Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Islam

I heard that Tate has changed his name to "Abu Andrew" as part of Islamic conversion PokeW101 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We can't include anything like that in the article without proper reliable sources; if you know of any, feel free to link them. DFlhb (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It is confirmed on Mohammed Hijabs podcast with Andrew Tate that he has converted to Islam. This needs to be added to his wiki. Below is the link/reference to confirm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diqgTxR99JE 86.5.202.27 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

His conversion is already mentioned in the article; I was referring to the "name change". DFlhb (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate has officially become Muslim. This needs to be added. Maybe in a new Personal Life sub-heading?

It is confirmed on Mohammed Hijabs podcast with Andrew Tate that he has converted to Islam. This needs to be added to his wiki. Below is the link/reference to confirm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diqgTxR99JE 86.5.202.27 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This information has already been added to the article. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celester: The IP raises a point about its placement. Do we need to change the section "Early life" to "Early and personal life" and put it there? I hate to create a one-paragraph "Personal life" section, but this isn't really about his social media presence. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The amount of inquiries we're getting is a clear sign to me that we've buried the paragraph in the wrong section, and people simply miss it. Since it's perfectly kosher and very common on Wikipedia to have one-paragraph Personal life sections, and since we can reasonably expect that the section will be expanded in the future, I've moved it there. I've put the section above "Criminal investigation", as seems standard. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022 (2)

Change "Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted in his bans from several platforms." To "Tate's world challenging commentary on real issues in the world on social media has resulted in his bans from several platforms." 62.4.144.25 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Current version is clearer and more accurate. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew tate is now a Muslim

This should be edited immediately ! 102.164.97.63 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. Askarion ✉ 13:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter bans don't really mean anything because Twitter, like Facebook and YouTube, pretty much censors out and deplatforms about 50 percent of all of the opinions on the globe. Genuine diversity is ideational and experiential, and isn't a genetic legacy from birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Remove misogynist and add laying facts 49.36.115.151 (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Religious conversion

Andrew tate has officially converted to Islam . 223.239.17.168 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is already in the article. DFlhb (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Fix Request

Do not only did you guys lie about him being a misogynist but you guys also lied and said his case for sex trafficking is still ongoing when that’s been proven false the Romanian government searched his house and all his electronic devices and found nothing so they dropped it in less than a week. 2600:8800:3610:1A10:28AB:D135:57F8:AC1F (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Misogyny

Look into the definition of misogyny, watch entire interviews and podcasts, not just tiktoks out of context. 49.186.72.88 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You can refer to this discussion for context on why this change was made. If you can establish a consensus for this wording to be altered, we can discuss changing it back. Askarion ✉ 13:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There may be merit to going back to the old "described as" wording. Here were the arguments used in the previous consensus:

• When most WP:NEWSORGs state it in their own voice (as opposed to attributing it, or couching it in euphemism), we can use Wikivoice, especially when no WP:NEWSORG denies the label.
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "misogynistic" should count as an "exceptional claim", so as long as there's exceptional sourcing, we can use Wikivoice.
• The subject directly called himself "a misogynist", why don't we do too?

Here's why we got it wrong in the previous consensus:

• MOS:LABEL explicily says that value-laden statements about individuals should be attributed. That knocks out the first argument, which isn't based on any policy, just "common sense".
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL was exceptionally misread! It's part of WP:V, and states that we shouldn't include extraordinary claims in articles at all unless the sourcing is good enough. It is perfectly equivalent to WP:BLP's contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion clause. Not only was the "misogyny" label not an exceptional claim ("Obama is a reptilian" would be), but it simply doesn't address whether to use Wikivoice or not. Yet it was used as if it did support using Wikivoice.
• He did say he's "absolutely a misogynist" (here's the primary source ). Within context, it's more of a denunciation of feminists describing as "misogyny" what he calls "realism"; provocation (I can't be cancelled!") not an earnest self-label. I don't I'm giving an unfairly charitable description of the context. Separately, he also repeatedly denied being a misogynist, and that denial was covered by several WP:RS (including NBC).

This isn't to say that I don't think he's a misogynist. But there are severe flaws in the current consensus. Since the body of the article already includes his quote calling himself a misogynist, and since the change I'm proposing (adding "widely described as") would scarcely alter the article's POV balance, I see no reading why we're not complying with MOS:LABEL, which tell us to attribute.

Any consensus that chooses to override MOS:LABEL would need to do so knowingly, and with good justification. But the MOS page was never addressed in past discussions. DFlhb (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC) ; updated 06:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a social media influencer/kickboxer/former reality TV personality being misogynistic is not an extraordinary claim. "Widely described as" seems like WP:WEASEL to me as it implies that this is somehow exceptional or extraordinary, or is otherwise disputed enough that it needs qualifications. The NBC source where he denies being misogynistic is, per that source, part of a "sarcastic rant". It isn't consistent or impartial to assume his self-label isn't earnest, but a "sarcastic rant" is. To look at only the most flattering parts of a source is cherry-picking. The NBC source also mentions "his hyper-misogynistic stances on women and modern masculinity" as mere fact, as do others.

Per MOS:LABEL: ...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Well, that makes this relatively easy, since the NBC source isn't alone.

