Talk:Tucker Max/Archive 1

Personal Photo

Anyone know of any other better images than the one taken directly from TuckerMax.com ? 72.9.11.65 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good one: Tucker Max On Air 1 BabuBhatt 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: That pic no longer available. BabuBhatt 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore era

I really have to wonder why people named after Harry Potter characters even know who Tucker Max is, let alone why they think they can have even a slight understanding of the mindset of such a person.

Max was born in Atlanta, GA, US, not Chicago. Ljheidel 2 November 2005 07:23 (UTC)

sorry Eurleif, didn't see your rv right before mine. How about you anon's quit vandalizing it, if you want to make some major changes you should discuss it here. Kfort 4 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Mikkalai, please support your irrelevance changes. While I agree Tard-blog should be removed, Hoo-ah is published by Tucker Max, and therefore definitely has relevance. mac July 12

Are there any outside sources to verify the accuracy of his stories?

who cares? Kfort 14:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We should include how he sleeps with 17 year old girls. He's a really bad person. We can't say that because of NPOV, but we can at least provide the evidence and get the truth to the readers. I don't know where to put this information, but it belongs in the article. -Albus Dumbledore

If you're going to put something like that in the article, be prepared to cite your sources. NPOV doesn't come into play if the fact isn't established. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Tucker talks about this on his message board. I'll try to find the posts, but they were from a while ago.

He justifies it by saying that the age of consent in Illinois is 17.

I'm pretty sure he talks about it in a story somewhere, too. -Albus Dumbledore

That may be, but a lot of people out there say a lot of ridiculous things, even about themselves. That doesn't mean that it's true, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's information noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

it's actually true. he says it here: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=972&page=24&pp=10

i think it actually does belong here, because it reflects part of his character.

but it probably should be moved somewhere else in the article.

Thank you for taking the time to find a reference, but I fail to see how an anecdote posted on a forum supporting a humor website about who Tucker Max has boffed is relevant to an encyclopedia article about him. I can't believe I'm "debating" this, but read the next line from his post: "I honestly try to keep these fucking UNDERAGE teenagers away.". If you're going to put something in the article in there about his sexual preferences or his "character", you'll need to do a lot more research than finding one post on the Internet. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If there's nothing illegal about sleeping with 17-year-olds (how offensive it may be to some), why bring it up at all? Any mention of it would be seen as a point of view, since someone who finds nothing wrong with it would most likely not bring it up. 17 is the age of consent in New York too, and many other states. Still in all, the guy is undeserving of any sort of article whatsoever. If he wants to parade around how he's made a complete waste of himself, then that's his perogative, not that of Wikipedia. I say delete it. Teqman 06:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy really relevant? How sad that this is in an encyclopedia.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this isn't a traditional encyclopedia.BabuBhatt 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Character

I added the "character" section. Go ahead and clean it up or add to it, because I know it's not great (yet). I'll keep working on it. potatoeman57

You might want to add in Erin Tyler's list about him. An interesting perspective -

Humiliating Last night Tucker blew me off. Again.

I went insane. I cut off all my hair with kitchen scissors like Frida Khalo. Today I examined the fallout (actually quite cute and flippy. I am good at everything). I also thought, "Bunny... there is something terribly awry. Why are you so angry? Why have you become a bitter and horrible person since you met Tucker?"

Today, while I'm working, Tucker is hovering over me asking me the same question.

I have decided to make an itemized list of reasons why I might want to cut off all my hair like a rape victim.

[Note: This is truly humiliating. If anyone were to make a medicine to cure low self-esteem, I'd take it in spades; I'd do the 10k walk for closet self-loathers, and wear the empty wine bottle lapel pin. I wish to God these FACTS were fabricated or embellished, but the awful truth is that they are not. I only hope this helps the other girls who don't like themselves].

What it is like to date Tucker Max.

-You will get fried chicken for your birthday. Later that night when you both go to a bar, you will want a diet coke, but won't get one because that is one less beer that he can drink.

-He will hang up on your favorite aunt, and be stunned when you get upset that he referred to your mother as "that fucking bitch" because she called you at a late hour.

-He will scream at you because you don't like the instant coffee he bought you.

