Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Edit war & Romanian source quality

I agree with both of User:Throast's points and reverted again. The kickboxing section had a seemingly good source that was removed, with some redundant info added. The new sources used in "Criminal investigation" are very concerning to me. For example, they explicitly name the American girl whose accusation started the investigation, which no reputable news outlet bound by an ethical code would ever do (since she is a suspected trafficking victim, and apparently never stepped forward to the media or consented to being identified); they also uncritically republish the Romanian girl's mother's accusations that the American girl (the one whose boyfriend called the police) was the one who "orchestrated everything" (in other words, the alleged victim is accused of being the perpetrator); frankly, it's a mess, and no ethical news organization would publish anything like that. As you many know, many Romanian media outlets are tabloid-like and do not follow ethical guidelines, or only do so inconsistently (study: [1]). A few quotes from that study (it's not the only one):

Romanian media have professional and ethical codes, created by professional organizations and NGOs or drafted and adopted independently by newsrooms. However, they are barely observed or enforced.

Vasiliu said that whether reporters verify their information depends on the newsroom. But the practice of not verifying is increasingly frequent. He gave an example: “In December 2017, media reported a high-profile murder/suicide, claiming the husband murdered the wife before taking his own life and saying she had marks on her body. The next day, the Chief Prosecutor put out a statement: the two committed suicide several hours apart, and there were no marks on the woman’s body. But to the public, the husband remained the criminal.”

Recently, two tabloid newspapers, known for yellow journalism, have asked to be registered as quality “general newspapers.” One of the claims has been approved, while the other is still pending. “I am not that convinced these publications practice ethical journalism,” said Ispas. Matei Martin also noted that many publications mix hard news with blog posts. “They sell opinions as news,” he said

Romania has several all-news TV stations, and each general TV station produces at least one main news program. However, many of the news programs are almost tabloid in nature, with serious ethical and professional violations. Panelists agreed that many broadcast news shows are entertainment programs, and according to Matei Martin, “infotainment has a very important place in print.”

And here's Reuters talking about media trust and quality in Romania (go to page 98): [2]

Even Romanian news outlets that are seen as more reputable have been embroiled in ethical scandals (like Adevarul, whose owner has been indicted by — of all things — DIICOT); so we should be exceedingly cautious with citing potentially lower-quality outlets. The WP:RS policy applies for both English and Romanian sources; and keep in mind that the standard is quite strict when it comes to controversial WP:BLP claims, and especially anything related to criminal investigations or accusations; even some other popular sources that could be considered WP:RS for other contexts would not be usable for criminal contexts. That's why I reverted the section to what the section was like before; I do think DIICOT should be mentioned, so I kept that change since it's backed up by the DB citation (see Talk:Andrew_Tate#Ongoing_investigation for a discussion of DB's quality; I think it's fine to use it to backup the DIICOT addition). Sources that are already seen as reputable according to WP:RSN are more than welcome to be added, but sources that have never been discussed there before should ideally be discussed here in advance. DFlhb (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no edit war, I personally do not want to edit this article. I just thought I could improve it. The titles won should be maintained, because 2 of them are already mentioned by approved sources. And they are world titles of a kickboxing body. At Enfusion, it's hilarious, I watched that match and there are enough sources to indicate that the fight took place. As per Israel Adesanya (See Championships!), they should be mentioned.

Regarding Gândul, it's a reliable and pretty big newspaper. Adrian Sârbu is real mogul. There are no indications he is turning Gândul into a tabloid, just because he also holds tabloids. Television time. The guy was with Pro TV, one of the largest television in South East Europe, very reliable and affiliated to the West. He holds Aleph News as well, high level journalism and something new as style. https://www.youtube.com/c/AlephNewsOfficial Andrei Dumitrescu of Gândul is an investigative journalist, very known and close to the authorities (judiciary, police). https://www.gandul.ro/autor/andrei-dumitrescu

It is hilarious to make comparisons between the BBC and the Romanian media. The BBC and others contain enough crap that you take for granted. A lot of misinformation about Romania.

