Talk:Andrew Tate

In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe.[21]

The source cited here is notoriously unreliable (see: TheTAB discussion page on wikipedia) and this quote is taken way out of context. In the video Tate clarifies he has no intention on every committing rape, he just "likes the idea of being free" 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The Tab is cited nowhere in the article. This GQ UK article (a publication which hasn't been thoroughly discussed at WP:RSN but seems perfectly usable) supports this information. This talk page discussion affirmed the phrasing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

After reading the passage again, I do wonder if it's appropriate to include this in the "Criminal investigations" section rather than including it alongside social media controversies. Given that this is a BLP, it seems to violate WP:SYNTH quite clearly. GQ merely lists it alongside other social media statements. DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's just context. Without it, readers would wonder what a Brit was doing in Romania. It could be moved to a new "personal life" section, although that would look a little awkward. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; the infobox already states he is in Romania. Given the context, the sentence could imply premeditation; I think it goes somewhat over the WP:NPOV line by implying subtly that the allegations were tacitly admitted by the subject. I also think it's self-explanatory that the Romanian police wouldn't raid a house in England. DFlhb (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox states that he fought out of Romania at some point in time, so some context is required. I hear your SYNTH concerns tho. How about moving it right after [...] to accuse him of infidelity in the social media presence section? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good place to put it.

If you think his move to Romania needs to be stated explicitly, we could add:

"Tate moved to Romania in 2017." [1]

To avoid the same SYNTH concerns, I don't think this should be put in the Investigations section; the Culture section seems much better, probably after mentioning the webcam studio, since in an interview with the Mirror [2], Tate said that the move to Romania happened a few years after their first webcam studio. This is a primary source, but I think that's acceptable given that it's only being used to establish a timeline, not to back claims up. DFlhb (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The culture section? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I meant the Career section. I'm getting my articles mixed up. DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit out of place there without further info, but perhaps you can expand on that if you like. If his statements in the Mirror interview are in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, they can be used. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out where to add that; but I've improved the wording and added some detail (Stripe) from an already cited source. DFlhb (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad, when I checked it it was. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That being said, the passage is still misleading for the reasons outlined above. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the sentiment in the GQ article is echoed in several reliable sources. As has been stated on this talk page many times, we do not use Wikipedia articles to amplify subjects' POV. We summarize what reliable secondary sources have to say about a given subject. If—in Tate's opinion—sources misinterpret his words as frequently as he claims they do, he should probably consider making himself more clear in the first place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

apex legends banned the nick "Andrew Tate"

"On 3rd September 2022, an Apex Legends player tweeted their report from EA stating that using “Andrew Tate” as a username in their game is now bannable according to their Positive Play Charter." There are multiple sources you can find online about this, but i will put a few https://www.ginx.tv/en/apex-legends/ea-bans-players-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-in-apex-legends https://www.dexerto.com/apex-legends/apex-legends-is-reportedly-banning-players-for-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-1922442/ AkaneVento (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't great sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to open an RSN discussion about Ginx. I've seen it used a bit for gaming news, and it seems iffy to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not only are those poor sources, but I fail to see how this is notable. DFlhb (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to add something about his recent cancellations on Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, and other social media platforms. That is all that I am requesting Thank you for reading.

Kind regards

User: Tate is king Tate is King (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to remove the criminal investigation part of his Wikipedia article and the other untrue allegation and rumour that littered his Wikipedia article which for some reason has still stayed on the article for a long period.

Kind regards

User: Tate is king ✊🏼👑💯 Tate is King (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. He is a public figure, and this is reasonably well sourced and seems worth including. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022 (2)

Mother’s name is Eileen Tate https://www.facebook.com/eileen.tate60.48.229.219 (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity"

I know I've attempted to discuss this before, but the inclusion of this sentence confuses me when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm more interested here in learning more about the nuances of WP:Verifiability than in getting consensus for any edit or removal, since this is a very minor part of the article (though this still seems like the most relevant page to discuss this at). This is going to seem pedantic but I'm actually curious as to how Wikipedia handles these types of cases since it has relevance for quite a few other cases involving controversial and non-controversial BLPs.