-He will never kiss you, and barely fuck you, even if you beg him to for months. You are now the Virgin Mary. He will still try to coerce crazy whores into coming to Chicago to fuck him. He will kiss them because they are whores, and don't you know that you're only supposed to give good passionate sex to women that you don't know or give a shit about? I didn't know that either.

-You will beg him to take a shower, which he will not do. But he will shave his face to have long make-out sessions with any random girl.

-You will read every piece of writing he has ever done and be supportive of all his creative outlets. When you then ask him to read your own novel he will drop it after chapter one because it's a waste of his time. He's not good at editing.

-You will give him the greatest head of his life on a regular basis. He will still suck in bed.

-He will make sure you know that you aren't very hot, only sort of cute, and that your head is too big for the rest of your body. You also have unattractive dark circles under your eyes and your tits are too small. He will never compliment you.

-You will be bi-sexual and okay with him sleeping with other women, but this will not be enough. He needs freedom.

-If he is an insensitive asshole to you, it is only because you are selfish. You should understand that his parents sucked and now you have to pay for this. How this is logical, I'm not really sure.

-When he has major surgery you will not leave his side. You will spend day night waiting on him hand and foot, making sure he is comfortable and well cared for. You will even wipe his ass when he takes a shit. Later he will tell you that it was all unnecessary. He didn't need or want you to be there.

-When he is supposed to pick you up and take you to a party, he will get black-out drunk and fuck some girl instead of showing up.

-He will tell you he loves you and wants to have children with you. When you then get pregnant, he will say that he has about two to four more years of drinking and whoring left to do, so a baby isn't in the cards. He will coerce you into an abortion by threatening to give away your dog if you try to have the child. Then he will be evasive so that you will be forced to dump him and he can get off scot-free.

-When you get upset about this, he will tell you that you are over-emotional. When you try to explain how this hurts, he will ignore you till you find yourself screaming and breaking things. He will explain these outbursts to his drinking buddies as so: "Yeah she's fucking crazy. She flips out on me like every third day."

-When you go to stay with your parents (read: bawl day and night) for two weeks, he will fuck other women in your bed. The night you return he will try to go out with a whore he's just met and wonder why you're upset about that. He needs his freedom.

-When you are at your parents, he won't take your calls. Instead he will spend his time e-mailing some whore. Later, he will not stop e-mailing this same whore, because all whores come before your feelings even if the whores are half as attractive and barely capable of forming cogent sentences.

-When his ex-girlfriend dies and then comes back to life, you will nurse him through the depression. You will even be fine with her coming to stay at your own fucking apartment so that he can decide which of you he wants. This is so that you can be fair to both of them because you are a good person. unlike them.

-Later on you will catch him telling this covert bitch who pretended to be nice to you that he is only keeping you around because you are willing to support him financially. They will laugh at you behind your back for being "over-emotional." Oh how silly you are!

-When Tucker bounces back from his depression you will not be needed anymore. You will just hand over the keys to his car and not say a word when he drives it all over Chicagoland while black-out drunk.

-When girls come to the apartment, he will become "Cooooool Tucker Max." He will dress and act differently. He will be an asshole to you. Why are you upset? Don't you know "this is the Tucker Max show?" This pathetic statement is his actual quote.

-And finally (though I could write pages and pages of this horrible shit): When you've been stood up by the very first date you've planned in a year, you will call Tucker and ask to hang out with him. He will not come pick you up in YOUR OWN FUCKING CAR, because HE lost your license the night before and you won't be able to get into the club he's going to. When you ask if it 's possible to go anywhere else he will refuse because there are free drinks and whores in said club. Whores are very special. Much more special than the woman that did all the above things out of unconditional love FOR A FUCKING YEAR!

NPOV Notice and Silly Revert Campaign

There is a pattern of reverting edits on this article to conform to a rather burning, super NPOV anti-Tucker Max tone. While I found some of the burns amusing (in the early page history), that is not why people visit Wikipedia, and I must say, the recent edits are rather immature.

I've posted the NPOV notice, because I refuse to get into a revert war. I will attempt, in the next day or so, to do a complete NPOV rewrite, as that has apparently never been achieved with this article. That will at least give people something good to revert to, if necessary. Please don't make it necessary (though I won't hold my breath). --Clapaucius|^Talk 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I just feel that it's important to include some of his more immature antics on the page. He is well known for being a bad person.

