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 tag to http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto091520060937397349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315053739/http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php to http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512020321/http://ihopetheyservebeerinhell.com/ to http://ihopetheyservebeerinhell.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512020321/http://ihopetheyservebeerinhell.com/ to http://www.ihopetheyservebeerinhell.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Book in a Box" is now "Scribe Media" and/or "Scribe Writing"
I was on Tucker Max's Twitter today and there I noticed him talking about "Scribe Media" and that got me here... FYI on Wikipedia I don't normally do anything beyond fix broken links or speling erors, can someone update the article as needed? " In November 2014, Max published his experience of working with Melissa Gonzalez, CEO of the Lionesque Group for her book The Pop-Up Paradigm - the first project of his new start-up, Book in a Box. Founded along with startup founder Zach Obront, Book in a Box writes and publishes books for entrepreneurs who wish to have their own book but don't have the time, ability, or patience to do it the conventional way.[40] " = BiaB has its own WIkipedia entry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_in_a_Box ) which correctly mentions the rebranding, however THIS article still links to old info via [40] instead of something like but https://scribewriting.com/howitworks/ Thanks 142.229.115.112 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Links for reference
I removed these links from the external links section per WP:ELNO. They may be useful for future reference.


 * Shave Magazine interview with Tucker Max *— Interview for I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell
 * Tucker Max interview with Jon Niccum in 2009
 * I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell movie production blogsite
 * Tucker Max 2012 interview with Michael Ellsberg

Runawayangel (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)