Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Misogyny

POV push on dead topic

Andrew Tate being a misogynist is an innacuracy. Many news outlets have false reported this, however tate and friends of his have refuted this. He has said that he respect women and is tired of his views being seen as misogynistic. 2601:644:8E7F:36F0:F561:D1A7:BE5A:2A3D (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC) We go by what reliable sources and Tate himself say. We don't even use this, but it sounds like extreme misogyny to me: "I loved raping you." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC) 1) A source isn't reliable when it falsely states misinformation. Just because a media outlet is mainstream does not make it reliable. 2) Him saying something with misogyny does not make him a self-described mysognist. In order for him to be one he would have to claim to be a misogynist, a claim that was debunked. 3) My links debunked the claims but were deleted. You trust a news outlet but not Tate's own words. 4) The video is still alleged as Tate has not responded. 5) You said "but it sounds like extreme misogyny to me". Mr. Tate has denied being a misogynist and attacked those calling him one meaning he cannot be "self-described". With all due respect I believe that this is an error that should be changed because it's not fair to say someone describes themselves as something they do not. This is misinformation and untrue. PanjshirLions (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC) The source we use for the "self-described" claim in the lead section is this article from The Washington Post, which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Whether or not this article contains details you consider misinformation, it is still verifiably reported by a reliable source, and Wikipedia is run on verifiability, not truth. Also, I wouldn't say it was "debunked" that Tate didn't call himself misogynist; at best, there is debate on what Tate did or did not mean by it. Either way, WaPo says he is a "self-described" misogynist, so that's where that phrasing comes from. Askarion ✉ 01:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Agree on all points. there is debate on what Tate did or did not mean by it: I'd frame this slightly differently: it's common, with these types of contentious labels, that people alternate from provocatively identifying with them, to attempting to provide logical arguments why the label doesn't apply. Given how common this is, I don't believe any reasonable reader would believe Tate has a poor opinion of himself, or that he actually believes he hates women, but there's no sourcing issue here (sources are both unanimous, and basically accurate), so his "admission" is perfectly usable. DFlhb (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"more lenient"

This is just one instance, but proves the need to rely on reliable sourcing.

In 2017, Tate moved from the United Kingdom to Romania, saying that wanted to live a country where "corruption is accessible for everybody" and "rape laws are more lenient".

This is sourced to Vox, which is sourced to The Daily Beast (a tabloid).

The Daily Beast says:

“40 percent of the reason I moved to Romania was because rape laws are more lenient there,” he later said in a shockingly candid admission. “I’m not a f***ing rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want.”

As can be verified in the primary source, the quote is false; the word "lenient" does not appear once in the video. DFlhb (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right about that not being the quote, my bad on that. I think they were trying to summarise it but left the quotation marks in? Idk. But it's not the first time Daily Beast has been sloppy.

I don't think there's any problem in using secondary sources for their description on what he was talking about, though. e.g. LA Times: In the past, Tate said “40 percent” of why he moved to Romania was for what he believed to be more lax laws against sexual assault, according to a deleted YouTube video The Verge: "In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate said “40 percent” of his reason for moving to Romania was “because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies,” apparently referencing the “MeToo Era” and the country’s seemingly lax laws on sexual assault.", etc. Which from watching the video does appear to be roughly accurate. Endwise (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The "40%" quote more generally

I didn't see the previous RSN discussion, but here are what reliable sources say he meant by it:

Sources

Sorted by publication date: 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.”[1] GQ Magazine: 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[2] NBC News: In a now-deleted YouTube video, 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[3] LA Times: In the past, Tate said “40 percent” of why he moved to Romania was for what he believed to be more lax laws against sexual assault, according to a deleted YouTube video[4] The Verge:In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate said “40 percent” of his reason for moving to Romania was “because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies,” apparently referencing the “MeToo Era” and the country’s seemingly lax laws on sexual assault.[5] The Independent: He said the prospect of avoiding rape charges more easily was “probably 40 per cent of the reason” for moving to Central Europe, adding: “I’m not a f***ing rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.[6]

Every single reliable source I can find all say that Tate was saying essentially the same thing: about 40% of the reason he moved there was because he though the country would be less likely to pursue rape/sexual assault cases. I really don't think this is a difficult issue at all. Endwise (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Links: previously discussed on WP:RSN, and on Dumuzid's talk page by a user who wasn't involved in the RSN discussion.

