Talk:Tucker Max/Archive 5

"contemptible" or its equivalent needs to be added to intro

This article needs to take a couple of more steps towards NPOV. I respectfully note that after providing immense documentation to the idea that Tucker Max has a very public "darker side" and that it should be commented on in a balanced way, other editors have somehow still avoided dealing with this issue. This pattern has been evident for a long time, just look through the logs. I have listed the direct quotes from the first page of Max Tucker's site and also the definition from the online dictionary. THis can not possibly be libel as these are his own words. I propose that the intro to his article should read, "he chronicles his contemptible, drunken sexual adventures." Its a paraphrase of his own words. If any of you other more experienced editors want to actually propose an alternative in writing I would probably defer to it. But it is unacceptable that this article still (inadvertently Im sure) sounds like a Tucker PR piece.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dickhead dick·head (dkhd) n. Vulgar Slang An inept, foolish, or contemptible person.

http://tuckermax.com/ "and just generally act like a raging dickhead" "My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole." "and generally just act like an officious, raging asshole." "My entire being is defined by my supreme egotism. It's who I am." "being an arrogant, obnoxious alpha male has it's privileges." "Now, do I treat women like shit? Yes, sometimes, but I treat EVERYONE like shit, not just women. Sexism is treating one sex differently from the other(s). I treat men and women equally: just like shit." " I usually begin conversations with women by telling them that I am an asshole and a bad person,"

Also as a warning, if anyone tries to edit war I will not participate in it but will respectfully and immediately bring it to conflict resolution and do any other appropriate WP measures.aharon42 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the word contemptable, because it's not Neutral Point of View to call someone's work "contemptable". I agreed with noting that Tucker describes himself as an asshole in the lede of the article, but someone decided to go and remove it as "cruft".

Remember though, the article can't take an opinion one way or another on his stories, only describe them. If you want a negative balance, I'd suggest noting that the stories describe criminal misdemeanors, such as drunk driving (several different ones) and public indecency (Austin Road Trip). McJeff (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

McJeff. My addition takes care of all of the problems you brought up. Because its his "self-confessed contemptible behaviour" it is not libel and it is absolutely NPOV. Its not an opinion, its a paraphrase of his exact view of himself except that I used the dictionary definition of Dickhead to make it palatable to the larger public and WP. And to emphasize, I do not want a negative balance, I just want the article to reflect Tucker's complicated persona. Thats why the article also needs a paragraph on his "fratire." Right now the passage just reads like bulliten points and does not do him justice. I read most of Tucker's site last night. His point is that he is obnoxious and its these very coarse actions that makes him funny. I think he would be angrier if we left out how hilarious other sources consider him to be more than if we note that his humor derives from his honest "dickhead" "shitty" "asshole" "arrogant" behavior. Please see sources above. I am perfectly happy with my edit and just now I just want what you might describe as a "positive" section on how funny he is. On a deeper level, Tucker Max teases on purpose because he constantly blurs the line between whether or not he truly is what he describes in his writings and whether he is just describing a very small (but true) part of his younger, immature self.. He is actually quite meta and post-modern in a way. You can tell that there is a very good reason why he went to Duke Law on scholarship. Do you know how hard it is to get a scholarhip to that place? He is very clever and self-aware. I dont know how to capture this type of analysis in the article though, its way too ambiguous and Tucker Max is really the only one who has commented on the type of acting, manipulating, creative writing, selective portrayal that he does. The article does not capture how incredibly bright this young man is and I would like to see that added also aharon42 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any changes at this time, but I think you should run that edit by your mentor and see what he thinks... I'm really uncomfortable with the usage of the word contemptable, although as I said before not with a statement along those lines. McJeff (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

paragraph about his actual humor, not just his projects

Can we work together to add a paragraph about his actual humor? There are plenty of sources that can help describe his "fratire" and that really up to this point has been the core of his notoriety. To summarize, even the more wry commentary on Tucker Max still acknowledge that he is funny, if crude. How can we capture this in a NPOV way? aharon42 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

