Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Inaccurate self-description

Although Andrew Tate has been accused of promoting harmful and discriminatory attitudes towards women, it is important to note that he has not explicitly described himself as a misogynist. While some of his comments and statements have been widely criticized as promoting misogynistic beliefs, it is important to accurately represent his self-identification. 173.176.93.201 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Citing a reply higher up: 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.”" ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The source cited is not reliable and may be innacurate, it is also considered as "Hearsay", plain and simple. Third party sources claiming someone said something does not equate to reliable self-description. Please provide a direct source (ie. video or audio evidence) proving that this was directly stated by Andrew Tate, otherwise it is not valid. May I remind you of the importance to remain in good faith and to have a neutral point of view. Facts are required, not baseless claims made in a news article. The same journalist could have stated that "Andrew stated that he is from Mars", and it would not be true nor accurate. This is no different. 173.176.93.201 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I am making a clear request that the citation [4] be removed along with the inaccurate and unreliable claim. Lack of journalistic integrity is a real problem in our world and fanning the flames by spreading the contents of this citation only contributes to the issue. 173.176.93.201 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post article cited as [4] isn't the only reliable source that refers to Tate as a "self-described misogynist". The Independent, Reuters, MSNBC, LA Times, and Boston Herald all characterize him as a "self-described misogynist" as well (even if not all of those articles are cited in the article), and that's just naming five from a quick search. Several of them even quote Tate saying the line in question, including The Independent, which is cited in the article as [46]. You are free to challenge the reliability of any of these sources at the reliable source noticeboard if you wish, but until then, the consensus is to refer to Tate as a "self-described misogynist". — Askarion ✉ 20:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Askarion,

Upon thorough examination of the cited sources that you shared, it appears that none of the articles provide any credible evidence to support the claim that Andrew Tate is a self-proclaimed misogynist. While The Independent article appears to come closest to doing so, my meticulous review of the lengthy "Anything Goes With James English" episode 191 featuring Andrew Tate reveals no such admission of being an unequivocal sexist or misogynist because he is being sarcastic. Hence, the assertions made in these articles are unsubstantiated and taken out of context and must be deemed unreliable.

The article stated he said he is "absolutely a sexist and absolutely a misogynist"... if you watch the podcast in question, it is clear that he is using sarcasm and air quotes to present his point about how people call him these things but in reality he only accepts these labels people have put on him simply because he is a "realist". The following is a direct quote from the episode at 1:29:03...

"It's obviously a generalization but the point is, in certain roles in society we trust females like with our kids and in other roles, like danger, we trust men. This is general, right? So I'm a (air quotes) sexist, I'm a (air quotes) misogynist. I'm misogynistic because I believe females are [physically] weaker than men, that makes me a bad person in a feminist's mind. It's true, it's f**king true. If someone breaks into the house I'm not sending her to fight, it's my job. I have to risk my life to protect her."

Stating that women are generally less physically powerful than men and that humans have intuitive expectations of particular genders based on pattern recognition is not necessarily misogynistic if it is based on factual evidence and not used to justify discrimination, devaluation, or hostility towards women.

I implore you to conduct your own research and watch the podcast episode in question in its entirety. Go straight to the cited source and revise. It is effortless to make unfounded allegations about an individual, but for Wikipedia editors to propagate such unreliable information without due diligence illustrates why many scholars and intellectuals do not consider Wikipedia a dependable source of information. I reiterate that you are not presenting a consensus, but rather propagating groundless claims, which is a clear departure from scholarly standards.

It is crucial to recognize that the mere proliferation of rumors or hearsay does not render them factual. The fact that a falsehood has spread widely does not bestow upon it any semblance of truth. A lie remains a lie, whether it is uttered by one individual or a million people. Therefore, it is vital to seek out verifiable and trustworthy sources of information rather than relying on hearsay and out-of-context or unsubstantiated claims.