Some edits have no logic. We hide his sports record and if Antena 1 says that his villa also works as a video chat studio, or that they also own a studio in Los Angeles, we don't post it. Do you think that Antena 1 is inventing that the girls were tattooed with OWN BY TATE? Media in Romania is at a good level, one of the largest consumers of television in the EU, if not the largest in terms of percentage. The 6th most populous country in the EU.

If you don't want to write about what Antena 1 reports, there is still footage with the mother of the Romanian student who claims that she was recruited with the promise of making her a model. It is also about a girl from Romania. Select what you want, I'm really not too interested in the article. If someone else wanted to hide information about his sports career, at least then you didn't have to mention anything. We usually have a section for titles as well.

All the best, guys (just my two cents) - and sorry for my English, I am also in a hurry

You can select anything if you think I made some improvements, otherwise it's about your consensus.

.karellian-24 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing your reply's identation (WP:TPO) to make it clearer that you authored all paragraphs, and to make it easier for others to reply.

The problem with Antena 1 is that there is no consensus on it being a reliable source. Much Romanian TV news has been described as "almost tabloid in nature", which qualifies as "poorly sourced" under WP:BLPREMOVE, and WP:BLPSOURCES: The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism (fails both verifiability and notability). I don't want to bury you in Wikipedia guidelines when you may have little time to contribute here, but we have to follow them (especially for contentious BLP matters). While I'm sure the BBC has issues (no one is perfect), Wikipedia operates based on consensus around which sources are reliable, and which are not. The mother of the Romanian girl is not a reliable source. Antena 1 claims that the Tates own a webcam studio in Los Angeles; the only other reference I've found to that on the entire internet is a sherdog.com forum post (not the most reliable obviously). I've documented far more major ethical breaches above; I think it's pretty clear they're not usable as a source.

Adrian Sârbu used to own Gândul, but has now sold it to notable tabloid owner Radu Budeanu. Note that Dumitrescu joined Gândul after it was bought by this tabloid mogul.

Regarding kickboxing content, it's a bit of a shame. Jean-Luc Benoit doesn't even have a page on the French or English Wikipedia despite being a French champion and being known internationally to a degree, and quite well-known in France. Unfortunately we have to follow Wikipedia policy, and a lot of boxing and especially kickboxing content doesn't have sources Wikipedia considers reliable. I am not interested in hiding any information about his sports career; I personally think that when someone's sports career is notable, their entire fight record should be considered notable; but then it brings us back to the sourcing issue. Perhaps Wikipedia policies regarding that should be changed (I think it should, and that it could be done without causing harm to Wikipedia) but there are better places to discuss that. DFlhb (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the kickboxing section, here are some threads to help you understand where I'm coming from: Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 2#Fighting records? and Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3#MMA fights?. I don't see the utility of copy-pasting his exhaustive fighting record on Wikipedia when it can be easily accessed via external links. On top of that, Tate is notable for his kickboxing career to a much lesser extent than he is for his social media presence. The number of quality sources discussing his kickboxing stint are in the single digits. Expanding the section with extensive tables and lists is simply not justified given the comparatively low coverage in secondary sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"appeared to beat a woman with a belt"

That's very strange language to use for someone violently beating a woman with a belt. "Appeared to" suggests there is some dispute about whether the video is genuine or not, which, to my knowledge, there is not.

I've seen the video (regrettably), it is not an ambiguous thing. (it's online here and here, although I would exercise STRONG caution to anyone before watching that video who is not ready to see some quite graphic abusive violence). It is watermarked as from the Daily Star, a UK tabloid. A quick google brought me this article from the Daily Star. Keeping the reddit link above because tabloid sites are a mess and difficult to get media to play correctly. After seeing this video, I went to wikipedia to read more about it, and was surprised to find WP:Weasel words implying that he only "appeared" to beat this woman. The video shows graphic, extreme, violence, and there is no dispute about its authenticity. (Published by a tabloid sure, but still a UK media outlet that has to conform to libel laws etc.)

