Talk:Tucker Max/Archive 4

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)


 * Well, we're on the second RfC, no one has even produced a hint of a reliable source, and one of the two people who is in favor of inclusion hasn't even participated in the discussion. How long until we can call this one finished? McJeff (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

mcjeff spins the fox interview to the advantage of his employer, Tucker Max. Now it is no longer just opie that doubts tuckers claim... remember that was mcjeff's original rebuttal, that opie is not a serious journalist... but when a serious journalist brings up these claims.. now its a new objection. that the report of unverifiable claims is not in itself newsworthy or weighty enough for inclusion into the Wikipedia article. This flies in the face of standards of reporting established in the New Republic- Glass, and the James Frey precedent is right on point.. If anything, most of Tucker Max's claims should be expurgated until they have been thoroughly vetted. TO paraphrase, incredible claims demand significant evidence. After the numerous cases of semi-fiction/fraud perpetruated by a ever too willing media, wikipedia would be practically negligent if it did not at least note the controversy sorrounding Tucker... Aharon42 (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharon42 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

controversy over the removal of the controversy/criticism section
''**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)''
 * 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)

 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.  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 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. [] dana plato [] david pakman [], [] patrice oneal, [] andrew dice clay, [] 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 [] and []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)

Links/Sources under debate
Tucker Max appearance on Opie & Anthony. Second Part of Opie and Anthony appearance

Miami Times article questioning the truthfulness of one story

Criticism of Tucker Max by Craig Davidson

Opinion Essay by SVernon19 on why the criticism section is inappropriate

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)


 * OK, I'm going to roll with this one for a second. You've admitted that the O&A appearance hasn't been mentioned by Tucker ever again. To the best of my knowledge, O&A have never mentioned it again. And, to add to this, no third-party media organization has ever mentioned it. So it's apt to say that the appearance on O&A could better be labeled "Criticism" rather than "Controversy", as no actual controversy exists.


 * Right now, the things Tucker is most notable for are his bestselling book, his movie, and his legal appearances. It would be fair to say that one or two sentences would suffice for the section on O&A, so as not to give a disproportionate amount of attention to it within the context of the article. If I were to guess, it would read something like this: "On [insert date], Tucker Max appeared on O&A, where his stories were criticized by the hosts. The appearance was not mentioned again by Tucker, O&A, and was not covered by any third-party media outlets."


 * Now. I want to make a tangential point. Tucker was profiled in the New York Times by Warren St. John, one of their bigger writers. The author praised Tucker Max's writing style, and coined a new word for it "Fratire" which was picked up by many subsequent writers. It was arguably one of Tucker's biggest media appearances, and probably the most important one to his career. If I were to include a section titled "Praise" with the text "Tucker was profiled in the New York Times by Warren St. John, and his work was praised as one of the front runners as a new genre of literature", would you be opposed to it?


 * I know I would. It doesn't mention anything specific, it doesn't cite any specific facts, and the only important thing was that "it happened". Both incidents, which are complete opposites in terms of positive and negative coverage, surprisingly share quite a lot of similarities. And both are not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Svernon19 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * you are doing original research. wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is primarily criticizing Tucker's authenticity. If the owner doesn't specifically remember it, but says that based on his knowledge of Tucker, it could be a true story, doesn't that support the claim that Tucker's stories are authentic? Svernon19 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the interview says "could be... might be" rather than "is" is alone enough to make it not suitable for use in the criticism section. McJeff (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * while mcjeff admits that craig davidson is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, two minutes after this posting, he added a "This article may not meet the general notability guideline" to the Craig Davidson article. when i googled davidson's books, i found many references and reviews from valid sources such as nytimes, which should prove his notability Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a couple problems with Craig Davidson's post.


 * First of all, as McJeff already mentioned, the primary focus of the article was to slam Tucker Max. It brought no new information to light, and most of the criticism ranged to "The dialogue isn't realistic" to "That never could've happened." It brings no new information to light, and doesn't attempt to. On its own, the criticism itself isn't notable.


 * Second of all, the source is from a blog. Didn't we just have a long discussion about the credibility of blog entries?


 * Thirdly, it's Craig Davidson criticizing Tucker Max. Who's Craig Davidson? There's a reason he has two lines in his Wikipedia profile. There's a reason he has under ten reviews on Amazon. He's a small-time writer. Tucker has been on the NYT bestseller list for something like 50 straight weeks. By now, he's probably sold at least 250,000 copies of his book. He's the producer and the writer of a movie. I'll put it this way: Do you remember when Raja Bell, a role player on the Suns, criticized Kobe Bryant, one of the best basketball players alive? There's a reason that no one cared about that, and that there's no mention of it on Kobe's Wikipedia page: Because no one cares about the small criticizing the big.


