Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

'with most Britons aware of who he is.'

This has no source and is demonstrably untrue, as anyone who has talked to the average British person would know. Just because Andrew is well-known on the internet does not mean he is known by "most" of British public. Remove this line and replace the comma with a period. 82.38.200.45 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's from YouGov survey, referenced in Reception section of Views and influence.
"Pollsters discovered 63 per cent of British adults have heard of Tate" [1] "In the UK, 63% of Brits are familiar with Andrew Tate." [2]
Will add source to lead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Brit, and did not know who Andrew Tate was until recently. So I looked him up on Wikipedia, and what I noticed most of all was that you can tell the opinion of the editors from the article. Sadly this is becoming increasingly the case on Wikipedia because of the skewed demographics of the editors. This should not be a Good Article. Geometry guy 20:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You can nominate it for reassessment at WP:GAR if you think this doesn't fit the Good Article criteria. The source attached to the statement writes that 93% of polled British adults were aware of who he is, which would probably be enough to say that "most British adults have heard of him". I do question how due this line is in the article's lead, but it's otherwise well sourced. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't that just mean that 93% of British adults who are willing to respond to surveys have heard of Tate? seems like the non-response bias weighs in his favor, although the survivorship bias goes the other way here... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The source that The Independent is citing (YouGov) confirms these numbers but interestingly does not expand on them; most of the poll is about how favorable he is among pollsters, not how known he is. In all, I'm not British so I wouldn't know for sure how known he is there, and I don't particularly care about this inclusion in the article either way. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Stance section is incorrect

Andrew tate converted to islam source Omer ALFARHAN (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ #3. "Stance" in the infobox does not refer to religious stance. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Misogynist quote

@AndyTheGrump: I don't see this quote as a unambiguous misuse of a quotation, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies. It's a quote he made presented in context, and it's a quote that aligns with the perception of reliable sources of him, and that is frequently repeated by reliable sources.

It's both relevant and WP:DUE, in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have given a perfectly adequate explanation as to why the use of the quote is improper. He made a later statement where he described the "absolutely a misogynist" comment as made when "playing a comedic character" and "taken out of context". That, regardless of what we, or anyone else, thinks of the validity of his later defence, is entirely sufficient to make the use of the quote invalid. It is being used in a manner that can only be described as disinformational, for effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Surely we should stick to what RS describe him as, not our own interpretation or opinion on the matter? Including any direct response to that statement if there is any, of which is not referenced in the body. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For context, the quote comes from a podcast in 2021 (per Views and influence section); "You can't slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I'm absolutely a misogynist, and I have fuck you money and you can't take that away." ref, and doesn't appear out of context. Hence it's been regurgitated dozens of times by reliable sources, and therefore does appear due.
Re this revert comment "this seems to be quoting Tate for a self-description he later states he doesn't consider valid." The key word is seems; in that article Tate doesn't specify which "old videos" he was referring to, so no point in speculating it's the interview in question ref, as he's said plenty of controversial things in videos (see views section). I've never found him retracting that statement in any written RS. Maybe in the BBC interview he does which could be used as a source for "which Tate has since retracted", but otherwise, he made that statement in 2021 which is reliably referenced and should be used as such. I'm otherwise not going to waste my time watching that BBC interview again, someone else can though and use cite AV media. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For reference, the summary of that painful interview [3]; denies rape, human trafficking and exploiting women; denies spreading misogynistic rape culture; preaches hard work, describes himself as a force for good, etc. Notably: "Mr Tate suggested that some of his comments had been taken out of context or intended as "jokes", but nothing about identifying as a misogynist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether we think Tate's denial of misogyny (and worse) is in any way valid. We can't quote him as self-describing himself that way, after his 'role-playing' response. And why the heck is it so utterly essential to use a quote that is clearly questionable in that manner anyway? The article is jam-packed full of quite sufficient impeccably-sourced content for any reasonable person to come to their own opinion as to whether Tate is a misogynist or not. Why is it so necessary to resort to context-free phrases? Do we really think that readers need to be spoon-fed in such a manner, lest they mistake the article for some sort of defence of Tate's behaviour? What exactly is the purpose of the quote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources continue to describe him as a self-proclaimed misogynist, even after the interview. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
To be frank with you, I don't think it's essential at all. I even removed it from the lead previously because I considered it an over-inflated statement from RS — tabloid style as you would put it. It was reinstated as others felt it was due based on MOS:LEADREL — which is also true. The context should however be pretty clear; concern that he promotes misogynist views to his audience followed by the fact that he identifies as a misogynist. The context being, he has absorbed the accusation that has been thrown at him and self-identified as such. Someone identifying as misogynist carries a lot more weight of relevance (context wise) than accusations that someone is spreading misogyny, CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
As an off hand comment here; yes, some users need to be spoon-fed. Not everyone can put 2 and 2 together and get 4. In fact, it's terrifying how much the average person doesn't understand basic things. We're not here to cater solely to the reasonable and rational, we're here to cater to human beings of all kinds, especially the less intelligent, as an openly accessible encyclopedia. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the point. We are attempting to 'carry more weight' by quoting the man himself, despite his statement that it was 'role-playing'. Why exactly is that perceived as even remotely necessary? Why are we cherry-picking single words from sources in an attempt to bolster up something that absolutely does not require such tabloid-style tactics? It is core Wikipedia policy that quotes should only be used in a manner that summarises what the source has to say on a subject. Not a pithy phrase or two, extracted for effect and later described by the same individual as 'out of context'. As for your comments regarding spoon-feeding, maybe we need to consider whether WP:CIVIL needs to be extended to descriptions of Wikipedia readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Where is your source that it was "role-playing", or that it's out of context? He never said he was role-playing in that interview, per the source you provided, only "old videos of me". This is an assumption at this point with no RS to back it up, despite my attempts to help you find one. As for cherry-picking, have you searched for "self described misogynist andrew tate" and seen how many RS describe him as such? It's not a phrase or two, it's usually a title or an opening description in the first sentence. Sure, let's expand civility though, why not. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
To add to what CNC said, even if this was one of the statements he was referring to, retractions aren't always honest - to determine whether we should respect the retraction we should follow reliable sources, and in this case reliable sources continue to use the statement. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Going to go ahead and provide some sources for "self described/proclaimed misogynist" if this is a sourcing issue:
Naturally only taking one ref per different source, so there are plenty more not referenced. Would this better as a cite bundle of a dozen sources, similar to the other cite bundles? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think half a dozen refs should do here, don't need all of them clearly. Can now see why this was previously in the MOS:OPEN prior to being moved to second paragraph. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

