Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Pyramid scheme

I think section 4 of the current article needs to be split like:

"Controversary and legal issues

Criminal investigation"

.

Tate was accused of running a pyramid scheme with his hustlers university programme and there seems to be no mention of it in the article.

Here are sources regarding this: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (tried my best to arrange from most reliable to least reliable out of these sources) Also add page to Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes GR86 (📱) 10:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence is included under Andrew Tate#Big Brother and online ventures: Daniel Angus, a professor of digital communications at Queensland University of Technology, stated the affiliate program had "all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme". The article previously featured an unattributed claim, but this was deemed inappropriate, see this discussion. With the exception of The Guardian (and possibly Middle East Eye, but this is somewhat contested), none of the sources you list above appear reliable. Secondary sources state that the platform has been "described" as a pyramid scheme. Claims like these require attribution ("Precisely who has described the platform as a pyramid scheme?"). Even if the claims were factual, which they are not, it would be inappropriate for us to categorize the article with Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes because Andrew Tate cannot be a pyramid scheme. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit: I've edited this reply for conciseness a few days after posting it, solely to avoid discouraging new editors with a wall of text; see the old revision here: [7])

Agreed on all points, although:

As a marketer, I do feel obliged to point out that Hustler's University (henceforth HU) being called a pyramid scheme is quite easily falsifiable. It's a single-level (not multi-level) affiliate marketing scheme, similar in kind to those used by Amazon, Uber, and other repuable companies (and many marketer friends of mine). There are no "downlines" in affiliate marketing, like there are in MLMs; there's no "pyramid".

According to the U.S. government, there is no real product that is sold in a pyramid scheme. Participants attempt to make money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. [8]

Given that WP:RS themselves claim that HU included copywriting, dropshipping, and cryptotrading courses, it demonstrably doesn't qualify, and the sources are contradicting themselves. It's a pretty egregiously basic factual mistake for the quoted professors to make, akin to saying that "Einstein discovered gravity".

Given that ABC is the only WP:RS making that claim outright, and that those allegations seem to have come entirely from Twitter and reddit (see WP:RSBREAKING, and that ABC is essentially contradicting itself, and that pyramid scheme is a potentially libellous legal term (and a crime), not a colloquial term, I'd support removal. It's definitely frustrating to see uneducated journalists make truly egregiously false claims about your industry, when you know they're wrong. DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hard disagree. Reliably published and attributed quote by a tenured professor and somewhat of an expert in an adjacent field. With all due respect, while you may disagree with Daniel Angus's opinions, your own analysis of the platform has no bearing on inclusion of content. Since this is not an RS issue at its core, I don't think RSN is the appropriate venue.

Some constructive criticism: I worry that formatting and length of your talk page messages might discourage editors from participating in these threads, so I urge you, if at all possible, to keep your comments to a necessary minimum. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd usually agree, but I feel more conflicted given this is a BLP.

Would the first criteria of WP:EXCEPTIONAL:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

As well as WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. not be applicable here? DFlhb (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is an allegation noted in several RS (NBC News, The Times, Sky News (factual claim), and The Guardian), and we're using this academic's quote to reflect that in a manner compliant with BLP policy. Note that Angus is relatively conservative in his commentary; he does not argue that Hustler's University is a pyramid scheme, but has all the hallmarks of it. I see no issues here whatsoever. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair; the claim hasn't been made by multiple WP:RS, but it has been covered as the policies I linked say. I actually had the same thoughts, which is why I chose not to bring it up earlier; I just felt like getting a second opinion. I will note though, that Sky News is Murdoch press, which I definitely wouldn't consider WP:RS (same reasons as Fox News). Also just saw your addition to the previous reply; point taken, I'll do my best to be concise. DFlhb (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Not all "Murdoch press" is considered outright unreliable. For topics "other than politics and science" Fox News is actually considered generally reliable, see WP:FOXNEWS. I believe you're confusing Sky News Australia, which has a heavy conservative bias, with Sky News (UK), which has a different owner and is considered by at least some editors to be perfectly usable. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I did confuse the two. I don't know if WP has a guideline on this (nor do I want to digress too much from the main point) but I'd argue Tate would be covered under "politics", since he seems mostly known for his political views; the same way I wouldn't trust Fox or the Daily Beast for coverage of other political influencers. DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but that's beside the point because Sky News (UK) is not owned by a Murdoch company (it is owned by Sky Group whose parent is Comcast), and not all Murdoch-owned press is considered outright unreliable on politics anyway, that's a consensus specific to Fox News. All that to say that I'm not arguing to use Sky News (UK) to support a factual claim; I think we can leave it as is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, zero disagreement; I wasn't clear enough that my comment wouldn't apply to Sky News UK; just a general observation that did digress from the main point. DFlhb (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(I'm only adding this reply for the sake of not accidentally creating a false consensus, once this discussion gets archived. My comments above come across as very conciliatory, which wasn't my intent; I want to make clear that I'm still very strongly, not weakly, in favor of removal, I only adopted a softer tone since I feel such a removal would need affirmative consensus, which isn't met here. I think WP:VNOT and WP:RSBREAKING should apply quite strongly in cases of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, especially for BLP claims. I can easily see how this happened, if a journalist described something incorrectly, inadvertently or not, to an expert, in order to get a quote; I think there's unequivocally zero chance they would have said this if they had been given an accurate description (even if it had been an incredibly biased but still factual description)). DFlhb (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how RSBREAKING is pertinent here. RSBREAKING applies to news stories that are breaking, i.e. events that have literally just occurred (within a matter of minutes or perhaps a day) and are hastily reported on. This is not what I would consider this ABC News article; it's much more along the lines of exposée/explainer-type journalism as it not only includes a recitation of recent events (like breaking news = primary sources), but also analysis thereof (secondary sources). You're drawing a few conclusions about the publisher here that are not at all substantiated. You imply above that you believe the author of the ABC News article did not give Angus an accurate description of the platform (if they had been given an accurate description [...]). This claim has no verifiable basis, it's just your assumption. It might very well have been the case that Angus did extensive research of his own and drew conclusions based on that. What this seems to come down to is your personal disagreement with published analysis. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What this seems to come down to is your personal disagreement with published analysis True. Though my beliefs about the journalist are the conclusions of my analysis, not the basis of it, again I consider this akin to "Einstein invented gravity", so the experts being misled is the only plausible explanation. I've sent them very polite emails asking for clarification (out of curiosity).