It seems quite objective and straightforward to me that the secondary source outright conflicts with the primary source, and this is a topic that Wikipedia guidelines are notoriously ambiguous on. This isn't the same kind of problem as statements of opinion or interpretation made by WP:RS (for example, a comment criticizing MeToo could be described as misogynistic or trivializing in all WP:RS, and that would need to be included even if editors disagree). Here, we have not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact, and I feel it simply doesn't describe the source correctly. For my earlier arguments and evidence, see Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3#Factual inaccuracy slipped into the article. They are describing a comedic mise-en-scene within a video about female self-defense as a him "acting out how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating". He was not expressing his desire to attack any woman that accuses him of cheating, but was instead illustrating his view that female self-defense is "a scam"; it's a different topic altogether and seems like a plain factual inaccuracy. Due to the fact that this exact clip was perhaps Tate's single most viral clip; this is borderline WP:RSBREAKING.

Doesn't WP:VNOT give editors some leeway in determining if a claim is worthy of inclusion? Separately, WP:NPOV states that all viewpoints should be represented according to their representation in WP:RS and with due weight; I take "viewpoints" to refer to both frameworks of reality (for example, creationism vs evolution) and judgments (for example, saying that a claim is false, or labelling someone as misogynistic). But I don't believe "viewpoints" include statements of fact, in the legal sense of that term (for example, if the Guardian bizarrely published that Tate had great hair, we would clearly not include that in the article even if it was the only reliable source that described his hair, since we would just attribute it to a mistake or oversight). What if Biden made a joke, and an overwise-reliable source took it out of context and distorted it? I feel like editors would simply not include that (though Biden is a special case, since anything he says would have dozens of sources reporting on it, and we would just cite the good ones and ignore the others).

WP:OR only dictates that original research should not be included in the article; it does not mean that if all editors agree that a WP:RS claim is mistaken, it must still be included. And the spirit of WP:OR is to prevent WP from being flooded with editors' personal opinions, and remain encyclopedic; I think the inclusion of this sentence makes the article less encyclopedic, not more.

I've seen similar debates around transcripts on Wikipedia, where a full video was available, and secondary sources introduced mistakes in their transcript; there was no official transcript available. The consensus I saw (I wish I remembered which page this was on) was that the correct transcript should be included, and this would not count as WP:OR since it is plainly visible to anyone. Similarly, here, when a claim is plainly incorrect and has not reliably been reported in other WP:RS (and is therefore of dubious notability), shouldn't it be removed, as long as the move is not controversial among editors? WP:BLPGOSSIP also seems to apply.

Keep in mind that this question is not just about this passage; I'm also asking how I should approach these issues in equivalent disputes on other BLPs and topics. Though the policies are ambiguous, I'm sure there have been significant precedents. Most discussions I've seen on WP:Verifiability have been extremely poor quality due to the types of people who usually get involved in those discussions (IPs, non-good faith editors), and I've never seen a proper discussion of these nuances. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Having now looked at the full-length primary source for the first time, I have to agree that it does seem like a bad-faith misrepresentation of the primary source. The quote was probably published somewhere and then picked up by other publications without them doing their own research.

While editors on Wikipedia are often told that they are not supposed to be "arbiters of truth", I think that's actually a bit misleading. In determining what constitutes a reliable source on a case-by-case basis, we sometimes have to compare objective truth to what's written. For example, a common question that is asked to probe a publication's reliability is whether the publication issues corrections, i.e. whether they rectify falsities. I recommend moving this discussion to WP:RSN regarding that specific passage. You'll probably draw a lot more attention from experienced editors there. RSN is the place to go when you're looking for quality RS discussions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. This might be one of the most ambiguous (and toughest) aspect of Wikipedia policies, so I'm looking forward to learn.

I've posted it here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Disagreement_between_primary_and_secondary_sources. Any editor here is obviously free to join and comment. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to WP:RSN discussion

As stated in the WP:RSN discussion, I've already reviewed all claims that we used the NYTimes and Guardian for, and I see no issues left.

