This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I think section 4 of the current article needs to be split like:
.
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)
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)
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]
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;
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)
isa pyramid scheme, but has
all the hallmarksof it. I see no issues here whatsoever. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
coveredas 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)
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 analysisTrue. 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).
some called itrather 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).
People up the top with a high engagement rate will be making a profit for sure.), which contradicts ABC's own description.
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)
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)
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.
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.
The "pyramid scheme" targeted vulnerable young menthat 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.
when you've already admitted that your cause is a mere disagreement with someone's analysisI 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.
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)
hustlemeans, 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.
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.
version of affiliate marketing. Also I don't believe the sources other than the textbook were SYNTH.
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)
we interpreted it how we didI 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)
nobody would have ever known that the quote was intended to have a different meaning
Until a RS posts the clarification you received privately, it has no place in the article
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.
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.
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.
DFlhb ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
covered minimallyseems inaccurate. If anything, the Kickboxing section isn't long enough. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument is unconvincing, since:
viewpoints, which aren't relevant here.
covered minimally relative to other things he is notableis clear WP:RECENTISM, caused by a news spike that only lasted a few short weeks. DFlhb ( talk) 16:21, 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.
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.
It should be added that Tate is an Orthadox Christian, he stated that in an interview ItzConman23 ( talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
WP:NOTFORUM Madeline ( part of me) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.126.53.22 ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Avere 1 miliard de euro
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Andrew Tate vs. Jarett Finau 2018. Ivan Salaverry MMA Seattle, Washington 164.116.126.200 ( talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reports of converting to Islam listed as 2020 under ‘early life’. Should be listed as 2022. Powershifu ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
(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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Andrew tate religion and write: muslim 102.164.97.63 ( talk) 12:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I think section 4 of the current article needs to be split like:
.
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)
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)
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]
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;
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)
isa pyramid scheme, but has
all the hallmarksof it. I see no issues here whatsoever. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
coveredas 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)
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 analysisTrue. 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).
some called itrather 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).
People up the top with a high engagement rate will be making a profit for sure.), which contradicts ABC's own description.
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)
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)
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.
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.
The "pyramid scheme" targeted vulnerable young menthat 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.
when you've already admitted that your cause is a mere disagreement with someone's analysisI 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.
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)
hustlemeans, 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.
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.
version of affiliate marketing. Also I don't believe the sources other than the textbook were SYNTH.
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)
we interpreted it how we didI 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)
nobody would have ever known that the quote was intended to have a different meaning
Until a RS posts the clarification you received privately, it has no place in the article
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.
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.
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.
DFlhb ( talk) 14:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
covered minimallyseems inaccurate. If anything, the Kickboxing section isn't long enough. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument is unconvincing, since:
viewpoints, which aren't relevant here.
covered minimally relative to other things he is notableis clear WP:RECENTISM, caused by a news spike that only lasted a few short weeks. DFlhb ( talk) 16:21, 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.
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.
It should be added that Tate is an Orthadox Christian, he stated that in an interview ItzConman23 ( talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
WP:NOTFORUM Madeline ( part of me) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.126.53.22 ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Avere 1 miliard de euro
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Andrew Tate vs. Jarett Finau 2018. Ivan Salaverry MMA Seattle, Washington 164.116.126.200 ( talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reports of converting to Islam listed as 2020 under ‘early life’. Should be listed as 2022. Powershifu ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
(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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Andrew tate religion and write: muslim 102.164.97.63 ( talk) 12:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)