The specific reason I claim WP:RSBREAKING is that it is breaking; none of the stories were about HU itself, they were about Tate's ban. All the articles covering this accusations came within 4 days of each other (save the Times, which only asks his opinion on it, makes no claim, and seems to deem it non-notable: some called it rather than "many", or "seems to be"), all repeating a claim that I know (without, I feel, the need for interpretation, since it's a purely factual question) is by definition and by necessity contradictory with WP:RS's other claims (crypto trading, copywriting courses).

The critically important context is that the articles, which were released in very short succession, were immediately preceded by extremely viral pyramid scheme accusations on TikTok and Twitter (this TikTok video [9], got 20 million views!, and was one of many; and though it was posted in July, that whole genre went viral with Tate's ban, immediately before the stories were published). That's critically important context. Most sources simply mention the viral accusations (WP:BLPGOSSIP). Only 2 sources total actually make the accusation (ABC and Sky), one of which isn't usable for this kind of BLP claim (see the total lack of consensus on Sky Australia here), and which again were written within days of each other. IMO it does qualify for WP:RSBREAKING. Funny how the least reliable source (Sky) is the only one outright making the claim. Which leaves us with only one source: ABC (which I agree is very reputable in general) attributes the allegation rather than making a claim, but one of the experts was clearly misled since he explicitly refers to a multi-level scheme (People up the top with a high engagement rate will be making a profit for sure.), which contradicts ABC's own description.

I'm also not certain this qualifies as notable. It's not like WP:RS did exposes on HU; most just mention HU (& either the accusations themselves, or just his denials) in passing while explaining Tate's social media virality, in the context of his ban. I'd feel differently if WP:RS published stories and exposes about HU, rather than just mentioning it in passing. We simply don't need to amplify false viral claims; and we thankfully do already describe the actual details of HU, including the details of its social media manipulation, at length here. I do admit that WP:RSBREAKING isn't clearcut here, but given the heightened requirements for WP:BLP, I think it applies.

(made this as concise as I could!) DFlhb (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You're interpreting RSBREAKING very liberally, too liberally in my opinion. Note that breaking news stories are considered primary sources (!) because they are effectively a transcript of recent events without any significant analysis added. This is obviously not the case here; the ABC News article is clearly a secondary source. The Sky News article cited above was not published by Sky News Australia but by Sky News (UK). Again, these publishers have exactly nothing in common but the logo. I thought we'd been through this. None of your other points convince me that this is "non-notable". A multitude of reliable sources note that these allegations have been made, however flimsy they may be, and that in and of itself is encyclopedically relevant. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops; I did understand the distinction between the two, I just somehow got them switched up while writing my reply (I came to think Sky UK was the Murdoch one, and that Sky AU was surprisingly also bad). That's completely my bad, I'll strikethrough.

I agree they do note it, and such virality can be argued to be notable; I'm wary of sourcing it to someone with more crediblity than random social media users, without being confident that this expert is providing his own proper analysis.

I'm not sure RSBREAKING is so clearcut. I don't think ABC is doing any analysis on HU; they just describe it, then quote experts; they're entirely descriptive, not critical or analytical. They never make claims, support them by arguments, and address objections. Actual investigative analysis reads very differently. An entire NYT expose specifically about HU being a scam would certainly be secondary, but that's not the case here. I think you're counting mere opinion as analysis. [Economist article] is quintessential analysis; ABC couldn't be further away from it. But even if we accept that they analyse HU, they never provide any analysis of the experts' claims, or contextualization within an argument; they just quote them, and the section ends there. I think for the experts' quotes to qualify as secondary, ABC would need to analyze them, not use them to analyze HU (and according to Sangdeboeuf's comments on the talk page I'm about to link, that's the scholarly consensus on primary vs secondary). ABC doesn't "build on" the quotes, so I'd say they remain primary. I'd suggest you see this essay, which is nicely sourced, and this talk page discussion specifically, since it's very relevant here.

In one example of news reports as secondary sources, that essay says: The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information. Pretty clear that's not the case here. DFlhb (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know why we're arguing about the ABC News article being secondary. No, the section does not end after Angus's quote. It goes on. And on. With analysis of the platform. I encourage anyone reading this to verify this for themselves by having a look at the article. I'm very well aware of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As opposed to the essay you quote, that article does not feature one or two comments. It features quite a few more. Were your extremely broad standard for breaking news sources applied to other sources cited in this article, we'd probably be looking at a 80-20 ratio of primary sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 02:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this. The section has a pure description In this case, the product that was being sold was Andrew Tate's Hustlers University. The students were promoting their own course and teacher. Tate's followers flooded TikTok, Youtube and Instagram with videos promoting both Tate and the program, so they'd get a cut of the $50 sign-up fee., then quotes Angus and Harrigan, all the way to the next section heading. Those are all quotes.