As for your statement that "the consensus is to refer to Tate as a self-described misogynist" is absurd. A rumor or hearsay cannot be considered as a consensus because consensus refers to a general agreement or convergence of opinion among a group of individuals. In contrast, rumors and hearsay are based on unverified information that is often circulated without any rigorous investigation or critical analysis. While a rumor may gain traction and be widely spread, it cannot be considered a consensus unless it is supported by factual evidence and endorsed by a significant majority of individuals who have examined the evidence. I just did research proving that the sources you provided wer unreliable, so no consensus has been reached and the discussion continues. It is essential to distinguish between hearsay and consensus and to rely on reliable sources of information to arrive at well-informed opinions. Crossmiles8 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have also reviewed Ep. 191 of "Anything Goes with James English" which features Andrew Tate. I didn't watch all of it, but I did watch five minutes before the "absolutely a misogynist" quote as well as five minutes after, and at no point did I get the impression that he was joking or being sarcastic. He described a hypothetical situation where a feminist tries to "cancel" him and end his career by calling him a misogynist, and Tate counters that this tactic won't work because he already considers himself "absolutely a misogynist". He goes on to say a few minutes later: "Am I sexist? Yes. Why? Because of my experiences in the world." However, this is where the issue arises: two people have watched the same clip, and one got the impression that he was being sarcastic and the other didn't. This is where consensus comes into play. If more reliable sources characterize him as being sincere with that quote, then the consensus is that he was being sincere, and we can therefore include "self-described misogynist" as a genuine label. — Askarion ✉ 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's a reliable source, so we trust it on this unless it is disproven by another. Please have a look at WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hearsay evidence is generally considered less reliable than other types of evidence due to the absence of the original speaker for cross-examination. It is important to note that hearsay evidence may lack supporting evidence and may therefore be subject to further scrutiny. As a result, it is crucial to verify the accuracy of hearsay evidence before relying on it. This helps ensure that only valid and reliable information is considered. I stand by what I said, this discussion will remain open until the invalid and inreliable citation is removed along with the claim. Crossmiles8 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit request template is not a "discussion open" template. It's a specific template that draws patrollers to make an edit that has consensus. Once consensus is achieved in this discussion, and if it supports your suggested change, you can reopen the section. Until then it should remain marked as answered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is generally achieved through discussion, as it involves a process of collaboration and decision-making among multiple individuals or groups. Consensus is reached when all parties involved have discussed and agreed upon a particular decision or course of action. You cannot close a matter due to one person's decision, that is not how a consensus is reached. I will continue to reopen the section until it is actually addressed correctly, as this biased individual is acting in bad faith while making the claim that it is answered when it in fact is not, it is only disagreed with. I stand by my very valid claim and request to provide much more reliable and concrete evidence to prove that this self-description of "absolutely being a misogynist" is even real. Do so, or remove the claim, as hearsay is not something to rely on and share among the public. It is essentially a ppotential form of libelous slander, as it may be untruthful. If you cannot prove it, remove it. We don't operated under the clause of "guilty until proven innocent". Crossmiles8 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

this biased individual is acting in bad faith – do not cast aspersions. Please edit your comment to strike that remark. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There are no aspersions cast, my claim is made clear as day and validated by your stance, how you are quick to press charges without careful consideration. You are binding to this unreliable source like it is the Holy Bible.

It is commonly acknowledged that a civilized society upholds principles of truth and honesty, and does not blindly accept and disseminate falsehoods. In such a society, the propagation of rumors and misinformation is not tolerated until the veracity of such claims has been established. To behave otherwise would be considered uncivilized and detrimental to the social fabric of the community.

Therefore, it is important to exercise caution and diligence in the dissemination of information, especially in the age of social media where falsehoods can spread rapidly and cause harm. The responsible dissemination of accurate and truthful information is a hallmark of a civilized society and one that should be upheld by all members of that society.

In light of this, it is important to recognize the gravity of spreading unfounded rumors and misinformation. Doing so not only undermines the credibility of the source, but also risks causing irreparable harm to those who are affected by the false claims. As such, it is imperative that we all take responsibility for our actions and ensure that our behavior is in line with the standards of a civilized society. Crossmiles8 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a courtroom. "Hearsay" is meaningless here. A reliable source (The Washington Post, see WP:RSP) cited him as having called himself a misogynist, so we repeat that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong.