To quote the very first paragraph of the cited New York Times article: Andrew Tate, a former professional kickboxer who frequently made misogynistic comments about women online, has been barred in the last week from Facebook, YouTube and TikTok after concerns about his influence on his millions of followers escalated.[1]

I am not a huge fan of the NYT, but they are nothing if not cautious with their words.

Sources treat this as a basic fact, therefor so should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For NBC, I am not referring to the part where they quote his YouTube stream, but to the statement he makes to NBC where he denies hating women, which NBC found due to include.

Sources treat this as a basic fact, therefor so should Wikipedia

That's how it works with everything, but not with value-laden labels, if the subject is alive. I know the media treats it as basic fact; so do I and at least half the world. But MOS:LABEL doesn't say to use Wikivoice if most WP:RS use a label; it says to not use a label at all, unless most sources use it, in which case use Wikivoice. Where's the exception you seem to read into it?

I'm sensitive to avoid whitewashing, and I agree my version's too weasely (I've never been a good copyeditor), but that's a question of wording. How would you phrase it? My desire to attribute might seem like a technicality (everyone reading this page will still get a very clear impression he's a misogynist), and Tate isn't a good example of the kind of people MOS:LABEL was meant to protect; I'm just annoyed that MOS:LABEL is systematically ignored across so many BLPs, because I can think of very good reason why it exists. DFlhb (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL is part of the manual of style, meaning it's mainly intended to guide editors on how to write clearly. That specific section explains how some language can insert editorializing. Since you mention 'why it exists', let's drill down into that a bit. Editorializing language like this is a problem for a few reasons, but one of those is that it makes content less clear. Those labels often present some opinions as facts while ignoring other perspectives. However, MOS:LABEL is not saying that every use of these words is editorializing, nor that none of these words are ever appropriate. The underlying assumption with MOS:LABEL is that the perspective being conveyed, in this case that Tate's behavior is misogynistic, is not merely a perspective, but is a subjective opinion, and further, it's one opinion among many opinions and those other opinions are also valid in some way or otherwise worth mentioning. Sources don't seem to support that, though. So for this situation the contrary position that Tate's behavior is not misogynistic would be false balance (maybe even WP:FALSEBALANCE if you want a wikilink). Adding this position, even indirectly, would itself be a subtle form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful response. (Though I do disagree WP:FALSEBALANCE applies to BLPs; I read it as applying to "subjects" on scholarly or scientific topics, but I agree if we're going by the colloquial meaning).

Given Askarion's point below on the difference between labelling Tate, and labelling his commentary (an extremely good point), I'll withdraw my proposal. However, I'd likely disagree with your specific arguments if it was a label of him, rather than his speech.

To offer a counter perspective on MOS:LABEL's merits: I don't believe an encyclopedia's role is to make value judgments on people. News orgs can, academics can (and we must mention them if noteworthy), but an encyclopedia, using its own voice, ought to be concerned with neutrality to the point of excess. If I were to turn MOS:LABEL into a policy, I'd likely phrase it as: "attribute even if universally used by NEWSORGS, state in Wikivoice only where there is strong scholarly consensus". This would allow us to label Pinochet a dictator and Hitler a fascist, with no equivocation; as for everyone else, we should "let facts alone do the talking" (WP:BLPSTYLE). That would again only apply to labels of people, not of behaviors or speech. DFlhb (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've seen this perspective before on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we use sources to decide which facts get to talk and which don't. So from that, who gets to decide when there is strong scholarly consensus? From past experience, if an editor can come along and say sources are not strong enough, an editor will come along and say that. So what, exactly, is strong enough? (With dictators specifically, Wikipedia has lost most of its patience for this, but the point still remains that for ideologies like these any perceived loophole will be tested.) Even among good faith editors the room for disagreement is vast. Whether or not the consensus is strong enough is almost always subjective. There is no pass/fail test, and what is obvious to you is not obvious to everyone, nor should it have to be. To put it another way, there is no way to transmute the subjective into the rational objective. It's better to recognize this subjectivity.

Which brings me to a second issue, which is that "contentious" is itself contentious. Not everything which is unflattering is argumentative, nor is every emotionally unpleasant thing always also controversial. The simplest and most neutral way to describe something is to just describe it. This is why WP:WEASEL is a thing. Sometimes the attempt to appear neutral by hedging and attributing and 'opinionizing' a perspective will draw more attention to it and make it seem like something it's not.

As for this article specifically, what, exactly, is Tate's area of expertise? Sources do not treat him as an expert in psychology or gender studies or anything like that, right? Why are scholarly sources forming a consensus about him at all? It is because of misogyny, so let's just say that and move on. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not an expert in either topic, I'd like to point out that in the original discussion, an important parallel was drawn between this article and the Gamergate article, which also refers to its subject matter as "misogynist" in wikivoice in the very first sentence in the lead, in accordance with what user CJ-Moki called "secondary reliable sourcing". I believe we've crossed the point where we can refer to his commentary as "misogynist" in wikivoice; we certainly have enough sources for it. The article refers to his commentary as misogynist, which doesn't necessarily mean that Tate himself is also a misogynist. That said, I think using "widely described as misogynist" is decent middle ground, although we'll have to add a few qualifiers to avoid a tag. As it stands, though, I think referring to his commentary as misogynist in wikivoice is sourced enough for inclusion, even in a BLP. Askarion ✉ 12:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Askarion: For what it's worth, I favor the status quo of calling Tate's commentary misogynistic in wikivoice, as it is supported by several reliable secondary sources. I would be more hesitant to label Tate a misogynist in wikivoice, judging by how similar labeling is generally not done in other WP articles (not even Hitler's article calls him an antisemite in wikivoice). CJ-Moki (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Looked into the investigation again

Customary apology for the length. Following the thread above, I decided to look into things again. There's a few interesting bits we might want to discuss, which I've bolded. Here's the timeline I could piece together.

