Talk:Tucker Max/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

OPIE AND ANTHONY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential rewrite of "criticism" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion for a rewritten criticism section:

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

stop reverting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism Section 2

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

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

Tucker was also criticized by a New York Post reporter for misrepresenting his physical attributes on the internet. The reporter wrote that Max's "pale, bloated face and flabby body were a far cry from the stud pictured on his Web site" and that he "seemed shorter than his supposed 6 feet." At the end of the interview, Max revealed that "Eight times out of 10, if you come to my Web site (tuckermax.com) to have sex with me, there's something broken about you."{{synth-inline}}{{Fact|date=July 2008}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McJeff,

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

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

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

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

McJeff -

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 million hits per month?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the reason i object to deleting it is because 1. it's part of the RfC and even mcjeff was reverting my grammar corrections to the section, so i would think that based on the prior precedent, nothing should be changed until the RfC is over. if we can't even fix the grammar, we shouldn't remove half the section either. the second reason i object to deleting it is because it's a legitimate quote from a valid and trusted source. i realize that it isn't the most shining example of concrete criticism, but it's still noteworthy. he went on fox news and he was compared to james frey. that is what happened. your interpretation of the interview being benign is different than mine. i see it as noteworthy and a criticism. i wouldn't object to it being removed if outside editors suggest it should be, however. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox News also compared the Qur'an to Mein Kamph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNyc34MFMfs). Should we include that in the Qur'an's criticism section? JoePawlikowski (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

well, fox news interviewed tucker max, and during the interview, they compared tucker to james frey. fox news did not interview Allah, as far as i know, so the two situations do not exactly correlate. but if you think otherwise, you should feel free to modify the qur'an article. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Presence does not matter here. The criticism is that Tucker Max is like James Frey, just as the other criticism is that the Qu'ran is like Mein Kamph. The overall point, though, is that these are comparisons without substance. They are not rooted in fact. In re: Tucker, Skinner presented no proof that his stories were fake, whereas proof surfaced in the case of James Frey. This is pure speculation. Yes, it happened, as in it took place. Not all events are noteworthy, however. To say that a question in an interview, based on no factual evidence whatsoever, is noteworthy undermines the purpose and integrity of the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePawlikowski (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've got a compromise. "Some critics [Skinner citation, along with others] have accused Tucker of being untruthful in his accounts of stories. However, no substantive proof has been produced to support these claims." Simple, to the point, NPOV. In fact, this should probably be the entire criticism section. We can include the O&A citation here, too. JoePawlikowski (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to rename the section to the more NPOV term "Controversy". McJeff (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the whole not including the "millions of visitors" line contradict the data serialcommon put up earlier? 430,000 people per month x couple months x the fact that the site has been up for what like 4 years? That more than meets the burden. Plus its a relevant qualifier to "internet personality". I am puttig it back. Also, I agree with Joe - this went to comment like a week ago. It's hotly debated. The safe route for a BLP is to NOT show something. So why don't we see if they want to put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRegicider (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

from WP:No original research "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought". extrapolating how many visitors the site receives would constitute original research. what would stop someone from saying "by the year 2500, site.com is expected to have received over a billion hits." it is the same concept that you are attempting to implement: extrapolating. if you really want to add traffic info to the article, add his alexa.com rank. i think that is a fair compromise. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not research nor is it a compromise. It has 3 sources two of which it is literally quoting. Don't revert this again. This article is not your playground. TheRegicider (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

your third link [[23]] is just of tucker claiming he gets 60 thousand hits a day to the reporter. not the reporter claiming it. that link will be removed. the hollywood reporter source is probably not a reliable source for website traffic, but maybe an outside editor can comment on that. that leaves us with one source that claims 450+k hits a month, a source that i personally provided to this discussion. unfortunately, you only included the source that i provided which buttresses your edit and you left out the other sources that claim much less traffic. one of the sources claimed 45k hits a month, which you left out. if you accidentally left out the sources i provided that were contrary, but only added the one that agrees with you, then i understand that it was an accident. i assume it was an honest error. but in the future, please realize that that type of behavior will make you look like you might be pushing your own perspective into the encyclopedia, when we should just be reporting the facts. the facts are, some questionable sources make various claims as to the website's traffic, and traffic estimation websites all vary greatly as to how many hits the site gets. if you want your edit to be uncontroversial, you'll just put the alexa ranking, which no one is arguing over. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hits per month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for a WP:BLP should be of the highest standard. The sources ref'd for this claim may not meet them. Hit counters are notoriously experimental and unreliable, though if a figure like this were reported on by a reputable source, it might be acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

phrases that must be removed, revised, or reworded

1: problem sentence: "He is known for writing in "gonzo" style." reason for objection: the one source cited for this claim [24] that he is "known" for writing in gonzo style actually says "Richard, Ted and I all appreciated Tucker's gonzo style of writing in his book." this does not claim he is known for gonzo style of writing. is this sentence original research or an error in paraphrasing? or are there actual sources that claim he's known for his gonzo style of writing?