Labelling someone a "bad person" is an expression of opinion, and provides no useful information that would be beneficial to an encyclopaedia. I'd elaborate further, and possibly try to build consensus with you, but, due to the tone of your anonymous edits and commentary, I feel that you are not editing in good faith.

I should mention, though, that your editing is giving the subject, essentially a college humourist, more credit than he deserves, and insisting that someone who markets himself as an "asshole" is a "bad person," is really just feeding the hype. Unless, of course, you're Katy Johnson.--Clapaucius|^Talk 05:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the page for length and relevance. Really, the only notable things here are his being sued by Miss Vermont and the fact that he has a moderately popular male-centric website. This whole article borders on irrelevant. --Clapaucius* 20:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to say the article is irrelevant? If this is the case, perhaps you should leave the edit to someone else. Perhaps your thing it is irrelevant with affect the manner in which you edit it. I looked it up and read it in its entirety. I sometimes get the feeling that dykes and other folks who feel like they are socially marginalized try to change reality through bullying people on wikipedia with their POV while cloaking themselves dubiously with wikipedia policies. Nathaniel

Jealous?

Clapaucius is clearly jealous of Tucker Max.

Tucker Max - 30? 31?

nowhere on his personal info] page does it say his age. anyone know? Spencerk 07:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

His myspace page comes up on a Google search as 31, then reverts to 30 when you go to the page. That page also lists his location as Chicago, so he's clearly not updating it too carefully. BabuBhatt 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

festering ass

The article should include something on the recent opening of his Festeringass.com publication network, in which he helps authors start their own sites. (like the special ed teacher, soupsandwich.net, hooah.net, some other sites I can't remember atm.). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Does anyone have the ISBN numbers for Tucker's books? List them here or put them in the article directly if you can. Paul^C/_T+ 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I updated the page with the ISBN numbers. There's a good database here. User:ljheidel 06:24, 30 May 2006

pov issues

A recent string of edits from one IP show both a. some minor corrections[most of them accurate] and b. a huge slew of POV issues. I've corrected them as I saw fit, and if there's something faulty about my reasoning, please say so here; I'm not a particular fan or follower of the subject, but calling a bunch of forum users misogynists is ridiculous, and stating that he sleeps with women "(including teenage girls)" seems to illustrate a stance on what the writers feel is appropriate within sexual behavior and, while that may very well be the case [read: absolutely is], the article should not reflect said moral mores.

I removed some text that set off POV alarms, but even so, wording has been changed within the article in places to insinuate the writer's POV. (And that POV seems to be, "Max is a irrelevant misogynisitc pederastic SOB and should be burned at the stake.")--Luke 23:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizing

To quickly summarize my point: Max is using this article as a promotional tool. While Max probably deserves an entry, it doesn't need to be these long, nor does it need to be written in this fannish POV. The descriptions are written in an obviously reverent tone (praising with feint damnation).--Kerwash 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I wonder if the person who wrote the above piece has some sort of agenda. Did Tucker hook up with your girlfriend or reject you in some way? Maybe people would pay more attention to your arguments if they weren't so blatantly contradictory. Just come out and say you hate, write a piece in your livejournal about it, and get on with your pathetic life.
• Personal attack for which I apologize (although I stand by my statement that Max's fanboys have no place on this site).--Kerwash 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• And bitter, angry authors who write agenda-driven articles laden with specious facts and slanted opinion do belong here? Just because Max's article doesn't say, "he's an asshole," (like you would apparently prefer) doesn't mean it was constructed by his "fanboys." The article, before authors decided to start tossing in their opinions, contained largely verifiable facts. I thought that Wikipedia was to contain facts, not opinions, regardless of how the author feels about the topic. I find your tirade, and subsequent hollow apology to be hypocritical when you combine it with your statement that another group of people have "no place on this site." While I will agree in principle that his "fanboys" shouldn't be editing this article, it's because they would do exactly what you did, but simply on the other end of the POV spectrum. Furthermore, saying they have "no place on this site" whatsoever is blatant stereotyping and reeks of prejudice bordering on discrimination. --Luke 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't have said it better myself.--NMajdan•talk 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, one thing is for sure: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO DOES NOT AWARD THE SUMMA CUM LAUDE DISTINCTION TO UNDERGRADUATES. http://college-catalog.uchicago.edu/pdf_07/academic-regulations.pdf

Also, the PRWeb release was self-published. This, again, is verifiable. But hey, I'm sure Wikipedia is a killer promotional tool, and I look forward to the day when every single writer, actor and musician in America is using it to promote his/her own products. This article requires clean-up, period. That the U of C does not award aforementioned distinction is hardly POV. But since I have an "agenda" (as opposed to all the other Max fanboys), I'll recuse myself.