• An American man called the U.S. embassy to say Tristan Tate had kidnapped his girlfriend. (Romanian news unanimously name Tristan, not Andrew, as the target of the tip) There is no media outlet stating that the woman herself makes any allegations, not even Romanian tabloids; Andrew Tate is not accused.

• The U.S. embassy got Romanian authorities to start an investigation, following diplomatic protocol. (Per Romanian media.)

• Romanian police came to the Tates' house on April 11 and took all their electronics. (Per media reports, and videos Tate made where all computers, phones, CCTV and podcast studio cameras were gone).

• Both brothers were taken to the police station that night. They were interrogated as witnesses, not suspects. (Per an official DIICOT press release, and Romanian media). The DIICOT case was opened "in rem", and no charges were brought against them. (Idem).

• Tate repeatedly claimed that in the interrogation, the police had told him they didn't find the accusation credible; that they (the police) had reviewed the CCTV tapes, and saw the accuser exiting the compound multiple times (for food deliveries). He made this claim on April 13th, when the police still had the CCTV tapes; I doubt he could have known this if the police hadn't told him.

• On May 1st, Romania's equivalent of TMZ obtains said CCTV footage from the police and releases it, which does show the girl exiting multiple times.

• On his podcast, Tristan Tate claimed the girl was a stranger who came to a house party one night as a "+1", after both brothers had already left the party to go to a nightclub; obviously they both denied any kidnapping. Uncorroborated, though the fact that they frequently throw open house parties is visible on their vlog channel.

• Gândul published an article [2] in late September, saying:

• That DIICOT didn't complete the computer search
• That the investigation was "left behind" because DIICOT believed there was a low risk of danger.

This story stinks. They're both witnesses, in an investigation where charges aren't being considered, which DIICOT indefinitely put on the backburner. It's quite likely we'll never even hear about this again; it's not like charges can be dropped, since there are none.

I'll note that the sourcing sucks. The Daily Beast calls itself a tabloid, and shouldn't be used for this. Only two other articles cover this (Guardian and NBC), and both qualify as mentions "in passing", rather than significant coverage (really, they each spend less than a single paragraph on it). The Guardian published three more articles about Tate, and NBC News four more, when they don't mention it at all. All other WP:RS ignored the story altogether.

Is this really due? DFlhb (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources are strong enough to mention this. It probably doesn't need its own section, though.

The Guardian source spends multiple paragraphs on this event, so this is not a passing mention. I don't know if Gândul is WP:RS or not. Probably? I don't speak Romanian and machine translation should not be used for sources (especially not for this, which is both a BLP and legal issue) but the source exists, so that's something. Simplistically put, due weight is decided by the existence of reliable, independent sources, so if that source is reliable, it does also support including this event. Buzzfeed New also mentions this. (Buzzfeed News is a generally reliable outlet and is very different from Buzzfeed's clickbait.) That source weakly links the Romania event to Tate's deplatforming, which contextualizes this a bit more.

All that about what Tate does or doesn't know about CCTV and such fails Wikipedia:No original research. We need sources to explain this for us. If sources do not explain this directly, it doesn't belong here. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to nitpick, but I disagree on a few facts: The Guardian does only spend a paragraph on this; another is about 'UK abuse allegations' I haven't seen other sources cover; so, indeed a passing mention. Hadn't seen the Buzzfeed News article, but they solely attribute it to the Guardian rather than stating it in their voice, and also give it passing mention in one paragraph. Buzzfeed News released 7 more stories, post-April, where they don't mention it.

I agree the link is "weak"; having followed social media at that time, the Guardian story was one of numerous stories released on Tate in just a few days in early August, and was preceded by a huge social media outcry about Tate's TikTok clips starting in late-July, boosted by a few large influencers (including Matt Bernstein, the one you're referring to, who never referenced the allegations). I don't think the deplatforming had anything to do with the Romania stuff; none of the NGOs calling for a ban referenced it, they referenced his clips.

For Gândul, it's a tabloid; you can check the homepage and just skim the headlines (even with Google Translate) to see they're closer to the Daily Mail than Daily Beast. There was previous discussion on this, the consensus was that it wasn't usable for allegations, I was just using it to corroborate the timeline; there were two threads in the archives here and here, and the relevant diffs when someone tried to add Gândul were this one and the following ones. For context, the Tates have been 'famous' in Romania for years now, and are a frequent subject of tabloid coverage.