"Pyramid scheme" allegations are never mentioned again in the article. It does mention HU again, but I fail to see how that's an "analysis" of pyramid scheme allegations. It talks about people having a "stake", HU having "tens of thousands of members", "a scheme to game platform algorithms", "economic interest and ideological interest" (the commission). Then the last section, named: Tate's success will encourage others, which is again a factual description of the affiliate program being shut down, and a discussion of why there'll be copycats.

None of this is analysis of pyramid scheme allegations. The only mention of pyramid scheme is the quotes (and a "Key Point" on the side The "pyramid scheme" targeted vulnerable young men that adds nothing). There is objectively zero analysis either of the pyramid scheme allegation or of the quotes themselves. I do invite anyone to verify this.

Not only are there indeed only 2 comments about pyramid scheme allegations, but again there's zero analysis. They are primary sources, and therefore can't be included for a contentious BLP matter. I would hope difference in tone between the ABC piece and the Economist piece I linked would be stark enough to make my point clear that no sentence of that entire article classifies as an analysis of pyramid claims. The fact that I have zero issues with the Economist, or with 99% of the stuff on Andrew Tate should make it clear that my standard is not extremely broad; for example, when WP:RS denounce his misogyny, they analyse said misogyny at length. That's not done here. Frankly the more we discuss this, the more convinced I am that we haven't even met even basic standards for inclusion on this.

Could you quote here directly what "analysis" you see, not necessarily of the quoted experts, but of the pyramid scheme allegations in general? DFlhb (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these 3,000 byte back-and-forths between (mostly) the two of us are desirable in shaping the article, so I will withdraw for now and wait for other editors to chime in. If they don't, opening a request for comment might be a solution. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think waiting for now is reasonable. DFlhb (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm disappointed to see that you've gone so far as to claim that publications discussed in this thread have lied. You're accusing publications of intentionally and knowingly publishing false information when you've already admitted that your cause is a mere disagreement with someone's analysis. I'm afraid to say that this edit also borders on canvassing; the editor you pinged and directed to this discussion was evidently already sympathetic to your POV in that discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 02:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

when you've already admitted that your cause is a mere disagreement with someone's analysis I mispoke there. What I meant is that it is my view, and I'm not published like them, so I understand I have a burden to convince editors. I don't believe it's analysis; and the claims are objectively false; I think that's incontrovertible given the evidence advanced by WP:RS themselves.

Though you're completely right that intent is quite unlikely. I actually had no clue "lie" implied intent until I looked it up just now, believe it or not. Here, I meant to say they're saying false things; I take back "lie"; I've modified my comment there. I hope this clarification lessens your disappointment.

Re: canvassing: ouch, yes. I've removed it, and I do apologize, that wasn't my intent at all. I apologize profusely for that; I'll be extremely careful from now on. DFlhb (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to take away from the above, but I forgot to respond to the "ping" part: I only pinged that user because he explicitly requested that in his comment; there was nothing to that at all. DFlhb (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the US government's definition of a pyramid scheme: the government isn't so naive that it accepts flimsy, low-value products as adequate for these purposes. It's extremely common for these schemes to provide "training courses" or "networking opportunities" or similar filler and for them to get shut-down anyway. Category:Defunct multi-level marketing companies is just the tip of the iceberg. The standard set out by In re Amway Corp. is specific, and cannot be easily bypassed by running a chatroom and a few livestreams. If any reliable source is talking about Hustler's University following any of these guidelines, I sure haven't seen it. So from experience editing these articles, nothing about this seems like a contradiction to me, much less an extraordinary claim.

Since Hustler's University is a redirect to this article, that redirect itself can be added to categories, as long as it is supported as WP:CATDEF in this article. People searching categories for relevant articles would likely want to find this article, so if this can be included, it would be nice, but it does still need to be strongly supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the links. The contradiction doesn't come from HU being "an MLM" that offers courses, it comes from HU being an affiliate marketing scheme (described as such in all sources) which by definition cannot have multiple levels. I agree that many MLMs are only a hair's width away from pyramid schemes (I think all MLMs should be illegal). I'll just note a few dissimilarities with affiliate schemes like HU: a) there's only one level, not multiple; b) if you make one referral, and that guy does 10 referrals, you just get a cut for your one, not for 11; c) new investors' profits are not redistributed to older investors, since there is zero profit redistribution in affiliate marketing; you earn a cut of each sale you make; make 0, earn 0; therefore the incentive is not "I recruit so I don't go bankrupt", just "make a sale, get a cut."

Re: categories: I searched, and don't believe we have an "Alleged pyramid schemes category"; I don't feel including it in Category:Pyramid schemes would be appropriate given the level of sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm noticing now that the part of affiliate marketing article which says it is "different" from MLMs has had a CN tag since September 2012. That tells me that someone made this up at least ten years ago and nobody bothered to fix it. A more complicated version of affiliate marketing is still affiliate marketing. The purpose of the added, artificial complexity is obfuscation, it doesn't alter the model itself. Therefor, a think a more common definition places MLMs as a subset of affiliate marketing.

It appears from sources on this that people were buying into Hustler's University in order to get an affiliate code. That's at least partly what hustle means, as a reference to "hustle culture"... Right? That's, charitably, a franchise, and it's reasonable to go from that to franchise fraud, and from there to "pyramid scheme". Ultimately we have to follow sources, here. We can, and should, reflect this to the extent that reliable sources do, but as I said, nothing about this seems particularly remarkable or surprising. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A more complicated version of affiliate marketing is still affiliate marketing.