• Ok, you proved that the university doesn't offer Summa, but you can't accuse people of being "fanboys" if they also had a source that he did graduate summa. [1] Also, just because they don't offer it now does not prove they didn't offer it in the late 90s when Max graduated.--NMajdan•talk 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fanboy == Doesn't subscribe to the notion that Tucker Max deserves to be ignored and discredited by ad hominem means because he's not politically correct. If someone wants to put objective, fact-based information on this page, it shouldn't matter if it's negative or positive. There are things on this page that do not necessairly show Max in a positive light, such as the fact that he is referred to as an alcoholic and a misogynist. As for the Summa Cum Laude distinction, it's entirely possible that UofC used to award it, but a quick search fails to prove or disprove that notion. Thus, it should be removed. Of all of the arguments you could make, this piece of minutiae is the only thing you have on which to stand. The fact that the facts in the article do not lead the reader to the opinion that a manipulative minority would like them to have is problematic to some. But, what is here is supported by fact, not merely a P.R. piece. --Luke 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a matter of proof. We cannot prove whether or not UofC granted the Summa distinction in 1998, when Max graduated but we do have a statement the subject of the article made himself that says he did in fact graduate Summa. Its just whether or not his character allows us to believe this.--NMajdan•talk 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony: Vandals

After appearing on the Opie and Anthony show, fans of theirs have been repeatedly vandalizing this entry. I have requested semi-protection be enacted. --Jlgolson 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to speed the semi-protection process? --Luke 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection from what? That was an honest and unbiased account of what happened. I didn't see it to be vandalism at all.

The factual information (see below) isn't the problem. The problem is the "authors" who keep changing the article to read, "Tucker Max's mother's a whore," and "Opie and Anthony are douchebags." Actually, right now, the factual account is missing, which is part of the problem. Somebody took it out, and I'm tired of reverting, or editing this article when somebody hits it with a can of virtual spray paint. Perhaps you should read up on what semi-protection is before you shoot off at the keyboard. It would merely prevent anonymous vandals, or anyone who's created an account for the simple purpose of vandalizing the page, from further screwing up the entry. --66.202.53.2 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony Factual Information

Although the Opie and Anthony vandalism is unacceptable, the facts of the incident are just that and, in the interest of equal time and neutral point of view, should be allowed to stay. However, some of them, while believable on their face, need sourcing. --Luke 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to an independent account of the events that occurred? -Erik

I'm a fan of Tucker and OnA and was really stoked to hear him on the show. He started off really well, but kind of had a mental hiccup while telling the sushi pants story. After that he seemed to be grasping for words and laughing uncomfortably at his own jokes. Still, the hosts were enjoying him. The hosts took some callers; half liked him and half didn't. It was a fair sample and was not a setup/attack on Tucker.

When asked about a police report never being filed in response to his Donut Shop story, he really seemed to sound like people shouldn't even be questioning his stories at all, like he was above that line of questioning. That is what set Opie and Anthony off. After this moment in the interview, he was fair game and he suffered a brutal last fourth of the interview.