Agree on the machine translation point, and as always I was never suggesting we add any of this to the article; just giving a timeline based on my research of Romanian tabloids, so we can have as many facts as possible to determine whether the allegations are worth including under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Same for the OR stuff of the CCTV. Everything above that I don't explicitly state as coming from Tate, I sourced from Romanian media, including the CCTV stuff.

It seems like just a tabloid story that practically all outlets chose to ignore, and the sourcing we have isn't proportionate to the gravity of the 'charges' (again, there are no charges; I'd support inclusion if there were). DFlhb (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

To restate, I agree that current coverage is excessive, but I think removing it completely would be a mistake. I don't see the Guardian source the same as you do, but even a full paragraph is more than a passing mention. Context like this which helps readers see the larger picture is exactly what we want in the article, even if summarizing it is tricky.

As for the Buzzfeed source, citing the Guardian suggests that the Guardian's coverage is significant, but maybe there's an easier way to look at this. If tabloids cover this, and multiple reliable sources cover this, we should at least provide enough context from reliable sources so that readers won't be confused by its omission. In other words, we shouldn't pretend to be naive about what readers are looking for just because it is also tabloid fodder. Let's give readers enough info, from reliable sources, to de-fang the tabloid's clickbait headlines. That's part of the goal of an encyclopedia, after all. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree not to remove it completely; I see your point. DFlhb (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I also think (strongly) that even if it eventually gets dropped, we should still mention it. DFlhb (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The current wording looks much better. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2022

Liam0190 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)add sutff to it

i mean can i add stuff to it Liam0190 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to propose additions here, but keep in mind they have to be based on reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

31.30.173.62 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Emory andrew Tate ||| Converted to islam and now he is Emory Abu Andrew Tate |||

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Change fighting record there’s only 1 source who I’ve trusted no other reliable sports website has a “Record” of his bouts

Kick boxing bouts 7, 4 wins 3 loses https://www.followchain.org/andrew-tate-fight-record/ 2601:681:4100:1930:51F5:893B:481B:E4E (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The kickboxing record is extensively sourced, and the site you link to doesn't seem like a reliable site at all. DFlhb (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be possible that the kickboxing section is oversourced, honestly. Is it really necessary to have six sources to back up that he won the Power Trophy in 2013? I think we should take the strongest source and forget the rest, or at the very least spread the other sources out in the other columns so that they're not all after the event title in a big line. It's also possible that I'm wrong, I've never worked on a martial arts article before and I'm not sure what's customary, but it feels like a lot. (See WP:OVERCITE). Askarion ✉ 02:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

True. I'd support citebundling, but keeping the current citations, since they provide good 'guidance' for where to find more/better sources (e.g. I used some old Luton Daily articles, but couldn't access most pre-2013 articles; and I found only some Fighters Magazine issues, most weren't accessible). Anyone who happens to have older issues lying around might be able to replace a bunch of cites in one fell swoop, and potentially add missing fights too. I see it more as a stopgap than something long-term, while the record is still incomplete. And there's also a few citations that are plain redundant, I'll take care of them. DFlhb (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Net Worth: 832 million dollars 152.36.54.232 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not only does this require independent sourcing, but we don't usually include net worth in Wikipedia. It's a meaningless metric for individuals (as opposed to companies) since it's highly illiquid and can only be unreliably estimated. DFlhb (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Birthday

See this diff. My first revert was incorrect. Placing it here so others see. DFlhb (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(Moved dksn123's comment from my talk page to here)

• Hello. Regarding your edit here I would like to point out that Tate's biography states his birthday as December 14, 1986 and would be a usable source per the WP source you listed in your edit summary. Until a source can be found to change his birthday I will revert the edit. dksn123 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi; I think his personal Twitter is more usable for WP:ABOUTSELF than a website written by an employee of his. An obituary of his father, written in 2015, also gives Tate's birthday as December 1st.[3] And as I said in my edit summary, friends of his have wished him a happy birthday on December 1st for at least the past three years (under different Twitter handles). There's little question which date is the correct one. DFlhb (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, I have added a source from his personal Twitter account. dksn123 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not making clear that I added a tweet citation in Early life. I can see why you thought my change was unsourced. I thought it was appropriate to place the citation only in Early life, and not in the lead (per my reading of MOS:LEADCITE) or in the infobox. DFlhb (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2022

Andrew Tate follows a belief system of female and LGBTQ insuperiority, and the promotion of misogynistic values. 92.10.202.98 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

on reliable sources from romania, more info about andrew that could be shared Kakahead (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done that’s not a clear or objective request. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Networth

unlimited Krnjaca2525 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made Abobeck11 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate made-up word

Andrew Tate appeared on a live stream with a famous live streamer named Adin Ross when he made a word called Fsl short for Fat-stinky-loser. It has been used across all of twitch users since it happened. 46.248.200.199 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. And....what? 331dot (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate's comments regarding ISIS

Tate has appeared in a TikTok video in which he claimed "ISIS are the real Muslims because ISIS do exactly what the book says". These comments resurfaced in late November 2022, shortly after it was reported that Tate had converted to Islam. At the time of writing the article includes the following text:

"In October 2022, Tate announced on his Gettr account that he had converted to Islam. A video of Tate praying at a mosque in Dubai, UAE, went viral."

