This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to
Chicago or the
Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
The current page is rife with many errors. His peak USCF rating was 2508. He did not "pick up" Spanish, but was an exchange student in Mexico during high school. The last move in Yudasin game was 36.Qg5 and not 36.Qh6. The majority of information is from one article. The entire profile needs to be rewritten with better sources. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.233.158.75 (
talk)
00:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There are much better sources than the articles cited. The Chess Drum website was not even cited when in fact, it was the main reservoir for biographical data on Emory. Few of the written sources used to refer to Emory Tate Jr. pre-date his death bringing into question the quality of the entry. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Daaim777 (
talk •
contribs)
14:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDUOJpk7FWQ is an interview of Tristan Tate, who claims to be younger son of Emory Tate, and while most info isn't pertinent to this article it does include info about Emory including a claim he refused his pension because he was accused of being crazy.(37:37) Stefan Molyneux is the interviewer
major section about Emory starting around 33:08 talking about Tristan's family, 40:40 "what happened?" about Emory through 45 minutes.... but 57:20 has about 1 minute of info and a couple tid-bits thereafter...
hopefully this will be useful
--
Qazwiz (
talk)
20:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Any thoughts on deletion? I know the topic was originally brought up in a questionable manor, but I feel it does deserve discussion. I'm no stickler for notability requirements, but the sources do seem a bit suspect.
CivilianArthur (
talk)
15:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A quick Google search has led me to believe he might meet notability requirements. However, in its current state this article has no source that has any reliability and I therefore agree with deletion (unless somebody extensively reworks the article with reliable sources).
Supertowel (
talk)
22:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A prod is for uncontroversial deletions. For an International Master strength player AfD is a better venue. Sometimes they are deleted, sometimes not.
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
11:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Disclosure: I can't claim neutrality; Emory was a friend (though not a close friend). I would observe that if one is the subject of a biography (Daaim Shabazz's Triple Exclam!!!), one generally meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
Billbrock (
talk)
16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't know the book author, how many sales it got etc. But it apparently claims that the Alabama State Senate passed a resolution acknowledging Emory Tate. Quick check on their site returns NO results for Emory Tate.
Most of the information is based on obituaries by friends & a book/articles by one friendly author. Hardly reliable sources!
Every day there are thousands of nicely written obituaries by friends & Thfamily members where hyperbole is often used. That's why we have Elo's system in chess to sort out the truth from human subjectivism.
He seems to have been a nice & passionate guy, but you don't get ranking points for being good at telling jokes...
The points & scores make you noteworthy in chess.
No matter how you spin it, 2400 FIDE rating is nowhere near enough to be taken as a serious noteworthy player at any adults pro chess tournament.
There was a clear consensus to keep when this article was nominated for deletion. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion have nothing to do with Elo rating and everything to do with significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was assessed as meeting the criteria.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
22:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Is information provided by friends unbiased and thus reliable source of information?
Because the book & articles are written by friends.
One of the claims in the book doesn't go through fact checking - not reliable. In fact the book is written by a friend who has no other books & has no recognized expertise in chess, thus making them rather unreliable sources of information.
Articles are obituaries, obviously by friends & family.
If someone was noteworthy, they would have significant coverage in reliable sources for their achievements while they were alive. How come nobody was writing about this chess savant while still alive?
From the 17 sources(as one is duplicate), 10 are by his friendly book author, 2 are by his Chess.com friend likely the author of his profile there, 1 unknown author, 1 newsletter & 1 from an old article in a newspaper about school chess. Hardly a set of undisputably reliable sources.
While Elo ratings have nothing to do with Wikipedia's criteria, his rather abysmal 33% win rate at Chess.com deserves either a mention or at least a thought if such a chess player would get any coverage in any sources, unless he's very friendly with them.
213.231.141.32 (
talk)
21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you feel the need to denigrate his achievements. During his life time he was a very well known player who had significant coverage in publications such as Chess Life.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
02:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't, just stating facts/asking questions, but never getting concrete answers/data/links.
I have wild imagination, but I realllly struggle to imagine how 33% win rate & 2400 FIDE Elo can make anyone prominent.
Honestly, on Linkedin I got these offers - we can make you a Wiki page for your business blah blah blah... so, I add 1+1 and think not very nice things.
Anyone unbiased with a bit of chess knowledge will laugh at the idea of some 50 y.o. guy with such credentials having a page on Internet's Encyclopedia as a prominent chess player.
chess.com is hardly reliable or comprehensive, his USCF profile (listed in EL) gives a more accurate picture. Anyway if you fell that strongly about it you can start an AfD process but I doubt you'll get a different result.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
11:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
More information
After a quick google search of his name I found there is reasonable online presence to merit a Wikipedia page including two books that are written about him but by small time authors, so deleting the page completely wouldn’t be necessary. With that said, more notable achievements should be included to the page to extend the paragraphs such as any large wins in a chess tournament or any inventions or patents
EnWikieditor (
talk)
14:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
"Incomprehensible"
OK
algebraic notation is not incomprehensible to chess players, but still I question the usefulness of this section. What about linking to the games at chessgames.com instead? Second best option after introducing a chess game playback feature such as is used in Hebrew wikipedia.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
13:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I would be ok with that, I really just object to the tagging, which is not accurate as notation is used widely across chess articles, obviously.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
13:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the early life and education section by removing "rigth-wing" to describe Emory Tate's son Andrew Tate.