I've just checked each claim in the Social media presence section to make sure the same problem hadn't made its way anywhere else. The section looks solid now, but I think I found a last issue:

Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe

I've found the primary source for that claim. [3] (on Odysee). Primary source is called: "Tate on the MeToo Movement". Relevant transcript below. The passage necessarily has to be long because the media quotes two passages that are pretty far from each other in the original video (the TikTok clips combined them together), so I've abbreviated rambling with ellipses, and I've bolded the parts that are quoted by WP:RS. Not using {{tq}} because it's less readable:

"The problem is, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with this sexual assault bullshit, you're guilty until proven innocent. If a girl comes forward and goes: "He raped me back in 1988", you're a rapist [...] until you somehow prove she's lying. How the fuck am I gonna prove a [expletive] is lying, about something that happened in 1988? [...] I've said this to girls before and they go: "You know what, if you go through life and you're just really respectful to women, you have nothing to worry aobut." That's not fucking true. And I'll tell you why. Because what we've done is we've weaponized sexual assault allegations. They've been weaponized. We've given every female in the Western world a weapon, and that weapon, does not have to be used fairly. That weapon can be used completely unfairly. You can go through life, and treat women with respect, and be a really good guy, but what the MeToo era is saying is, you can never piss off, a female, ever. Because if you do, they have a weaponized response. [...] It's insane. I'm now at the point now that when I talk to girls in the West, I have to fucking archive my text messages, I got shit fucking archived, so if any girl comes to—I have a bit of money, when you got money, this shit happens. Wait til you make 10 mil, this shit's gonna happen to you. If a girl wanna go to the police about me now, I'll be like alright, wait, wait, wait, open up that folder, here look, proof she's a bimbo. Why do I have to live that way? Isn't that fucking insane? If you're living in the Western world — this is, probably, 40% of the reason I moved to Romania, because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies. If you ever go to the police and say: "He raped me back in 1988", he'll go "well, you should have done something about it [back] then. If you go to the police and say "He raped me yesterday", he'll say: "Okay, have you got physical evidence? Is there CCTV proof? Where'd it happen? Ok, let's go interview him right now." [...] You're fucked in the West. If you have sex with a girl, and you decide not to have sex with her again, and she's upset about it, she can just decide to go: "It's rape now". [...] So, if you live in the Western world, you have to understand that any female you have ever interacted with, ever, at any point in the past or future, if you piss her off, she has the ability to destroy your life. Are you happy to live under those conditions? People say: "Why do you live in Romania?" And I explain, my 5 reasons. One of them is the MeToo era. They go: "Oh you're a rapist!" No I'm not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of being able to just do what I want, I like being free. I like being able to say to a girl: "Don't want to see you anymore." Done. [...] If you're a man living in England, or Germany, or America, or any of the Western world right now, you've decided to live in a country where any woman, any ex [...] at some point in the future can destroy your life. And you're sitting there going: "Oh, but they won't do it." Some will; some won't but some fucking will. It's not about whether they will, it's about whether they can, because sooner or later if people can, they will."

We currently use the GQ citation, out of 4 sources who mention this claim.

The Guardian: In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.” [4]

GQ: in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations [5]

NBC News: Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases [6]

Daily Beast: In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations

I think it's basically the same scenario. The claim we currently use implies an intent to commit crime, or degree of premeditation, i.e. moving to Romania with the goal of doing things he couldn't get away with in Britain. I have the same arguments as before; source mismatch, WP:RSBREAKING, yadda yadda.

NBC and Guardian imply criminal intent quite explicitly IMO, by taking "I like being free" out of context. And GQ's also guilty of what we discussed in WP:RSN, with He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds [sic] in the same article. Which leaves the Daily Beast, already discussed here previously. I'll note that these 4 articles also disagree on whether it's about sexual assault or rape.

My main issue is that he doesn't discuss wanting to evade truthful rape accusations more easily, but wanting to avoid false rape accusations, also stating that being a millionaire makes it more risky (presumably due to the infamous out-of-court settlements we keep hearing about).

Also exact same problem of the YouTube video being removed before the media commented on it; 2 out of these 4 sources directly link to TikTok clips of the video, one hosted on reddit, one on Twitter (hence, WP:RSBREAKING due to inability of editors-in-chief to actually fact-check any of this unless they've somehow heard of Odysee). DFlhb (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the GQ article misrepresents his comments; I feel they are still well within the bounds of common sense interpretation of the primary source. I also disagree with your premise that the sentence included in the Wikipedia article, or in the GQ article for that matter, somehow implies an intent to commit rape. It's a common sentiment that the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society, which Tate is criticizing. This is accurately reflected in both the GQ article and the Wikipedia article imo. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The GQ article misrepresents the statement the least; but think there are still issues.

Keep in mind that the reason I decided to check this out is GQ's problematic statement that "He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds", which is factually incorrect; and that a big part of my motivation is WP:RSBREAKING (since again, the ultra-short clip was likely the only thing these newspapers had access to) and increased scrutiny for WP:BLP claims.