I would like to propose revising the article as follow:

"On 24 October 2022, Tate announced on his Gettr account that he had converted to Islam. A video of Tate praying at a mosque in Dubai, UAE, went viral.

On 25 October 2022 Bariqah News Agency, a pro-Islamic State (ISIS) media outlet, shared a video in which Tate earlier claimed that "ISIS are the real Muslims".

Sources:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/why-do-so-many-western-muslim-men-love-andrew-tate

https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-vicar-of-baghdad-influencer-andrew-tate-in-shocking-claim-says-isis-are-the-real-muslims-11578571.html

https://www.tiktok.com/@el.chapati/video/7127981800198130950?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7127981800198130950 [This may not be eligible as this is a primary source]

Several previous topics have concerned Tate's religious views. In light of Tate's recent conversion to Islam, which has been widely covered online, I also wonder if it would be worth revisiting some of these earlier topics, which a view to developing a new section regarding Tate's "Religious views". If this would be of interest to other editors, I'd be happy to draft something for consideration.

Jono1011 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I've since been made aware that:

1. Tate's comments were made in 2018, when he explicitly proclaimed he was an atheist, and criticized both Christians and Muslims as being either "an absolute hypocrite [by] ignoring your own book, or [a] fanatic psychopath"; a far more mainstream sentiment than the edit I suggested above suggests. Thanks to DFlhb for pointing this out.

With this in mind, I think it would be good to develop a dedicated section to Tate's comments on religious issues. What do other people think? Jono1011 (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry; I posted the discussion below without seeing you'd already started one; I'll just leave it there so the transcript is easily accessible. Will let others chime in on whether to have a religion section or not, but sourcing might be an issue. DFlhb (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

I'd like to change a couple of things in the text that I consider to be biased and not true. Hansmikkelsen1234 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 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. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ISIS

This discussion is about this edit (and this previous edit)

After the edit from two days ago, I searched for the original source. Here it is; it's from 2018, and here's a partial transcript:

I'm an atheist. [...] Religious people are the biggest hypocrits on the fucking planet because religious people don't read their own religious books. Every Christian I've argued with, I start busting out quotes from the Bible, and they go: "That's not in the Bible" Yeah it is. [...] You cannot be a Christian and ignore your own book. You either have two choices: you're either an absolute hypocrite, by either pretending you're a Christian and ignoring your own book, or you're a feral psychopath. There is no other way to be religious. It makes me laugh when ISIS was around, people say: "ISIS aren't real Muslims". No, ISIS are the real Muslims, because ISIS do exactly what the book says, which is kill everyone who's not a Muslim and chop people's heads off and set them on fire, and be fucking raging lunatics. But all the other Muslims go "They're not real Muslims, because I'm a Muslim because I read the book and ignore those parts". Well then you're not a fucking Muslim because you're ignoring the fucking book. [...] Christians are exactly the same. Every Christian, I say: "When you walk into a store on a Sunday, and someone is working on God's day, they should be put to death. Do you murder them?" "Well, no." [...] If not you're not a fucking Christian are you, you moron. [...] So religious people are hypocrites, or psychopaths. That's the only two choices. There is no other option.

This is basically "spicy Richard Dawkins". (BTW, according to MEMRI, that Telegram post by the ISIS propagandists got... 6 views.) I don't think it's due or would be considered encyclopedically relevant, and if we include it, we risk significantly misrepresenting it as a recent claim, or as an endorsement of ISIS (rather than a criticism of religion) which would benefit ISIS more than it would benefit Wikipedia. DFlhb (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Besides, he was recently (Dec. 20) interviewed by Piers Morgan and said during the show that he regretted his ISIS comments, and that they were made because he didn't understand religion, in his words. So it would be redundant now to include these comments only to say that he no longer believes them, unless the comments become the source of significant backlash covered in reliable sources. Askarion ✉ 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Typo

The second paragraph of the section labeled Social media presence says "onlinr" Elderlystrawberry (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversies

For this article to be unbiased and true, there should also be a section for controversies surrounding Andrew Tate's career as an social media influencer MrBanana1234 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

MrBanana1234 Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased and true. Please see WP:TRUTH. Everyone has biases, sources are present to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to think.

"Controversy" sections aren't prohibited, but have to be carefully done to maintain a neutral point of view. If you have independent reliable sources with information that is missing from this article, please offer your proposed additions here. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

He’s controversial, sure. And he’s also pretty cowardly. But I don’t see how this kind of thing can be included without source material. Otherwise we’re violating Wikipedia’s rule against original research. Darkprincealain (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

In December 2022 Tate was publicly rattled and unnerved by Climate Activist Greta Thunberg's response to his tweet. He posted over 8 tweets to her 1. Tate appears to have taken the tweet to heart, even responding with a "How dare you?! Yet, tate was in the right with Greta Thunberg showing signs of madness." 2601:204:CA00:7985:8971:6E38:C00D:A134 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This seems incredibly trivial and you would need some good RS commenting on this to show notability. Cannolis (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of references in mass media. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=andrew+tate+greta+thunberg&atb=v343-1&iar=news&ia=news JQ (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

agree, widely reported. eg https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/greta-thunberg-andrew-tate-twitter-b2252757.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/greta-thunberg-andrew-tate-twitter-takedown-1234653407/ 2A00:23C6:B387:1F01:C1F6:9DAC:8E9D:F1B9 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been in the article since yesterday, before your request. DFlhb (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022 (2)