Reason: there is no source cited to support the claim that Andrew Tate belongs, supports or otherwise endorses any political party that could be associated with a rigth-wing ideology. Furthermore, very recently Andrew Tate himself said during an interview that he is ["apolitical"] stating ["I have so little faith in either side of the system, that I am now absolutely and utterly apolitical."]. (source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrwHLfWYIw [timestamp 0:10-0:24])2.138.123.77 (
talk)
16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Is it appropriate to refer to Andrew Tate as a reference to his father's chess style, while it is considered notable that a player does not use computers to aid their preparation it does seem problematic to cite Andrew Tate as a source on this as he has a history of mythologising his father, on the other hand it seems unlikely that there exists another source on the subject.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.188.107.177 (
talk •
contribs)
16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This is also described by other sources, which are not merely paraphrasing his son. I think it's a nice quote, and probably better than trying to paraphrase it ourselves.
DFlhb (
talk)
02:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Chatted to Emory Tate a few times on ICC, and yeah he really was this larger than life WWE villain character. He did brag about never formally studying the game or using engines.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
05:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Tate is still a relatively recently deceased person, and the recent prominence of his son makes the
WP:BLP policy all the more relevant. If you're going to make claims that he had "narcissistic personality disorder" or whatever, you need rock solid sources.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
11:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
He's been dead for over seven years, so BLP no longer applies to him.
WP:BDP says two years is the maximum one can reasonably extend the policy. But I agree that his son's YouTube channel is absolutely not a reliable source.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
African Americans used to be practically absent from high-end chess; Ashley became the very first Black grandmaster in 1999, and was since followed by a number of others. That's what it means.
DFlhb (
talk)
06:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
'That' clearly isn't 'what it means' as there is no such form of chess, otherwise it would appear in the international chess federation rules. That one person uses a phrase does not define a new form of chess. That Wikipedia spots it demonstrates why it is not taken seriously as an encyclopaedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.175.236.54 (
talk)
20:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It's completely normal to say something like "
Tony Miles was a major figure in English chess" and people will know exactly what you mean. Only annoying pedants would call you out and say "is English chess different from normal chess?". Ashley's reference to "African American chess" is the same thing. Besides, we're quoting him, not necessarily endorsing the term itself.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why are only his sons mentioned. His daughter might be embarrassed by her father's philandering behaviour and her brothers' ridiculous cult but she's a legitimate child!
161.142.158.55 (
talk)
12:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Because she is not a public figure and has never sought the limelight, and under our policies (for example
WP:BLPNAME), we exclude information that could lead to harm to such people (for example, harassment). We never imply that she is an illegitimate child; the infobox mentions 3 children, and she is one of the three.
DFlhb (
talk)
13:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I find it incredible that someone with amateur level of chess success deserves an article in Wikipedia.
In chess, the top 20-30 are pros. These are ppl living out of playing pro chess, then there are some more who are i.e. chess coaches. But nobody outside the top 100 is living out of chess. Meaning they work smth else & chess is a hobby.
This Tate guy had a very low rating achieved fairly late in life, further proving he was an amateur player. Usually by 21-23 we know which players will be at the top, he was approaching over 50 when he was at his best!
That's the case of an army guy playing chess as a hobby, but at no point he was ANYWHERE near close to be a professional player and thus worthy of being in the list of prominent International master chess prayers, let alone Grand Masters.
Even at the time there were 100s of kids with higher rating.
In 1999 Maurice Ashley became the first black player to become GRAND Master, this Tate guy managed to get International Master(of which there are thousands) only in 2007.
It makes absolutely no sense why he has a chess player page, his achievements are of no significance whatsoever in the world of pro chess.
213.231.141.32 (
talk)
02:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's got nothing to do with who his son is. He has an article because he has significant coverage in reliable sources. His daughter, on the other hand, is not a public figure and so does not have an independent article.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
01:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Punctuation, Spelling, and Form
In the paragraph on CHESS, the last sentence of that paragraph, reads, "He received the international master tile in 2007,...." International Master should be capitalized. The fact that it is not capitalized, diminishes the honor. Specifically, when 'the' precedes 'international master' and is immediately followed by 'title', it is implicit that it is an honorary title which has a name. When International Master is capitalized it gives honor to the recipient; also to the organization giving the award, and to his peers who have gathered to honor him for his achievement. It is correct to capitalize International Master as it is a 'thing', it is a noun.
CuriousLemming (
talk)
20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
He was known during his life time as Emory Andrew Tate Jr, not Emory Andrew Tate II