2. problem sentence tuckermax.com has received "millions of visitors." reason: the first source is [25] which only claims 450,000 hits per month. you cannot take 450,000 hits per month and then multiply it by some number to come to the conclusion of "millions of visitors." that is synthesis and original research. state what the source actually says, not your mathematical extrapolations. the next source is [26] the hollywood reporter, which i contend is not a reliable source for traffic estimation. i believe the hollywood reporter is a reliable source for hollywood movie gossip or whatever else they do, but not website hits. it was a passing mention in an article about his movie, not his website. according to admin Vassyana (in reference to another question on the reliable source noticeboard "essentially, off-topic and passing mentions are not accorded the level of editorial oversight and/or peer-review as the main thrust of the topic, meaning that the reliability of such statements is questionable."

the next source for "millions of visitors" is from the nytimes [27], where it isn't the reporter making any claims about the traffic of the website, but actually tucker max himself. the quote is "Mr. Max said that despite receiving approximately 60,000 visitors daily at TuckerMax.com ..." so clearly this is a bad source for two reasons, one that it's synthesis that requires original research to come to the conclusion of millions of hits, and second because it's just tucker max saying his site gets the hits, not the nytimes.

the final source is variety [28] ,which, again, is not a valid source to make traffic claims for the reasons mentioned by Vassyana. it was an off-topic and passing reference in variety. while variety is reputable for what it does, passing comments about website traffic is not what they're known to be reliable for.

finally, since all the actual traffic estimation sites differ widely as to how many hits the site gets (see the discussion above), and since only the site which shows the highest amount of estimated hits was conveniently added to the article, while the traffic sites that estimated much lower numbers was left out, i would say the neutrality of the "millions of visitors" claim is in question. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that, as an Oxford Gramarian, you should start capitalizing your I's, and that you should stop using fragmentary sentences when arguing your points. McJeff (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

i don't think that you should be making personal attacks. instead, maybe you could respond constructively to the points i've made. besides, you spelled "grammarian" wrong. p.s., there were no "fragmentary" sentences. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You've taken this far enough. There are FOUR SOURCES which support the claim "millions." Three of which are from major publications. How are your "estimation" sites more reliable?

Look at the discussion page. Notice how you have every other comment? Notice how you've been refuted time and time again? It's time to give it up. Move onto something else. I've never seen someone argue so vehemently about a word, especially such a small instance as this.

Now if you want to talk about things that need to be removed, let's talk about the "Criticism" section. I'm at a loss as to why that's still there. Svernon19 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

you need to refute my points if you want to contribute positively to the discussion. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You need to listen what other people have to say before telling people what they "need" to do. Although, if it makes you feel better, I fixed the "gonzo" part in 30 seconds. Wouldn't that have been easier than writing a paragraph post about what's wrong with it? Start making tangible contributions rather than just wasting everyone's time arguing petty details. A good place to start would be the "Criticism" section. Svernon19 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, if you would check my history, you'd see that i tried to make the gonzo change, and i justified why in the edit summary, but it was reverted every time. so yes, it actually did require a paragraph to get the change made.

