Talk:Maxx Payne

Max Payne Lawsuit

The section detailing the lawsuit between Mr. Peterson and the developers of Max Payne is written with a very NPOV style, with wording that appears to slant the basic issue in the lawsuit and the resulting settlement in his favor. Furthermore, it contains information about the accuisations made in the case that, as far as I have been able to deduce, is not public knowledge. Furthermore, there is no public knowledge of what happened during the case, nor is there any information about why it was ultimately settled out of court. To say Mr. Peterson "successfully" settled also offers a *very* strong lean towards Mr. Peterson's perspectives. Nobody knows whether the settlement was for 1USD or 10,000,000USD, so all that can be said is "The case between Mr. Peterson and the defendants was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum."

The worst part comes when stating: "The character and several scenes from a video game script he had written in 1990 showed up in both Max Payne 1 and 2." This needs to be backed up with verifiable sources showing that this in fact is the case. Suggestion from Mr. Peterson is not enough to be NPOV. This too needs to be rewritten, though I can't even find any public verifiable information that Mr. Peterson ever made this accuisation.

Noting that the publisher purchased the rights to the game Mr. Peterson was partially affiliated with is worth noting, however it is also worth noting that when Max Payne the video game began production, the development team and 3D Realms came up with the name for the game on their own, with no contact or discussion with any publisher. I don't know the exact nature of the timeline, so it's hard for anyone to be absolutely sure if knowledge of the Maxx Payne character would have been available to Remedy Entertainment or 3D Realms.

Finally, I'm skeptical of the edits made by 67.177.31.102[1], as they only pertain to Mr. Peterson and the lawsuit entry on the Max Payne video game entry and (along with User:McPhail) transformed this entry into a biography with a suprising amount of detail that I have yet to find any verifiable sources for the information contained within. I wanted to give the original author or any knowledgable person of Mr. Peterson a chance to cite sources for the lawsuit information before making changes, so I will wait a little while before trimming it down to just information that can be verified. Much of the article seems violate Wikipedia:No original research, although the lawsuit section is the only section I personally know contains truly questionable content. Charlie Wiederhold 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're the right person to be making neutrality assertions about this article ("Video game developer, currently with 3D Realms"). Personally, I don't know anything about the lawsuit other than the initial statement made by Peterson. I haven't read anything about the lawsuit other than the information in the first paragraph of that section. McPhail 14:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit is fairly obscure and only a few people are even slightly knowledgeable of what happened and capable of commenting in detail on it, which is why it came to my attention. There isn't anyone *not* close to it that would be able to verify the information currently provided, which is why I'm suggesting it be trimmed down to just the citeable facts and remove the POV language.

Regarding the article as a whole: I'm only asserting that the Lawsuit segment has neutrality issues. The rest of the article does not cite sources for the information and reads like a Biography with primarily Original Research. Again I direct readers to: Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia rules are pretty strong against providing information that is not verifiable. I can't help being related to 3D Realms, but I avoid making unverifiable or POV additions to Wikipedia about things I'm related to (and even those I'm not), and try to point out problems when I see them. I wanted to provide someone else the opportunity to clean up the Lawsuit segment or provide sources before I changed it for the very reason of being associated with 3D Realms (although not personally involved with the lawsuit, nor privy to confidential information). The rest of the article I thought was worth bringing attention to as I do feel it violates Wikipedia rules. If 1) people disagree: Cool... leave it as is. If 2) Nobody else cares or notices: Cool... leave it as is. But it is worth being called attention to. Charlie Wiederhold 05:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources are cited in the reference section for everything I added to the article. Peterson / Payne conducted a lengthy interview with pinfalls.com that contained a lot of information. I resent the implication that I have engaged in "original research" to this article; usage of primary sources such as interviews is not original research by any standards. Given the slant and depth of the additions by User:67.177.31.102, I got the impression that this was Peterson / Payne himself, or someone linked to him. Some of the information is verifiable, other information is questionable and potentially pov. McPhail 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty... I spent a good chunk of the day going through the entire history of the article's changes and comparing current content with sources cited. You are absolutely correct that all of the questionable content came from 67.177.31.102 and everything else was verifiable (mostly) and evenly written. I feel the assertion of Original Research and NPOV is still correct, though I apologize for associating you with those changes directly. Since they were left in and you continued to edit it afterwards with no comment but a "Thanks", it was easy to assume you were ok with the changes.

Here are the parts that I find the most questionable... if we can find sources (I've been looking) then obviously they should stay, otherwise...

- "After starring as a high school wrestler in the critically acclaimed movie Take Down" --- I can't find any critical acclaim, and the IMDB entry suggests he wasn't starring in it.

- "He was a national champion and set several national records" --- Needs reference sources.

- "Peterson continues producing award winning film and music projects, as well as book writing." --- Need references for the writing, projects, and awards specified.