There's a distinction to me between less likely to pursue rape allegations and less likely to pursue false rape allegations (or, alternatively, your wording, the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society); I don't think the statements are equivalent. The belief that the police is dramatically underprosecuting rape cases (even in the West), and that a rapist is "overwhelmingly" likely to not be punished, is a common sentiment too. And I do think that it implies intent to commit rape, since there is no context that this was about false rape allegations specifically, within the context of MeToo criticisms, not about all rape allegations in general.

I see two ways to improve this:

• Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be targeted by false rape allegations in Eastern Europe (adding "false", and changing "investigated" to "targeted" for the sentence to keep making sense); or
• Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because of the MeToo movement

Both seem far more accurate; the second one would not be WP:OR since it's backed up by this CNET article [7]. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your first suggestions would introduce material not published in secondary sources, so we obviously can't use that. I don't see how your second suggestion is backed up by the CNET article. That article explicitly states that Tate decided to move there because of more relaxed sexual assault laws, not because of the MeToo movement, so that, too, would be original research. I think it comes down to retaining the sentence as is or removing it altogether. I have nothing more to add to my comments above, but you are of course free to take this to RSN again. I might very well be overruled there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think I should start a new discussion, or add to the old one? DFlhb (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You could add a subsection to the old one since the underlying issue is similar. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Done; thanks for your suggestion. It's at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Follow-up_to_the_above_discussion. I've changed my follow-up somewhat, to make my arguments clearer and more exhaustive, so I've elected not to copy over your replies since that would have been taking you out of context. Feel free to participate there if you wish. DFlhb (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, a note to other editors who might come across the discussion here: please direct any further replies to the WP:RSN board, so we don't end up "de-consolidating" the discussion again (I do apologize for that, should have posted it there in the first place). DFlhb (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Throast do you think it would be reasonable to ping participants in the previous discussion, in case they've missed the subsection? Only 2 people replied, neither with a strong opinion if I've understood them correctly. I don't want to break ping etiquette but the help pages and talkpage guidelines are quite vague on acceptable ping usecases. DFlhb (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If you ping every editor involved in the previous discussion, that would be appropriate, yes. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I had already planned to double check to make sure everyone was included, that seemed like common sense. Thanks for your response, DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (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: [14])

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. [15]

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 [16], 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:

• [17]: 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)
• [18] frames MLM and AM as both "subtypes" of viral marketing (true).
• [19] 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 [20] 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[21], WSJ[22], Le Monde[23] all participate in affiliate programs. Amazon[24], Shopify[25], Google[26], Uber[27], Microsoft[28], Walmart[29], Apple[30], Barnes & Nobles[31] 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)

Unsubstantiated Claims

The article states "Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe". The citation doesn't substantiate this in any way, shape or form. If you follow the chain of links, you eventually arrive at a Twitter thread where all posts have been deleted. Therefore this false claim and the (non-)citation should be removed from the article. 82.2.204.195 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New potential issue. Please participate there if you have anything to add. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Known for" infobox parameter, exclusion of infobox

I think it would be helpful to readers to add the "known for" parameter to the infobox. Since this might be a point of contention, I thought it would be a good idea to deliberate options here. If we are consulting the lead section, I would deduce that Tate is "known for" a) his misogynistic commentary and b) his bans from social media platforms. Having read pretty much every single RS on the subject (yikes), I feel this summary is accurate. Would editors agree to include these two, or are there alternative suggestions? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that parameter in general, no matter the person. If the lead can't explain why a person is notable then we fucked up. Thankfully I barely ever see it used.

But if consensus agrees with you to add "known for": his ban was well-covered, so fine; since every single source always says "kickboxer Andrew Tate", I feel that would need to be included too; and misogynistic is well-sourced, no issue there, but feels too specific to me since he's notorious for a whole range of commentary, including "depression isn't real" that had A-list celebrities quote tweeting him, and had Twitter (the company) very literally put a "depression is real" explainer at the top of its Trends for a day [32], as well as being knoxn for a bunch of political conspiracies, etc.

