Talk:Andrew Tate

Personal Life: Religion

Andrew Tate identifies with the Romanian Orthodox Church faith and states that he gives over £16,000 a month to the Romanian Orthodox Church. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Not added. First off , the source says Tate - who has previously defined himself as an Orthodox Christian and claimed to give more than £16,000 a month to the Romanian Orthodox Church, which is just a source saying he is stating he does, not a source of fact, and it is also a website that I would need to look into a little bit, I'm not sure if that is a reliable source. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

well then you state that "Tate claims", which is what the reference says. 142.163.195.81 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no personal life section currently, and I doubt that there's enough info out there to add one. His faith is trivial at this point. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Two things 1. While I would agree we could put it as "Tate claims", I don't know if that is a reliable source, and am inclined to believe it is not. 2. If it IS a reliable source, I have questions about the neutrality of that article. I would welcome wider comment on it, if someone wanted, I'm not the only person who can have input, I just declined the edit request. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

rape charges

tate has commented on these charges, maybe this section should be expanded 216.164.249.213 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Where has he commented? --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done per WP:BALANCE. The Guardian article mentions that he denied wrongdoing after being questioned by police. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a good start but he has commented in quite a lot of detail. Surely there is a source that describes his denial in a bit more elaboration? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BALANCE, we should generally draw from independent secondary or tertiary sources, not from primary sources like article subjects themselves. If you can find a reliable source that discusses his commentary on the investigation, you can request to include it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You can now find a good denial of all charges on his website freetopg.com where he goes in depth about the charges raised against him. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You apparently did not read my response above. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideology

Multiple sources, including a currently-cited The Daily Beast article, describe Tate as far-right. I believe the first sentence should describe Tate as such and cite these sources.

References

CJ-Moki (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem to hesitate explicitly calling him "far-right". Instead, they note that he's "known in far-right circles" and has "surrounded himself with far-right individuals", and so on. In this case, I think we should wait until the claim is a bit more established across a variety of sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Bringing up father in a sentence about his allegations

Emory Tate hasn't been accused of being involved AFAIK. So I don't know why his chess player dad was brought up in the same sentence as human trafficking and rape allegations. 5.151.172.162 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's just a stylistic thing to decrease the number of short consecutive sentences, but I can see how it could be misunderstood to imply a connection. Personally, I don't think his father needs to mentioned in the lead at all. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Its syntactically correct but reads like random permutation of human text. Sentence begins with familial relationship to a famous chess player and end with human trafficking and rape charges.

Agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. 5.151.172.162 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I support removing the father from the lede. The lede is honestly too short though, I would support fleshing it out and moving the father part to the beginning, toward the beginning of his life part in the lede. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

social media ban

as of 2pm cst, news feeds are blowing up regarding his fb and ig bans..

possible addition for *controversies* ??

just a thought. Snarevox (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It was already added to Online Career, which thus far makes sense to me for it's location. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Add that Andrew Tate has been banned from Meta platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, in addition to Twitter.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913 Akiva476 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already in the article under Online Career. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Lede Rewrite

Emory Andrew Tate III (born December 14, 1986) is an American-British social media influencer and former professional kickboxer. The son of chess grandmaster Emory Tate, he was born in the United States, and raised in the United Kingdom. After his kickboxing career, which included two ISKA world championships, Tate made a move to influencer marketing. Tate has been subject to controversy due to misogynistic statements on topics such as sexual assault that resulted in a Twitter ban, as well as a later ban from Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram. Tate was also at the center of a legal investigation involving human trafficking and rape allegations; He denies any wrongdoing.