I'll say it twice, I really do advise caution to anyone thinking about following the link. Posting it here because the article is protected, and I think it's important to correct this phrasing, but, frankly, if you haven't already had the misfortune of seeing it, it might be best for you to just go about your day... Tomatoswoop (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an instance of WP:WEASEL. "Appeared" is the language used in the Independent article. The circumstances of the video have been disputed, and both parties involved state that the actions were consensual, so I don't see an issue there. If you can provide a reliable source that in your view provides a more accurate description of events, feel free to propose it here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

edit request

Unfortunately, to this day, no social media company gave a reason for the ban to Andrew Tate in August 2022. What is true though is that some spokeperson of those complanies said that he violated their terms of service, but they did not tell anyone what he did, neither what phrase or video caused his ban.

In this podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-C4CVGk28 Andrew for the first time could talk in depth about his ban. He said that he saw emails coming with bans from everything, Uber, Skype, Discord, Stripe, United Kingdom banks. He couldn't remember all, but he got banned from a lot of things other than just social media platforms. He also said that they did not tell him in any way why they banned him or what he did, and he believes they didn't do it and stayed general because in case he decides to use any legal option they can make up a reason for the ban at the last minute. What is even more suspicious (Still following what Andrew said in that podcast) is that the day after his ban these social media companies changed their terms of service and added a lot of things,

This article can be greatly improved if everything Andrew said in that podcast about his ban gets added What those spokeperson said should be kept in the article, obviously, but the way it's written at this moment of time is misleading

On the Social media presence section it can be added this (I will say the full story that Andrew gave from the podcast that i linked above) Andrew got a strike that prevented him from posting, the day after, Meta deleted his Facebook and Instagram, and at the same time the press came out and attacked Andrew Tate saying that he is a misogynist, dangerous person, the world is a worse place because of him etc. He wanted to get out his "Final message" (That's the title he gave) at his Youtube, explaining why the ban that Meta gave him is unfair. 12 hours later the video was ready, but Andrew couldn't post it because of his Youtube strike; a few hour before the Youtube strike expired and he would have regained the ability to post, he got banned from Youtube, Tik tok, Discord, i talked about it above. He ended up putting the video on freetopg.com, that then got share by Logan Paul https://twitter.com/jakepaul/status/1562177664269565953?lang=en Andrew Tate after the ban moved to rumble.com that, among a bunch of other things has the big advantage of being censorship free, so there is no way he's going to get deleted. Now he is uploading his new content there AkaneVento (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a self-published source as a source on the subject. It includes claims about third parties and can therefore not be used as you propose to use it, per WP:ABOUTSELF #2. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

couldn't be added what Andrew Tate said publicly as someone already did on this article? AkaneVento (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all what I said above. Please read my response again and try to comprehend it. Clicking the link and reading what's written there might help as well. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to add something about his recent cancellations on Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, and other social media platforms. That is all that I am requesting Thank you for reading.

Kind regards

User: Tate is king Tate is King (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to remove the criminal investigation part of his Wikipedia article and the other untrue allegation and rumour that littered his Wikipedia article which for some reason has still stayed on the article for a long period.

Kind regards

User: Tate is king ✊🏼👑💯 Tate is King (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. He is a public figure, and this is reasonably well sourced and seems worth including. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Mother’s name is Eileen Tate https://www.facebook.com/eileen.tate60.48.229.219 (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe.[21]

The source cited here is notoriously unreliable (see: TheTAB discussion page on wikipedia) and this quote is taken way out of context. In the video Tate clarifies he has no intention on every committing rape, he just "likes the idea of being free" 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The Tab is cited nowhere in the article. This GQ UK article (a publication which hasn't been thoroughly discussed at WP:RSN but seems perfectly usable) supports this information. This talk page discussion affirmed the phrasing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

After reading the passage again, I do wonder if it's appropriate to include this in the "Criminal investigations" section rather than including it alongside social media controversies. Given that this is a BLP, it seems to violate WP:SYNTH quite clearly. GQ merely lists it alongside other social media statements. DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's just context. Without it, readers would wonder what a Brit was doing in Romania. It could be moved to a new "personal life" section, although that would look a little awkward. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; the infobox already states he is in Romania. Given the context, the sentence could imply premeditation; I think it goes somewhat over the WP:NPOV line by implying subtly that the allegations were tacitly admitted by the subject. I also think it's self-explanatory that the Romanian police wouldn't raid a house in England. DFlhb (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox states that he fought out of Romania at some point in time, so some context is required. I hear your SYNTH concerns tho. How about moving it right after [...] to accuse him of infidelity in the social media presence section? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good place to put it.