- "It is interesting to note the changes of costuming and wrestling styles from feather-boas and bright colors to a more dark and Rock and Roll style of presentation after this trendsetting team left the stage." --- Has anyone but Mr. Peterson made this observation and associated the change with them? Where has this change been noted?

- "hailing from Hell's Kitchen" --- This is not encyclopedic language, and instead sounds like a wrestling announcer. :)

- "As he found out many times throughout his career, his promoters would not allow the use of the name Maxx Payne, as Peterson staunchly refused to relinquish ownership of the name and character without proper remuneration." --- This information is fine, the way it is written is not.

Hopefully that clears up where I see the most problems (outside of the lawsuit information, which is exceptionally bad). I've tried to find sources for the information that can be used to cite it, but am not as familiar with the wrestling world as you are, so perhaps you can? Thanks for checking in with this though. Charlie Wiederhold 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The "The character and several scenes from a video game script he had written in 1990 showed up in both Max Payne 1 and 2" bit is indeed very, very problematic -- if this is to stay in the article, this information absolutely needs to be verified. The two existing Max Payne games are written by a Finnish writer at a time when wrestling could not even be seen in Finland. It's unlikely (though not impossible) that he was familiar with Mr. Peterson's wrestling persona. And even if the publisher of the first game did have access to material written by Peterson, that does not mean that the writer had access to said material. Even if 3D Realms did have it, it's worth noting that they only published the game. The writer wasn't employed by them, he was working for Remedy, the development company. (And really, the games are not about wrestling, the title character shares no reasonable similarities with Peterson, and the same goes for the game's events and themes.)

Seriously, I'm a games journalist by trade and this is the first time I've ever heard of him having been involved in video games before (except as a voice actor in one instance); certainly, at the time when the lawsuit was filed, there was no mention of any such involvement. Instead, the statements released by Mr. Peterson were full of statements about how his identity had been stolen and how the "film noir persona" was a "part of his look." (Not that the game character looks anything like the wrestler. And not that a big bearded sweaty guy is something that most people associate with film noir.) I am extremely skeptical of the veracity of this information, particularly as there is not a single reference to Peterson's previous video game work included. Even the video game company he was allegedly working with and that was supposedly bought by the "publishers" (what, all of them?) of the games is not named. This has the stink of original research and heavy POV at best, or outright fabrication at worst all over it. Surely there must be some references to these things? -- Captain Disdain 08:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a few days, so I'm going to start cleaning up.

1) Section on the movie Take Down cleaned up.

2) National Champion: Iowa State's records do not list him as a national champion, although he is listed as an All American, so this section was modified and source added.

3) Reduced the "continues to be involved in..." section to just list film, as that's the only thing I can find reference to, on IMDB, and even that is "iffy" as it's right around the time he retired. We need some new projects (music and books) that are documented before it should be included.

4) Changed the comment on changing styles of wrestlers to be more fact of the matter and less NPOV, and also moved it to be in a more appropriate place.

5) Left the "hailing from", as it can be contributed to the establishment of the "persona" of Maxx Payne.

6) Removed the content about not being allowed to use the name "Maxx Payne" due to being required to give up the rights without adequate compensation. I can't find anything about this. I just see that people wanted him to be things OTHER than Maxx Payne in his interview.

5) Cleaned up the Lawsuit section to be NPOV and only information that is verifiable.

6) Added a reference to a Wrestling Fan's perspective on the Lawsuit.

Hopefully that takes care of it. I never thought I'd be modifying a wrestling page. :)

Charlie Wiederhold 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis Addiction?

There is no such thing as cannabis addiction. Maxx may have been very fond of it, but that's another thing.

This was the paragraph that I used as source material:

"But from the time I got to the WWF, I was plagued with one thing after another. The first thing that happened was that I went to Mississippi, where we were wrestling in a casino. I hit the ropes and the top rope broke, I flipped upside down and outside the ring and tore a hernia. I already had kind of a mild hernia ... and had to have a double hernia surgery shortly after that. I came back at Wrestlemania, I started trying to get back into shape and get back in the ring-mode and all along guys, I was telling Vince, to use me as an announcer ... and he said, ‘No, you’ve got to be a wrestler.’ [At the time] I was addicted to pain pills and all the downers and everything else that goes with it ... Brian got busted for pot three times, I got busted for pot once..." (from the interview listed in references).

Presumably his addiction was therefore limited to "pain pills and all the downers". McPhail 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as a cannabis addiction? Since when? People can be addicted to all sorts of things. As Addiction tells us, "Addictions can theoretically form for any rewarding behavior". (What Payne was or wasn't addicted to is another thing, of course, but one can certainly have a cannabis addiction even if the substance itself isn't that habit-forming. It's not even particularly difficult, all things considered.) -- Captain Disdain 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)