The lede says, Tate “[promotes] a masculine, luxurious lifestyle.” The precise words the cited BBC article uses are “hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle” (emphasis mine). Those quantifiers are important, simply calling Tate “masculine” and “luxurious” is downplaying his attitudes; I think the article should be edited to say he promotes “a macho, hedonistic lifestyle”, or something to that effect.        —Showerlemon (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view, and your suggestions take the phrasing further away from being neutral. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: Downplaying the phrasing found in reliable sources is not what neutrality is about. The BBC did not simply call Tate “masculine” but ‘masculine’ to an extreme extent. I can’t think of a better word for that than macho.        —Showerlemon (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You might have a point here. "hyper-masucline" could well be translated into macho, based on my understanding of the term. At least based on the short description "Pride in exaggerated masculinity". If there is a reliable source to identify his pride in his hyper-masculinity, it could well be amended. "hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle" could otherwise replace the current description, but it would require inconvenient attribution (at least for the lead). Ideally there would be more sources than just the BBC to make these sorts of claims, or otherwise an RS for macho for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
On searching for RS, there are enough descriptions of "macho" in there worth considering:
 Question: Is it worth making a change for accuracy sake? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, using masculine as an adjective for Tate's extreme beliefs about masculinity and machismo is not only letting him get off the hook for the latter by using a much less harsh word, but also smearing masculinity—which isn’t a negative descriptor by itself—by conflating it with machismo and male chauvinism.       —Showerlemon (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done Have changed "promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle" to "promoting a hyper-macho view of masculinity". This comes from the references in BBC article "...drawn to his hyper-macho image" [4] and the statesman "...ultra-macho view of masculinity" [5]. Upon searching for the "ultra-luxurious" and "hyper-masculine" descriptions of him, it appears to be more of less solely from the BBC article referenced in body, rather than a widespread description of him, so have not included either in the lead as doesn't appear WP:DUE per MOS:LEADREL. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69 and CommunityNotesContributor: Masculine aside, I suggested replacing ‘luxurious’ with ‘hedonism’ because luxurious by itself sounds like an awkward adjective to use for a person. BBC, of course, didn’the simply call him “luxurious” but suggested he promotes excess and opulence—hedonism seemed alright to me. Though, arguably, it has more of negative slant than ‘ultra-luxurious’ entailed (the opposite case of masculine–macho).
Maybe we can use “opulent” instead? It feels awkward to use just “luxurious” as an adjective for a person.        —Showerlemon (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done The only reason "masculine" was changed to "macho" was because there are reliable sources for such contentious labels. We can't translate ultra-luxurious to hedonist or opulent without a lot of WP:OR. Please otherwise find reliable sources that describe his as such for content to be added to the body. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

