Talk:Michael Larson

Name spelling

Uh, isn't his last name spelled with an e instead of an o, as in "Larsen"? Denelson83 06:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--

I just checked this to be sure; the Game Show Network documentary about him definately has it spelled 'Larson' with an 'o'. Sites out on the internet that have it spelled with an 'e' are just incorrect. Skybunny 15:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Next Larson

Anyone here been keeping up with Jeopardy! lately? At the beginning of the current season, they eliminated the "Five wins and you leave" rule. Now, there's a guy on there who has won 30 games straight (And still going), and he has total winnings so far exceeding $1 million! Very Larson-esque in my opinion. (Anonymous, 14 July 2004, 21:21 UTC)

I don't think so. To be like Larson, he'd have to have a way of knowing what questions were about to come up. Marnanel 20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean in regards to his methods and such, I'm referring to his persistence to keep going, to keep winning. He seems to have the same dogged determination that Larson had on PYL. 207.177.12.175 20:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not random

Why did the show have the lights flash like that, and not randomly?

Because AI wasn't that sophisticated yet back in 1983...but they could have made the board more like Second Chance's instead - EmiOfBrie 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that would probably give the result a too random result. Randomness is good, but in a game show, the randomness needs to be controlled in a way that it does not give the contestants too much of a chance either. In this case, it was probably a good decision since they obviously did not have the biggest brain in constructing the game anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.97.88 (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Or designed the board with a Whammy in *every* square! --guru 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Spin goof

According to a letter received by Brad Francini, the webmaster of http://www.gscentral.net, from staffer Darlene Lieblich, there was one spin where she (then the scoreboard operator) accidentally added $2,000 to Michael's total when in reality he only hit $1,000. This is the spin, that in the list on the main article, is supposedly edited out. Someone needs to correct the spin list to reflect this.