COI and original research

In the legal section, Rjm7730 keeps adding original research and references/spam links to the bio of (redacted). I assume that Rjm7730 is (redacted), which might constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the whole section is filled with sources that are actually just pdf files from the court, which is a primary source, and not a secondary source. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. WP: RS goes on to say that "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Rjm7730 is especially violating this rule with his summaries of the court documents, with some conclusions that aren't even mentioned in the primaries sources. The court documents should probably be replaced with reliable sources, unless the article is taking direct quotes from the pdfs. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Serialcomma, your comments about me make it sound like I did something unethical because I cited actual court documents, rather than newspaper articles talking about the court documents. Although I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies, I think your response is much too harsh. Everything I said was accurate. The only reason I edited the legal section is because it contained several inaccuracies (among other things, the article originally made it sound like the ACLU represented Max, which was very misleading). Also, it is widely reported that the Florida State court judge issued the injunction "ex parte" (i.e., without a hearing). There is no dispute about that, and the point is made in numerous media accounts. I didn't know that Wikipedia policy would prefer a citation to a newspaper article. But, regardless, you didn't add anything by removing the obvious fact that the injunction was issued without a hearing. Also, the state court judge was Diana Lewis (her name appears on the injunction - and in many of the news stories). I'm not sure why that was removed. But, regardless, I'm not interested in engaging an online debate over changing these edits or Wikipedia policy. I just think your criticism is undue. I wasn't familiar with the particulars of certain policies, and you could have pointed them out without the inflammatory tone of your post.

it's nothing personal, I am just following wikipedia policies i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources #Are court documents reliable sources?. A cursory reading of Tucker Max#Legal troubles suggests that the main trouble here is WP:OR and WP:NPOV, not WP:RS. The first paragraph reads like a brief prepared by the attorney for one side of the dispute. It is filled with phrases like "Notably" and "without even" that are not supported by reliable sources, and it gives only Max's side of the case. The section should be rewritten from scratch, using third-party accounts (rather than just one side's account). If this can't be done, the section should be trimmed down to a brief and neutral notice that a lawsuit was filed and eventually the plaintiff dismissed it. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem you all are raising. I did the best I could to fix the NPOV and OR problems. The New York Times article by Adam Liptak confirms that Judge Diana Lewis issued the injunction without holding a hearing. That fact was beyond dispute. The remaining problem is that, while there were more than 80 articles published on the story back in 2003, there is very little available today without accessing an archive. I've invested time to fix the major inaccuracies. And, I've toned the article down to reduce the NPOV problem. I really don't have anything else to add.

Rjm7730, at the end of your messages, please hit ~ (tilde) four times to sign your messages so that we know to whom we're talking (this will add your name and a time stamp to your talk messages). also, i see that you have removed/censored my previous message one more time on this talk page. please stop doing this. if you wish for me to remove the lawyer's name from this discussion page that you yourself kept adding to the article itself, then you will need to provide a valid reason as to why his name should be censored from this discussion. you are the one who kept trying to add his name, after all. if you are indeed the lawyer in question, please just admit to being him, and i will remove your name, no problem. if you aren't him, then let's just discuss why you want the name removed so vehemently. but please do not manipulate (through deletion) my messages any further. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McJeff, on your most recent edit, you removed the wiki-links I put in for "invasion of privacy," "ACLU (changed to American Civil Liberties Union)," and "First Amendment." I also removed the redundancy about "relationship" in the second sentence of the "Legal Troubles" section that you re-added. Please be more cognizant of your edits as mine were legitimate, done in good faith, and added to the article. It definitely doesn't encourage someone to stay around and edit this article if honest, grammatically correct edits are going to be changed at another's whim.Atlantabravz (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't remove any links [1], and even if I did, I don't appreciate the accusation that I did it in bad faith. McJeff (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare the differences. I never said you did it in "bad faith." However, you did do it and that was all I was pointing out. I do think you did it carelessly, but I never said anything about bad faith. You just need to be more careful with your edits, because you removed my links and redundnacy edits. I will re-add them so you can see what I'm talking about.Atlantabravz (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SerialComma, I only edited Max's bio because it read as though the ACLU represented Max, which simply is not accurate. Max and his attorneys made all of the arguments before the ACLU filed its independent brief. Yes, apparently I violated some Wikipedia policies by, among other things, engaging in "original research" and linking to primary sources rather than the (now largely unavailable) secondary sources (note: there were more than 80 articles discussing the lawsuit at the time it was filed; now, there are only a few still posted). But, continuing to call out my identity and attack me on this message board has effectively dampened any desire I might have to contribute to any Wiki in the future. And, it's not as though I necessarily disagree with your points; I simply didn't understand the points when I first posted. I wish you could have been more constructive and exercised some sense of civility. Rjm7730 (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

i wasn't trying to maliciously expose your identity in this discussion page, but rather i was simply trying to establish whether there was a conflict of interest with you editing parts of the article in order to advance your outside interest (i.e. linking to your personal bio in the article). i wasn't trying to sound accusatory either, but i did mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI already to you twice and you did not respond directly to it, so i continued to pursue it. now that we have established what i had suspected, i would just ask that you please do not edit other people's comments in discussion pages, as that's not allowed here, and also i'd ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI and reconsider directly getting involved in articles in which you might have a conflict of interest e.g. editing the legal section of an article about a case in which you were directly involved. even though it seems logical that you would know more and would be able to contribute more accurate information in this situation, it's actually against wikipedia policy. so i'll go ahead and censor your name out now from my previous text because it's no longer relevant to the discussion. Theserialcomma (talk)