I understand the desire to include, since it can be read as an "admission" of sorts, but that wouldn't accurately represent the video, which explicitly focuses on false allegations, rather than true allegations. In fact, it is quite clear that the context for his MeToo video is the 2015 allegations, which he consistently asserted were false. It references owing a woman money, which the Vice piece corroborates. 2 months later, he did an interview (at 15:10), where he more explicitly mentions the exact same details as VICE (he owed her money, she drunk wine he gave her, investigation took 4 years), in the context of his move to Romania.

There's a pretty huge gap between "I moved to Romania after a false MeToo allegation because those are less likely in Romania" (paraphrasing, and I'm not remotely endorsing his innocence on that one), versus "I moved to Romania because I get to rape people with no consequence over there".

There's a fundamental issue with reliable sourcing, in this case, because they all seem to source this to a short reddit video (which half of these articles link to directly), which strips away almost all of the "false allegation" context. The original video was deleted around 2020/2021. Newspaper editors who want to verify the accuracy of the edited clip can't do so, because I guarantee none of them know about the obscure Odysee channel.

But more to the point: why include it, when it inappropriately implies culpability in a case where the authorities declined to prosecute? DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the desire to include, since it can be read as an "admission" of sorts -- I don't think the reason I want to include it is because it's an "admission" of anything he's being investigated for now, the reason I want to include it is because it seems like important context behind the reason why he moved to Romania, which when I read the article I was puzzled to see left out.

There's a pretty huge gap between "I moved to Romania after a false MeToo allegation because those are less likely in Romania" (paraphrasing, and I'm not remotely endorsing his innocence on that one), versus "I moved to Romania because I get to rape people with no consequence over there". -- I don't think we should be saying he moved to Romania so he could rape women, but the sources paraphrasing his point don't seem to be saying that either. Having watched that video again, I really don't think the secondary sources are summarising it incorrectly: He was saying that he thought Romanian police would be unlikely to pursue a rape allegation without hard evidence, whereas he thought Western police would be likely to do so, and he would like to avoid that. The most recent sources (The Verge and The Independent) seem to me to have a completely accurate summary of what he was saying.

If we, as editors, have a disagreement over the interpretation of a primary source, that's not an issue. We just follow what secondary sources say. Saying something like he moved there in part because:

Romania would be less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations than the West in the "MeToo era"[7][8]

seems to be an accurate summary of what the secondary sources are saying, which is what the deciding factor should be here. We could possibly add the quote I'm not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free if you're worried that people might think we're saying he said he moved to Romania to rape women, but I don't think that's necessary at all, and the more ink we spill over this in the article the more undue weight we place on it. Endwise (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I support including this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your paraphrase (in green & bold) is pretty solid, and I appreciate the care you're putting into this. I do think we should mention the "false allegations" angle, which is entirely supported by the LA Times, in an article that was republished by the SCMP (both reliable source). DFlhb (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added He said that he moved because he liked "living in countries where corruption is accessible for everybody" and believed that Romanian police would be less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations than in the West, where the MeToo movement allowed women to "destroy the safety of men", including the quote from LA Times. Endwise (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Very solid! DFlhb (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Protests in support of Tate

Looks like Tate’s fans are taking to the streets to demand his release. Specifically, the streets in the center of Athens, Greece. Probably worth a mention, especially if it ends up spreading to other cities. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a few people protesting is worth any mention yet. If it spreads then I guess yeah Pol Cəl (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