Hearsay is generally considered unreliable regardless of whether it is presented in court or not. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not present to be cross-examined, and as such, it is generally viewed as less reliable than other forms of evidence.

While hearsay may still have some value as a starting point for an investigation or as a lead for further inquiry, it should not be relied upon solely as evidence in any decision-making process. Instead, it is usually necessary to gather more concrete and verifiable evidence before making a final determination or taking action based on the information provided by hearsay. The action here is spreading false information, which should not be committed freely on this platform. You are, once again, acting in bad faith by keeping this claim and citation on this page. Crossmiles8 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"It is commonly acknowledged that a civilized society upholds principles of truth and honesty, and does not blindly accept and disseminate falsehoods. In such a society, the propagation of rumors and misinformation is not tolerated until the veracity of such claims has been established. To behave otherwise would be considered uncivilized and detrimental to the social fabric of the community."

You're saying it is false because the source is unreliable and others are saying that the source is reliable. There are two sides here. You are only acknowledging what you believe is the truth, and you are automatically operating on the assumption that the claim is false without first discussing with the other side The other side is citing Wikipedia policy, but you're repeating the same argument again and again and not citing any policy.

It is also on the WP:ONUS of the editor challenging the content to give evidence that the source used is unreliable. Otherwise, anybody who disagrees could just point to anything and demand that further evidence should be supplied or it should be deleted.— VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit- Appeal

As someone who believes in fairness no matter their gender, sexual orientation, race, disability and others, I think it would be wise to not judge a book by its cover. Andrew Tate definitely said some socially-penetrating comments that are without a doubt insensitive and controversial. That we can all agree on. Is Andrew Tate a misogynist? Well, many news outlets have picked up on the fact that his material is. There seems to be consensus. Albeit, Andrew Tate did NOT describe himself as a misogynist directly. This is what seems to be bothering many people in this thread. I ask the editors that may be to change the line to "widely described as a misogynist", as it is more factual and also does not change the overall perception of Andrew Tate's dangerous rhetoric. FriendlyNeighborhoodDemocraticSocialist (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that many, many reliable sources characterize Tate as a "self-described misogynist", including but not limited to: The Washington Post, The Independent, Reuters, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, Chicago Tribune, Vox, The Hollywood Reporter, National Public Radio, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. When so many reliable sources use this exact phrasing, it allows Wikipedia to do so as well, even within BLP guidelines and even if the information isn't true. We've experimented with other phrases before (e.g. "widely described as misogynist", "Tate's misogynistic commentary", "often labeled as misogynist"), but there's always been pushback whenever alterations are made and "self-described misogynist" is the phrasing the current consensus favors. There's an (ongoing?) discussion above to change the consensus, as there often seem to be here, but so far the consensus remains intact. — Askarion ✉ 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's the editors' jobs to worry about pushback. Pushback from whom? It's rather vague and I would appreciate a more thorough explanation on this phenomenon. The search for integrity is what should preoccupy the editors. When one media source reuses and rehashes segments from this man to form a perception of him, you start asking questions when that one segment doesn't represent the full picture. Saying "self-described misogynist" is not only dangerous, it is entirely misrepresenting the behavior of Andrew Tate. I would place myself in the camp to say that it is too lenient, and it gives credence to the belief that his behavior is only self-reprimanding. Saying, as it has been before, that he "widely described as a misogynist", doesn't allow for much subjectivity. It is an objective claim based on the actions and words of Andrew Tate, as reported on by the media. Again, I ask that this line be reconsidered, as it leads to 1) confusion, 2) misrepresentation, and 3) a subjective claim to an otherwise objective reality. FriendlyNeighborhoodDemocraticSocialist (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

