Talk:Tucker Max

• Previous deletion debate

Archives

---

1. 2005 – November 2006

Middle name

The middle name, Tibor, was added by a not registered user (just an IP), I have never seen that name used before, can we trust it? DJ John 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That middle name is used here - [1] --J2thawiki 10:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the mass media deletion

"There has also been allegations that anyone who disagrees with Tucker Max on his message board is banned, and no dissenting opinions are tolerated. Anyone can voice their opinion on Tucker Max without fear of deletion."

This is clearly not a NPOV. I am a huge fan of Max's and even I can see this. What is the point in talking about this particular aspect of Max's messageboard in this area but not other aspects of it? It's not something that can be proved or disproved without a source to back it up. Deleted it. Lauren 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)undyingphoenix

The "Blog Critical of Tucker Max"

Several people, generally from the same IPs, keep putting the "blog critical of Tucker Max" into the external links section. This doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for external links, and violates the policies regarding biographies of living persons. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that the author of that site is using Wikipedia to pimp his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljheidel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the "Tucker Max is a Douchbag" website, under US defamation law, falls under "fair comment and criticism". Tucker calls himself an "asshole" and goes on to depict himself doing a number of cruel things to regular people. This website just cements what Tucker has been saying all along. Why is a blog critical of Tucker disallowed? Does it contain inaccuracies? Maybe, but then again it's been proven that a few of Tucker's OWN STORIES contain huge holes in time and logic, thereby nullifying the "truthiness" of the stories. This blog that Tucker's own paid employees are trying to have blocked just documents the lies in Tucker's stories, as well as gives accurate accounts of "the REAL Tucker Max stories" that Tucker obviously doesn't state in his own work. So if the "Tucker is a douchebag" site is disallowed, so should his own site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

US defamation law (are you a lawyer by the way?) doesn't apply here. Wikipedia policy applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does this site break Wikipedia policy?

I'd like to see specific examples, because if this site is not legit under Wikipedia policy, then I believe the links to Tucker Max's own site should be knocked off the list as Tucker has been proven to be a flat out liar, time and time again when people do their research on him and the stories he claims are "100% true". This blog points out those inaccuracies of his stories, that is why Tucker's sycophants don't want people to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it breaks numbers 2,3,11 of the Links to normally be avoided in external links policy.

1. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The "Site Critical of Tucker Max" written by an anonymous author, and filled with comments by anonymous commenters making assertions that are entirely unverifiable. Say what you want about the truthfulness of Max's stories on his site, the Wiki page is filled with sourced, factual information.

1. 3: "Links mainly intended to promote a website." The "Site Critical of Tucker Max" was linked her to drive traffic to that site and that the link in this article is its author's primary means of promotion as seen by the correlation of the number of comments on that site to its inclusion in the Wiki article. It's essentially spam, thus the attempt by someone to include it in the Talk page as well.

1. 11: "# Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." The link, on its face, violates this section.

Furthermore, it violates just about every part of the [Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. That page begins:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Basically, there's no way that this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted this anonymous chucker once simply vandalized the link [2] rather than looking up all this to prove his point. The above is a Tucker-Max-centric single-purpose user account. BabuBhatt 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather ad hominem argument, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljheidel (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No argument was made. BabuBhatt 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but your assertations of Wiki laws should also apply to links to TuckerMax.com since:

1. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

Tucker misleads his readers by saying his stories are 100% accurate and true. This has been proven patently false. When people press and look for factual evidence to prove his stories occured, they find nothing. For example, in his "Absinthe Donut" story, he writes that he crashed into the storefront of a donut shop in downtown Chicago. Something like this would most definitely make the police reports in Chicago, but there are no such incidences like this. When pressed on the Opie & Anthony Show to prove his story true, his story changed.

This is just one such story where any verifiable evidence is nonexistant, and brings into question the truthfulness of the rest of his stories. Therefore, they break law 2 in this regard. They are factually inaccurate in that his stories are not "100% true stories" as Max claims. Also, they contain stories mostly made up from unverifiable sources.

1. 3: "Links mainly intended to promote a website." TuckerMax.com" was linked her to drive traffic to that site and that the link in this article is its author's primary means of promotion as seen by the correlation of the number of comments on that site to its inclusion in the Wiki article.

This is why people who work directly for Tucker are carefully guarding this site, because afterall, any article that might paint Tucker in a negative light have been deleted. His Wiki page is basically being used as a tool for the promotion of his own website.

So basically a link to his personal website should be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.24.37 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by providing my view on the content of Tucker Max's site for those that want to argue any biases. I think that his site is a great collection of stories based in fact with quite a large amount of omissions of truth and even more embellishment. That being said, I cannot see a way to argue in favor of keeping the link to the blog that was critical of Tucker Max. That link definitely violates WP:LIVING#Reliable_sources. That leaves the issue of Tucker Max's site itself being usable. According to WP:LIVING, the site can be used if it meets [[WP:V], WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, tuckermax.com does not meet WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). This actually creates an interesting problem. Without material from his site, this page does not meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia outlined in WP:BIO. This is where the important decision comes in. Both sites should be excluded because of similar policies. So the ultimate decision should be whether the information from both sites or neither site is to be included on the page. I personally believe that neither site should be included. This is what really needs to be discussed as there is no way to exclude one or the other, but not both under policy and we need to be debating that, not the merits of one or the other. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tucker Max site and this article are relevant and appropriate because Max has become a notable personality and author as a result of the site. It's irrelevant whether his stories are true or not, because they do not play into the substantive content of the entry. These things are factual:

1. Max writes stories.
2. Max has a website that contains those stories.
3. Those stories resulted in Max writing multiple successful books.

It is because of the books, website and stories that Max is notable, regardless of their content. The existence and history of the site are part of the acknowledged, relevant NPOV biographical information about Max. If Max was famous because he had a site claiming that he shat rosewater, it wouldn't matter whether that is factual or not. It is true, relevant biographical information.

However, this piece is not about the author of the "Site Critcal of Tucker Max." When he attains notoriety, and has his own Wikipedia entry as a result of his website, it can be linked to it. Right now and for the foreseeable future, that site has no verifiable NPOV information relevant to this entry, and should not be included.

And that's why the link to Max's site should stay, and the other should have never been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to www.tuckermax.com violate WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S6789 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective reading is fun. Read WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 To quote:

===Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)===

Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Max's site does not contain scientific works about cold, hard fact, and here is no contention that Max wrote the material on his site. The contention revolves around the fact that his stories may or may not be true. That is neither here nor there when it comes to the relevance of the article, and I really don't see how it falls under the purview of the policy regarding contentious or self-serving material.

Based on the logic being applied here, it would be easy to say, "I don't believe anything the Washington Times publishes, therefore, the Washington Times website should not be included in the Wikipedia article." It's twisting logic to fit your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.68.94 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are taking it too far. Information from his site that is not reliable should not be used. His site can be used to assert his notability, that is true. The content of his stories cannot be used unless otherwise verifiable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All links to tuckermax.com should be deleted. They violate WP:V#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) because they are they are unduly self-serving and unreliable. S6789 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)