 * When the criticism itself isn't notable, the place the criticism came from isn't notable, and the person the criticism came from isn't notable, I'm pretty sure the incident isn't notable. Svernon19 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Other biographical issues for addition:
http://www.law.duke.edu/student/act/DLR/issue3/joker.html Tucker Max gets thrown off the Duke Law student ballot for 'pranks'.

Not related to O&A, and if Duke U.'s newpaper's not a RS, then why bother? ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that the source is reliable, but it's not a big enough event to be notable. If you read over Tucker's Wikipedia page, it's fairly sparse in details regarding his past and background. Keeps the page from being bogged down with random minutia, which I believe was a problem a year or two ago.


 * Tucker also commented on this story, by the way: http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/the_dba_story.phtml#628 Svernon19 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A future plan I have for this article is to make a section about Tucker's life before becoming famous. The link provided would be good for that.  McJeff (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://filmindustrybloggers.com/thescriptreader/2008/07/29/the-tucker-max-movie-idiots-delight/ this could be a good source for the controversy/criticism section, although it might be more relevant for the article about the upcoming movie. It's a blog, although supposedly written by someone who is 'an analyst for the film industry,' so it's probably too anonymous and too blog-ish to be a good source. and mcjeff, weren't you warned to stay away from this article for a bit? you should probably listen to the admins. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the My Election Analysis wasn't worth including, then that one isn't worth discussing. McJeff (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * no need to be rude. discussion is how civility works. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have called that "brusque" rather than rude, but I'd be happy to be cheerful and cordial on the talk pages, providing of course that you reciprocate. McJeff (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After the woman reviewed the script in the above link, the story was picked up by gawker http://gawker.com/5032804/the-kind-of-asshole-that-all-of-his-asshole-friends-love . gawker is surely not a reliable source either, but it shows that the review is gaining momentum. now it's been picked up by variety: http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/08/tucker-max-and.html . i would imagine that some further valid sources will come out of this.

(undent) The point of this article and this talk page is not to speculate about whether a movie that has not come out yet will be any good. McJeff (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no responses to the RfC that really shouldn't have been filed in the first place. How long until we can call it closed? McJeff (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * tucker's controversy is growing by the day (see [],[] so the controversy section will be added as soon as some more notable sources are citable. unless the rfc yields some valid reasons as to why it shouldn't be added, the O&A incident will be added too. if you still think there was some imaginary consensus to remove the controversy section, see ThuranX's comments as to how you're wrong. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those sources are not notable. There is no evidence that this criticism is notable.  All the sources you have provided are rank speculation by nobodies on irrelevant blogs, and a bunch of stuff on gawker.  At this rate there will never be a criticism section.  Might I remind you that the consensus is for no criticism section, and if your RfC fails, which it is currently doing, the section will not be added.  McJeff (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * my rfc? you made this rfc, not me. the fact is, your rfc has failed to receive any responses. don't somehow turn this around on me. it's not my rfc. and by the way, opie and anthony are notable and reliably sourced. and it's going into the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) no, it's your RfC, you demanded it. I filed it because you wouldn't have done it right.  2) it has been well and reliably established that O&A are not notable.  They are not literary critics, they are shock jocks. As far as ThuranX's link goes, he found a single reliable source that is in regards to something that has nothing to do with Tucker Max's stories, and in fact predates his career as an author. McJeff (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i'd let the rfc run its 30 day course until it's automatically removed; and if it gets no responses, start another one without the convoluted copy and paste job from svernon19 that may be overwhelming for outside editors to read. in my opinion, the reason the RfC is failing is because svernon19's copy and pasted section is messy, which probably deters outside involvement. the new rfc (if this one yields no responses) will be much simpler and without spam. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't file an RfC every time you don't get your way. If this RfC does not result in a significant amount of outside editors arguing in favor of a criticism section, there won't be one. McJeff (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i've only filed one rfc, and that was to stop you from reverting the inclusion of an anonymous blog. the editors/admins response was overwhelming against you. and i've only filed one ANI, and the result was also overwhelmingly against you. I believe 6 admins told you that you were wrong, and you still argued, kicked, screamed, and demanded from them. they removed your rollback privileges, unanimously. i consider your behavior thus far to be highly inappropriate. and you were warned to lay off this article, which you ignored. listen, you don't have to feel threatened by an RfC or outside admins - unbiased perspectives will only help the article, not hurt it. there is nothing threatening about an RfC. if i feel that something is going wrong, and other editors are unwilling to be reasonable, then an RFC is perfectly valid. you won't dictate your own rules onto this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please strikethrough all personal attacks made against me in the previous post. As far as RfC's go, the first one found in favor of not having a criticism section, but you didn't like the result and you insisted we do a second one.  The second one is currently underway, and if it does not end in a significant amount of outside editors finding in favor of a criticism section, there won't be one. McJeff (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * doubly wrong. i am done with the off-topic chatter with you. if you continue to threaten to disrupt this article, and you continue to make homophobic and uncivil personal attacks against other editors, you will not be allowed to edit this article any further. if you just stick to the topic, play by the rules, be truthful, and keep it encyclopedic, there won't be any reason to have you removed. but if you continue with your harassment and personal attacks, i'm reporting your behavior to the admins for your bigoted and uncivil verbiage. for example, the diffs with edit summaries like this [] will not be tolerated. you should probably explain that one, or remove it, and definitely apologise before any admins see it. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that an admission that you know you're so wrong that you don't have a single leg to stand on?