Serialcomma, I was just checking out the Wikipedia policies. It seems that you have violated one of the most important policies in your rush to discredit me. Here is a quote: "Behavior that is unacceptable: Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely."

I innocently violated a Wikipedia policy regarding the form of my response. And, I didn't know that someone with first-hand knowledge of a case couldn't post about it. But, it seems that you intentionally revealed identifying information about me personally, which was a clear violation of one of the most important policies.

In my view, that intentional violation is far more serious than innocently linking to a primary source or providing first-hand perspective. And, you are a frequent user who should know better. Rjm7730 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. you are the one who posted revealing information about yourself by adding your name and a spam link to your biography to this article, both additions which were blatantly irrelevant to the article and immediately brought attention to a potential COI. you also helped 'out' yourself by posting all this new information to the article under a poorly crafted alias which clearly has your initials in them. any vigilant editor would have suspected this COI and called you on it. I just got to it first. the fact is, wikipedia does not exist for your vanity or publicity purposes, and so your modifications to the article by adding your own name were just obviously inappropriate and eventually going to fall under scrutiny. since you were not openly posting as the lawyer in question when you started editing this article, and no one would have any way to know what your real name is, no one was 'outing' you by asking you if you had a conflict of interest here. the truth was just being ascertained by questioning you. when you were questioned about the COI and your identity, you did not respond to my request but instead removed my comments from this discussion. I questioned you again, and you removed my comments again from this discussion. that was not acceptable. finally, you admitted to the COI and claimed i was 'outing' you. but i was outing a legitimate COI, not you. up until knowing you were the COI lawyer who spammed his biography and named himself in the article, i was not aware of your existence or interesting in 'outing' you or anyone. no one knew that you were the person in question until you admitted it. once you actually admitted that you were the person who added his own name and link spam to the article, i immediately removed your name from the discussion, so there should be no problem.

you need to just accept that if you are actually tucker max's (ex or current) lawyer, you should not be editing tucker max's article's legal section about a case in which you were involved. this conversation is no longer related to the article itself, so any more irrelevant commentary should occur in the user talk pages. please contact me there for further dialogue. and please do not edit this article any further in any way that could be deemed inappropriate by wikipedia policies. (by the way, you can indent your comments by adding a :: (colon) before the paragraph. it makes it easier to read) Theserialcomma (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, if we are going to talk about COI in such loose terms, then you, as a reader of Gawker, should also be forbidden to edit the article, as Gawker itself has a negative vested interest in Tucker Max.

Rjm, you should ALWAYS demand a third opinion when dealing with a tendentious editor like Theserialcomma, as his comprehension of policy is selective and self-serving at best, and in a prolonged conversation with him it becomes clear he does not understand the policies which he cites. McJeff (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

if you think POV editing an article's legal section about a lawsuit in which someone was one of the lawyers is a 'loose' COI (and adding spam links to his website), then you should probably resign from editing for a while and catch up on some WP policies. and if you concurrently think that it's a COI of mine to have visited www.gawker.com and to also edit this article, then you should please seek immediate admin intervention to verify this. (I recommend WP:ANI for a quick response). as for your personal attacks such as calling me "tendentious," please discontinue this long-term abusive name calling. just stop your harassment. it's not working, and it's only going to get you blocked again Theserialcomma (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjm, as you can see, the tone of this editor is abrasive, and he has a fondness for baiting people. Of course, when he complains about policies like WP:CIVIL, he ignores the fact that baiting users and biting newcomers is far more incivil than (correctly) identifying one other editor as being tendentious. McJeff (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA Theserialcomma (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