War room

@Abobeck11: feel free to find a reliable source about said war room and not one that says “the details of what actually occurs inside the program are unknown” since you claim it’s a major source of income. RossButsy (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He's claimed in several podcasts that he has two major online ventures, Hustler's University and the War Room, which has about 2000 members. 2000 members times around $5000 each is $10 million. There may not be sources to detail what happens in the War Room, but that doesn't mean its mere existence can't be mentioned in the article.Abobeck11 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So find a source for that then otherwise it shouldn’t be included. RossButsy (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And since the numbers you’re mentioning are contentious then this discussion is over as far as I’m concerned. RossButsy (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He says it in this podcast at around the 1:30:30 mark: [9]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lPiBKpTvjc&t=5423&ab_channel=EntrepreneursSpeach. So it could be included as long as it's clear it's only "self-proclaimed" or "according to Tate himself". Abobeck11 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No YouTube links. The onus is on YOU to find a proper source for what you want included. You should know all this by now considering how long you’ve been editing. RossButsy (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Then use the article from Newsweek like I originally provided and don't provide the numbers. Abobeck11 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That source isn’t sufficient. Whole reason why I reverted you. You want it in the article so YOU find the source for it. RossButsy (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe you could've said that in the first place instead of reverting me with no explanation. Also it's only an unreliable source because YOU decided it is. Per WP:NEWSWEEK, the source is to be evaluated for content on a case-by-case basis in an open discussion. There's also an article from AP that talks about it: [10]https://apnews.com/article/romania-government-bucharest-business-crime-3458065c0350ec217a21c627f725272c. Abobeck11 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

May be permissible under WP:BLPSELFPUB? CharredShorthand (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any other users engaging in discourse. I gave you the option of finding a source and you can’t find one so I was right. The source ISN’T a good one, you paid no attention to read the article clearly and just picked the first one you could find. It’s just conjecture and tabloid speculation about something that hasn’t got near as much coverage as his hustlers university. RossButsy (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

AP is a credible source. Perhaps give other users a chance to engage in discourse, it has been 2 hours.Abobeck11 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see anything in AP about the war room having 2000 members which you say is it’s membership. RossButsy (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware. I'm not including that in the article. Like I said, all I wanted to do is add the fact that the War Room exists.Abobeck11 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Add as you please, forgot about new upcoming Vice documentary which heavily features war room perhaps wait until more information from that is available? RossButsy (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure will do. Abobeck11 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Romanian teenagers

The BBC have recently published an article which cites a number of teenage Romanians who describe being contacted by Instagram handles whose username matched that used by Andrew and Tristan Tate before they were banned from the application. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64330811

I note that the BBC has been unable to independently verify their authenticity, or establish whether the messages were sent by Andrew and Tristan Tate themselves or someone working on their behalf.

The BBC report also notes that there is nothing illegal in the Tate brothers contacting girls of 16 or 17 online, or inviting them out.

Having said all of that, I would like to suggest that a sentence or two be added to the page to the effect that "Following Tate's arrest the BBC reported that a number of Romanian Teenagers described receiving Instagram messages, which appeared to have been sent from Tate's account, inviting them to meet Tate. The BBC was unable to independently verify their authenticity, or establish whether the messages were sent by Andrew and Tristan Tate themselves or someone working on their behalf."

I would welcome people's thoughts Jono1011 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See this archived discussion; my thinking hasn't changed that it's undue (especially with the BBC saying they found nothing illegal about these particular texts; if that weren't the case, well, it would be quite different). DFlhb (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Small typo

Final paragraph in the 2022 Romanian investigation section: "On January 20, a Romanian court extended the brother's police detention until February 27."

" brother's " should be " brothers' ". The detention of both brothers was extended. Can't edit this myself due to page protection. Aspharon (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you. DFlhb (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Andrew Tate is a Muslim now and your info are still old. Another thing, put the other points of view and facts about him and his brother being in prison and be objective please. 46.32.125.202 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2023 (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. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2023 (2)