Andrew tate didnt rape or coerce any women to have sex. Your bias is showing. You're violating wikipedias Neutral policy. 2600:100F:B1B6:B5DD:0:36:DCD2:E401 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Tate raped or coerced women into sex, it states he's accused of such, and he denies the allegations. Based on the criminal investigations, this is factual and accurate. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 09:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(
)
Andrew Tate in 2023
Andrew Tate in 2023

Improved to Good Article status by CommunityNotesContributor (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Thanks for your input. I've striked out ALT2, given it focuses on the negative. The other two hooks, specifically the first, I'd consider as neutral as they come. The coverage in the article is overwhelming negative due to RS, not due to contributors, with a lot of consideration for using NPOV language and attribution as per BLP policy, as well as including everything positive about Tate, or in defense of him. I'd argue this type of article would come under one of the goals of DYK: highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers. If we are not including controversial topics, then we are not achieving this diversity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
We do feature negative hooks about certain things (Site isolation had a semi-negative hook, despite having a overwhelmingly positive reception). I'm not insinuating that NPOV was compromised when building the article eithier (in fact the article great considering how freaking controversial the subject is). I'm just unsure if running a negative article about a BLP is the best idea. In any case, I'll defer to a actual reviewer. Sohom (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, appreciate the feedback. Just to clarify, we're not still talking about negative hooks are we? The hooks are currently neutral, if not positive. If the argument is along the lines of if Jimmy Savile were promoted to GA, and then nominated as a DYK, and that would be an issue, than I have no complaints. Simple as. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, that's my argument. The hooks look good from a neutrality POV (imo). Sohom (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
CommunityNotesContributor: I could do with you if I ever decide to GA Tate's Big Brother housemate Marco Pierre White Jr and try him on again here. I would just like to bring your attention to the bit of WP:DYKHOOK that says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided", emphasis mine. I see no reason why a rightfully negative article should not be promoted with a negative hook; we should not be providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. Out of interest, is there a reason you don't mention his appearance on Ultimate Traveller?--Launchballer 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Probably because there doesn't appear to be a reliable source with coverage, all I could find was one line from Independent (via Yahoo) documenting this [9]. The show itself doesn't appear to be notable, based on the lack of Wikipedia page, though this minor detail could be added to BB section for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a shame. I saw that the non-RS Rolling Stone mentioned that he flounced out of it with an eye infection, and wondered if there was a hook in it. Full review needed.--Launchballer 13:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Article passed a GA review and was nominated in the proper time frame. Hooks are neutral. Both hooks are verified to the cited sources and are of usable length. Article is in compliance with all wiki policies as one would expect from a GA article. There was some discussion on the DYK talk page in the transgender topic thread about the use of the image being not desirable. Based on those comments, I would say that we should pass on this pic given the distaste expressed by several editors who regularly contribute at DYK for featuring this particular article in the most prominent spot. I personally prefer Alt 1, but I leave it up to the promoter on which of the two hooks they prefer to promote. This one is ready to go.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok let's go with ATL1 then with no image. Do you have a link to the discussion elsewhere? I didn't see it, as there are no issues raised with the picture on this template. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a very brief subthread of Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Do we have to keep doing this?; lucid Launchballer says this could swallow a wider hearing. Pinging Viriditas.--Launchballer 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I don't think we should be making decisions on DYK templates based on obscured opinions made elsewhere, that sets a dangerous precedent and lacks transparency. The comment "although ALT1 takes him down a couple of pegs, so I'd be very happy for that to run" does raise an important point of NPOV in these hooks, and therefore I change my option to ATL0. Otherwise waiting for objection to use of picture that remains non-existent on this talk page. On a side note, it's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[10] but along with Australia,[11] have done a complete u-turn,[12] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[13]. Lessons could be learnt here... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
That conversation was enough to make me uncomfortable in endorsing the pic. I stick by what I said. Alt1 is a perfectly good hook, and the original one is also fine. Either one could be promoted. I find the Alt1 hook better simply because it's more eye catching in my opinion and would make me want to read the article more so than the other hook. To me its more hooky for lack of a better word.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, no issues with either hook being chosen, take your pick. The argument for it being a better hook I support, especially since it also links to Greta which is another GA, but not because it's considered a convenient POV. I think there needs to be a broader discussion over raising issues with DKY nominations outside of their templates though, either here or on the main talk page, as the implications over precedents being set and transparency remain concerning. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I should have pinged, my apologies. (Side note, shouldn't it be 'December 2022' response?)--Launchballer 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks, let's leave it at that then, since this isn't being defended. I think "that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was ... in December 2022?" otherwise remains accurate, as this is the date when it became one of the most-liked tweets. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKHOOKBLP ALT1 does not work, it is about a tweet from a third party and it is very depreciating and body shaming. We should not feature a "someone tweeted something embarrassing about someone else's penis" hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the slang the kids use might be confusing you... The tweet was about their energy, not their penis (although there are humorous implication no penis is required to have big dick energy or small dick energy) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: see this article in The Independent[14]: "But don’t be fooled into thinking you actually need to have a large penis to have BDE - you don’t need to have one at all." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
No problem, that was probably for the best. There's inherently an issue with DYKs when a negative hook can't be used for an article that's about an inherently negative person, even when NPOV is being respected. For example let's never raise awareness about Hitler or the holocaust because it's negative, let's focus on DKYs about rainbows and puppies instead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
ALT3: ...that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