the legal section

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Are_court_documents_reliable_sources.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Court_Documents_-_are_they_reliable_sources_or_not.3F, the legal section is not currently acceptable. we need to rewrite it and cite primarily secondary sources (newspaper articles) for the summaries, not primary sources (court documents). to quote one of the people who responded to my and mcjeff's inquiry: "... this is not the right way to cover this story. If it is a notable case, it will have been reported in the mainstream newspapers. Cite the newspaper articles, not the court documents directly. If it isn't in any newspaper, then it probably isn't a notable case. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" . i personally believe the case warrants mention in the article, but must be represented by proper sources, and not court documents. until then, it should be trimmed to remove the court documents as sources, unless the court documents as sources are just just stating facts (such as dates or direct quotes). Theserialcomma (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• more issues with the legal section: the legal section currently states "legal scholars including Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr referred to DiMeo's claim as frivolous." with the sources as blogs at [[2]] and [[3]], except they did not exactly refer to the claim as 'frivolous.' in the first source [[4]], Volokh blogs that "the second count is basically frivolous", which is not the same as calling the claim frivolous. if the second count is "basically" frivolous, then what about the first count? the quote in the article is not accurately reflecting the source's quote.

And also, let's be adults. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, ambiguous about the phrase "utterly frivolous." TheRegicider (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• and the second source's quote says "Unless I'm missing something, though, DiMeo's claim is utterly frivolous." this is also a problem because it's ambiguous. what if he is missing something? should we just assume that he isn't missing anything and therefore the he considers the claim frivolous after full deliberation? the article does not match the quote. this should be rewritten or removed. i'm not sure "the volokh conspiracy" blog is a reliable source anyway, even if the commentators are experts in the field (?) Theserialcomma (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

as an update, i asked the reliable sources board if the volokh conspiracy should be included as reliable source, and as per the response at [[5]], i've removed it from the legal section. if we can find a reliable source that states the same thing that the volokh blog said, we can re-add it. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Volokh and Kerr references are important and uncontroversial enough to make it worth ignoring rules to include them. A very short summary of my reasoning is that while Kerr and Volokh did publish those blog posts themselves, they are not involved in the lawsuit, and thus, it's unreasonable to suggest that two reputable law scholars are not reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy, in particular, has been cited by mainstream news, indicating a significant degree of reliability. Also see WP:UCS. McJeff (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

it's not a reliable source for BLP. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29. "Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)" please do not edit war over this. if you want to take your case up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, feel free to do so. but they have already specifically stated that this is not a reliable source and should not be included. please do not edit war any further over this. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They have not responded to the argument that IAR should be employed. Nor did you respond to any of my points. I am readding the section, please do not edit war, remember to assume good faith, etc... McJeff (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including the Volokh authors is the definition of a common sense policy. And for the record, they both have Wikipedia page that denote their status as legal experts. Since you're the only one challenging this piece, the burden is on you to articulate why it should not be included well beyond some out of context decision. As they say, Wikipedia rules should not be a suicide pact. TheRegicider (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

while we are talking about unreliable sources, i don't believe that http://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100495 (annoy.com) is a reliable source. it should probably be removed too Theserialcomma (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of question, does your current attempt to get as much information removed from the article have anything to do with the fact that your two RfCs on the criticism section failed? McJeff (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind folks to please keep in mind that the Legal Troubles section should probably be renamed "Lawsuits" to discriminate between offenses against society and the state and offenses against particular persons. Just a suggestion from...

- Just some fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.108.17 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, as it would sound more NPOV. I'll change it now if it hasn't already been done. Mathmo ^Talk 03:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

To be clear, we do not include allegations sourced only from the subject's own website. And a faximile of an apparent court document, hosted on that website is certainly NOT an appropriate source. If this can't be sourced from the mainstream media, then it not reliable, and probably not notable anyway. --Troikoalogo (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the court documents? That was readded by accident. McJeff (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, read what I said. The subject's own website is not a reliable independent source here. I've reverted you.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and you stuck a stupid template on my page. Thanks for that - robotically generated text trumps discussion every time. You're also posting on the talk page with two different names - Troikoalogo and Scott MacDonald are the same person.

Anyway, your comment is poorly spoken. The subject is Tucker Max. If you're talking about Eugene Volokh, call him by name.

The source I want in the article, a post on The Volokh Conspiracy, is a neutral blog run by a noted legal scholar Eugene Volokh considered to be reputable enough that the New York Times has used it as a source. And you have addressed neither of these two things. Please do so. McJeff (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I renamed my account and the software has not caught up. Look, on a BLP we err on the side of not having material, particularly when that material concerns court cases. If the material is to be included then the sources must be beyond reproach. If they are not, it stays out. There are no exceptions. In any case, if first class sources can't found, it is unlikely that the information is important enough to merit an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. Are there other biographical pieces on this subject that mention this stuff?