No; MLM is not affiliate marketing, and affiliate marketing isn't MLM, and the scholarship is unanimous on this. The rare AM papers that mention MLM (most AM papers never do) are clear:

• [10]: MLM is a "tangential" marketing model to AM (true, they both include financial rewards for referrals; but again, they're separte; affiliate is one-level)
• [11] frames MLM and AM as both "subtypes" of viral marketing (true).
• [12] this textbook has a chapter on AM, but defines it as single-level, and never refers to MLM.

It appears from sources on this that people were buying into Hustler's University in order to get an affiliate code. I haven't anything that specific in any source (speaking to the lack of analysis, see above). And "hustle" means having a "side income"; I don't know what it has to do with affiliate codes. That's, charitably, a franchise, and it's reasonable to go from that to franchise fraud, and from there to "pyramid scheme" That is an huge misreading of the definition of a franchise. Affiliates in AM are not franchises, see USA today [13] There is no "pyramid" since, as I've explained, there is zero profit redistribution to earlier investors in AM. There is no exception to this, since affiliate marketers are not investors; they are paid purely on performance and have zero rights to any non-commission profits (again, see the textbook). There is zero forced inventory purchasing in AM, since you never buy inventory to resell it; you only ever bring clients to the businesse's sales page, with your affiliate code (again, I suggest you read the textbook since I think you seem to misunderstand what AM is). AM only ever consists of putting up links to redirect to a merchant's ordering process, and getting a cut if someone clicks your link. No MLM meets that definition.

All I've seen is a few MLM companies in Google search results try to call themselves "affiliate marketing" to rebrand themselves as something less obviously scammy. MLMs pretending they are just affiliate marketing is the obfuscation you're talking about. The New York Times[14], WSJ[15], Le Monde[16] all participate in affiliate programs. Amazon[17], Shopify[18], Google[19], Uber[20], Microsoft[21], Walmart[22], Apple[23], Barnes & Nobles[24] all run affiliate programs. I could keep going. All WP:RS have described HU as single-level. Again, my contention is that the passages on "pyramid" are primary, not secondary, and that all of them refer to a single-level program which by definition cannot be a pyramid, therefore objectively contradicting themselves, and not meeting the standards for inclusion for a contentious BLP matter. DFlhb (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't accept that those sources are reliable for the claim that MLM and affiliate marketing are completely separate. The textbook doesn't mention multi-level marketing at all as far as I can see, so using it to make a claim about MLM is WP:SYNTH. The others, to the extent they are reliable, also appear to be synth, but if I'm wrong, there are other talk pages to explain that.

I'm also not interested in defending or attacking the supposed legitimacy of all affiliate marketing as a concept. I do not care that various large corporations, each with their own ethical and legal problems, use this scheme.

"Pyramid scheme" is a famously hard to define, by design. Even within US law it's not cut-and-dry, and this article isn't a courtroom, so we instead just use sources and trust readers to understand that words sometimes have broad meanings. The Wikipedia article for Amway, for example, notes that it has been called a "legal pyramid scheme". Is that a contradiction in terms? By some definitions, yes, but it is also a useful way to explain something to readers at the appropriate level, and that's our goal. It's also the goal of those sources which point out the similarities between Hustler's University and a pyramid scheme. So, if you're willing to use the most generous definition of "hustle" but then insist on the most rigorous definition of "pyramid scheme", that will only make the article less neutral and explaining all this to readers more difficult.

So instead of digging through obscure sources to defend the honor of affiliate marketing, please find a source for Hustler's University. Specifically, I would like a source which explain what, exactly, people were paying for, and also, whether or not participants were required to be active, paying members in order to qualify for the affiliate program. This is information that would benefit the article, and would also help explain if and how this (defunct) affiliate program is different from Walmart or whatever. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel continuing back-and-forth on this would benefit other editors, so I'll withdraw after this post. Just want to clarify a few things.

• WP:SYNTH doesn't apply; we're not trying a passage on affiliate marketing in the article; I was just discuting your incorrect assertion that MLM was a version of affiliate marketing. Also I don't believe the sources other than the textbook were SYNTH.
• My sources were representative; it was hard to find them precisely because practically no source mentions both AM and MLM in the same paper, since they're not related. One is responsible for 20% of ecommerce revenues in America, and the other is a scam that results in 99% of people losing money. One is a traditional "you work, you get paid" arrangement, one is a get-rich-quick scam where new members' money is redistributed to cover old members' debts.
• I think comparing Amway to Hustler's University is strange; again I don't seem to be getting through that 1) AM and MLMs are entirely separate, and 2) the question is definitional, i.e. not it isn't; but rather it can't be, since it cannot meet any of the criteris and still be called affiliate marketing. Feel free to read peer-reviewed studies that define AM. I believe you've fallen for the (extremely common and quite desperate) MLM propaganda where they attempt to 'normalize' themselves by adopting mainstream labels. MLM practicioners are the only people claiming MLM and AM are similar.

Again I'll take a step back here for now. Appreciate your responses so far. DFlhb (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pyramid scheme" update

One of the professors quoted by ABC replied to me to clarify, here's what he said:

What we meant by pyramid scheme in the article was in social media terms only, which is an engagement pyramid.

Social media, and engaged followers is the only way HU sustains itself. That is, members need to maintain an engaged following by posting and sharing content, some of their followers will do the same, and some of their followers will do the same. Ultimately a percentage will climb the pyramid, which will increase HU's membership, and sustain the cycle.