for ALT3. Valereee (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  • After WP:DYK discussion this seems like the best alternative - 2 weeks have passed since discussion. Recent GA, no plagiarism. The hook is interesting and cited in the article. The article appears to be fairly stable and uses the correct inline citations. It is likely as neutral as it can be. No QPQ is required. Bruxton (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This should probably be added to T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


By any chance could you mention Andrew tates fitness product

The products I’m talking about is fireblood made by Andrew tate JammyDole (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would we do that? Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It’s one of his products JammyDole (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
So it should be mentioned amongst his other products, War room and Hustlers university JammyDole (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding secondary sources that mention this product. Do you know of any? 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m also having trouble when it comes to finding secondary sources as well. I can find the primary sources such as Andrew Tates Advertisement on it but I can’t find any secondary sources
advertisement : https://rumble.com/v4fo4gl-1-800-dont-be-gay-fireblood.html JammyDole (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And yes it is literally called “1-800 don’t be gay” so you should probably carefully consider if it should even be considered to be added to the article JammyDole (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Until it is discussed in secondary sources there is nothing to consider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This is about the best I could find for when it comes to secondary sources
https://gymfluencers.com/fire-blood-by-andrew-tate-is-it-worth-the-hype/ JammyDole (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM and experienced users should no better
AndyTheGrump, if this BS is actually true, its sheer homophobia might make it noteworthy at some point. Tamzin, if I get a bottle of this, will that cure my recent bout of total gayness? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: Personally my recommendation to cure gayness is 2mg estradiol sublingual t.i.d. + 50mg spironolactone b.i.d. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh Tamzin thx for reminding me--I forgot to take my fiber pills this morning! I'll ask my regular weed and meth guy about the things you mentioned. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I *think* you're wanting me to grow breasts and stop being so sexy??? Drmies (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey, if you're trying to reverse the vandal magic that turned you gay, one half of "man attracted to men" is way easier to fix than the other. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Tate has been known for loving the LGBTQ community! He would never say any homophobic slurs would he……… JammyDole (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew tate mistake / typo

The US marine Sergeant WAS NOT DISMISSED, Andrew Tate's claims were

Same linked article states "A federal judge dismissed Tate's claims against the Marine" 95.160.240.159 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit made it more clear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A legal case is defined differently than criminal charges and relates to an inquiry.[15] Despite not yet being charged, Tate would even appear in court for these allegations.[16] It should now claim five cases in the UK and Romania as of August 2024.Speakfor23 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Have updated,[17] apologies didn't notice the broken cite was referencing a new investigation. Per current sourcing in use, BBC's previous article referenced an expanded scope of the same investigation. Is there any source for these new so-called charges? Per WP:HEADLINES the latest BBC article has done a sloppy job and doesn't appear to reference them in thecontent. CNC (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Have updated "legal cases" to "investigations" per WP:SUSPECT. The previous wording was in fact accurate and up to date, but the latest investigation is no doubt due for the MOS:OPEN so have corrected wording. CNC (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is Tate called a "previously" self-described as a misogynist i.e. why is that worded as non-current?