- 79.116.194.130 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, in a sense. No edit was requested. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Victims

If he's only been accused and it's not been confirmed, isn't it unethical to put in his description that there's victims as if it were confirmed? 65.30.87.109 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

HATing unsourced nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remove the sex trafficking content. He was NOT arrested. He was brought in for questioning and let go because the police went to his house and realized it was a phony tip made to the US embassy. Michaelcanyon2022 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 01:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate's Wikipedia information should be changed

Andrew Tate's Wikipedia information should be changed. Please.open the editing option to update his info. 2806:2F0:9321:FF87:C53E:EE6:E7F5:AF5E (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 01:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022 (2)

Remove ‘Greta Thunberg’ under kickboxing record. This is purely false. 66.235.12.28 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done: This was already removed. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 01:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Tate's misogyny

WP:OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Andrew tate by definition is not misogynistic. Not one person has been able to site something of his that would fit under the definition of Mysoginy, that isn't cherrypicked out of context or isn't a joke. 2605:8D80:6A4:53B9:91F2:3B40:F90D:239E (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Not done: This has been discussed before, see § "allegedly misogynistic" and § Misogyny. Consensus is to call Tate's rhetoric (not necessarily Tate himself) misogynistic in accordance with WP:RS. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022 (4)

The race of his parents is irrelevant information and should be removed for appearing racist due to highlighting colours. Cellius83 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I doubt many people would agree with your definition of racism. DFlhb (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the inclusion of these details racist, per se, but it does feel a bit out of place and possibly irrelevant, at least in that sentence, to say he is the son of a "white English catering assistant and black American chess player". I'd separate the racial information into a second sentence to perhaps explain why these details are relevant, e.g. "Tate is considered mixed race, with a white mother and a black father", or something similar. Askarion ✉ 00:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that how it was before? Didn't even notice it was changed. Yeah; that's not great. DFlhb (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Tate is not misogynistic...

WP:RTFM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The page states that his commentary is misogynistic which is an opinion yet it states it as if it's a fact... what exactly has he said that fits the definition of misogyny? 2601:981:C281:D3E0:D102:C46B:D846:D786 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC) The term "misogynistic" is well cited. If you disagree with the assessment of the sources, you will need to discuss that with them, not us. You or anyone are free to disagree with the sources summarized here. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Didn’t he literally call _himself_ a misogynist too? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Yep. He said he is "absolutely a misogynist" [4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/21/andrew-tate-tiktok-instagram/ Therealteal (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC) @2601:981:C281:D3E0:D102:C46B:D846:D786 brother stfu pls he is so misogynistic and the fact that u don't think he is says more about you than anything else 68.46.171.72 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC) if tate isn't misogynistic i don't know who is Littleboyblue12341 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GRETA

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By the way, it was GRETA, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, that urged Romania last year to effectively prosecute human trafficking. (https://www.news.com.au/world/owned-so-hard-how-a-pizza-box-landed-tate-in-custody/news-story/6c67b8384ffbd62ae65c07f37242f5d3) 93.211.208.61 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022 (4)

HATing unsourced nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remove information on his current arrest. It’s ridiculous how badly people want to portray him as guilty when there has been absolutely no evidence. Let the investigation at least come to an end. 2A00:23C4:ED01:E501:D4D3:7A95:BF9C:B45 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Not done: Wikipedia is based on what is reported in reliable sources, in this case it appears this meets the requirement. The article does not state he is guilty, just reports that he has been arrested and charged. Greyjoy talk 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022 (3)

WP:OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He has described himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist". This line of text is wrong, as the things mentioned were said with a degree of irony and to demonstrate how you could take informations out of context when videos become viral. 37.161.213.215 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC) All of that is reliably sourced/cited, you can go read the links, that is how Wikipedia works. If you have seen any of his many interviews, he has made many comments which are extremely misogynistic, hundreds of comments stating as well as implying women's sole purpose in life is for sex, in order to please men, and are not equal to men in intelligence, aspirations, desires in life, to the more extreme such as supporting the Taliban (as well as ISIS) banning women from education and public life. It is irrelevant if he was never quoted as admitting "I am a misogynist! I confirm this label and I want to go by it", his actions are evidence and this 'label' is very much applicable to him. This is nothing new with deranged people's fear of being labelled by society; I believe the leader of the KKK has said he isn't a racist, but a traditionalist, so should we take his word for it or judge him for his all his racist words and actions? Tate is an arrogant, misogynistic and narcissistic man. He is currently arrested for running a prostitution ring for underage girls.User6619018899273 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Have you lost your mind. You’re literally pulling stuff out of your behind at this point with that last sentence. Compose yourself and learn not to make a habit of spewing out false accusations that don’t have an ounce of actual evidence to back them. 2A00:23C4:ED01:E501:D4D3:7A95:BF9C:B45 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Without a credible sources WP:RS, this would fall under the idea of original research (WP:OR) which isn't allowed Therealteal (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate raid

I was writing this before I noticed I couldn't edit. Would appreciate if someone edited the section.