I will reach out to the journalist to try to clarify.

I'm willing to provide screenshots + email headers + DKIM for proof if there's a proper private process for that, e.g. to an admin.

Just as I thought; "pyramid scheme" being used in an economic sense wouldn't make sense for experts. It was being used only in a social media sense ("social media engagement pyramid" [25]), not to refer to a business model, which we clearly all misinterpreted here. (See what I meant when I said the ABC article does zero analysis? If it had, this would have been clear from the start, since they would have contextualized those two quotes better and discussed their meaning.) I appreciate other editors for not assuming I'm coming as this from a PoV of bias for the subject, and giving me the benefit of the doubt that I did see a problem here.

It turns out we did completely misinterpret the source, meaning that our readers certainly will too. Since it's a contentious BLP matter, I've removed that sentence, per WP:BLPRS. The notion of "social media engagement pyramid" is perfectly notable though, so we should be on the lookout for any update from ABC to include a proper quote that wouldn't be misinpreted. Once that happens, we can discuss what new wording to include here. DFlhb (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this not WP:OR? Most people reading the source would interpret it to mean the common usage of "pyramid scheme", i.e. the economic kind. Getting insider info that clarifies that's not really what the source meant seems outside the scope of Wiki editing. WPscatter ^t/_c 07:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We couldn't quote a private email in Wikipedia, that would be WP:OR; but we should absolutely strive not to misinterpret sources, especially for a contentious BLP claim. We have clear indication that the expert meant something quite different from what we thought; but there isn't enough context in the article to give an accurate paraphrase without WP:OR (since the article literally never mentions the term "engagement pyramid"), so the best thing to do is wait for ABC's update, then add "engagement pyramid" back in. Keep in mind that interviewees have zero control over how their quotes are rendered or contextualized, BTW. DFlhb (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If ABC actually updates the words of the article to support this change, I suppose we could use it. If an update never comes, I'm satisfied leaving it as is. No matter how the interviewee intended his words to be taken, ABC reported it how they did, and we interpreted it how we did, and worded the article based on that. Askarion ✉ 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

we interpreted it how we did I fully appreciate that, and attribute zero fault to any editors here since the comments seem to have been out of context in the article; but given that the interview subject himself said we were wrong, I don't see why we need to be misleading (as User:Wpscatter notes, "economic" would be what most readers would like interpret it as, and I'd say that misleading readers as to an expert's claim should certainly warrant removal from a WP:BLP). He said he'd reach out to ABC, so hopefully we'll get a usable citation on "social media engagement pyramid" soon, whose inclusion I'd support since it's notable and would, then, be reliably sourced. DFlhb (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is, the source is misleading, therefore the article is misleading. Changing the article to the "real" meaning breaks verifiability. Until a RS posts the clarification you received privately, it has no place in the article. I would be on board with removing the statement altogether until that happens, but not adding the OR-sourced correct interpretation. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Without this private knowledge attained by DFlhb, nobody would have ever known that the quote was intended to have a different meaning. We'd be crossing a line removing the quote solely based on that. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I argue that we don't need an airtight reason to remove a quote from an article. Otherwise why not add a quote from every news article ever written about him? WPscatter ^t/_c 17:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

nobody would have ever known that the quote was intended to have a different meaning

I did, since I knew quite a lot from the beginning about "affiliate marketing" and "pyramid scheme", and knew it had to lack significant context. That's why I reached out to him in the first place. You quote policy, but content removal matters, specifically claims that may be out of context or misleading, is explicitly a consensus-based process. DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Until a RS posts the clarification you received privately, it has no place in the article

Just to clarify, since you're replying to me: I supported removal until a better source can be found, not rewording. DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Our BLP policy does not override WP:OR. Your findings are entirely based on a private email thread, meaning the information you base your removal on is not verifiable. Just as we do not include information based on OR, we do not exclude information based on it, as I stated in my edit summary. I refer back to Talk:Andrew Tate#Pyramid scheme for continued discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your revert. I found absolutely nothing in WP:OR that states we can't base removal on an expert disagreeing with an article's framing of his words. To the contrary:

• WP:OR states: Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research, as well as Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.
• Specifically on contextualizing expert quotations: WP:NOTOR states: It is not original research to contextualize a possibly misleading quotation, provided this is done accurately and neutrally. [..] In fact, it would be a misuse of the source material to fail to clarify the quotation, much less to try to use it to suggest that all American cats, normal and polydactyl alike, share a common ancestor.
• WP:Content removal states that potentially inaccurate additions should remain out of BLPs pending consensus.

You say policy is on your side, I disagree. Furthermore, policies are only here to guide consensus, there are no rules. Do you genuinely believe this addition makes the article better, given the missing context shown by the email? Again, I'd never oppose inclusion of a bit on a "social media engagement pyramid". But we already discuss HU at length in a whole paragraph, and I don't see how the quote, as it currently stands, adds anything. DFlhb (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Kickboxing record

I've gone to my national library, and done some online research. I found good sources for a bunch of fights, which I've added. The fight record seems clearly WP:NOTABLE WP:DUE overall.