Sources reliable and otherwise e.g. The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent CNA, The Nation, The Standard and even GB News (to name a clearly right-wing source) and Jacobin (to name a clearly left-wing source) still call Tate a "self-described/proclaimed misogynist" when reporting on the recent police raid on Tate's place, and thus should we. Almost all use the same wording, making it very clear that the inclusion of this descriptor (in present tense) is appropriate. Cortador (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Change  Done. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Cheers! Cortador (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
For reference this was a point of contention recently, and has been discussed numerous times over the years, and was otherwise changed from primary to secondary sources along the way. This otherwise all comes back to the 2021 interview (see views and influence section and quote there), but it seems like RS run with the descriptor regardless of the fact it's three years old now. It's hard find to find reliable sources not reference it these days, even if it's somewhat circular at this point. CNC (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The BBC is now putting misogynist in their own voice BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Bridget Phillipson

Bridget Phillipson is no longer Shadow Education Minister, she is the Education Minister following the change of UK government. Christopherbrian (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed have corrected to "the Shadow Education Secretary at the time". The fact she became Education Secretary since then is somewhat irrelevant, ie she hasn't spoken out about Tate since assuming her new role. CNC (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

assertion Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist

Source 13 claims to support the assertion Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist. The source does not support the claim, does not quote him stating he is a misogynist nor does it evidence this. It simply regurgitates mainstream media assertions that 'Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist.' This is an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.117.135 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Ellie Ng article includes the direct quote of Tate saying I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I'm absolutely a misogynist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not considered unreliable sources here. The multiple sources you refer to reference Tate as a self-described misogynist multiple times. This is because he self-described as a misogynist once upon a time. CNC (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

link any of the 3 instances of judicial control to the wikipedia page about judicial review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review) Thymme (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Have linked the first. CNC (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

There is a sentence whose first word is not capitalized: "in July 2024" should be "In July 2024". Ncjones2020 (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

Themmajury (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


I’d like to write about his kickboxing if u allow me

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

link to archive to full article for citation [26]

The link to the "The Atlantic" link, citation 26,uses web.archive.org for archiving. but this archive doesn't contain the full article. this one does: https://archive.is/2I3W5 Im not afraid (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the link. Cheers!
Cortador (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This page has a bunch of lies