If you think his move to Romania needs to be stated explicitly, we could add:

"Tate moved to Romania in 2017." [3]

To avoid the same SYNTH concerns, I don't think this should be put in the Investigations section; the Culture section seems much better, probably after mentioning the webcam studio, since in an interview with the Mirror [4], Tate said that the move to Romania happened a few years after their first webcam studio. This is a primary source, but I think that's acceptable given that it's only being used to establish a timeline, not to back claims up. DFlhb (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The culture section? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I meant the Career section. I'm getting my articles mixed up. DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit out of place there without further info, but perhaps you can expand on that if you like. If his statements in the Mirror interview are in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, they can be used. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out where to add that; but I've improved the wording and added some detail (Stripe) from an already cited source. DFlhb (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad, when I checked it it was. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That being said, the passage is still misleading for the reasons outlined above. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the sentiment in the GQ article is echoed in several reliable sources. As has been stated on this talk page many times, we do not use Wikipedia articles to amplify subjects' POV. We summarize what reliable secondary sources have to say about a given subject. If—in Tate's opinion—sources misinterpret his words as frequently as he claims they do, he should probably consider making himself more clear in the first place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

apex legends banned the nick "Andrew Tate"

"On 3rd September 2022, an Apex Legends player tweeted their report from EA stating that using “Andrew Tate” as a username in their game is now bannable according to their Positive Play Charter." There are multiple sources you can find online about this, but i will put a few https://www.ginx.tv/en/apex-legends/ea-bans-players-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-in-apex-legends https://www.dexerto.com/apex-legends/apex-legends-is-reportedly-banning-players-for-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-1922442/ AkaneVento (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't great sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to open an RSN discussion about Ginx. I've seen it used a bit for gaming news, and it seems iffy to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not only are those poor sources, but I fail to see how this is notable. DFlhb (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity"

I know I've attempted to discuss this before, but the inclusion of this sentence confuses me when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm more interested here in learning more about the nuances of WP:Verifiability than in getting consensus for any edit or removal, since this is a very minor part of the article (though this still seems like the most relevant page to discuss this at). This is going to seem pedantic but I'm actually curious as to how Wikipedia handles these types of cases since it has relevance for quite a few other cases involving controversial and non-controversial BLPs.

It seems quite objective and straightforward to me that the secondary source outright conflicts with the primary source, and this is a topic that Wikipedia guidelines are notoriously ambiguous on. This isn't the same kind of problem as statements of opinion or interpretation made by WP:RS (for example, a comment criticizing MeToo could be described as misogynistic or trivializing in all WP:RS, and that would need to be included even if editors disagree). Here, we have not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact, and I feel it simply doesn't describe the source correctly. For my earlier arguments and evidence, see Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3#Factual inaccuracy slipped into the article. They are describing a comedic mise-en-scene within a video about female self-defense as a him "acting out how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating". He was not expressing his desire to attack any woman that accuses him of cheating, but was instead illustrating his view that female self-defense is "a scam"; it's a different topic altogether and seems like a plain factual inaccuracy. Due to the fact that this exact clip was perhaps Tate's single most viral clip; this is borderline WP:RSBREAKING.