 * I mean, we have three sources for debate up there under the RfC, and you haven't been able to defend the inclusion of any of them. McJeff (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And also, not once has McJeff been homophobic so let's cut that out too. TheRegicider (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually he's right on that one - I lost my temper and used an anti-gay slur in an edit summary, for which I apologize to anyone whom I offended. Though it doesn't change the fact that he's using it as a red herring to try and distract from how he's completely off-base with his RfC... so let's focus the discussion on how the criticism section is inappropriate and the person arguing for it can't even defend its existence. McJeff (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Aharon42's comments
So then if its fox news, opie, gawker, and other widely known sources are you going to change objections?? Several news sources have asked him to provide evidence that he should be able to procure if his stories are true. He does not.. Tuckers whole career is based on the veracity of his claims and since they have been challenged then it should at least be documented. The more obvious controversy keeps getting forgotten.. Numerous media reports have referenced tuckers alleged misogynistic behavior and possible illegal or immoral activities.. Tucker himself describes them on website, in his book and in the huffington post, just to name a few. Please quote Tucker himself to describe his controversial activities. This would balance his wikipedia article and make it not look like such a puff piece. Aharon42 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mcjeff, I only came upon this article tonight, accidently.. Because you prevent any meaningful criticism it comes off as a complete puff piece. You act as Tucker's internet PR defender when you prevent well documented criticism, (some of it from Tucker's own mouth!)from being published. You are very aware that the huffington post, opie, fox news, gawker, and Tuckers own website collectively provide overwhelming documentation of 1. unverifiable claims. 2. misogynistic behavior. 3. possible illegal behavior. ( depending on which year illegal taping and sodomy was committed.. It was definitely illegal in Florida unitl the supreme court decision in 2003.
 * The most heinous actions committed here are those of writers who have not openly declared any conflicts of interest. Why should Tucker or his employees have veto rights over what is included in an encyclopedia. the tone of this article reeks of outside interference. most wikipedia articles have a main summary, and then point counter point format.. Especially for controversial figures.. But not this one. It sounds like Tuckers mom wrote it. Frankly, it is so disturbing that any reasonable reader would either turn away from the whole debacle or seek outside mediation..
 * note. in terms of documentation. in less than half an hour I have found 15 sources including harvard crimson, variety, fox news, etc. that report on tuckers unreliability, woman hating, boorish behavior, poor writing skills, blatant self promotion, borderline illegal activity.. if anything, the preponderence of material is negative.. To adhere to wikipedia standards the only way this article would reflect reliable opinion would be by maintaining a consistent negative tone; not allowing it to be overwhelmed by an any artificially positive material.