"In December 29, 2022, Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan were the subject of a raid by the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). The raid was conducted at their luxury villa in Pipera, Romania, and was in relation to the alleged abduction of two girls. The authorities reportedly focused attention on a number of luxury vehicles at the residence, and a police trailer was on-site, possibly to uplift one or multiple vehicles. The home of a former policewoman was also raided in connection to the investigation.

The brothers were detained for 24 hours, and the DIICOT prosecutors searched their luxury cars. Andrew and Tristan had previously been questioned by DIICOT in April 2022, in relation to the same incident. At the time, Andrew Tate stated that the issues arose from a swatting incident." Crannofonix (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely due, but we first need a reliable source. DFlhb (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A Daily Mail article about Andrew Tate's arrest has come out: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11583711/Andrew-Tates-luxury-villa-Romania-raided-police.html CastleFort1 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this might be reliable - working on better - https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/surse-perchezitii-diicot-tristan-tate-andrew-tate-sechestrare-fete-tristan-tate-bianca-dragusanu-4394856/amp Hipocrite (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

There are images of the raid here: https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1608588291900870657 Theklan (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably better - this looks to be CNN related? https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/fratii-tate-perchezitii-vila-lux-tristan-cobra-661477.html Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe Libertatea is reliable.

Don't know about Antena3; its relation to CNN seems to relate only to the Antena3 TV channel, not to content published on their website. DFlhb (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek has a story now. (https://www.newsweek.com/andrew-tate-mocked-after-pizza-tweet-thunberg-may-have-led-arrest-1770278) Of course, a Romanian news source is completely acceptable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't use Newsweek if we can help it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, the pizza part of that story has been debunked. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on 30 December 2022 (2)

Add Eileen Ashleigh under "parent," as only Emory Tate was included. Also, should change it into "parents", plural. (Under Tate's info.) TheeChEese (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The {{infobox person}} template documentation says: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. She's not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so wouldn't qualify, especially given the risk of harassment if she's made more prominent here. DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

There's no question that Tate is currently detained and according to multiple reliable sources, he has been charged with human trafficking, rape and forming an organized criminal group. This is relevant info and belongs in the infobox. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox criminal is only for convicted criminals, which Tate is not, as the documentation notes. The same thing is noted for the "criminal_charges" parameter in Infobox person. There are of course WP:BLPCRIME and NPOV issues with presenting someone as being primarily notable for being a criminal in the absence of a conviction. Endwise (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rape charge

News reports agree that Andrew Tate was charged with human trafficking and forming an organized criminal group; but it's unclear whether he's been charged with rape.

• WaPo[5] says explicitly that one of the four suspects was charged with rape; the police refused to say who, citing disclosure laws.

• The NYT[6] headline says he's been charged with rape, but WP:HEADLINEs are unreliable; the body of the article also makes it clear that one of the suspects is charged with it, not all four, and that we don't know which one.

• The DIICOT[7] press release mentions only one (unnamed) suspect of rape.

I don't think we can say yet that he's been charged with rape. Be careful with misinterpreting media wording like "charged as part of a X, Y, Z investigation", which would list all suspects' charges, not just what he was charged with.. DFlhb (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022 (3)

The section about the Thunberg tweet exchange needs improvement in tone, I would suggest changing the present

Unbanned, in December 2022 Tate trolled environmentalist Greta Thunberg with a tweet extolling his carbon-emitting automobiles and asking for her e-mail address to give her more information. She tweeted back that he could "enlighten" her at "smalldickenergy@getalife.com."[51]

To

After being unbanned in 2022, Tate posted a tweet in which he tagged Greta Thunberg asking for her email address so he "could send a complete list of my car collection and their respective enormous emissions". Thunberg replied with "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com". As of December 29 2022, the tweet by Tate has 193 000 likes, and the tweet by Thunberg has 2,8 million likes, making it the 22nd most liked tweet of all time.[52]

The last line is optional. Erbeilas (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sort of moot now, as something along those lines is now in the article. Endwise (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrest

Tate has been arrested by Romanian officials for sex trafficking, along with Tristian Tate. Could someone with ext confirmation add this? Thank you.

Sources:

https://www.insidesport.in/andrew-tate-arrested-charged-under-human-trafficking-andrew-tate-and-tristian-tate-are-taken-to-police-custody-in-romania/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11583711/Andrew-Tates-luxury-villa-Romania-raided-police.html

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/andrew-tates-luxury-villa-reportedly-raided-by-armed-police-in-romania-2019584/

https://nypost.com/2022/12/29/andrew-tate-brother-arrested-on-sex-trafficking-allegations-report/

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/andrew-tate-arrested-romania-human-trafficking-us-embassy/

https://www.news.com.au/world/andrew-tate-brother-tristan-arrested-amid-human-trafficking-probe/news-story/248458ec593bf1bc76ce70f8250abf88

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/andrew-tate-arrested-suspicion-abducting-28839106

https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-influencer-andrew-tate-reportedly-arrested-in-romania-for-rape MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Of all of these, only "news.com.au" is potentially reliable (haven't heard of it, and not sure what name to even search on WP:RSP, but I'm sure others will know). The others are various shades ranging from unreliable to hell-no. DFlhb (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remove all references to his Dec 2022 arrest until more reliable information is available.