Please note, I'm not the best with prose, nor with citations, so it will need to be changed for both (I actually just left the old citations where they were for the purpose of the edit). I fleshed out a bit more of the early life and kickboxing career for balance against the controversy, as well as added information about the Meta ban. Please feel free to do whatever you want with this, not use it, change it, whatever, just an idea I'm throwing out to make the lede a little bit longer. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Looks good to me. I suggest unlinking United States and United Kingdom per MOS:OVERLINK. Also, we do not have to add inline citations to the lead if claims are already supported by the article body unless they are "challenged or likely to be challenged", MOS:LEADCITE. His nationality and the bit about the investigation were challenged previously, which is why citations were added for those ones. Any reason why you changed the investigation part to past tense? As far as I know, the investigation remains open. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't even think of it as a tense change, I actually split tenses in that sentence, lol. I left "denies" as present tense, but you're right "Tate has also been" keeps it all in the proper tense. And overlink agreed, I just didn't know where most people kept the cutoff as over and necessary linkage. I think the only things that need to be cited in the lede outright would be anything controversial and his birthplace, since it had been previously challenged. I'll work on making those changes, including the sourcing, later tonight, and repost it. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also actively looking for any sourcing regarding his early life. I'm looking keenly for anything to do with the Meta ban, hopefully something will have some detailed background we can use. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Andrew Tate on 'Anything Goes With James English' in 2021.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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:

• Andrew Tate on 'Anything Goes With James English' in 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Social Media bans

So, given that social media bans are becoming much more prevalent, and he's getting a ton of coverage for such, we should figure out where to put it. Should the bans go into controversy? Should they stay in online career? I worry about grouping too much into controversy, it seems like everything outside of the subject's kickboxing career is controversial, so I'm preferential to keeping them in online career, since they more relate to that, especially as they are in direct response to the controversy regarding the subject's current online career, but then again, it's the controversy about his online career. Anyone got an opinion? FrederalBacon (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The "criticism and controversies" section itself is currently under dispute, with a maintenance tag recommending its content be spread out throughout the article. Getting banned from nearly every major social media platform is not typical, so it definitely warrants a mention; I'd say to put it in controversies for now, but be aware that the section may vanish. We could also try renaming the section to "online career" or "media presence". Andrew Tate is a very controversial figure, so it tracks that his online career is mostly a list of controversies, but I'll admit there are some gaps (what was he doing between 2017 and 2021, say?) that make it seem like perhaps the article is stacked against him. (Disclaimer, I'm not really in the Tate-o-sphere, I'm not super well educated on all things Andrew Tate; just an editor's opinion.) Askarion ✉ 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "media presence" section, so I went ahead and boldly added one. Info that felt a bit out of place in the online career section seems to fit in quite nicely there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I like it, flows a lot better, well done. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thetab

Is this a trustworthy source? I've never heard of this site in my life. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A January 2021 RSN discussion roughly agreed that it is not a good source, but some editors argued that it may occasionally be usable. Essentially there's no consensus. ––FormalDude talk 20:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove or switch out some words

Switch out the word “sexual harassment” or “rape” in the description and say instead “his views on women and his idea of becoming rich” 84.38.149.207 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is 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. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MMA record section

He's apparently only had one fight each as amateur and professional; his only professional fight was against a non-notable opponent. The question is: is the section really necessary? I feel like the {{MMA record start}} templates are only preferable if the fight record is so extensive that it would be more difficult to grasp in prose. Tate's record is summed up rather quickly. I think the Andrew Tate#Kickboxing subsection is sufficient. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It is two fights, in separate tables. I think it would be fine for it to go. The section sums it up. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"allegedly misogynistic"