Aharon42 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Aharon42 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * while Aharon42 seems to be unaware of wikipedia policies, this should not be used against him too negatively. he is just a new editor, just like i am. we learn the policies as we go along. that said, i am going to count this as the first outside comment that is for the controversy section. current tally for outside/uninvolved editors: +1 pro controversty 0 anti-controversy Theserialcomma (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it in a separate category for vandals.TheRegicider (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. so please be careful, calling him a 'vandal' is just name calling and not assuming good faith. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize for any inadvertent errors I have committed due to my inexperience in handling controversial wikepedia articles. I would admit that my comments perhaps should be placed in a "Enthusiastic Newbie" section but any more than that is probably tendentious.. aharon42 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But lets return to the more salient issues. ::::There are two major problems with this article on Tucker Max. First is that even the non controversial background material is inadequate. The editors need to include much more details on Tucker's company, formative years at Univ of Chicago, Duke, etc. This issue should be easily rectified as Tucker himself and the major media outlets have provided an enormous amount of biographical material..
 * It looks to me that the second issue is what is causing so much fruitless gyrations. I read the history of this blog and the same issue keeps popping up for over three years, involving multiple editors. This of course is the controversy sorrounding TUcker.He has been described as being misogynistic, unverifiable in the vein of James Frey, self-promoting like Julia Allison, morally reprehensible, irascible, and possibly engaging in criminal activity. There are two ways to solve this.

One. Use Tucker's own quotes and materials from his website and appearances. This avoids issues of libel and reliable sources. I have collected numerous references and articles in a word document and would be happy to provide them and their urls for any interested editor. Second. The editors can summarize or paraphrase the material that has appeared in the reliable publications like the New York times, fox news, Harvard Crimson, Minnesota Daily, City Journal, Slate, etc. aharon42 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the best way to approach this, i believe, is for you to post your proposed changes here into the discussion, and we can modify it so that it meets the standards of the encyclopedia. if/when it meets the standards, we can amend it to the article. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The above editor has not been active since that first night he decided to edit-war. He has also been deceitful - see his claims about "not having known who Tucker Max was until tonight and not caring", yet being familiar with Tucker's entire library of works, his court cases, his media appearances, and having cross-referenced some of his stories with old Florida legal code to determine if it was legal. Therefore, I think it is safe to disregard what he has said.

Not that the "+1 pro-controversy 0 anti-controversy" comment wasn't dense, as 1) this isn't a vote, and 2) the pro-controversy people still haven't even made an attempt to justify the inclusion of such a section in the RfC, and if they haven't done so by the time the RfC has finished, the section will not be included, period. McJeff (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * wrong, mcjeff. the rfc has only yielded one outside comment (i believe he probably came from gawker.com's article, but he never mentioned either way) and that was in favor of a criticism/controversy section. as it stands, once the rfc is over, the section gets added back, as it was removed inappropriately to begin with and the (sole) outside commenter was for it. also, don't call editors deceitful. that is a personal attack. and you weren't exactly nice to him while he was here, so maybe that is why he never returned? we should try to be nice to the newbies, even if we disagree with them. that means assuming good faith and not calling newbies deceitful. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Que? You seem to be hard of understanding, so we'll start from the beginning.  Everyone said "no criticism section".  You filed one RfC, which ended with a result of no criticism section.  You said it didn't count because there weren't enough responses, then demanded a second one. The second one has no responses currently.  If you want to count Aharon, that's fine, but as he put forward no arguments, his comments are irrelevant.


 * As long as you decline to defend your position within wikipedia policies, there will be no criticism section. Now I'm done arguing this with you since you probably aren't going to listen to this anyway, but to repeat myself, there will be no criticism section unless the pro-controversy people can put forward decent arguments.


 * To make this clear, there will be no criticism section while the pro-criticism people cannot argue their position. McJeff (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Red herring. McJeff (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not come back to this article because after reading the very very history of this article in the archives I saw that this debate has been dragging on for at least three years.. I think it might be easier to edit an article on George Bush or Osama Bin Laden than on this relatively minor public figure. Also, I see that as a newbie, this is probably not the article for me to cut my teeth on because all of my requests for help to learn how to cite references were ignored until the quite late in the game (I give much encomia to Theserialcomma)aharon42 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To respond specifically to McJeff, it is clear that I have put forth many arguments and evidence concerning Tucker Max. Also most of this evidence is readily available and has been stated in previous discussions in the archives by other users. I do acknowledge that this information concerning Tucker' controversy should not be included in the article without significant input from editors. That is why I placed my arguments here and not in the article after I learned that this is the proper place and procedure to do so. Now, you have accused me of being deceitful because I have produced so many references so quickly, which implies that I have heard of Tucker Max previously. This is absolutely not true. When ever I read articles on the internet I frequently quickly look up topics on Wikipedia. I saw Tucker Max referred to somewhere, probably on Gawker, and when I read the Wikipedia article it just seemed clear that it was not yet finished and did not hold to the regular standard of NPOV.. Specifically that it should not read like it was written by his PR lackey (I am not saying that it was, it just reads that way) I did spend that long night doing research with Lexis, Nexus,Galileo, and google search but it was very easy to find numerous sources on Tucker Max.. If anything, he avidly seeks the limelight, even if only on his very narrow controlling terms.aharon42 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I once again extend my hand in a spirit of academic comity and ask Mcjeff or others to help me cite and properly summarize the positive and negative aspects of the quite interesting but multifarious personality that is Tucker Max.. I am happy to follow your lead because I would really like to help strengthen this article, and Wiki as a whole. aharon42 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources and blogs