• The consensus in the archives (with the exception of User:Throast) was that inclusion was warranted if good sources were found. I've been quite meticulous and rigorous, and checked that every source I use had good enough editorial policies, so I think inclusion is now warranted.
• I've added many citations, more than usual for a Wikipedia fight record. IMO, judging by the archives and edit summaries, some editors seem to have disproportionaly higher verifiability requirements for this fight record compared to other fighter BLPs, as a reaction to possible past WP:CANVASSING (judging by the archives), so I'd highly appreciate if each and every citation were kept for the next little while, rather than removed per WP:MOS, so all editors can assure themselves that each fight is accurately noted. I also think I archived every link, but please check.
• The fight record is still largely incomplete. I didn't manage to access many archives, including for local British media, or defunct kickboxing magazines. I'll keep researching, hopefully we can make this record complete eventually.
• I've seen two editors on WP:RSN dispute Tapology as a usable source. One claimed that Tapology had user-submitted content, and another simply agreed. That's incorrect; Tapology requires that each fight result be entered by their own staff.[26]. I've made sure the same is true for each and every fight databases I cite, including MuayThaiTV, BoxRec, Sherdog, and MMA Underground.
• Some sources are primary but independent (the International Sport Kickboxing Association and International Kickboxing Federation, which sanctioned many of the fights), and are certainly usable as sources. Some are secondary (media reports). Some are reputable national news organizations (24UR), while some are tabloids, which WP:RSN consensus agrees can still be used for sports coverage.

DFlhb (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is curious to see how stringent you are when it comes to biographical content (especially with regards to reliance on reliable secondary sources) as opposed to here. The underlying question here is not whether the information is notable (the guideline does not apply to content within articles), but whether sacrificing as much "real estate" for Tate's kickboxing record—which is covered minimally relative to other things he is notable for—is due. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, i.e. not every notable professional kickboxer needs his exhaustive fighting record laid out in their Wikipedia article, and we should let secondary sources guide us in regard to the relevance of content. You've now loaded up the table with (mostly) primary sources, which we are explicitly discouraged from using to such a large extent. My opinion is still that the material is undue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I did mean WP:DUE rather than WP:NOTABLE. Coverage is clearly significant and durable enough that it would be highly WP:UNDUE (and very unusual by Wikipedia standards of other fighter BLPs) to leave the fight record out, especially given that the vast majority of sources, even 33 of those we cite about his recent controversies, mention his kickboxing career in passing. We're not talking about an amateur kickboxer who fought twice and quit, here.

There are, by my count:

• 39 secondary sources covering his Kickboxing career, which lasted from 2006 to 2020 (14 years total),
• 11 sources covering the Big Brother and online ventures" section, which is longer than the Kickboxing section, and accounts for 7 years

So covered minimally seems inaccurate. If anything, the Kickboxing section isn't long enough. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument is unconvincing, since:

• the fight records are at the end, as with all fight records on Wikipedia, therefore not detracting from other sections in any way
• the fight records match WP:INDISCRIMINATE criteria 3, and violate none of its other criteria. The fights are properly organized in tables; the tables are not excessively long; and splitting off into another article isn't warranted.
• none of the WP:UNDUE criteria are met. Both WP:DUE and WP:BLPBALANCE explicitly refer to viewpoints, which aren't relevant here.

I'm not seeing any basis for your WP:UNDUE argument here. DFlhb (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

So you did mean DUE, but you didn't mean DUE because none of the criteria apply? 36 secondary sources? You do agree that fight records published by news orgs and articles that amount to fight transcripts do not constitute secondary sources? Coverage refers to coverage in secondary, not primary, sources of course. I thought that would be obvious. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I bolded secondary, since I did not include primary sources in that number. And yes, I did mean due, since again the coverage is extensive enough. DFlhb (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are they? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I quote local, regional, and national media outlets, as well as specialist publications from several countries, which are again secondary. They're clearly there, so I'm sensing a bit of a combative tone from you; let's keep the discussion based on arguments. You cite both WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I've addressed both with arguments, which you haven't addressed. I don't want us to disagree with each other for the sake of disagreeing.

What specifically, in your mind, makes the fight record of a fighter, widely covered as a fighter, whose post-career coverage also overwhelmingly mentions his fighting career including, frequently, his titles, who was number 2 in the world in 2012, undue? You are, to be mild, applying a wildly higher standard than is applied to every other fighter BLP.

For fighters, the notability (not dueness) guidelines for fighters are fighting 3 pro fights, fighting for the highest title of a top organization, or being ranked top 10 in their division worldwide. He meets all three in kickboxing, and meets one in MMA, and based on that, merits both an article, and obviously inclusion of his fight record, even if he wasn't notable for anything else. Plenty of people with less extensive fight records are considered notable. And when someone is notable for their fight career, their fight record has always been considered automatically WP:DUE; that's the standard every fighter BLP is held to. If he wasn't this controversial, I truly doubt inclusion of his record would be remotely contentious.

This article isn't meant to just reflect NYT coverage, it should reflect all coverage. And your earlier assertion that it's covered minimally relative to other things he is notable is clear WP:RECENTISM, caused by a news spike that only lasted a few short weeks. DFlhb (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We've had a similar disagreement when we discussed the infobox: BLP content is not determined by precedent; it is determined on a case-by-case basis. I would like you to list those sources here for further discussion since I'm apparently having a hard time distinguishing primary and secondary sources out of the ones you've added to the table. This plethora of secondary sources would also help to significantly expand the kickboxing section. I'm sure all of those 39 sources conveniently do not fall under WP:PRIMARYNEWS, an essay you quoted to support your argument that the ABC News article is primary. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure all of those 39 sources conveniently do not fall under WP:PRIMARYNEWS, an essay you quoted to support your argument that the ABC News article is primary.

Your tone is simply inappropriate.