and since this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan site, the info has to be encyclopedic. synthesized sources for a POV do not qualify as encyclopedic. 2 of the 4 sources for "millions of visitors" are synthesized and therefore invalid. the sources do not directly state what is claimed. the other two are from reliable sources making claims out of the scope of their reliability, as per my evidence above. so all 4 sources will be removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't make the "gonzo" change. You reverted it -- a relevant part of the article. What I did is called "addressing the problem and fixing it." You address the problem and don't fix it. Or worse, address the problem, and then exacerbate the problem. Stop vandalizing the article. It's funny. You know why I keep saying fix the "Criticism" section? Because it hurts the article's integrity. You know why you don't care about that? Because you originally wrote it. Svernon19 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong on both accusations. i made the gonzo change and i did not originally write the criticism section, mcjeff did. please contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss my edits. this section is about the points i made, not me. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You repeatedly vandalized the article by digging into the page history and retrieving a version of the criticism section that was such a blatant BLP violation that the article spent 3 months fully protected to keep people from edit warring and readding it. I didn't step in until much later, when I took the BLP violation section and trimmed all the weasel words and non-NPOV statements out of it to make it borderline reasonable. With, might I remind you, you dragging your heels every step of the way, determinedly taking Jane Skinner's quote out of context, going into great detail in the utterly non-NPOV New York Post interview, and generally doing your best to turn the section into a smearjob. McJeff (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Undent + edit conflict) First of all, don't leave messages on my talk page, Theserialcomma. It is annoying. I read this talk page and anything you have to say can be posted here, since the only reason I am dealing with you is for the sake of this particular article.

Secondly, you can talk about "writing deliberately informally on talk pages", but the reason I mention it in the first place is because your terrible grammar and lack of proper mechanics make your posts more difficult to read. Everyone else on the discussion page - scratch that, almost everyone else on Wikipedia - takes the fraction of a second to hold the shift button down to capitalize their words. You should too. Proper mechanics greatly improve readbility.

While we're on the subject, you should indent your entire post to the same level, rather than staggering it by paragraph.

As far as the sources, I believe you are refusing to follow consensus. Through debate, every source has checked out, and it is not the fault of any editor that you refuse to listen to their valid reasons, just as it wasn't my fault that you refused to listen to me when I tried to explain policies like WP:BLP to you.

When consensus is for leaving in the statement that Tucker Max gets 1 million+ hits monthly, and you insist that you won't permit it, that is ownership, and I strongly recommend that you desist. There is no evidence that the sources are unreliable, and your claims that they are "original research" demonstrate a lack of understanding of what original research is.

In fact, I think if you don't like the existence of the "million per month" sentence, you need to provide a reliable third party written source - not a traffic estimate website - debunking those claims. Otherwise, your attempts to prove the statement false would be the only original research present. McJeff (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

please stop trying to turn this discussion about the tucker max article into an argument with me or what you falsely claimed i have done. if you want to discuss my alleged poor grammar or anything else irrelevant to the facts presented, see my talk page or write me back on yours. this is not the place to discuss me. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The fact that your claims that Tucker doesn't get 1 million hits per month is original research is absolutely something that belongs on this discussion page. McJeff (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said? He spent three paragraphs addressing your points, which you promptly ignored. Svernon19 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, i read what mcjeff said. he made a bunch of accusations that were not true. for one, an outside admin/editor (not sure if he's an admin) named jaysweet is the one who removed the "1 million hits per month" claim, not me. second, mcjeff says a traffic estimation website should not be used to debunk claims, yet a traffic estimation site is one of the sources in the article buttressing the "million of hits" claim. mcjeff is making claims that are logically inconsistent, and he's making personal attacks, irrelevant points, and false accusations. what is there to respond to? this is a total hijack of the points presented to this section. bring the irrelevant stuff to talk pages, not the article Theserialcomma (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The estimation site is unreliable. I removed the source from the article. As far as I'm concerned, the "millions of visitors" debate is done. I'm not wasting any more time on this. Svernon19 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section (again)

Alright, I want to address the Criticism section. People have tried to address it before, but the whole thing got derailed when theserialcomma had a fit about the phrase "millions of visitors."

I'm going to get the ball rolling. The Jane Skinner interview question should not be there. JoePawlikoski put it well in two of his comments: "Including the Skinner interview question in the criticism section sets a poor precedent. Essentially, this would mean that we can go find any old interview question and insert it into any living person's bio page. Once again, it is understandable that some people might find his stories unbelievable. Does that mean we should be citing Jane Skinner's question? Absolutely not. There is no fact in it. If she had dug up proof that one of his stories didn't happen, then maybe you'd have something there. She did not.... They are not rooted in fact. In re: Tucker, Skinner presented no proof that his stories were fake, whereas proof surfaced in the case of James Frey. This is pure speculation. Yes, it happened, as in it took place. Not all events are noteworthy, however. To say that a question in an interview, based on no factual evidence whatsoever, is noteworthy undermines the purpose and integrity of the criticism section."

I'm removing the statement. It's irrelevant, out of context, and not notable. I know TSC is going to object with some ridiculous reason, but he's had enough fun on this article.