 *  blog in question http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS; blogs are not reliable sources - even those that republish from such reliable origins as the University of California. If the material is available from the UC then use that as a source, although it might be best to check the credentials of the writer. I would also point out that edit warring is not the appropriate way to deal with such concerns, and discussion here is the proper option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From the notability guidelines. ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.


 * I believe that the UCR Highlander is subject to editorial control, however, it's not a professional journal but a scholastic journal. Still, I think that it's a decent enough source.


 * Incidentally, wikipedia has some information on the Highlander, at University of California, Riverside. Anyway, as it's a newspaper rather than a blog (it was reprinted in a blog), I'm going to readd the link. McJeff (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * McJeff, have you or anyone you know actually *seen* this issue of the UCR Highlander? All we have is the word of this blog writer, which is not the same thing. It's not clear that the information in the reference is of great importance to the article anyway. (Would any statements have to be removed from the article if it wasn't there?). EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, neither I nor anyone I know has seen the original. I suppose the link isn't of critical importance.  However it appears to be well sourced, as it identifies both the date and the original author of the article.  I'm still in favor of inclusion, but if you remove it I won't readd it. McJeff (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if you haven't seen the original source, why would you assume this blog has accurately represented the original article? that isn't really an encyclopedic way to approach reliable sources. i could make a blog and write 'reposted from the harvard' and suddenly it'd be a valid source? i don't think so. edit warring over this blog is uncalled for. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would someone pretend to be a writer for a school newspaper like 3 years ago? That's just illogical. I found it by Googling, along with this. I think it's safe. Svernon19 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * it probably is safe, but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source as per wikipedia's policies. if you post the original article, that's a different story. the blog, not so much Theserialcomma (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, it is disturbing that you have deleted contributions on this talk page that do not appear to be in violation of the talk page guidelines that you are citing. I did read these guidelines and they say the following: "Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article." The IP editor was proposing changing specific details about the article, i.e. Max's photo. Now you may not agree with their premise, but it is a proposal that meets that standard. It also says in the guidelines "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section." It does go on to say that material can be deleted that is not relevant to improving the article, but again, it is disturbing that you have chosen to be the judge and jury on what is relevant on the talk page. I have been pretty flexible in these discussions and haven't chimed in all that much, but to delete a discussion about potentially changing Max's photo seems to be going against the spirit of the very talk page guidelines that you are citing. In the interest of accurate archival, I suggest that these comments be re-added, even if they are reflected in the way that Theserialcomma referenced them.Atlantabravz (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see a proposal. I saw an anonymous IP address suggesting that the picture be changed because he felt that the article was too complimentary towards the subject and a less attractive picture would make the article more suitably negative.  Frankly I'm baffled that you would have a problem with me removing that comment - even if at its very base the idea supported in the post was justified, the language used in the post was nothing but pure troll.