All in all, he was not set up. Opie and Anthony were digging him, but his demeanor and lack of willingness to roll with the callers turned them. I'm sorry to admit it, but he really was exposed in this interview and I think alot less of him now that he won't even acknowledge it. --JON

It wasn't a setup at all, Jon is right. When they questioned him, you could hear in the tone of his voice almost as if he's never been questioned in the least about it, and started to get defensive. They pushed further until his story collapsed. They were on his side (laughing along) until he got defensive. What's written right now should stay up, it's presented as fact and is an objective account of what happened. It's 100% accurate.

anyone know of any audio links to the appearance on O&A? BabuBhatt 07:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.youtube.com and search for "Tucker Max", there are videos there. Not the full version though, I'm hoping somebody uploads it somewhere soon (I think you can get full-length MP3s of O&A illegally but I don't know enough nor do I care to comment). --Kerwash 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

okay, I can't edit worth shit, but could somebody add this link to the youtube video - http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Umup29hk4c&mode=related&search=tucker%20max --Erik 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who keep editing the section about Opie and Anthony like Wikipedia is one of the "in" jokes from the show:

• Erock is actually Erik Nagel, and the Wikipedia entry for Opie and Anthony says he's a "producer" not a "gopher." Furthermore, unless you can produce his welfare check stubs or some other hard evidence of his lack of financial resources or inability to do something well, he should not be referred to as "poor," seeing as that, in this context, is opinion meant to elicit an emotional response, not fact.
• "bravo sierra" means something to people who are regular Opie and Anthony listeners, but it means absolutely nothing to the other 99% of Wikipedia users who aren't "in" on the joke. It needs to be fleshed out. --74.130.17.233 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Many of the changes to the O&A text are being made by first-time Wikipedia authors. Please make sure to understand how to properly mark up the text you post, and do not remove existing markup. --Luke 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the source indicating that anyone bringing up Opie and Anthony will be banned from the Tucker Max fourms is the Opie and Anthony forums, which clearly have a non-neutral POV, it cannot be taken as anything resembling fact and should subsequently be removed from the article (or at very least, indicated as "rumored" or such). Can someone provide an independent, unbiased source for this fact? But, really, it's not very relevant to the topic and smells of "sour grapes." --ljheidel 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FesteringAss

I don't know why the paragraph on FesteringAss was removed as it is informative and well cited, but I reverted the change. If somebody disagrees, please tell why and we can try to come to agreement on whether it should stay or go. --NMajdan•talk 13:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Minutiae

There are several things in this article that are trivial and essentially irrelevant. It seems that certain authors want to add every minute occurance in Max's life to the page. Tucker Max went to the bathroom? Well, we better get that in Wikipedia, stat!

The text about Sunshine is an example that's been in the article for a long time. It probably should be removed.--Luke 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited both the Sunshine and Opie and Anthony content. This was to to remove unreferenced information, and things that were "alleged," and to make their length commiserate with their importance to the article. These two sections are by no means the bulk of the information available about the subject, and thus should not make up the bulk of the article, thus I made them leaner. --Luke 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was never mentioned in the article what kind of business Max was involved in the parking mishap, so to say, "it was actually a Subway" adds detail where it's irrelvant, needlessly extending the entry. --ljheidel 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Luke, this is disingenuous at best. The subway information was probably unneccessarily detailed, but the lack of any police report on the incident is a valid point and should be reinstated.

I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strongest skill. Did I ever say anything about "the lack of any police report on the incident" not being a "valid point?" No. All I wrote, and I stand by the point, is that mentioning it was a Subway is irrelevant and needlessly extends the entry. Was that not clear? --Luke 06:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Luke, You didn't say anthing about it, you just deleted the reference entirely! It's fair enough remove the Subway detail, but you also quite deliberately removed the strongest evidence that the story was fabricated. It's no big secret that you run his website (and you don't try to hide this), but that hardly makes you objective in this matter.

Actually, I didn't delete it in it's entirety. If I did, it was when I was trying to tighten up the O&A section and the Sunshine section (which I really think needs to be removed entirely). Yes, it's no secret that I handle the technical side of his website. And, I know that casts suspicion upon me. However, I try to be as objective as possible and want to see this article remain readable and supported by facts. I don't think I've ever written anything here that isn't factual, or removed anything that was. If I did chop out too much of the O&A stuff, it's because I was, as I said, trying to cut several paragraphs down to a length commisurate with their importance to the article as a whole.

With that said, I removed the Subway point again. If somebody really, really wants it in there, can they at least provide a reference for it? As it stood it was an unreferenced and specious fact. I also changed the name "Erock" to his real name. Some of the content in that paragraph is just a cut-and-paste from the O&A show synopsis, and makes no sense in the abstract.