Should it really be allegedly? I understand Wikipedia wants to be as objective as possible and not start controversy but this isn't the hill to die on. There's no "allegedly" when you say yourself women are property. Leid Elend (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you're not wrong. It isn't allegedly, the views are misogynistic. I'm not sure what to do with this. I would support removing the allegedly, should BLP guidelines and sourcing allow it. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence to say "described as" rather than allegedly Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, nobody "alleges" that his commentary is misogynistic. Sources present it as fact. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is quoted as calling his views "Extremely Misogynistic". I think that would be a better descriptor for the lede too. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lede should simply call Tate's remarks misogynistic without qualifiers such as "allegedly" or "described as." No reliable secondary sources as far as I am aware dispute the characterization of his commentary as misogynistic. As a point of reference, see Gamergate's article, which plainly calls the article's subject misogynistic in accordance with reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, to a certain extent. I think calling him misogynistic in wikivoice in the lede requires a high quality source, as someone is likely to challenge that. Do we have a high quality source calling him misogynistic, not editorialized? We have a non profit that is cited as describing him as "extremely misogynistic." Do we call his views a such in the lede, using that as a source? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I've found this NPR article. From my brief review of sourcing I don't think it would be appropriate to say this in WP:WIKIVOICE. This Guardian reference seems to attribute descriptions of misogyny rather than outright say it. When it comes to BLP's, it's best to err on the side of caution. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Another Guardian piece describes at least some of Tate's views as "misogynistic" in its own voice. Ditto for Buzzfeed News. NBC News says he has "hyper-misogynistic stances". My bar's pretty high for wikivoice claims like this, but I'd say we're close to it. I think the move from "allegedly" to "described as" was a good one, and I'm comfortable parked here for a bit. More sourcing seems to be rolling in still. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that we're close to the wiki voice bar, but it's best to just wait a minute and see what RS continues to say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that due to the bias of the Guardian they would say that; therefore it is not a reliable source to quote. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In terms of BLPs, I would agree. If we can't find multiple non-editorialized, high quality sources calling him that, we can't call him that in wikivoice. But given there are a wide variety of reliable sources who have given that view, maybe "widely described as misogynistic"? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A recent Washington Post article quotes him as calling himself "absolutely a misogynist", so I don't see any reason why wikivoice shouldn't plainly refer to his stamements as misogynistic in the lead. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Australian Broadcasting Corporation is now using "extremely misogynistic comments". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

At what point do we reach the bar of plainly describing his remarks as misogynistic in wikivoice, especially now that we have multiple sources calling them "extremely misogynistic?" CJ-Moki (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We've reached it imo. Everyone involved in this discussion except Iamreallygoodatcheckers has weighed in, so I guess we should wait until he does. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Do you believe we have reached the bar to plainly call Tate's remarks misogynistic in wikivoice? CJ-Moki (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I weighed in down below, we have a source where he calls himself as such. I think we're there. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

With BLPs, it can be especially tricky because of libel, but at this point, we have six sources, in this thread alone, that refer to his comments as misogynist in their own voices, and even the subject of the article himself agreeing as much. It's tricky, but I think the most helpful question to ask is, would the average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of women? For now, I'd settle for using "widely described as" in the lead. Askarion ✉ 20:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of women I disagree, that's not what we have to ask. We have to ask "Do we have enough high quality reliable sources for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL change to calling his views misogynist in wikivoice?"I would argue that whereas editors were close to that bar just yesterday, perhaps the source where the subject calls himself as such that is now located would put it over that bar. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it was only twenty minutes ago, but I have no idea what I was thinking when I said that. Askarion ✉ 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

As someone who regularly says things and goes "Wait, why did I say that?", no big. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. An estimation of what people could possibly think generally is not our standard for inclusion, reliable sources are. There is not a single source I know of that objects to the "misogynist" characterization and even the article subject (!) agrees with this characterization. I really think we're being unduly cautious if we left it at anything but a statement of fact. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm not a regular here, but I have to chime in. This is an example of unsupported dependent sourcing of content. One organization is content sourced for an article or articles (not necessarily referenced) which in turn are then used as content sources, all of which then are then used to supposedly prove a concept. At some point something needs to justify the terminology used. Unfortunately, with this particular case you are likely not going to find any primary source that justifies the term "misogynistic" (without quotes) without that source having already been deemed biased. For instance, look at the Newsweek article on why Tate was removed from Meta. The article states, "Tate has been making headlines and is widely known on social media for his controversial ideas, which have often been labeled as 'dangerous' and 'misogynistic.'" There's no reference or justification for the statement. It's just a repeated set of words that has the "everyone knows" sort of mentality to it. Any "high quality" sources are going to be the same because it's all dependent on someone's opinion. So, put some stupid quotes around it and provide references (so you can secure Wikipedia as part of the circular referencing), or do better than the media and actually write something that supplies facts.

Here's what I would suggest as a rewrite regarding that last sentence: "Tate was banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok after pressure from domestic abuse charities called for his removal over 'misogynistic' content". And then add the references, which are oddly hard to find considering how many articles state that they exist.

Also, this supposed "self-described" argument and the article that it depends on appears to be complete BS, and needs to be removed from the sources as such. Nowhere in the article does it actually quote him calling himself a "misogynist". Poor reporting of that ilk (not a first for the Post) should really degrade (or, at least, make one question) that "high quality" statement over time, shouldn't it?