I consider your attempt to equivocate between fight records and contentious BLP claims (whose own author agreed were misleadingly contextualized) to be borderline WP:UNCIVIL. Primary sources are commonly used for sports results on Wikipedia. None one of my proposals on this page so far have been unreasonable, whether you disagree with them or not. You were the only one in the archives arguing WP:UNDUE, but I don't find your arguments so far convincing.

The following secondary sources cover his fights specifically: MMA Weekly, MMA Underground, Sports Argus, Fighters Magazine, Luton Today, Nottingham Post, Yamabushi (specialist source), Boxe Magazine, 24UR (national press), La Provence (major regional newspaper), La Dépêche du Midi (same), Le Dauphiné (same), Aktuality.sk (national press), Combat Press (specialist), Sidekick Boxing (same), Joe, the Daily Mirror, as well as MuayThaiTV, BoxingRec, and Tapology. It is the norm for fighter BLPs, not the exception, to not require extensive long-form articles in national press. See this page, for example, that was deemed notable enough for an AfC by WikiProject MMA, yet has far less secondary coverage than Tate. DFlhb (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel a minor need to address the two points you added in edits to your reply, since I didn't see them before writing my response, though you did make them before I submitted it. Don't feel a need to reply to this one if you don't want to; just clarifying things for other editors' sake:

• Additions shouldn't mainly rely on WP:PST, true, but I don't feel they do. I just tried to be as comprehensive as possible, precisely to avoid accusations of lack of coverage or cherrypicking. I feel quite good about the secondary sources.
• You also added: It is curious to see how stringent you are when it comes to biographical content (especially with regards to reliance on reliable secondary sources) as opposed to here. I'll be charitable and assume you weren't implying WP:CIVILPOV, but I think it's clear that there's a different bar between contentious BLP accusations, and straightforward fight results that we're even allowed to use tabloids for. The threshold for using primary sources is also somewhat relaxed for minor things like sports scores, and they're perfectly acceptable for filling in details.

I sincerely hope you're not mistaking me for a biased editor; I've never proposed taking any negative claims out of the lead (e.g. "misogynist"), nor did I ever try to add "positive" things or remove any negative accusations. Every single removal proposal I made was in relation to poor sourcing, and I feel they were all fully reasonable. I never had any intention other than improving the article, and helping Wikipedia's mission. You never outright accused me of WP:POVPUSHING, but I just want to clear the air since these repeated back-and-forths may have inadvertently created a certain tension or combativeness that neither of us wanted.

Cheers DFlhb (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Tate's Religion

It should be added that Tate is an Orthadox Christian, he stated that in an interview ItzConman23 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

We would need a WP:RS for that. I don't know if this would count. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate was raised by a black father and is called "mixed". Barack Obama wasn't raised by his black father and is called "African-American".

I am disturbed by this discrepancy and it almost seems like it is intentional and political. I'd like to add that I am noting whether their fathers were present to show that arguably more "blackness" was imparted to Tate, not to make a joke about the presence/absence of black fathers. Andrew Tate has called himself half African-American (Source: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/andrew-tate-claims-he-is-being-targeted-as-a-person-of-color-1900318/) and here we are letting some hit piece writer in the Atlantic define his race. This is beyond fucked up. Regardless of what you think of this guy, you shouldn't let others define him, especially when it's at odds with what he says he is. Look at how we treat malicious misgendering. This needs to be fixed. I'd like to add that Barack Obama said he was "black" on the census, and Wikipedia seems to reflect/respect that (see NYT article "Asked to Declare His Race, Obama Checks 'Black'". We should do the same here. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What? This falls under MOS:IDENTITY. As with anything, we go by reliable sources. If you want to discuss how the Barack Obama article discusses his identity, that article's talk page is the place, but compare Category:Books about Barack Obama to Category:Books about Andrew Tate. We work with what we have, y'know? What do reliable sources say about Tate's race? Just as importantly, why are sources talking about it at all? We don's assume this is important unless reliable sources explain why it's important.

But also, I'm not seeing where there is any contradiction? Like it or not, The Atlantic is much, much more reliable than Dexerto. Dexerto isn't a reliable source, it's a gossip site, but that gossip column does quote Tate as saying "I am half African-American..." which is the same thing this article says. That's part of what "multiracial" means, so what is the problem, here? Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Some people might be particular and choosy about these terms. I think we should just be sensitive across the board, even if it involves someone we may find detestable. Some people may dislike the word "mixed" because an antonym is "purebred", for example. I did find an example of Tate calling himself mixed, so I suppose I have no objection here anymore. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

Maybe reword the last sentence in the lede to say "Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted in widespread rebuke and bans from several platforms."? I think noting the outlash people had against him, not just the social media companies, might show how unliked he is, as people get banned off of social media for minor and often incorrect infractions all the time. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that "widespread rebuke" would need to be at the very least attributed ("rebuked by whom?") and is a distinct claim that would need to be sourced. At that point it would get a bit too wordy for a lead. I think the Social media section already covers notable criticisms quite well (and obviously attributes them), so I don't think we're anywhere close to WP:NPOV territory, but feel free to propose any other notable criticisms you think should be included there (as long as they're not too redundant with what we already present, and are well-sourced). DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Hello, I feel like this article is a little biased, just as an example; it states that Andrew Tate identifies as a misogynist, this is what's called a 'dark joke', if this edit was made to Andrew's page it should be made to other pages right? I want to state that he said these things as a joke and didn't mean it seriously. FV101V2 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I've briefly checked the primary source, and it seems to be an accurate quote; and (IIRC) several WP:RS have reported on it. DFlhb (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate doesn’t hate women