As to my removals. Both referenced the subject's blog. The first had a facsimiled transcript of a court report hosted on that site. That's clearly a no. I see now, there was indeed a second source too. But it is a mention in passing of what another party said about it. This is still miles from significant cast-iron sourcing. Oh, and IAR does not trump BLP, certainly on the say-so of one editor. If there is a logical exception here, there would need to be a clear consensus to that effect, and that the letter of rule was unnecessary if the full spirit observed. It would rather be for you to demonstrate that such an exceptional consensus existed. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 editors on this article. 2 (myself and User:TheRegicider are in favor of inclusion, the other is not. I guess I can buy 2 against 1 as "not exceptional consensus", though I have significant concerns about the article, the intentions of the third involved editor, and the continued removal of content. McJeff (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That two editors want it in is certainly not justification to lower sourcing thresholds on a BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, only 3 editors McJeff. I guess you didn't want to mention me since you removed my edits the other day and still never addressed why it was you did that. Granted, it is moot now since it has been rewritten, but you still violated Wiki policy by removing my non-controversial edits when you removed controversial ones. Perhaps you did a revert and overlooked what I had done. The last thing you said was that you didn't do it though. Back to the topic at hand...for the record, I am for following Wiki's rules when it comes to BLP so you can count me as being against inclusion. It also seems like you have something against Theserialcomma based on the language and tone you use when talking about him to other editors. You seem to minimize his contributions and constantly call him "tendentious." After this language draws him into responding by reminding you to remain civil, you then accuse him of personal attacks which really makes my head spin. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Why does Tard Blog redirect here?Invisible Noise (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because one of Rudius Media's websites is tard-blog.com. McJeff (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was once a Tard Blog page on Wikipedia, and Tucker Max's page says nothing about Rudious Media.Invisible NoiseΩ 04:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisible Noise (talk • contribs)

Actually, it does mention Rudius Media--twice, including a quote relating to their mission. Please read the article again. Atlantabravz (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tucker's middle name

It seems a little bit ridiculous to include Tucker's middle name in this entry, especially in the first sentence. He's not known by his middle name -- like David Foster Wallace for example -- he's known as "Tucker Max." David Sedaris and Kurt Vonnegut's entries both don't include their middle names, to give an example. The only reason it seems to be in here is because it's an odd middle name. If it was "Tucker Steve Max," I don't think anyone would be running over to the entry to include it. It strikes me as trivial, so I'm taking it out of the entry. Svernon19 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I removed the word "brags" which is an obvious weasel word. Also added that the site started as a bet. Svernon19 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

i'm going to have to strongly beg to differ with your feelings about tucker's middle name. this is an encyclopedia, it's his middle name, and this fact is properly sourced from his own website -- he even scanned his own license to prove it. you may feel that tibor is a strange middle name, but that's your opinion -- an opinion with which i disagree. since what you removed was sourced, it should be added back. for all we know david sedaris and kurt vonnegut do not have middle names. but tucker max does. look at michael dukakis's article. no one knows him by his middle name either, but it's there. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's distracting and misleading. If he chose to include his middle name as part of his pen name, like John Kennedy Toole for example, then it would make sense. I can see the merits in a biographical sense, though, so I moved it to his infobox where it should've been in the first place. Glad to see you're back reverting my edits, though. Svernon19 (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

his middle name is neither distracting nor misleading to me, so i am having trouble following you. it's just a name. i'm sorry that you don't like his middle name, and think it's funny, but there is nothing we can do about it. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to hide middle names you personally think are funny Theserialcomma (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a much bigger issue to you than it is to me. Since you feel strongly enough about a minor edit to revert me twice, I'm not going to go to war or anything. I moved the reference to the end of the sentence -- it looks odd with it sourced in the middle. You can object to that as well, but I'd start to question if your return to this article was motivated by the opportunity to revert my edits. Svernon19 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

don't remove sourced info, such as someone's middle name, from articles just because you personally think it's a funny name. yes, that is a big deal. as for the new placement of the source - i agree. and as for you questioning my motivations for reverting you - WP:AGF. that is all Theserialcomma (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing the full name is standard wikipedia policy. The article for Barack Obama, for example, starts by naming him as "Barack Hussein Obama II". The citation is a bit ugly in its placement, but with the article in its current state there's nowhere else to put it. McJeff (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the middle name is only placed at the beginning of the text of the article, not above the picture. For example, above Obama's headshot in the Obama article, it just says Barack Obama (the name of the article), and it omits his middle name, while the beginning of the text article has the full name written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.180.116 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)