And though I shouldn't have to say this, I don't support this guy. I think he has a screw loose and is spewing more harm than good. However, that doesn't justify being lazy in providing objective citations or denotations. Ceegh (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Several sources, some of them cited above, do not use quotations when describing Tate as misogynistic and base this on his comments about women. The WaPo article states as follows: He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as 'absolutely a misogynist.' Here is the primary source, Tate himself, for you to verify.

Your claim that his social media bans were the direct result of pressure exerted by abuse charities is unsubstantiated, both by the article and by sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about whether or not to call the subject a misogynist in Wikivoice when the subject calls himself one and it gets coverage in third party sources. I for one would be down to change it to Tate describes himself as "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", since that is more accurate, and is literally what the subject himself said, but I'm not sure the sexist line has been covered in third party. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Change what exactly? The lead? I don't see how that would be an improvement over how it's written currently. If at all, these quotes would be better placed in the "social media impact" section imo. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the lede could use a bit of expansion, there isn't much information between when his kickboxing career ended and when this whole thing started. There would be place for stuff like that there, potentially.

Until the lede is expanded (if it even is, no one may agree with me on this), I would support referencing misogyny in the lede. It's been questioned frequently here, I think we should add the WaPo article ref you put above. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added three sources to the lead that describe Tate's comments as misogynistic in their own words here. That should be enough to justify wikivoice for now. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources

[1] This one talks about a link to Infowars and conspiracy theorists

[2] This one has some quotes from the subject, including a statement where he pretty much denies all the controversy around him.

[3] Source for the closure of "Hustlers University" FrederalBacon (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So the first link references several appearances on Infowars. Anybody got an opinion as to whether or not to include that? FrederalBacon (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe it should be included. It elaborates on his far-right connections mentioned in other sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The discontinuation of the affiliate program is already mentioned in the article. The WaPo article mentions that he most recently described himself as "absolutely a misogynist", so that should override his previous denials. His far-right connections could be incorporated into the media presence section. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If he describes himself as a misogynist, and it's reported by third party RS, I believe that would also mean we should be able to call his view misogynist in wikivoice. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and included his response to criticism based on the NBC News article and info on his far-right background based on the WaPo article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

ADD: Regarding police investigation, Leaked CCTV footage revealed that the American woman was not in any danger. The case was later dismissed. https://abtc.ng/andrew-tate-arrested-why-did-tate-get-arrested/ Andrewleenders16 (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Their articles are awkwardly written, author links are broken, their copyright footer still says "2021", and their page on "Editorial Policy and Standards" says that they "may consider donations to support coverage of particular topics", which means they publish sponsored content. These are all indicators that the publication is unreliable. Also, there are no criminal charges against him, so there's no "case" to be dismissed. Had the investigation been closed, we'd surely hear Tate talking about it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Context for the Trafficking and move to Romania

As for the girl apparently she lied to her bf about her being kept there against her will when he saw her there on IG there’s CCTV of her walking out grabbing a pizza and walking back in and her leaving by Uber. As for the move it was cheaper more corruption and lack of strict speeding laws and lack of random violence like in London lastly he kicked a girl out and threw her stuff outta the window which she called the police with a false accusations and they investigated found not 1 piece of evidence and tried pinning other petty charges which he decided to leave as Romania wouldn’t take such actions on false accusations and the investigation has been over for a while they were released after 1 hour of talking and CCTV security Cameras checking. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for all of this information. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Length

Is there a reason this article is so short? As one of the most famous people in the world now, I think Tate warrants a proper article. I suggest expanding all of it greatly, especially the sections about his social media presence and businesses. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Article length is relative to the quantity and depth of coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Mainstream media has only started to cover him a few weeks ago, and I'm sure more articles will be written about him. I don't think the article is unduly short at this point in time, but if you have any specific additions you'd like to see included, you can always request them here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

Content is misleading. Andrew Tate is Bi-racial and raised in England by his white Brittish mother. He is cultully not African America as he was not raised in the USA.

He is half black and half white!