Andrew Tate is not "far-right", whatever that means. He has never excirsized racial superiority online. Also, he described himself as a misogynist with sarcasm after being called a mysoginist multiple times by the media. The over-using of sources at the beggining shows the cherry-picking and framing in this page. I don’t like Andrew Tate, but lying or misleading on Wikipedia is not good. Hopefully this page gets redone. MicholIsUsed (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • MicholIsUsed, if there is an over-use of sources, it's probably because sometimes it requires proof that the sky is blue. But having so many sources is really the opposite of cherry-picking, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s cherry picking because the people who created this page wanted to paint a specific narrative and that’s easier to do using cherry-picked sentences from sources. Still didn’t adress the 'far-right' claim or the fact that him saying 'I’m a misogynist' in sarcasm when the media described him like this time and time before isn’t him saying 'I hate wommen'. I wonder why the page doesn’t quote him saying 'I absoleutly love wommen', he says that a lot and without sarcasm. Is that not cherry-picking? I never thought I’d be defending Andrew Tate. MicholIsUsed (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't 'I love women' (by a misogynist) akin to 'I can't be racist, I have Black friends' (by a racist)?
As stated, Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say. Knitsey (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The article does not actually say that Tate himself is far-right. The furthest it goes is in the lead when it says that Tate is "associated with far-right activists and ideologies" and in the § Views and influence section when it says that he "has ties to the far-right". The available sources suggest both of these statements are true. 〜 Askarion ✉ 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
He is not associated to the far-right in any way. The far-right are ultra-nationalists, racists, usually anti-semites and anti-blacks. They also support authoritarianism, nativism, also 'ultra-conservativism', which Andrew always says (in a nutshell) 'these are the conditons I live in, you can live however you want' and he doesn’t even promote 'ultra-conservativism' on a personal level either - he brags about sleeping with hundreds of wommen, which is as far from ultra-conservativism as you get. Andrew Tate has never talked to a National Socialist or a Fascist online and doesn’t express their views, neither economically or politically. He is mixed-race, has never supported racism, anti-semitism or any of that bs. So, he isn’t far-right, not ascosiated with far-righties and has never supported the far-right. So, these 'reliable' sources are not so reliable. MicholIsUsed (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid "here's my personal views on Andrew Tate and why he can't be associated with far-right figures" don't undo his documented associations with Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson, Jack Posobiec and other members of the far-right - all sourced in the article. On Wikipedia we go with what reliable sources say, not editor's personal analyses of the far-right. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because he talked and agreed on some subjects with people having untraditional views, it doesn’t make him assosciated with the far-right, neither practically, nor in the general public. MicholIsUsed (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So what you're saying is just because he's associated with, agreed with, and promoted far-right ideologies, doesn't mean he's associated with the far-right? Reliable sources beg to differ on this, for good reason. [18][19][20][21] CNC (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-right is indeed ridiculous, I'm not even sure he is considered right-wing --FMSky (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As explained above this is about association with the far-right, not Tate's political views of being far-right. Even the right-leaning Telegraph see Tate has right-wing,[22], as does the left-leaning Independent.[23] I don't deny the content could be improved based on more recent sourcing, will work on that, but the content is very much verifiable. @FMSky Do you have any reliable sources that contradict Tate as being right-wing and associated with far-right ideologies, to add to the content? Some recent sourcing that's probably worth adding to the body for context sake as well: "While not explicitly far right, Tate’s messaging calls on the western “common man” to wake up, and he has shared far right propaganda, such as great replacement theory memes." [24] CNC (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
In absence of reliable sources contradicting Tate being right-wing, associated with far-right ideologies and individuals, as well as promoting far-right propaganda, I've improved the sourcing and updated content. Thanks to all involved for motivating me to improve sourcing and update the content with the latest controversies, without you it wouldn't of happened :) CNC (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
So last time I checked Tate was never described as far-right, but since the riots, he's achieved that description. Have therefore updated the body and the lead accordingly to reflect this new achievement based on multiple references describing Tate as both right-wing and far-right. As far as I can tell there is currently a balance between both descriptions based on RS, so this has otherwise been reflected. CNC (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot that being against illegal mass immigration is considered being far-right / neo-nazi these days, so yes it makes sense now -- FMSky (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Lol, we both know it's not why he's described as far-right now. Spreading misinformation online about the Southport suspect, namely that he is a Muslim and/or immigrant , will likely get you that label these days, when you're amplifying far-right propaganda for a bunch of fascists. Even if setting fire to hotels housing migrants might not be considered "extreme right-wing" for some, even the right-wing papers think it's a bit much and not a good look either. Also, once you start spreading the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, then you're mingling a bit too much with the white nationalists aren't you? CNC (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Is everybody alright? Those are very opinionated and thats great we are all entitled to it . I donot think that this is the place for all the hate and personal issues.
This should be a safe place for FACTS ONLY. 2603:80A0:401:F75E:4EE2:D947:A1C5:82C7 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
"In June 2023, all four were charged with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women"...... Complete misinformation!! They were arrested yes charged NO especially not all 4 of them!! Even Wikipedia is fake news now 36.255.115.1 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This far right nonsense is crazy. If you look back at Tate's Twitter/X account in 2023, his profile description said," 5 x boosted , Xe/Xim, Vice/BBC, BLM , Democrat, Vegan, Just Stop Oil, Climate change ! Biden 2024." You can view it here for proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20231009035713/https://twitter.com/Cobratate FloridaMan21 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPTWITTER self-description is not a reliable source per WP:TWITTER. CNC (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, my remarks were unnecessary. FloridaMan21 01:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2024

Change "has amassed 9,9 million followers on X" to "has amassed 10,1 million followers on X" Venis067 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

done --FMSky (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Thats a case of WP:BLUE. And if not, just Tate's account itself https://x.com/Cobratate --FMSky (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Clearly not a case of blue and Tate's account itself wouldn't be due in that context Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense --FMSky (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How is this considered out of date, does he have less than 9.9 million followers now or something? It doesn't say he has 9.9m followers, but that he has amassed that many (past tense). Dating this achievement is nonsense. CNC (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kickboxing