The O&A reference shouldn't be there either, but I'm willing to take this one step at a time. Svernon19 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the section's title to "Controversy". I've thought all along that the O&A incident is significant enough to warrant inclusion, but O&A are shock jocks, not a reliable source of literary criticism. McJeff (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the O&A link again. How in the world is this controversy or criticism? He told his story. The O&A guys said they didn't believe it. No proof. No nothing.

O&A like to criticize Tyra Banks. Should we add a criticism or controversy section to her page saying that O&A think she's dumb? Of course not. The O&A appearance has no place in this article. 67.83.100.160 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IP address's only post on wikipedia to date has been this talk page comment. McJeff (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He raises a good point, though. Does the fact that they provided no proof to discredit Tucker's stories make the incident not notable? Even you said that they aren't a reliable source of literary criticism. If O&A provided no new additional information, and they aren't a reliable source of criticism, what makes the incident notable? Svernon19 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, his point really isn't very good at all, it mainly boils down to not liking it. The O&A incident is discriminate and verifiable, in its current form it is not a BLP violation, and does belong in the article. The Tyra Banks comparison is completely irrelevant and doesn't even warrant comment let alone consideration. McJeff (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was me (didn't realize I wasn't logged in). I suppose it would help if you explained why it does belong in the article, beyond being "discriminate and verifiable." JoePawlikowski (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point is that simply sourcing the video of O&A bashing Tyra wouldn't be enough to put it on her page. However, if the Los Angeles Times wrote about it or even if Gawker picked it up, it would be a different story. Know what I mean?

If this is really so important, why can't it wait until it has more sources? Especially if it is so contentious. TheRegicider (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this was different from the Tyra thing because (unless I'm mistaken, I don't listen to O&A) she wasn't actually on the show, she just got talked about. Tucker was live on the air with them and had a significant falling out.

As far as including it. First, I think it is a notable event. I'm not really sure how anybody could think otherwise - O&A was one of his biggest media appearances ever, and it was a disaster. Also, as we've seen, this article gets a lot of vandalism, and I'm of the opinion that an extremely concise, neutrally written blurb on the incident will discourage people from readding the old thing.

For sources - a problem with people like Tucker Max is that the mainstream media, I.E what Wikipedia defines as a "reliable source" - don't cover them. Tucker actually has written a pretty good essay about that. Best thing I could find was a mention of the O&A incident on a website called blowingsmokethemovie.com, and that stupid anti-TuckerMax blog. McJeff (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I get what your saying and I agree with a lot of it. But still, writing up a description of the event based on a uploaded video of the event is almost certainly original research. There is no way it can be included as is. That's not what Wikipedia is for. TheRegicider (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple problems with the O&A inclusion that I see.

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 (just check the references), 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. It's been discussed, and I think this is mutually agreed upon.

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.

There's nothing wrong with the tone of the section. I know you worked hard to make sure it fit NPOV. But the issue is larger than that. The only compelling reason to include this section would be to prevent vandalism by already having written it neutrally. But contrasted with reasons not to include it, I don't think that's nearly compelling enough. Svernon19 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well written - you've convinced me. Go ahead and remove it. McJeff (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

stop reverting the removal of invalid sources

mcjeff and svernon19, you guys need to read the sources you are so adamant to include. http://web.archive.org/web/20060828014621/http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=819 is not a good source for multiple reasons. first of all, the site, called "my election analysis," besides not existing since august 2007, it is a BLOG which was not written by legal scholars in any way. it was just a blog about election analysis -- it's not a valid legal source, and written anonymously. second of all, the defunct electionanalysis blog has no reason to be sourced in the tucker max article because the tucker max article doesn't say anything that is directly taken from that blog. please pay attention to the reverts you are making because you've already reverted my removal of this link twice in a row. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent little guy, aren't you? You've been reverted by three different people for a reason. It's a well-researched analysis by a lawyer that addresses the background, the suit, and the implications in detail. Although it doesn't mention that the case is "frivolous" explicitly, you'd have to be an idiot to read that and not realize that that is the implication. Stop trying to create discussion out of non-issues. Svernon19 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