2601:240:D980:8D80:D53D:1C97:7EB4:1ADA (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it state that he is African-American. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Since it has been brought up, I don't think we go into his ethnicity background because I believe only the father's racial background is reliably sourced, but the claims of the mother being Caucasian are not yet. Anyone have a source for that? FrederalBacon (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No good sources as far as I can see. I don't think it's very important either. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, typically the subject's ethnic background would be included in a BLP, should a reliable source be found. Obviously, his father is notable enough to have their own article, so that's well known, but without information about the mother, we can't do anything. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Source

Sources were from Tate and footage of the women walking out of the house on CCTV was posted on the whole channel but was banned 1-2 days ago I’m gonna make a educated guess source can’t be from videos or them but there side could be added. As for the big brother situation Daily Mail and The Sun both posted articles and showed photos of the women in question who was “beaten” posing with the belt and two videos later came out one on reddit of her addressing that it was a game and they are friends another different video of her was dropped by Tate of her on the bed on her stomach asking to be “hit like a man” to which he replies “Most of England thinks I beat women because of you” so it should be added that she came out to debunk the claims and video lastly in other videos of why Tate left England he mentions the situation that he kicked a women out for vomiting on the bed and refusal to clean it up so was kicked out and stuff thrown out to which she had a false accusations made no charges or evidence found after the raid or search warrant so he left. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide links to sources for any of this? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

These are simply allegations, so we can't add it to the article. ZetaFive (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

Tate recently made a video saying he will be leaving social media and focusing on charity FlyersFan1969 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Done Yet I see the video, it's an hour long. I'm sure reliable sources will be covering it soon. Feel free to reopen this when it's covered in third party sources, I'll add it. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Unfounded Accusations / NPOV

Andrew Tate very recently released a "Final Statement" which included effectively debunking several claims on this page, including the sexual trafficking claim which is directly disputed with evidence. I think a need for more basis to claims like "misogynistic" is necessary, too. One citation which claims Tate said he 'moved to Romania for lax rape law enforcement' has no actual clips of him saying it. There's not even a single person who has ever actually came out directly accusing Tate of wrongdoing, and he's never been charged with a crime.

In essence: more care needs to be taken as to what is documented imo. Many lines read, to me, as definitely not from a NPOV. 2603:9000:8200:8957:5C85:5287:4A74:4E9C (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We do not remove negative content simply because it is negative, and we do not remove negative content because the subject denies it. Reliable sources will cover the video, but it doesn't make the investigations disappear. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Tate is not an independent source on himself. He would say that, wouldn't he? Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Tate has denied the allegations made against him, and so while it should be made clear that investigations were made, it should also be made obvious that he has explicitly stated that these investigations were unsubstantiated, and to cite from where. People use these articles to find out more, and so they should be able to see Andrew's side of the story via a link to his video in the references in my opinion. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources that are independent of the article subject in order to achieve the most neutral representation of viewpoints possible. An article about oneself isn't necessarily a good thing, and we do not use Wikipedia to amplify a subject's POV. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022 (2)

Andrew Tate is a supporter of the Republican party so Republican party should be added to his page. Rasmus1234551 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source for this information and explain how it should be incorporated into the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022 (3)

I request that in the intro, mention of him being a “misogynist” is removed as this is purely opinion. 2001:48F8:7054:1038:DD47:66E5:842C:2FA5 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You can refer to the above discussion under the thread "allegedly misogynistic" for context on why this change was made. As the above reply says, if you can establish a consensus otherwise, we can discuss changing it back. Askarion ✉ 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2022

Change “young directionless men” to “British Muslims” since that is all the source substantiates. 2603:3001:10A:B500:29AB:50AC:C2AD:EC64 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The source says: Almost overnight, Tate has become a cult-like figure to young men and boys across many English-speaking countries. Further down, it says: Worryingly, Tate appears to be the latest avatar of the internet pipeline that takes young directionless men from videos on life and male development to arriving at the conclusion that feminism is to blame for a lot in life. The author talks about Tate generally in about the first third of the article and only goes into the British-Muslim distinction later in the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr

The article has a whole section about Tate's social media presence yet his currently existing, non-banned accounts are not even mentioned. My suggestion is to add information about the existence of these accounts into that section, as well as to add links to these accounts into "external links" section. This is in my opinion the most important information that can possibly be on this page because a person's (this applies to everyone) speech is a more unbiased source of information than other people's interpretations of that speech. Accounts: https://rumble.com/c/TateSpeech https://gettr.com/user/cobratate Ki999 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This article does not exist to advertise how to see the subject’s views. If his continued social media use is covered in reliable third party sources, we can include them in the section. Other than that, someone having a profile on a social media network, in and of itself isn’t notable. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"This article does not exist to advertise how to see the subject’s views." I respect this rule, that's why the information I suggested to be added is 100% objective fact that cannot be argued against. Unfortunately this rule has been already broken right in the lead section of the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.