Doesn't WP:VNOT give editors some leeway in determining if a claim is worthy of inclusion? Separately, WP:NPOV states that all viewpoints should be represented according to their representation in WP:RS and with due weight; I take "viewpoints" to refer to both frameworks of reality (for example, creationism vs evolution) and judgments (for example, saying that a claim is false, or labelling someone as misogynistic). But I don't believe "viewpoints" include statements of fact, in the legal sense of that term (for example, if the Guardian bizarrely published that Tate had great hair, we would clearly not include that in the article even if it was the only reliable source that described his hair, since we would just attribute it to a mistake or oversight). What if Biden made a joke, and an overwise-reliable source took it out of context and distorted it? I feel like editors would simply not include that (though Biden is a special case, since anything he says would have dozens of sources reporting on it, and we would just cite the good ones and ignore the others).

WP:OR only dictates that original research should not be included in the article; it does not mean that if all editors agree that a WP:RS claim is mistaken, it must still be included. And the spirit of WP:OR is to prevent WP from being flooded with editors' personal opinions, and remain encyclopedic; I think the inclusion of this sentence makes the article less encyclopedic, not more.

I've seen similar debates around transcripts on Wikipedia, where a full video was available, and secondary sources introduced mistakes in their transcript; there was no official transcript available. The consensus I saw (I wish I remembered which page this was on) was that the correct transcript should be included, and this would not count as WP:OR since it is plainly visible to anyone. Similarly, here, when a claim is plainly incorrect and has not reliably been reported in other WP:RS (and is therefore of dubious notability), shouldn't it be removed, as long as the move is not controversial among editors? WP:BLPGOSSIP also seems to apply.

Keep in mind that this question is not just about this passage; I'm also asking how I should approach these issues in equivalent disputes on other BLPs and topics. Though the policies are ambiguous, I'm sure there have been significant precedents. Most discussions I've seen on WP:Verifiability have been extremely poor quality due to the types of people who usually get involved in those discussions (IPs, non-good faith editors), and I've never seen a proper discussion of these nuances. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Having now looked at the full-length primary source for the first time, I have to agree that it does seem like a bad-faith misrepresentation of the primary source. The quote was probably published somewhere and then picked up by other publications without them doing their own research.

While editors on Wikipedia are often told that they are not supposed to be "arbiters of truth", I think that's actually a bit misleading. In determining what constitutes a reliable source on a case-by-case basis, we sometimes have to compare objective truth to what's written. For example, a common question that is asked to probe a publication's reliability is whether the publication issues corrections, i.e. whether they rectify falsities. I recommend moving this discussion to WP:RSN regarding that specific passage. You'll probably draw a lot more attention from experienced editors there. RSN is the place to go when you're looking for quality RS discussions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. This might be one of the most ambiguous (and toughest) aspect of Wikipedia policies, so I'm looking forward to learn.

I've posted it here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Disagreement_between_primary_and_secondary_sources. Any editor here is obviously free to join and comment. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to WP:RSN discussion

As stated in the WP:RSN discussion, I've already reviewed all claims that we used the NYTimes and Guardian for, and I see no issues left.

I've just checked each claim in the Social media presence section to make sure the same problem hadn't made its way anywhere else. The section looks solid now, but I think I found a last issue:

Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe

I've found the primary source for that claim. [5] (on Odysee). Primary source is called: "Tate on the MeToo Movement". Relevant transcript below. The passage necessarily has to be long because the media quotes two passages that are pretty far from each other in the original video (the TikTok clips combined them together), so I've abbreviated rambling with ellipses, and I've bolded the parts that are quoted by WP:RS. Not using {{tq}} because it's less readable:

"The problem is, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with this sexual assault bullshit, you're guilty until proven innocent. If a girl comes forward and goes: "He raped me back in 1988", you're a rapist [...] until you somehow prove she's lying. How the fuck am I gonna prove a [expletive] is lying, about something that happened in 1988? [...] I've said this to girls before and they go: "You know what, if you go through life and you're just really respectful to women, you have nothing to worry aobut." That's not fucking true. And I'll tell you why. Because what we've done is we've weaponized sexual assault allegations. They've been weaponized. We've given every female in the Western world a weapon, and that weapon, does not have to be used fairly. That weapon can be used completely unfairly. You can go through life, and treat women with respect, and be a really good guy, but what the MeToo era is saying is, you can never piss off, a female, ever. Because if you do, they have a weaponized response. [...] It's insane. I'm now at the point now that when I talk to girls in the West, I have to fucking archive my text messages, I got shit fucking archived, so if any girl comes to—I have a bit of money, when you got money, this shit happens. Wait til you make 10 mil, this shit's gonna happen to you. If a girl wanna go to the police about me now, I'll be like alright, wait, wait, wait, open up that folder, here look, proof she's a bimbo. Why do I have to live that way? Isn't that fucking insane? If you're living in the Western world — this is, probably, 40% of the reason I moved to Romania, because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies. If you ever go to the police and say: "He raped me back in 1988", he'll go "well, you should have done something about it [back] then. If you go to the police and say "He raped me yesterday", he'll say: "Okay, have you got physical evidence? Is there CCTV proof? Where'd it happen? Ok, let's go interview him right now." [...] You're fucked in the West. If you have sex with a girl, and you decide not to have sex with her again, and she's upset about it, she can just decide to go: "It's rape now". [...] So, if you live in the Western world, you have to understand that any female you have ever interacted with, ever, at any point in the past or future, if you piss her off, she has the ability to destroy your life. Are you happy to live under those conditions? People say: "Why do you live in Romania?" And I explain, my 5 reasons. One of them is the MeToo era. They go: "Oh you're a rapist!" No I'm not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of being able to just do what I want, I like being free. I like being able to say to a girl: "Don't want to see you anymore." Done. [...] If you're a man living in England, or Germany, or America, or any of the Western world right now, you've decided to live in a country where any woman, any ex [...] at some point in the future can destroy your life. And you're sitting there going: "Oh, but they won't do it." Some will; some won't but some fucking will. It's not about whether they will, it's about whether they can, because sooner or later if people can, they will."

We currently use the GQ citation, out of 4 sources who mention this claim.

The Guardian: In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.” [6]

GQ: in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations [7]

NBC News: Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases [8]

Daily Beast: In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations

I think it's basically the same scenario. The claim we currently use implies an intent to commit crime, or degree of premeditation, i.e. moving to Romania with the goal of doing things he couldn't get away with in Britain. I have the same arguments as before; source mismatch, WP:RSBREAKING, yadda yadda.

NBC and Guardian imply criminal intent quite explicitly IMO, by taking "I like being free" out of context. And GQ's also guilty of what we discussed in WP:RSN, with He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds [sic] in the same article. Which leaves the Daily Beast, already discussed here previously. I'll note that these 4 articles also disagree on whether it's about sexual assault or rape.

My main issue is that he doesn't discuss wanting to evade truthful rape accusations more easily, but wanting to avoid false rape accusations, also stating that being a millionaire makes it more risky (presumably due to the infamous out-of-court settlements we keep hearing about).

Also exact same problem of the YouTube video being removed before the media commented on it; 2 out of these 4 sources directly link to TikTok clips of the video, one hosted on reddit, one on Twitter (hence, WP:RSBREAKING due to inability of editors-in-chief to actually fact-check any of this unless they've somehow heard of Odysee). DFlhb (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the GQ article misrepresents his comments; I feel they are still well within the bounds of common sense interpretation of the primary source. I also disagree with your premise that the sentence included in the Wikipedia article, or in the GQ article for that matter, somehow implies an intent to commit rape. It's a common sentiment that the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society, which Tate is criticizing. This is accurately reflected in both the GQ article and the Wikipedia article imo. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The GQ article misrepresents the statement the least; but think there are still issues.

Keep in mind that the reason I decided to check this out is GQ's problematic statement that "He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds", which is factually incorrect; and that a big part of my motivation is WP:RSBREAKING (since again, the ultra-short clip was likely the only thing these newspapers had access to) and increased scrutiny for WP:BLP claims.