I have some more information I would like to add. I have credible sources, and I would like to spread the word about who Andrew Tate is. I will be changing the first paragraph. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125045 Jbuck2025 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please propose the edit you wish to make in a "change X text to Y text" format. We don't want "credible sources", we want reliable sources. This isn't the place to "spread the word" about anything- that's what social media is for. We summarize what independent reliable sources say without imparting our own views. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Andrew was born on 14 december, which is stated on his website. https://www.cobratate.com/bio Thymme (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thymme He had also previously stated he was born 1 December. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sherdog reports the 14 December date. I need to check if they're reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It is for basic info, especially since ESPN doesn't have anything. I endorse the change but don't have time to fully execute it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done per Sherdog sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed before; his website was simply copied from Wikipedia a few years back, and it's overwhelmingly likely Sherdog did too. BoxingRec says Tate was born in Chicago; that's what Wikipedia and cobratate.com used to say, but that's also BS, as we know from Shabaaz 2017. I oppose the change; no new facts have come in. As I've said before, he said his birthday was December 1st on Twitter in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 (didn't check previous years); there's no doubt that's the real date. Why prioritize one primary source we know he didn't write (his website) over one we know he writes (his Twitter)? This fails ABOUTSELF. DFlhb (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb I didn't check talk page archives. You have a point about Sherdog potentially parroting what we have in the article (and his website sure feels like it was copied from here, too, in the tone). —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Undone I can't tell when Sherdog added the dob. There's a three year gap in archive entries, and during that interview, we did have the dob as 14 Dec. I have reverted back to the prior information pending the location of additional sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Andrew Tate was actually born on Dember 14th not December 1st so I ask that you fix it as it is missleading Andrew Tate43 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide a source for this information. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2023

Emory Andrew Tate III (born December 1, 1986) is an American-British social media personality, businessman, former professional kickboxer and human trafficker.

Remove "and human trafficker"

It has not been proven in court this is false information. Brokie101 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Already done by user:askarion, and there's probably no point making an edit request about the lede of such a volatile article. –small jars tc 01:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

You’ve listed him as a human trafficker before the charges have been revealed as true or false. Isn’t this defamation of character and damaging if he’s innocent? 2A02:C7E:5635:7C00:5D32:C9D2:639C:6D49 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

See above –small jars tc 01:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Charged?

The language barrier seems more like a language force field, in this case.

I actually had doubts, because the DIICOT statements didn't mention charges, but I assumed that Western media said all four had been charged based on talking directly with investigators.

But now, we have the BBC saying explicitly, multiple times, that they are not charged yet.[11] That's not just the BBC; it accords with what I've read in some Romanian sources (which I'll now look for, and add), that say the judge kept them in pre-trial detention due to the gravity of the accusations (not the evidence itself), and that he found that evidence insufficient (as yet) for the case to be able to move to trial. I'll dig deeper and try to find out the cause for this discrepancy. Might take me a few days, because of other priorities, but I think we should be small-c conservative until then (and say "accused of" rather than "charged"). DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We are in the evidence-gathering state. The next decision will take place on the 29th January. Here a attorney from Romania explaining the case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjapFXnS1cc --91.54.15.222 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Haven't found any secondary sources that could resolve the discrepancy.

I do have some WP:OR based on reading the published 30/12/2022 court document (granting the 30-day extension): the Judge notes on page 4 that there is still insufficient envidence for a full indictment (and also notes that such evidence is not required for the pre-trial detention). So this would pretty plainly mean, "not charged yet", which does vindicate the BBC. DFlhb (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's another AFP story I just came across:

Their detention could be extended to a maximum of 180 days, pending possible indictment.

I'm sure there are others; but I've been focused on Apple articles for the past two weeks, and barely kept up with the news at all. DFlhb (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Invalid “self-described misogynist”.

In the opening paragraph it says that he is a “self-described misogynist”. Andrew Tate has said several times in both of his Piers Morgan interviews that he “does not believe that he is misogynistic”. I may be wrong but could someone provide a source for when he has said that he is a misogynist?MayoForSam2023 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The source we use for the "self-described misogynist" claim is this article from The Washington Post. Someone seems to have deleted that reference from the lead paragraph, though; the article is still cited later down the page, just not where it needs to be. I'll add that back. Askarion ✉ 02:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So he denies he is a misogynist on multiple verifiable videos, and written material. But because of one WaPo article with debatable phrasing, that part is left in the opening paragraph to allude that he identifies with a label of misogyny? That is extremely disingenuous. 77.98.120.11 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post article doesn’t provide a source for when he has described himself as a mysoginist. MayoForSam2023 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not WaPo, but The Independent does:

In an appearance on the Anything Goes with James English podcast last year, Tate said: “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”

Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 07:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MayoForSam2023 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote is long enough and significant enough to deserve a quoteblock, per our MOS. Done. Hopefully this will also silence those who keep complaining. Now they'll notice his own words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023 (3)

Change stance from "Southpaw" to "Orthodox" (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That was added here 3 weeks ago without a source. Videos easily confirm he's an orthodox fighter. Changed. DFlhb (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

Please update to 2023 2400:ADC1:477:8500:196A:9510:17C1:8489 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That picture (which I've just removed) is copyrighted by the Associated Press. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Shea

Matt shea redirects to American media figure Matt shea and not the British filmmaker of the same name 2600:6C50:49F0:690:4906:C2A9:C55A:3F0D (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have corrected the wikilink. Thanks for pointing it out! Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 06:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Media coverage section

Does that section looks out-of-place to anyone else? We're supposed to include material based on secondary sources (including media coverage), but meta-discussions about media coverage don't seem that useful. DFlhb (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The line "Tate's activities have been extensively covered by the world's media since late 2022" is kind of implied by the existence of the coverage listed elsewhere in the article (also, "mostly commenting negatively on his misogyny" – is this an appropriate use of referring to Tate as misogynist in wikivoice, especially when it does not specify his commentary, and just says "Tate's misogyny"?). As for the VICE documentary, I'm not sure where else that would go besides in a "media coverage" section. Unless someone is willing to watch the documentary and use information in it elsewhere in the article? Askarion ✉ 14:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The Vice documentary is the basis for the whole 2015 investigation section, so it's redundant with that; and mostly commenting negatively on his misogyny is redundant with that fact being highlighted in the lead, rather than being a wikivoice issue. The issue with this "meta-talk" is that in an already pretty comprehensive article, it'll just repeat things mentioned elsewhere. DFlhb (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

in the section "Andre Tate has not been charged" please add "because he's not in the US or the UK where a charge is necessary before someone is held on remand pending further investigations and a court date. In Romania you are held in "arestare preventivă" an almost identical state to remand, authorised by a judge, while investigations continue. It is only once those investigations have completed will you be charged or released. It is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as UK processes.

https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/Criminal-Proceedings-and-Defence-Rights-in-Romania.pdf 77.98.164.244 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Current prose, including the term 'pre-trial detention', is sufficiently clear. Melmann 22:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Any sources on the mother?

not a serious request; trolling that no longer makes any sense with the redaction. Keeping for historical purposes only Dronebogus (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) At the rate current events are unfolding, you've really got to wonder when a bombshell might drop. John Shandy` • talk 05:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC) @John Shandy`: are you making these accusation's against Eileen Tate with any grounding? I can't tell if this is a serious posting or your trying to disparage the subject or his mother. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC) When the sources of income are not really transparent people often wonder how someone paid the bills. There is no source of income mentioned after going/returning to England. Before, as a catering assistant, that would have been slim pickings. Sometimes it's about intelligence without a plausible cover story. Moving around could point in that direction. And sometimes it's about the adult entertainment industry. Nobody should be subjected to assumptions presented as facts, although if anyone really has an interest it is legitimate to explore what takes your fancy. For me, it's a surprise that he went to Romania. Did he speak or understand a romanesque language, or does he understand Romany? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:6CEF:CCED:75A4:48CA (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC) @John Shandy`: You’ve really got to wonder after that comment that you might be WP:NOTHERE. RossButsy (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023 (2)

Change “self described misogynist“ to “described misogynist”, because Andrew Tate had never called himself a misogynist but has been labeled as one. This is just a slight grammatical error.

Removing the comment all together would remove the controversy around Andrew Tate. 72.235.92.166 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the cited Washington Post article, which we consider to be a WP:RS -

He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as “absolutely a misogynist.”

Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Independent is more specific in this regard: 'In an appearance on the Anything Goes with James English podcast last year, Tate said: “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”' Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 06:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The actual interview[12] is more specific in that he says that he is labelled as a misogynist "because I believe that females are weaker than men, that makes me a bad person in the feminists mind."[13] He is sarcastically agreeing (notice the tone change and use of air-quotes) to the label based on the incorrect definition of the term misogynist. Misogyny is the hatred of women, not the belief that they are weaker. In summary, by watching the longer section of the interview for full context, it is clear that he sarcastically agreeing to the term based on it being used incorrectly. 49.190.233.91 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

andrew tate is a muslim

https://rumble.com/v1t04lu-andrew-tate-why-i-became-a-muslim-when-i-will-fight-logan-paul-how-to-be-a-.html2001:9E8:6EF9:9700:65BD:BD9B:C971:D943 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 2001:9E8:6EF9:9700:65BD:BD9B:C971:D943 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We already mention that. Endwise (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

Andrew Tate has three sons named Ben Divido, Ovie Dumuje, and Anthony Robles Roeijwroae (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Tate's kids, I was able to find four articles where Tate is mentioned to have children: in the BBC, in the New York Post, in the Mirror, and in the London Times. Of these four, only two are considered generially reliable, the BBC and the Times (per WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMIRROR, I wouldn't risk citing them here). Neither the BBC nor the Times mentions him having children by the names of Ben Divido, Ovie Dumuje, or Anthony Robles. The BBC writes that he has "several children living in Romania" and that "sometimes [Tate] went to visit them". The Times article is more descriptive ("Tate has children himself but won’t talk about them"), and features an interview with Tate in which he says:

I am not going to give numbers, but I am certain I will have more children than 99.9 per cent of the population of the western world. Double digit children. And they all adore me. They see me as their hero and the women who have my children see me as a hero. Everybody close to me respects me. Nobody has ever said that what I am doing is detrimental to the boys. Or the girls.

— Andrew Tate to the Times on September 24, 2022

All in all, it's up to consensus whether or not this needs to be mentioned in the article. But from what reliable sources are saying, he probably has more than just three children, and none of them are named Ben Divido, Ovie Dumuje, or Anthony Robles (the last of which is apparently an American wrestler with one leg, but maybe that's just a naming coincidence). Sidenote, the Times article is quite descriptive and features interviews with the subject, so it might be useful in other ways. Askarion ✉ 12:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

Ouari Bekka (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a better idea for the picture try this one that I uploaded in Wekimedia commons 0 Emory-Andrew-Tate-III (1).jpg

I have CSD'd that image on commons for being a copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Strange redirection

Why does "top g" redirect to Andrew Tate? MrDudeSirGuyMan (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"Top G" is a nickname Tate often uses to refer to himself. The redirect was added as an alternative name per WP:RPURPOSE. — Askarion ✉ 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If the nickname isn't notable enough to have even one mention in the entire body of the article, it certainly isn't notable enough for a redirect. [irrelevant BLP attack removed] John Shandy` • talk 07:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making pointless vulgar insults out of the blue on this article? Dronebogus (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You can voice these concerns to redirects for discussion if you wish. I'm personally neutral on it, because nothing actually seems to link to the redirect anyway. — Askarion ✉ 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really mind if the redirect stays up either.

It's even kind of funny MrDudeSirGuyMan (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

False

Do not add false claims 80.43.114.41 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Which false claims are you referring to? Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Askarion ✉ 15:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Misleading

"Tate was raised in the Christian faith.[17]" This sentence is misleading. Tate has converted to Islam which isn't mentioned anywhere here. After he converted to Islam he visited the show of famous muslim youtubers Muhammad Hijab to talk about his conversion. He was also seen in a Mosque praying with his muslim friend. He believes "Islam is the last religion on earth" and has spoken negatively about the current state of Christianity. 2003:CD:5F03:0:9F13:2DC4:D12:BF55 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand why so many IP editors believe this article doesn't mention Tate's conversion to Islam. His conversion has been mentioned here ever since it was announced. DFlhb (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand, he did not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy either through baptism or chrismation and calling him one just because he offered donations and went to Church sometimes is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.192.32 (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not for us to define it. He called himself an Orthodox Christian in 2022, per the Premier source. That's what we're going with: Premier reporting what he said. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Stance part; he is Muslim not orthodox 5.45.129.213 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Verified at BoxRec. If he did not fight in an orthodox stance, we would use the common term, southpaw. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To add to the previous comment, orthodox refers to Orthodox stance, not to religion! Though that's an understandable misunderstanding. DFlhb (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb Thank you for pointing this out, especially since later in the article, there's a passage where he is reported as having self-identified as Orthodox Christian. I checked: the infobox links to orthodox stance; if it didn't, I was going to link it to try to mitigate confusion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

As he has been converted to Islam update in dashboard of wiki first page. Thank you 42.105.48.183 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no religion parameter in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Baseless" claim re pizza boxes should be changed to "mistaken"?