Hello I would like to add sourced information into his kickboxing career and record Alcapone211 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: AfD nomination

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal affairs of the Tate brothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal affairs of the Tate brothers until a consensus is reached. CNC (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Separate article for Tristan Tate

When searching Tristan Tate on Wikipedia it redirects to the article of Andrew Tate. But Tristan is a separate person and popular media influencer and deserves a separate article. In fact, a separate article for Tristan Tate is as important as Andrew Tate's article. So, let's make a separate article for Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Tristan Tate article was deleted at AfD in March 2024, that's why there is no article. See talk. CNC (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Its an atypical close though, its extremely technical and does not preclude recreation with higher quality sources "This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: the close came down to sources, which isn't particularly atypical especially for a BLP. Has better sourcing emerged since the AFD? My recollection at the time was there there were lots of trivial mentions but no depth of coverage in RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The close (according to the closer) came down to WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, the coverage of the various trials is in-depth coverage in RS but much of it falls within this special BLP protection. This was essentially a TNT close on BLP grounds, it was no consensus after all not not a consensus to delete. WP:PERP in particular indicates that we could make a subpage for the court cases without making one for Tristan Tate specifically, so there are a few options here... Not just a stand-alone Tristan Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The close was definitively delete not no consensus. If no new, substantial sources are available since the closure then further discussion seems unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This is the entirety of the close: "The result was delete. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed." so you are clearly wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a delete closure, like I said. Not a no consensus closure. So no, I don't see anything that would result in me being "clearly wrong". I also (still) haven't seen any sources presented that would alter the outcome of that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
"Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation" and you don't seem to have offered an opinion on the options offered by the BLP page even through the closer mentions them explicitly, are we not supposed to follow WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT? You also appear to have been involved in the close, so you lack the objectivity to evaluate it... I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so we now agree this was closed as delete, good. I was not involved in the close. I was involved in the discussion. Not that it matters. Anyways, since you're unable/unwilling to provide sources this appears to be a dead issue. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
If you contributed to the discussion then you are involved in the close, you appear to lack the objectivity to evaluate it which is why you are now attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not what "involved in the close" means. You don't get to choose who participates in a discussion. No one is "attacking" you. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Theres an awful lot of aggression being directed my way by you if you do not mean to be attacking me. You've made this extremely personal and haven't actualy addressed policy or guideline here unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
No, there isn't. If you have behavioral concerns move to my talk page, please, rather than distracting from my policy-based concerns that have been ignored thus far. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
What policy based concerns have you raised which have been ignored? I will address them as best as I am able. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
For the 4th time: sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
We aren't lacking significant coverage, remember that all the stuff about the civil cases counts... Its only the criminal case coverage which doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Can we get specific please? What specific secondary sources discuss Tristan Tate in depth and have come out since the last AFD, that might indicate that the subject now merits a stand-alone article? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Why would they have needed to come out since the last AFD? It wasn't deleted for lack of coverage last time, it was deleted on a technicality. There is no consensus that the topic lacks the necessary coverage to be notable which would need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Huh? BLP is a core content policy not a technicality. If there are no new sources since last time, then it's logical to assume that there still isn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
There was never a consensus that there wasn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to quote where you see that consensus in the closing statement, I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Most of the people voted to keep the article of Tristan Tate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). Still it was deleted. It seems undemocratic. Instead of deletion it could be sent to draft for further improvement. Tristan Tate is a notable online personality (social media influencer) along with his brother Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page, that's what it's there for. There is even a source list to work on, ie feel free to edit just leave a signature if you do. That's why I archived the discussion initially, as it has nothing directly to do with this page. CNC (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Given that we're discussing either a joint page for the brothers or breaking off the joint legal problems into their own article this is the right talk page. Please stop making these bold moves which you should know will be objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
My first thought was that the other Tate brother's notability was entirely dependent on this one's... But from a quick google I think that they almost certainly are notable, much of the coverage of the two does treat them as an item ("the Tates" "the Tate brothers" etc) so the two ways I can see us going with this are deciding that they're best covered together on a joint Tate brothers page (which this more or less currently is) or making a main page for each brother and a combined one for the combined legal issues. Due to the immense amount of coverage we have I would have a hard time arguing that multiple pages aren't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Tate/Archive_11&oldid=1263456486"