There's a distinction to me between less likely to pursue rape allegations and less likely to pursue false rape allegations (or, alternatively, your wording, the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society); I don't think the statements are equivalent. The belief that the police is dramatically underprosecuting rape cases (even in the West), and that a rapist is "overwhelmingly" likely to not be punished, is a common sentiment too. And I do think that it implies intent to commit rape, since there is no context that this was about false rape allegations specifically, within the context of MeToo criticisms, not about all rape allegations in general.

I see two ways to improve this:

• Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be targeted by false rape allegations in Eastern Europe (adding "false", and changing "investigated" to "targeted" for the sentence to keep making sense); or
• Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because of the MeToo movement

Both seem far more accurate; the second one would not be WP:OR since it's backed up by this CNET article [9]. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your first suggestions would introduce material not published in secondary sources, so we obviously can't use that. I don't see how your second suggestion is backed up by the CNET article. That article explicitly states that Tate decided to move there because of more relaxed sexual assault laws, not because of the MeToo movement, so that, too, would be original research. I think it comes down to retaining the sentence as is or removing it altogether. I have nothing more to add to my comments above, but you are of course free to take this to RSN again. I might very well be overruled there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think I should start a new discussion, or add to the old one? DFlhb (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You could add a subsection to the old one since the underlying issue is similar. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Done; thanks for your suggestion. It's at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Follow-up_to_the_above_discussion. I've changed my follow-up somewhat, to make my arguments clearer and more exhaustive, so I've elected not to copy over your replies since that would have been taking you out of context. Feel free to participate there if you wish. DFlhb (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, a note to other editors who might come across the discussion here: please direct any further replies to the WP:RSN board, so we don't end up "de-consolidating" the discussion again (I do apologize for that, should have posted it there in the first place). DFlhb (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Throast do you think it would be reasonable to ping participants in the previous discussion, in case they've missed the subsection? Only 2 people replied, neither with a strong opinion if I've understood them correctly. I don't want to break ping etiquette but the help pages and talkpage guidelines are quite vague on acceptable ping usecases. DFlhb (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If you ping every editor involved in the previous discussion, that would be appropriate, yes. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I had already planned to double check to make sure everyone was included, that seemed like common sense. Thanks for your response, DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims

The article states "Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe". The citation doesn't substantiate this in any way, shape or form. If you follow the chain of links, you eventually arrive at a Twitter thread where all posts have been deleted. Therefore this false claim and the (non-)citation should be removed from the article. 82.2.204.195 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New potential issue. Please participate there if you have anything to add. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Known for" infobox parameter, exclusion of infobox

I think it would be helpful to readers to add the "known for" parameter to the infobox. Since this might be a point of contention, I thought it would be a good idea to deliberate options here. If we are consulting the lead section, I would deduce that Tate is "known for" a) his misogynistic commentary and b) his bans from social media platforms. Having read pretty much every single RS on the subject (yikes), I feel this summary is accurate. Would editors agree to include these two, or are there alternative suggestions? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that parameter in general, no matter the person. If the lead can't explain why a person is notable then we fucked up. Thankfully I barely ever see it used.

But if consensus agrees with you to add "known for": his ban was well-covered, so fine; since every single source always says "kickboxer Andrew Tate", I feel that would need to be included too; and misogynistic is well-sourced, no issue there, but feels too specific to me since he's notorious for a whole range of commentary, including "depression isn't real" that had A-list celebrities quote tweeting him, and had Twitter (the company) very literally put a "depression is real" explainer at the top of its Trends for a day [10], as well as being knoxn for a bunch of political conspiracies, etc.

I do agree that the infobox feels bare now that the martial arts sub box has been removed (maybe just due to habit). I'll see if I can find proper sources for his fights so we can put that infobox back in. DFlhb (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The majority of in-depth secondary coverage happened around his bans and focused largely on his rhetoric, reactions thereto, and of course his social media bans (his commentary obviously being the central contributing factor). The other things you list he is known for to a much lesser extent relative to what I suggested above. In any case, I really don't think artificially inflating the article with undue kickboxing info just to restore the martial arts module is a good idea. There are well-manicured BLPs on Wikipedia that don't use infoboxes at all. If we can't agree to at least include the "known for" parameter, a parameter that seems like a no-brainer for this type of BLP, I don't see a future for the infobox. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why remove the infobox? If the reason is redundancy with the article's contents, then I don't see why repeating what he's notorious for (already mentioned in the lead) helps. I've also checked the Wiki pages of similarly controversial, or similarly notable people (Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, and KSI, Jake Paul), none of them have that parameter.