I do agree that the infobox feels bare now that the martial arts sub box has been removed (maybe just due to habit). I'll see if I can find proper sources for his fights so we can put that infobox back in. DFlhb (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The majority of in-depth secondary coverage happened around his bans and focused largely on his rhetoric, reactions thereto, and of course his social media bans (his commentary obviously being the central contributing factor). The other things you list he is known for to a much lesser extent relative to what I suggested above. In any case, I really don't think artificially inflating the article with undue kickboxing info just to restore the martial arts module is a good idea. There are well-manicured BLPs on Wikipedia that don't use infoboxes at all. If we can't agree to at least include the "known for" parameter, a parameter that seems like a no-brainer for this type of BLP, I don't see a future for the infobox. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why remove the infobox? If the reason is redundancy with the article's contents, then I don't see why repeating what he's notorious for (already mentioned in the lead) helps. I've also checked the Wiki pages of similarly controversial, or similarly notable people (Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, and KSI, Jake Paul), none of them have that parameter.

To me, having an infobox is a style thing; it makes pages look nicer, and makes it clearer that it's a BLP. Not having it would degrade the article. I checked Petscan, and out of 181 Featured BLPs, every single one has an infobox.

Re: kickboxing being undue: I checked every article we cite, and all of them except 7 mention his kickboxing career. They don't talk about his kickboxing at length, admittedly, but they don't do that for any professional fighter either. The current top-ranked heavyweight kickboxer in the world? The NYT never mentioned him once (search:nytimes.com "Rico Verhoeven"). To me, 33 sources (just the ones we currently cite) mentioning his career is enough to make it notable. I've found sources for 4 world championship victories of his. I'm puzzled as to how a 4x world champion's fighting career, properly sourced, would be non-notable or undue. I'll also note that the consensus in the Archives was that people seemed to prefer sourcing over removal, but removed since no one (not even Tate's fans) bothered to find those sources. DFlhb (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Find some good in-depth, reliable coverage of his kickboxing career and I'll change my mind. This needs to extend beyond a mere mention of his "former kickboxer" title of course. World titles ultimately don't matter to Wikipedia if secondary sources do not cover them. My content decisions are not informed by habit or what other articles are doing, but by common sense. As it stands now, the infobox is just useless clutter. If you're arguing that what he's known for can be easily determined via a glance at the lead, so can his full name, DOB, and nationality. That leaves his POB, his father, and his website, two of which are found prominently right below the lead section. Your other argument that the infobox is a "style thing" is just not very convincing in my opinion. I personally find infoboxes to be very ugly, even moreso when they don't serve any real purpose to the reader. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Throast. I've thought it through some more, and I've come to agree with you, it is redundant. We can always add one back if it becomes warranted later.

I tried previewing it, and using the interview pic as the lead pic looks pretty poor; he's too close to the camera, so even when I tried cropping it, it's still too tall for a lead pic. I prefer the kickboxing one for the lead, since the subject is further away from the camera, the pic's not too tall, and he's not wearing sunglases (which IMO are a huge no for a lead pic). I've moved the interview pic to the "Social media presence" section, since it fits nicely there and I do want to keep both (pics make BLPs better), and we do need a pic without the hair. I tried keeping the pics where they are, but then they're too close together, doesn't look quite right. I've gone ahead and made the change; let me know what you think. I'm open to debating the pic order, which wasn't a change you suggested. DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, I think it looks much cleaner now. MOS:LEADIMAGE advises us to select an image that our readers will expect to see. His change in appearance between the two images is quite jarring, and I think readers who've come to know the subject only recently (which I assume is the majority) will probably be confused seeing the older image at the top. While I agree that the more recent image is of inferior quality on a technical level, I think it's preferable because it depicts the subject around the time he was most popular. I ultimately don't care that much about it tho. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It does look cleaner. Re: change in appearance: fully agree that it's a concern; I must've spend 20min looking through YouTube to find another creative commons one to use as leadpic. My preference for this order is slight, not huge; but I don't think it'll be that jarring for readers, since it's a kickboxing pic, which people also associate him with, so it's unlikely to lead to confusion; and changing hairstyles is quite a common/routine thing which people are likely used to. Frankly, most people likely come here to scroll right to the controversy section, so they'll see both pics anyway. DFlhb (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. I removed the martial arts infobox as he would not be DUE inclusion in wiki solely on the basis of his kickboxing career.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Learn to write

The writing here is obviously biased towards one view point. Focus on your simple mistakes prior to spreading disinformation. “Tate operates Hustler's University, a plaform where members pay a monthly” change plaform to platform 72.196.117.35 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)