The legacy of Donald Trump and his "alternative facts" here I think. Although in a grammatic sense a baseless claim, false claim, and mistaken claim etc are essentially the same thing, they have (especially post-Trump) come to be different.

Re this bit - "Social media rumors baselessly attributed Andrew Tate's arrest to pizza boxes shown in his response video to Greta Thunberg, which Romanian authorities denied."

(e.g. If a train driver sees a red light dangled maliciously by a trespasser on the line and stops - would his reasoning really be considered "baseless" rather than "mistaken"? Unlike say if they falsely claimed to have seen a red light as an excuse when stopping for some other unauthorised reason?)

So;

Tate released a video featuring Romanian pizza boxes, and was then arrested in Romania by the police there, leading Thunberg supporters to (mistakenly) assert that (the roving) Tate had unwittingly alerted Romanian police that he was (back) in the country.

That view wasn't "baseless" in the post Trump sense, it was mistaken. The Romanian pizza boxes were really in the video and it was a reasonable assumption etc even if wrong.

(It matters also due to the similarities between Trump supporters and Tate supporters - presently it could somehow allude that Thunberg supporters also engage in "baseless" behaviour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a reasonable assumption I strenuously disagree, and don't believe any sources see it like that. It was a preposterous claim, asserted confidently as fact, that was claimed to be sourced to a Gandul article, but that article never mentioned Thunberg or made any such claims. Gândul called it "fabulation", and reported that the Tate brothers were caught due to satellite surveillance and wiretapping. Romania happens to be a competent country with a decent police force, not a country made of papier-mâché and cardboard that would need social media pics to catch someone. And I don't think this reflect poorly on Thunberg or her supporters at all, since they were certainly in it "for the memes"; but the claim itself is most accurately described as "baseless". DFlhb (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tate impersonators

There is at least one person who is impersonating Andrew Tate, presumably to make money off his fanbase. There may well be others, too (in addition to the guys who impersonate Tate for comedic reasons, such as the gay TikToker who goes by “Bottom G”). Are any of the fake Tates notable enough to mention here? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding mentioning his religion

As wiki says that he has been converted to ISLAM then show it on wiki dashboard 42.105.49.101 (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The "stance" part of his infobox refers to his martial arts stance. His conversion to Islam is mentioned in the personal life section of the article as has been since his conversion was announced in October. This is actually the third request in a row asking about this, I have to wonder why this has been brought up so often? — Askarion ✉ 13:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Askarion was it all by ip users? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All four since February 25 have been. There is no religion parameter in the infobox, as C.Fred said, so we couldn't add it even if we wanted to. — Askarion ✉ 12:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Article is too in favor of Andrew Tate

He is literally a professional misogynist. He operates a cult dedicated to women hatred and "playboy" strategies known as the War Room. This feels very weird not being in the lead introduction 80.57.110.242 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is the cult not mentioned in the article? It is in the BBC documentary and even mentioned in its trailer. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001jg1t/the-dangerous-rise-of-andrew-tate?at_mid=ql5T0edhjF&at_medium=owned_display&at_campaign=The_Dangerous_Rise_Of_Andrew_Tate_NewsPromo_PNC&at_ptr_name=bbc&at_campaign_type=owned&at_objective=consumption&at_ptr_type=media&at_link_origin=promo_box&at_format=image&at_link_title=The_Dangerous_Rise_Of_Andrew_Tate_NewsPromo_PNC&at_bbc_team=BBC 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:C9B4:655E:C63D:B6EA (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

He began offering paid courses and memberships through his website and rose to fame as an internet celebrity, promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle," commonly known as the "Top G" by his fans. TheDonquavious (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Tate’s media/publicist team recently confirmed that Andrew has been diagnosed with lung cancer. There are sources on the internet that can confirm this. Just seems an important addition to his ‘Personal life’ section. Bposterboard (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not finding anything reliable on this at first glance, so please provide a source. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 00:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

Emory Andrew Tate III is NOT a self-declared misogynist! 91.187.148.150 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the cited source, “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you.” He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as “absolutely a misogynist.” ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

He has never called himself a misogynist.