"If his continued social media use is covered in reliable third party sources, we can include them in the section." - so I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by "reliable source". What does that even mean? How do you determine a source's reliability? One news site claimed without any evidence at all that Tate has described himself as "misoginist". Yet this unverified claim has been placed on Wikipedia as fact.

"someone having a profile on a social media network, in and of itself isn’t notable" - again, what is your criteria to determine if something is notable or not? 99% of this person's global recognition is because of his social media presence. How such a person's only remaining social media accounts are not notable? At the same time police raiding his house because of some baseless call is somehow more notable? Ki999 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is. Here are some useful links: Help:Introduction, Wikipedia:Teahouse Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me remind you that our topic of discussion is the inclusion of links to the person's social media accounts. I see you have nothing to say about that and instead of addressing my arguments chose to claim that I am not familiar with what Wikipedia is. Don't change the topic. Ki999 (talk) 9:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You evidently do not know what Wikipedia is. Had you known about Wikipedia's verifiability policy and guideline on reliable sources, you wouldn't have said, I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by 'reliable source'. What does that even mean? and asked, How do you determine a source's reliability? This talk page is not the place for general inquiries. If you are really clueless about these concepts, these questions should be asked at the Teahouse (as I linked to above) before starting a thread here. Per the content guideline on external links, links to social media accounts of the article subject are to be avoided unless the subject has no online presence outside of those social media platforms. Tate, of course, has his own website, which is already linked, both in the infobox and under Andrew Tate#External links. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

More than one news site has covered the video where he openly called himself "absolutely a misogynist". Hence, the inclusion. I would take some time to take a glance at the link Throast posted, it'll probably help with understanding why this article is the way it is. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I know that multiple news sites claim that there is some video where he says that, but to my knowledge neither of these sites could point out to the video itself. Thus this claim is not verified, no matter how many news sites copy-paste it from each other. Links Throast posted did not help, our topic is inclusion of gettr and rumble links and I cannot find anything relevant to that in those links. Ki999 (talk) 9:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Strangely, this point about the source video not existing has been made by another editor just a few days ago. Since you seem to be unwilling to do your own research, here is the video clip where Tate calls himself "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist". I believe it is an excerpt of his episode on Anything Goes With James English; here is the original full-length episode. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

2A02:214C:8802:5400:C5B4:6E8C:D0E5:1A01 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)andrew tate was not a misogynist . Out of context tik tok made him seem like a bad guy you should really watch his podcasts and then form a final opinion. you should have a spherical point of view.

 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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Animal Shelter and Rebuilding of Orphanage should be mentioned 2600:1014:B1A3:7F4A:14A2:B846:F94D:77B (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

He rebuilt an orphanage? Got a link? FrederalBacon (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

andrew tate is not 6,1 that is wrong, hes 6,3. change 6ft 1in to 6ft 3in. Turtlepp934 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Done Sherdog disagrees. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfoLN25FEM how come it says 1.90cm on stats which equals to 6,3 on this fight. i think that website just made an error. Turtlepp934 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

BoxRec says 6 ft 1 in and 1.85 m as well. Before changing this, we should find a better source than a video clip of a single fight. I'm not sure how due this information is anyway; it is neither featured in the article body nor discussed in reliable sources, and infoboxes are supposed to summarize—not supplant—information. If it was up to me, I would remove these stats altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tates Birth

Andrew Tates birth records shows him born in Washington D.C and he has stated that he was born in Washington D.C https://www.tiktok.com/@lightofday0/video/7119440491212524805?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&q=where%20was%20andrew%20tate%20born&t=1661521909631 this is a tiktok of his deleted video "The worst things about being rich" full video here https://odysee.com/@tatespeech:c/the-worst-things-about-being-rich:7 Antoniogago l (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)