Almost certainly the masses are falling for his trap. After the Gretta thunberg tweet war which received significantly greater media coverage than he anticipated, he most likely had the "fake" arrest prepared to complement the unexpected tweet coverage to get another round of media coverage.

You will notice no handcuffs. He arranged for journalists to be there for the arrest. He paid some actors or used his influence in the region for the police to arrest him and release him an hour later.

I was part of his war Room a year ago. I know how his mind works. Unless you get the NY Times reporting, don't play his BS media game.

You can contact me on x for more information on how he thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.3.84 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

the fuck? Littleboyblue12341 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to declare WP:COI. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure how being arrested for human trafficking and rape is supposed to be a good PR strategy but here's your NYT report in case you needed it. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The more pressing question is why have conservatives in the US spent the last decade or so defending these types of people while at the same time making unfounded and baseless accusations against liberals. The projection runs deep. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Some sources that might be of use in referencing his arrest:

• Andrew Tate detained for 30 days by Romanian court (Irish Examiner)
• Andrew Tate put in 30-day pre-trial detention in Romania after arrest (The Guardian)
• Romanian court orders 30-day detention of Andrew Tate over allegations of human trafficking (TheJournal.ie)

Autarch (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Mixed-race"

I like how its specified that he is mixed-race, and that his father is African-American; but it is not specified how his mother is English, or more specifically white English. Calesti (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

edit request: remove unnecessary claim of "confusion" caused by Greta's tweet

instead of:

> Thunberg replied with the fake email address "smalldickenergy@getalife.com", causing some confusion, since she sarcastically claimed that the address was her own.

I suggest:

> Thunberg replied sarcastically with the fake email address "smalldickenergy@getalife.com". Fiafied (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That final part should just be removed, as none of the cited references talk anything about people being confused by the email, as far as I know. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed & done. DFlhb (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning journalist opinion within arrest section

We currently say:

Rebecca Solnit writing for The Guardian said that Tate's recent Twitter argument with Greta Thunberg may have increased international press coverage of his arrest.

This might be minor, but, with this article getting millions of views per day (orders of magnitude more than this summer), I worry that including the above risks leading to harassment of the named journalist. It's not terribly informative; should be keep it? Leaning against. Though I may just be overly cautious. DFlhb (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit because per WP:RSOPINION, opinion articles should be attributed. I definitely don't think removing attribution from a Wikipedia article due to concerns about the publicity it might give the author is the right move per WP:NOTCENSORED, unless the inclusion of that article itself is WP:UNDUE. There is some argument to be made that this whole article ultimately constitutes WP:BLPGOSSIP and therefore isn't due, but if that decision is made, it should be made on the merits of the article's relevance, and not out of concern for the author. BrigadierG (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, I think your edit improved that sentence significantly, not proposing we use Wikivoice at all. I hoped to start a discussion on the overall dueness of that statement, not just of her name. DFlhb (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wondering if editors agree whether temporary removal, pending affirmative consensus in this discussion, would be the appropriate course of action, out of an abundance of caution. See diff. Context: yesterday, this page was the most viewed on Wikipedia, about double that of Pelé (#2). DFlhb (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I would not support such an action. I am narrowly convinced that referencing the article is due, and I believe if we do so, then we should name the author. Could you be clear about which aspect of Wikipedia policy you believe supports this kind of redaction? This is not WP:OUTING because she is a professional journalist. BrigadierG (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if there's possible miscommunication; if it's included, I support your version (naming & linking to her) fully, and oppose redaction. Referencing & attribution are requirements, if we include the statement. I'm just arguing either to wait to include (due to concerns that we might inadvertently cause harassment towards her by the numerous readers of this controversial page), or removing the statement (if undue). It's not grounded in policy (that I know of) per-se, but harm-minimization. DFlhb (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a miscommunication - I fully understood your reasoning. As of yet though, you have not cited any Wikipedia policy as justification, per WP:CONSENSUS. If it is not backed by Wikipedia policy (barring WP:IAR) then I don't support it unless it's a truly exceptional case (which I don't think this is). I don't think you're arguing that the article itself is undue. WP:BLPNAME also I think does not apply here, as this is a highly public individual (a journalist) writing in a professional capacity. Widespread publication of journalism is not just a side effect, it is the primary intent. In cases of writing an opinion piece, it is the proliferation of both the individual and their opinion as a coupled piece which is intended to proliferate widely. To me, harm minimisation as a justification for content removal falls as a direct contradiction of WP:HARMFUL and WP:NOTCENSORED. BrigadierG (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't bring up BLPNAME, and don't believe NOTCENSORED really addresses this issue; But I'll let others chime in. (Also for the record, I do believe it's undue, but that seems like a less urgent concern). DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Why is this article using American date formatting and spelling? As far as I can see, this man has spent most of his life in England. It looks weird to use mdy dates and US spelling. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Would support a change to British spelling; neutral on MDY vs DMY. DFlhb (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Only the US (and Canada possibly?) use MDY spelling, so I think the two go hand in hand usually. Any other opinions on this? He speaks in a weird accent though - just found this on YouTube, where he says he left the US when he was about 10. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)