User talk:DocZach

June 2024

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Andrew Tate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Criminal investigations are active; we will not report this as fact at this point in the case. The fact that you restored this after BLP was already cited is most concerning. VQuakr (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

He admitted himself that he was a pimp. That is not defamatory language, and it is not a criminal accusation. Calling him a sex-trafficker would indeed be defamatory and not appropriate as he has not been convicted of it, but calling him a pimp is accurate terminology because he has admitted to and has been documented by reliable sources to have earned money and setup women to make money on NSFW webcams. DocZach (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between being documented by RS and being WP:DUE for the lead, especially the MOS:FIRST. Note how other contentious descriptions in the MOS:OPEN have at least half a dozen RS, making them due there. There's also the point that this description is not a summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. I'll add it to the Views and influence section, as is well referenced, but I don't believe it's due in the lead what so ever based on two sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the descriptions to online ventures section with attribution, as this is where it belongs based on context. Based on the sources, neither should be used without attribution (see WP:GUARDIAN and WP:LATIMES, ie WP:NEWSBLOG for their columns), and therefore quite clearly doesn't belong in the lead on this basis alone. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)