To me, having an infobox is a style thing; it makes pages look nicer, and makes it clearer that it's a BLP. Not having it would degrade the article. I checked Petscan, and out of 181 Featured BLPs, every single one has an infobox.

Re: kickboxing being undue: I checked every article we cite, and all of them except 7 mention his kickboxing career. They don't talk about his kickboxing at length, admittedly, but they don't do that for any professional fighter either. The current top-ranked heavyweight kickboxer in the world? The NYT never mentioned him once (search:nytimes.com "Rico Verhoeven"). To me, 33 sources (just the ones we currently cite) mentioning his career is enough to make it notable. I've found sources for 4 world championship victories of his. I'm puzzled as to how a 4x world champion's fighting career, properly sourced, would be non-notable or undue. I'll also note that the consensus in the Archives was that people seemed to prefer sourcing over removal, but removed since no one (not even Tate's fans) bothered to find those sources. DFlhb (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Find some good in-depth, reliable coverage of his kickboxing career and I'll change my mind. This needs to extend beyond a mere mention of his "former kickboxer" title of course. World titles ultimately don't matter to Wikipedia if secondary sources do not cover them. My content decisions are not informed by habit or what other articles are doing, but by common sense. As it stands now, the infobox is just useless clutter. If you're arguing that what he's known for can be easily determined via a glance at the lead, so can his full name, DOB, and nationality. That leaves his POB, his father, and his website, two of which are found prominently right below the lead section. Your other argument that the infobox is a "style thing" is just not very convincing in my opinion. I personally find infoboxes to be very ugly, even moreso when they don't serve any real purpose to the reader. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Throast. I've thought it through some more, and I've come to agree with you, it is redundant. We can always add one back if it becomes warranted later.

I tried previewing it, and using the interview pic as the lead pic looks pretty poor; he's too close to the camera, so even when I tried cropping it, it's still too tall for a lead pic. I prefer the kickboxing one for the lead, since the subject is further away from the camera, the pic's not too tall, and he's not wearing sunglases (which IMO are a huge no for a lead pic). I've moved the interview pic to the "Social media presence" section, since it fits nicely there and I do want to keep both (pics make BLPs better), and we do need a pic without the hair. I tried keeping the pics where they are, but then they're too close together, doesn't look quite right. I've gone ahead and made the change; let me know what you think. I'm open to debating the pic order, which wasn't a change you suggested. DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, I think it looks much cleaner now. MOS:LEADIMAGE advises us to select an image that our readers will expect to see. His change in appearance between the two images is quite jarring, and I think readers who've come to know the subject only recently (which I assume is the majority) will probably be confused seeing the older image at the top. While I agree that the more recent image is of inferior quality on a technical level, I think it's preferable because it depicts the subject around the time he was most popular. I ultimately don't care that much about it tho. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It does look cleaner. Re: change in appearance: fully agree that it's a concern; I must've spend 20min looking through YouTube to find another creative commons one to use as leadpic. My preference for this order is slight, not huge; but I don't think it'll be that jarring for readers, since it's a kickboxing pic, which people also associate him with, so it's unlikely to lead to confusion; and changing hairstyles is quite a common/routine thing which people are likely used to. Frankly, most people likely come here to scroll right to the controversy section, so they'll see both pics anyway. DFlhb (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. I removed the martial arts infobox as he would not be DUE inclusion in wiki solely on the basis of his kickboxing career.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Learn to write

The writing here is obviously biased towards one view point. Focus on your simple mistakes prior to spreading disinformation. “Tate operates Hustler's University, a plaform where members pay a monthly” change plaform to platform 72.196.117.35 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You are always free to propose additions that help contribute to a neutral point of view as long as they are reliably sourced. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)