WP:NOTFORUM Madeline (part of me) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He only thinks that they don’t deserve to be treated the same as men. They go and have a baby, and what do you know! The other guy with the same job got a promotion while you were gone. THATS HOW IT WORKS. They carry tasers, pepperspray, guns even, just for protection from men. THEY CAN ALSO KILL MEN TOO. These are all facts, not opinions, and that is what Andrew Tate is talking about. 107.122.225.23 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Thanks DFlhb (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

86.126.53.22 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Avere 1 miliard de euro

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate social media ban

I made a longer message, but here i want to summarize "Social media company X banned Andrew Tate because" Is not a neutral statement It would be better to say: (YouTube example) Andrew Tate was permanently banned from Youtube. A YouTube spokeperson, Ivy Choi, said "We terminated channels associated with Andrew Tate for multiple violations of our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service, including our hate speech policy," Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-tate-instagram-facebook-ban-influencer-misogynistic-views/ (It's already been put as a source in this Wikipedia page) This should also be done for other platforms

There can also be done an improvement by adding the strike that was given to Andrew Tate YouTube channel some time before his ban, cited in an article that has already been put as a source, as i said before https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-tate-instagram-facebook-ban-influencer-misogynistic-views/ AkaneVento (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like these changes have already been made under "Social media bans". Meta, TikTok, and YouTube's reasons for banning or suspending his channels are listed and sourced. I think the wording is fairly neutral and is not presented as fact: Meta and YouTube are written as "Meta claimed he had violated their policy" and "YouTube also suspended his channel citing multiple violations". However, TikTok's wording might be construed as biased: "TikTok ... removed his account as well after determining that it violated their policies...", but not in a way that stacks the article against Tate, in my opinion. Individual strikes against his channel by YouTube might not be considered notable on its own, but I'd have to get a second opinion on that. Askarion ✉ 13:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

The hyperlink in “EuroWeekly News” on Early & personal life is improperly formatted, missing the two brackets at the start Epicalerick21 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022 (2)

Andrew Tate vs. Jarett Finau 2018. Ivan Salaverry MMA Seattle, Washington 164.116.126.200 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022 (3)

Reports of converting to Islam listed as 2020 under ‘early life’. Should be listed as 2022. Powershifu (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022 (4)

Andrew is now Muslim, update the page. He confirmed his conversion at 24 oct 22 2A02:C7C:3847:FD00:C468:EE1F:EF71:D4DF (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm seeing more sources trickle in, but no reliable sources that make this claim in their own voice. It's a lot of "reportedly"s and "according to social media"s. If anyone has seen otherwise, please link them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Social media bans

From what i understood reading sources, the spokepersons tried to give a reason for Andrews ban, but, publicly, that's really the only thing we got. They didn't tell what he did, the video, the clip or the phrase that got him banned, it's like if tomorrow i made somebody go to prison without giving any explanation, and then a few day laters i said "He murdered someone" without saying who or when, or even worse "Oh, he violated law. In multiple ways". Going back to my point, writing that "Company X banned Andrew Tate because" is incorrect. It would be better to say something like "After a lot of controversy and criticism, Andrew Tate got banned from X, W, Y" and add what the spokepersons of the companies said some time after the ban, and that they never went into detail of what he exactly did and stayed general

A quick thing that could also be added is that Andrew Tate joined Rumble (You can find good sources if you search online) shortly after his ban AkaneVento (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll address your last point first:

In archived discussions, some editors opposed mentioning Rumble, since they felt it wasn't covered by reliable sources. I've seen several WP:RS ([27], [28] and [29]) discuss his move to Rumble, and credit it for the platform's surge in popularity, which clearly merit inclusion.

Regarding your first point, we already say YouTube also suspended his channel citing multiple violations; I assume you're proposing similar wording for the Facebook/Instagram bans? What wording do you propose, that would avoid repetitiveness? DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you mistunderstood

My point was that "Company banned Andrew Tate for X reason" cannot be proved and is not a neutral statement

I'm not entirely sure if what the spokepersons of the companies said should even be on Wikipedia anyway

You could give it some context by saying things that happened before the final ban, like, as i said above "After a lot of controversy and criticism, Andrew Tate got banned from", but not what is written now AkaneVento (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The campaign to deplatform him was well-covered in source, so I think you're right that it should be included; I've added that, and rephrased the sentence slightly to make it flow better. DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(This section was removed on October 22 in this edit, and restored on October 25. Please don't delete discussions once others have contributed to them, per WP:TPO) DFlhb (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

When talking about his father the article says "His African-American father, Emory Tate, was a chess International Master." It should say "a chess International Master and United States Air Force veteran." Flyingfishee (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is my request being ignored? Am I submitting this in the wrong way or something? This is my first time requesting an edit so I might have set it up incorrectly. Flyingfishee (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Flyingfishee: My concern is that I barely see support for International Master in the source; I don't see anything about the father having served in the Air Force. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred There are plenty of good sources on the Emory Tate article. Flyingfishee (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree with User:Flyingfishee here; there's good sources on both claims, including an print biography (Triple Exclam), a Chess.com biography, and a US Chess Federation biography. And one could no doubt find old newspaper articles by digging through archive.org or Google. DFlhb (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Add Andrew tate religion and write: muslim 102.164.97.63 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Religion = Islam 2409:4054:109:41CD:F13F:A7C7:DD32:9D01 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Noted in the Social media presence section (not the best place, but there's no separate section for his personal life currently) and in categories. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)