You have no source, and the quoted article uses quotation marks ambiguously, first showing an actual quote from Tate, and then using the same quotations in the same paragraph to add this concept and make it seem as if he literally said this; whilst not being the case.

They using a standard self-description, which may be seen as misogynistic by some, and adding it in quotations. Just like you are, because you know he has never described him self with those words.

That seriously needs to be removed. Mkkzvr (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on linking to Tate's website

Andrew Tate's website is a WP:LINKSTOAVOID violation due to the fact that it directly promotes his "business", which has been widely described as a scam by multiple sources. Per the policy on not including this type of material, it should be removed. Not to mention the fact that it links to external harassment and encourages violence against women, another violation. Therefore, it should be swiftly removed. 2402:4000:21C2:5503:1CD6:962D:6E6C:7AE7 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I could've sworn this was discussed before, but I can't find where. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID doesn't apply to official websites, so your policy argument is mistaken. Further, your description of these sources is not accurate. The first link you offer quotes Tate calling his webcam business a "total scam" (though its targets were porn site visitors, not visitors of Tate's website), the second link criticizes Hustler's University's affiliate program (which was shutdown), and the third link doesn't call it a scam in its own voice, but quotes UnHerd saying so. If you didn't know, UnHerd is basically Breitbart: transphobic, Russian propaganda trash. It's not a reliable source. The website does not appear to "link to external harassment" upon cursory check, and the link you provide doesn't substantiate that. Given that at the KiwiFarms link RfC, even many of the pro-"ban" !votes were worried about a slippery slope, I think we should be careful to avoid going down that path. WP:NOTCENSORED applies, except for websites directly responsible for deaths.

And to FormalDude: if you find the link to a previous discussion, please share.

Extended content
BTW, I hate to ask, but could someone with guts please start an RFC at Sanctioned Suicide, on whether to link to that site? It's caused more than 50 deaths, but I'm just too worried about any potential harassment/doxing in case any of that forum's visitors browses Wikipedia. Obviously, only do so if you don't care about that yourself, or bothered to have good opsec. Would be highly grateful.

DFlhb (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrew's children

I don't think he has children. Or does he have? It is possible that Tristan has a child, although we don't know without a paternity test. .karellian-24 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The BBC says that both Andrew and Tristan "had several children living in Romania" and that "they sometimes went to visit them". The London Times says that Andrew Tate has children but that he wouldn't discuss specifics, such as how many or how old they are (though he implies that he has both male and female children, and that there are several mothers). Not much else is known about Andrew Tate's children, but if I recall correctly, he has mentioned on Twitter a few times within the last month that the Romanian prison guards "won't let him see his kids" and stuff, but I'd have to look into that. In summary, Andrew Tate seems to have children (at least, sources present this as fact), but specifics are hard to come by and Tate doesn't offer details. — Askarion ✉ 17:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In Romania we only know that Tristan Tate could have 1 Romanian child. Maybe the BBC didn't check the information about Andrew. .karellian-24 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Article about Tate’s family background

I’m not sure if this article qualifies an an allowable source, but it seems to offer a lot of previously unknown details about Tate’s upbringing and how it may have influenced his views. In particular, his father Emory Tate seems to have had a similar attitude, and adopted a “tough” parenting style with him. It also mentions that he has a cousin who travels with him and his brother and lived with them in Romania. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:EBA2 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've found short Agence France-Presse articles with more factual errors (bad ones) than many long-form Buzzfeed News investigations, and AFP is generally seen as reliable. Buzzfeed's perfectly fine. This might be the most in-depth article we have on Tate, so there's plenty to use. Though specifically on his father's influence, we should make sure to stick strictly to what the article says, and not veer into pop-psychology through bad paraphrases. DFlhb (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Second this. Found this by chance and was wondering if it was in the article yet. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 12:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)