this is clearly a bad source and shall be removed, regardless of your unnecessary personal attacks against me. you claim it was written by a lawyer. says who? it's an anonymous blog by someone named 'sean' who claims to have attended law school with tucker max. that's all. that is not an encyclopedic source. sorry, but this is an issue. encyclopedias have standards. they don't just allow anonymous blog postings that vaguely make implications. actually, that is specifically forbidden in wikipedia, because it's called synthesis. regardless, it's still not a credible source and it never will be. don't take it personally. 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hold with what Svernon said to the letter, and you need a much better understanding of synthesis before you start complaining about people using it. Synthesis is taking established facts and presenting unestablished conclusions from them. The source "shall" not be removed, and you "shall" be reverted every time you try. McJeff (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the fact that the website "doesn't exist anymore" is completely invalid as an argument, so don't even bother saying it again. McJeff (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

mcjeff, if you want to be a good wikipedia editor, you shouldn't make decisions contrary to wikipedia policy just because you don't like another editor. you know precisely that this anonymous blog is an invalid source. just admit it so we can make the article better. this is pretty absurd. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. McJeff (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

please address the issue. anonymous blogs are not valid sources and will be removed. thanks 02:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, your conduct is more of an issue than any particular point you want to make in the article. You're assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, and violating WP:OWN. You demand behavior of others that you seem to feel you are exempt from. You ignore arguments, and wikilawyer points into the ground. You have already stated that you have a vested interest in making the article as negative as possible. You seem to have taken no hint from the fact that nearly all of the contributions you have made to the article have been overruled by various people. All your posts briefly attack the gist of whatever debate is going on and then turn into a rambling diatribe against whomever you're arguing with. The duck test would call you a troll account. Now I suggest that if you want to become a worthwhile wikipedia editor, that you clean up your act, start typing right on the talk pages, apologize to all the editors whom you've attacked and deliberately annoyed during the process of working on this article, and actually learn the wikipedia policies. McJeff (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're lecturing McJeff about being a "good wikipedia editor" is laughable. Svernon19 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

please, mcjeff. your personal attacks on a discussion page for an article are really unbecoming of a good editor. this behavior will not pass the scrutiny of an outside editor. the fact is, it is an anonymous blog and the source is not up to encyclopedic standards. your false claims and accusations will not change reality. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This discussion was listed at WP:3O for a third opinion. The debate has already been listed for a Request for Comment, and the third opinion request has been superceded by the request for opinions by a wider audience. I will remove this discussion from the active WP:3O list. Jim Miller (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal troubles RfC

RfC 2: Is [29] a valid source?

I messed up the RFC, big time. Anyway, this RFC is about whether http://web.archive.org/web/20060828014621/http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=819 should be included as a valid source for the "legal" section. The site is a defunct (it hasn't existed for over a year) blog, with this particular blog written anonymously by a guy named "Sean." Also, the legal section doesn't even reference the source in any way. clearly it should be removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: interestingly, Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 24 addresses this very question. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

do you think the link in question (since we are going to remove it as a source as per the link you provided) is worthy of even an external link? i would like to hear more from outside editors. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The link provided cited forum posts and emails, it does not discuss blog posts. McJeff (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see the "Read more:" part which linked WP:RS and WP:V?. Specifically, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. — Athaenara ✉ 08:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but this article is about a guy named Tucker Max, who is not the author of the source in question. You're 0 for 2, dude. McJeff (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Self" in this case does not refer to the subject of the article.

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. — Athaenara ✉ 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I see it as completely unneeded. The sentence in question talks about the opinions of two authors, and both of those opinions are cited already. I don't see the point of adding a non-supporting reference. It certainly doesn't substantiate any claim in the sentence, nor does it add anything to the article. Jim Miller (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Response: I contest the idea that it adds nothing to the article. It is a dissertation by a legal scholar in regards to the article subject's notable court appearance. McJeff (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: A blog by some guy called Sean? Unneeded, either as source or external link. The one get-out might be WP:SPS, but as it's anonymous, we have no verification of identity or credentials to argue for that option. BTW, I don't know what exactly this means, but whois finds the nameserver for myelectionanalysis.com to be tuckermax.com (and this posting by Tucker Max confirms a connection) so it can hardly be viewed as an independent source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The "connection" is that Erin Tyler coded the site for him, as described. McJeff (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

MyElectionAnalysis was quite notable back when it was active, however, as this is an archive and I can't find Sean's credentials, I suppose it shouldn't be used as a source. Per this discussion I have removed the site as a source. Still valid as an external link, and has been moved to that section. McJeff (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous blogs are absolutely verboten as a source, as linked to multiple times above. It's not valid ,and should be immediately removed. Even if there was a veneer of RS to it, the fact that it's been gone over a year and alternate sources cannot be found means it's out. ThuranX (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)