Also, the claim that anyone who simply mentions the O&A appearance on his messageboard gets banned is patently false. --ljheidel 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Opie & Anthony section removed

Absolutely obscene. I'm going to re-add it, but Max and his groupies need to keep their hands off this article. --Kerwash 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the O&A groupies have been so objective. --74.130.17.233 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's arguing? --Kerwash 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the entry slightly, and I think it does not need to be modified any more. No new information will likely come out on this issue. Jlgolson 06:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One of my friends pointed me to that entry on Max's blog; I was on the floor with laughter (and a little disgusted, honestly), but I didn't believe it. I now see that it was false, but it was still very funny. If Max would tell the truth and label his reputed "exploits" as fiction, then maybe he'll get lucky and won't end up like James Frey. Aaрон Кинни (t) 08:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on college major?

This page claims Max's major/concentration was "Law, Letters and Society", yet in one of his stories ("The Value of a Michigan State education", I think) he claims to have majored in Economics. I don't know too much about how U of C majors work, but could somebody get some clarification on this? --Kerwash 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he was initially a Econ major, but hated the U of C so much that he switched to Law, Letters so he could graduate in three years, something he couldn't do in Econ. Additionally, his facebook page says that he is a law, letters alum. Jlgolson 18:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Clarification on college major?

Sorry if I'm not following the style guidelines, I'm still quite new.

Tucker Max claims to have graduated from University of Chicago with an Econ degree. This claim is substantiated within one of his online stories:

Fat girl "Where did you go to school?"

Tucker "University of Chicago."

Fat girl "What was your degree in?"

Tucker "Econ."

Fat girl "Econ? What can you do with an econ degree?"

At that point, I was laughing so hard I had to walk away. D-Rock just shook his head.

Fat girl "No really, what can you do with an econ degree?"

Tucker "You obviously went to a state school. A BAD state school."

Fat girl "I want to know what you can do with an econ degree."

Tucker "Do you even know what finance is?"

Fat girl "You can't work in finance with an econ degree. You need a finance degree."

God bless her oversized heart. I haven't laughed that hard in months. While I composed myself, D-Rock tried to explain to her that an econ degree from the University of Chicago is one of the top five most marketable degrees, along with engineering/comp sci from MIT and maybe one or two Harvard degrees. And that a finance degree is basically just a watered down econ degree for stupid state school idiots.... (source: The value of a Michigan State education, http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/the_value_of_a_michigan_state_education.phtml#723)

This clearly illustrates that Tucker Max tampers with the truth in order to deliver a more entertaining story.

Exactly how does this "illustrate" this fact? Dialog from one of his stories said he got an Econ degree, the Wiki says another. I fail to see the logic. --ljheidel 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An Econ degree from University of Chicago requires four years of study, while the Law, Letters and Society degree is the lone three year program offered. This coincides with the term Max states he attended college. While this is circumstantial, there is no evidence supporting that he graduated with an Econ degree. If you feel this isn't accurate, find an outside source that confirms his claim, and rebut or delete what you feel is an incorrect Wiki entry.

Though an earlier contributor didn't have an online attribution, the contributor (Jlgolson 18:51, 13 July 2006) did evidentially see a University of Chicago facebook that listed Max as a Law, Letters and Society degree candidate. That too is circumstantial but it does produce corroborating evidence that his degree was indeed Law, Letters and Society. You of course could choose to believe that he finished an Econ degree in three years, and spent his senior year or so away from the campus partying in another country (another Max assertion), but most of us would question his credibility.

I could spelunk his stories and find a source for this, but my understanding (as he says it) would be that he got an economics degree from UC, then got a JD from Duke. The "partying in another country" bit comes from his assertion that he spent a relatively large portion of one of his semesters in Duke Law working as a bartender in Cancun. Also in a Q and A session at one of his book signings, he said that one of the ways he sped up his education was that he took 2 of the same classes that crossed over, example being taking tax law in the Law school, and tax law in the Business school, which were the same class but receiving 2x the credits (obviously no source, this was a live QnA). This doesn't explain his undergraduate speediness (though I would probably attribute it to summer/night classes), but it does say that he knows how to manipulate the system.