 * Since you seem to feel that the troll's point is valid, though, I'll address it by pointing to several articles of well known celebrities. Britney Spears Jennifer Lopez Leonardo DiCaprio.  Notice that none of those pictures are "candids" of the person in question without their makeup.  Why?  I'm pretty sure that deliberately selecting an unattractive image of a person to give a negative opinion of them in the article violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy.  McJeff (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * it is not appropriate to call the IP editor names. Civility is a must; personal attacks are never acceptable. calling them a "troll" is also not assuming good faith. [|this] was a perfectly reasonable compromise to stop you from reverting, but you reverted it anyway thus violating 3RR. so no more personal attacks, please -- especially against newbies. it's really not cool at all. and no more censorship of other people's comments too Theserialcomma (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This passive-aggressive tone you speak to people with it so ludicrous that I can't decide if it makes me angry or laugh. Today, I'm going to laugh. McJeff is right, as usual, and the idea that a picture is 'not negative enough' is counterproductive and unnecessary. Just because you responded doesn't mean it wasn't ridiculous. It stays out. And really, you need to stop lecturing people on tedious literal interpretations of rules when you don't apply that same standard to the rest of your edits. TheRegicider (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, you think it's appropriate to make personal attacks and remove other editors' comments. i disagree. the comments will be restored Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your debating style consists entirely of ad-hominem attacks, so you probably shouldn't be talking. At any rate the issue raised by the IP editor has been addressed and needs no further discussion. Unless of course you'd care to go looking through wikipedia policies to find one that supports providing the most unattractive picture obtainable for a living person's article. McJeff (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't appear to be settled, so I am going to rephrase the question; What does this particular source provide the article, which isn't already covered by references that clearly adhere to WP:RS? I have read it again, and it generally appears to be an opinion piece/appreciation with a smattering of biography/bibliography. I strongly suggest that unless there is a valid and original - but reliable - citation given within the text that would be detrimental to the article should it be removed, that the source is not notable enough as a general reference for the article. Therefore I believe it should be removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the source has been removed from the article, per this edit .  An uninvolved editor opined that school newspapers themselves are generally not reliable sources, and his argument made sense.  McJeff (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * it took an edit war, attempted admin intervention, a third opinion, and a posting to the reliable sources board just to remove this blog. and the unfortunate thing is that this has happened before with another anonymous blog. i hope that the disruptive editing of this article's past will become a distant memory now. anyway, mcjeff, could you please readd the IP editor's comment that you removed before. i believe this would be an appropriate way to make amends to show that you accept the admin's actions in that situation. i would add it back but i don't want to violate 3RR Theserialcomma (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring some Talk items which were previously removed
An editor removed the section that follows on August 20. If anyone thinks that this material does not belong on the Talk page, please get consensus at WP:Administrators' noticeboard before removing it again. This has been the subject of a 3RR case. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Glamour Pic??
What's with the glamour-style shot? There's many other pictures of him online, and he's [clearly] [not] [that] [hot].

Then again, maybe this is just a puff-piece... - 222.154.238.36 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if you have the rights to another picture that you feel is more appropriate, feel free to upload it. you might need to make an account to do so Theserialcomma (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * many many many articles here and elsewhere use professional portrait pictures rather than unflattering candid pics. Mathmo Talk 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there other pictures that we have the rights to use? If so, please make them known. We can't just swipe pictures off of MySpace and use them. Dayewalker (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently the image was posted by Rudius Media as a promotional kind of thing, and it's the image they'd prefer people to use. That being the case I think it's the appropriate picture to use in the article.  At any rate I've never heard of an article on wikipedia using an unflattering candid picture, period - I do believe this would be a BLP violation if it were done, and the candids generally belong to the tabloids anyway. I admit I don't know well the details of image copyright, but clicking on the image and reading the usage policy makes it appear that the one in the article currently is fine.  McJeff 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * where did you get the info that it was posted by rudius media "as a promotional kind of thing"? it was posted by Theregicider onto wikipedia. is theregicider affiliated with rudius media? Theserialcomma (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Click on the picture. McJeff (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i clicked the picture, but i didn't see any text stating that it was a promotional image that rudius media preferred people to use. i don't think an unflattering picture is a violation of BLP, as 'unflattering' is a subjective opinion. however, i have no objections to any image in particular as long as it's properly licensed. that said, where did you get the info that tucker max/rudius media prefers this image? all i see is that theregicider posted the image, not any note about preference or promotion from rudius media. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TheRegicider uploaded the image to Wikipedia, but Rudius Media uploaded it to Flickr. If you're concerned that the image shouldn't be on wikipedia, you should put the image up for an IfD. McJeff (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you said "Apparently the image was posted by Rudius Media as a promotional kind of thing, and it's the image they'd prefer people to use." where did you get the specific info that it is the image that they prefer people to use? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't really important. What matters is if the picture should be permitted on wikipedia or not.  If you think it shouldn't, IfD it.  Otherwise we'll be keeping it in the article.  McJeff (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * your claim that rudius media "prefers" this picture is either 1) a baseless assertion. or 2) you or theregicider are privy to insider info from rudius media. either option is bad for this encyclopedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Either the picture is ok, or it isn't. If it isn't, go mark it for deletion. Until then, this discussion is over. McJeff (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)