Spin count

No need to analyze his spins like that. That's called fanwank and original research. I know the Big Bucks special did a specific analysis of some of his spins; a small amount of that analysis, sourced to direct quotes from the GSN special, is all we'd really need here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. The article is incomplete without it. The details are what make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.90.12 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for this level of detail. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some specific information about Larson's spins. This is the exact information I was looking for when I first came to this page. Instead, I had to watch his actual performance in the documentary and write down his spins. I attempted to add this information to the article, but it was undone. Is there anyway we can get at least some of this very interesting and useful information allowed into the article? FishDawg1 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@FishDawg1: Ditto what the now renamed, and retired, Sottlacqua has said above. There is no need for all of this "useful" and trivial information in an article, especially a Good Article. If you're looking for a place to add this material, go to the Game Show Wiki. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It seems User:Fourthords may be creating a new article for this topic that isn't formatted as a biography. For the time being, with the article's current presentation, the title is fine as-is. It can be redirected once the new article goes live. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Michael Larson → ? – To quote @Fourthords: in the GAR, I cannot understand why this is written as a biography, given Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. 82.8 percent of the article is directly related to the Press Your Luck event, and the rest is only sourced to articles discussing him in that same context[...]There's plenty of sources here to write Press Your Luck scandal appropriately, but it too would need to reckon with the other problems listed on this—and the article's talk—page. I don't usually deal with BLPs in this context, so I'm not sure what the most appropriate move should be here, but this is not the first time WP:BLP1E has come up within his context so I feel it should be discussed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Press Your Luck scandal per nom. O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm momentarily uncertain. After the GAR discussion, I began writing a Press Your Luck scandal from whole cloth to ensure 100% citation to reliable sources. I'm seven (of 22) sources deep in it right now, and was probably going to spend another month or so before ready to bring live. When that time came, I'd've redirected this page and pasted my rewrite over the existing PYLS redirect—like I did when writing suicide of Bill Conradt to replace Louis Conradt. Thoughts, Ten Pound Hammer? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I say if you make the Press Your Luck scandal article and selectively merge/redirect the Michael Larson article there, then we should be good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm making good progress, and though some offline sources are proving more elusive than I'd like, I still feel good predicting I'll be done by late April. Do you still want to move this before then? I ask out of curiousity, w/o any opinion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "scandal". "Scandal" is a contentious label and should therefore be avoided, as it involves some sort of deliberate wrongdoing; there's no deliberate wrongdoing in someone noticing that a game show is improperly randomised. Sceptre (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch doesn't list scandal as an explicitly prohibited label, but warns against using such language in the absence of sourcing that explicitly uses it. Several of the sources (currently used and others I'm finding) refer to this as a scandal, and it's the only consistent description/label I've seen in reliable sources. It's certainly not without precedent. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, he's famous for one thing, but it was a very very famous thing, so that's fine. It was not a scandal - Larson's winnings were legitimate. SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:BLP1E do you think a different title should be suggested? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. BLP1E applies to people where the one event is fairly minor and their personal details aren't that important - victims of crimes are the classic example. Larson's exploits both weren't that minor, and he was a key player in the event rather than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or to put things another way, Larson should be titled like a notable game show contestant is titled. List of Jeopardy! contestants suggests that they're generally titled under their name once they're notable; the difference between "one really long game of Press Your Luck" and "a run of X consecutive games on Jeopardy!" is fairly minor from a notability perspective. SnowFire (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Already this article isn't a biography of Larson. 87 percent is about the Press Your Luck scandal; removed, the remaining 13% wouldn't sustain the article. The notability lies in the event. I was taken to AN/I last year for writing suicide of Bill Conradt and redirecting the extant Louis Conradt thereto; Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said of that then, Conradt did have 'a Wikipedia Biography created for over ten years', but 90% of that biography was about the [event and its fallout] (there are only a couple of sentences about his life before that, and none of those provided any real notability per BIO). I am sure that if that article had been only that section and nominated for deletion, it would have been deleted. Thus, his notability lies purely in the [event in question], and that is what we now have. I obviously concurred, having written the newer article, but it was nice to have that whole AN/I thread as confirmation. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  These cases are not comparable. First, to say so again: this was not a scandal. If the network was savvier at the time, they would have marketed it as a dream you-can-do-it episode, but they weren't sure that there wasn't some sort of obscure cheating going on. I strongly oppose any attempt to move this to a title with "scandal" in the name. Second, for Bill Conradt, you're describing a tragic event initiated by something out of his control (the To Catch a Predator sting). These are key differences between a beneficial event (winning lots of money) initiated directly by Michael Larson, intentionally (figuring out a strategy for Press Your Luck). For another comparison, look at, say, Eddie Gaedel - another one-time game player titled at his name because this was an event Gaedel willingly participated in and got his 15 minutes of fame for. We're not moving his article to Browns vs. Tigers (August 19, 1951) or Eddie Gaedel scandal or the like. SnowFire (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  These cases are not comparable. I and others are not having any difficulty doing so; I'm sorry you're unable. First, to say so again: this was not a scandal. Unfortunately we cannot cite User:SnowFire for that. However, Game Show Network, Damn Interesting, the Boston Herald, Mental Floss, Canino, Brian Brushwood, the Dayton Daily News, and others do all use that word when referring to the overall event. I strongly oppose any attempt to move this to a title with "scandal" in the name. Given your opposition to reliable sources who use that word, I'll repeat Ten Pound's Hammer: what title would you give the article about this event? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  (de-indent) "Michael Larson" works as a title. A term you'll also find in the sources, more commonly than "scandal" because Larson's name appears in all of them, while "scandal" only appears in some. It's funny you mention Mental Floss, because Mental Floss... has an entire article on Michael Larson, with the word "Scandal" never appearing, but "Michael Larson" appearing in the first sentence, clearly referenced in the title, and is the full subject of the article. Sounds notable. There is a weak different Mental Floss article in the WP article right now, yes, a content-farm listicle that spends 2 paragraphs on Larson and does indeed call it a scandal (link), but also generally seems clueless about the event, and gives only the most surface-level summary. Personally, I would favor the article entirely about Larson over the listicle's brief impression of the event.

  You're linking the no original research policy at me. Are you implying I got this knowledge from, I dunno, personally working at CBS or something? No. My stance is based on sources which make it very clear that it was not a scandal because Larson did not cheat. You can find sources that hype it up as if Larson cheated, yes, but they're lazy sources. Per WP:WTW, there is a much higher standard for weakly supported negative terms in the title. Merely being used in some sources is not enough for words like "scandal". Larson is dead so it's not technically a BLP issue, but we still shouldn't be calling something a scandal that wasn't actually cheating. SnowFire (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.