Neutrality

Where is the criticism? Where is the unbiased, cold, cool analysis of this man and his 15 minutes of fame? Instead this article reads like something you'd find on a fan page, with much of it apparently written by the same frat boy characters who kiss Tucker's ass on his board day after day. Hilarious. Ertyuew 04:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this anon (User:64.151.149.20) is Max himself, as his writing style is suspiciously similar and his edits overly sympathetic to the drunkard. Ertyuew 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the anon is User:Ljheidel, who again may in reality be Tucker. All of this users edits are focused on Tucker Max, so either it's him or a very obsessed fan. Ertyuew 02:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All of your user edits are to Tucker Max or his talk page as well. BabuBhatt 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps I might be a "single-purpose account" as they say. :P Let's face it, my friend, this article needs critical context, and Tucker Max is not helping the situation by editing his own article. Ertyuew 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the this Talk page rather than just jumping in with edits o' plenty, you'd know exactly who I am (I'm the tech guy for Rudius Media...I've never denied it or tried to hide that fact...I've made a few anon edits because I forgot to login first...so sue me). I'm not here to post "fan boy" content about Max, just to try to clean up the content of inexperienced "fan boyz and haterz" who can't write, and who can't figure out how to use Wikipedia. (Right now, so many idiots have hacked up this page that it's practically unreadable/unusable...it's a losing battle.) I'm also trying prevent agenda-driven editors from slapping specious facts all over the page. Libel and malice do not equal "critical content."

For instance, somebody jumped in here and put that Max had fufilled a fantasy of having sex with a transsexual sometime after he had sex with a midget. To come back and say that you were correct in doing so only after you bothered to do the research, learning that Max thinks he may have unknowingly had sex with a transsexual several years prior, is disingenious at best.

What's your agenda, Ertyuew? Saying that you're here to provide "critical content" or "neutrality," since until you got smacked around a bit you didn't bother to check your facts, doesn't fly. Furthermore, saying that this is a "single-purpose account" doesn't really fly either, since your edits look like that of a Wikipedia newbie. What's the deal? --ljheidel 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My other problem with neutrality is that most of the sources are tuckermax website sources. That doesn't seem like a valid source for an encyclopedic article? --Bill.matthews 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having problems accepting much of the article as being newsworthy. Not only is the content self-referential (much of it arises from the Tucker Max website), it is trivial and meaningless. For example, do we really need to know that Max is the son of a Pan Am airline stewardess? This is unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. EdwardG 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending the poorly-written article, but the detail mentioned above (parental occupations) is indeed encyclopedia-worthy. BabuBhatt 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Look at an encyclopedia entry for someone of minor stature. They never mention something that trivial, unless it is important for character development purposes (example: Tucker Max became involved in the airline industry). EdwardG 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this reads like a fan article. Tucker Max, from an encyclopedic doesn't need most of this information --Bill.matthews 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Luke you are on the man's payroll, how can you possibly edit this article with any degree of neutrality?

Cleanup

Just wanted to say good work on the recent edits. I like the cleanup..it's starting to become more concise and relevant. --Bill.matthews 17:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker might need a police report for Absinthe Donuts, not Sushi Pants. Read the stories.

Rolling back some of Bill.matthews edits. His writing style is extremely awkward to say the least. I've moved the Rudius Media info to a dedicated page, but it needs to be fleshed out somewhat. Blunder2006

Those weren't my edits you reverted? All I did was remove the Rudius marketing crap. But make sure you site some references on the Rudius article to establish notability. --Bill.matthews 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I put up a stub for the Rudius Media page, but some over-zealous admin took it down. It needed to be fleshed out, in any event. Blunder2006

Quit changing this

Let me be clear: Tucker did not graduate with "higest honors". The University of Chicago does not award that distinction. He would've graduated with honors, which means he had a GPA above 3.0.

And he got a PARTIAL scholarship to Duke. He still had to pay tuition.

unsigned comment by Kerwash

Still is bad

This article still is really bad. It now has leaning POV against Tucker Max and it is just really sloppily written. It does not 'flow' at all and half the paragraphs are just random facts about him. His Internet paragraph particularly (sp?). I will try to fix it up but I can't do much because I am at work. I have no problem with him but people need to stop vandalizing this page and stop having POV entries in both directions. --LocalBandAid02 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)