By pushback, I meant from other editors, to clarify. The word "misogynist" in the lead is probably the most debated word in the entire article as far as talk page discussions go. For a time, he was described as "allegedly misogynist", which became "widely described as misogynist", which became "Tate's misogynist commentary" by September, the last of which stuck for a while. It was challenged in November but was ultimately kept intact. It was challenged again in January and was kept again, but a few days later it was changed to the "self-described misogynist" wording that is still there today. In short, consensus is fluid and the way the article is worded today is definitely not etched in stone. The "self-described misogynist" wording gets debated a lot, but it's supported by the sourcing, so there's no issue. There might be merit in going back to the "widely described as misogynist" wording, but input from other editors would probably be needed first. I'm personally neutral on it; "self-described misogynist" and "widely described as misogynist" are both accurate and supported by reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. — Askarion ✉ 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another failed appeal on 03/14

Here is the source Tanline666 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't strike me as reliable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The failed appeal got covered in RS. I've added it to the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Health question grammar

Can someone please update: "...sparking online rumors on if he has lung cancer." to: "...sparking online rumors related to whether he has lung cancer." BurntSynapse (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Easier to read. Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

His religion

He became Christian again either in 2019 or 2020 not in early 2022 Truthwrites (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

provide a reliable source to support your statement. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess History

Andrew Tate's claims of competing and winning in chess tournaments at the age of five has come under suspicion of falsehood. This YouTube video depicts someone contacting the Indiana Chess Association. The association and its publicly available information directly contradicts Tate's statements. I would like to recommend that the line about "playing in adult tournaments as a child" be either removed from the page, or amended to reflect the possibly false nature of the statements and evidence supporting the falsehood. 2607:FEA8:4502:5E00:E005:AD41:7F47:A6F3 (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: checking the article shown in the bibliography reveals gaps in the narrative that need to be considered as well. It only mentions one adult tournament, where he was losing badly, and had to be withdrawn early by his father to prevent a scene. It makes no further mention of Andrew's participation in other tournaments. The article also makes vague statements about him "trouncing 12 and 16 year olds" without providing any facts about that. I would argue that this article should not meet the requirements for supporting a statement on the wiki. 2607:FEA8:4502:5E00:E005:AD41:7F47:A6F3 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

I would like to make some minor edits to andrew tates page Fahad Imttiyaz (talk) 00:25, 1 April 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing line

> On December 29, 2022, Tate and his brother, Tristan...
this line is confusing as it refers to Andrew Tate by last name then Tristan Tate immediately afterwards by first name.
I suggest it should be changed to
> On December 29, 2022, Andrew and his brother, Tristan...
- MiaPoopy (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Good idea; I've fixed it. DFlhb (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Religion

Andrew became a Muslim in 2022 77.163.182.87 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but we already mention this; please see Andrew_Tate#Personal_life. Best, DFlhb (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct date of birth

The correct date of birth is 14 of December 1986. Please check his official page and correct it. Thank you! 2A02:A58:8249:3E00:F020:BF6F:D5FB:E2DE (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When referring to specific sources, please provide links for others to access them. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Current Religion

Andrew Emory Tate III Was Born An Orthodox And In 2022 He Accepted Islam And Became A Muslim 2404:3100:1C01:8BD3:1:0:C956:9C2B (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that he was born an Orthodox. Regarding Tate "accepting" Islam, see Andrew Tate#Personal life where it's clearly mentioned. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 13:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rejoy2003: the article mentions only that he was raised Christian, not Orthodox. That is covered in the Early life section, and the conversion to Islam is covered in Personal life. I don't see where anything needs changed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Stance should be Muslim 82.31.191.51 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox, "stance" refers to his fighting stance from his time as a kickboxer. He fought with an orthodox stance. The article discusses his conversion to Islam under Personal life. — Askarion ✉ 21:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Abu Andrew

He announced that his new name is "Abu Andrew Tate", after converting to Islam. 103.169.65.150 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

provide a reliable source to support your statement. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

change "self-proclaimed misogynist." to "traditionalist" 92.6.9.122 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Since when did he describe himself as a misogynist?

He said quite the opposite about himself. Rewardesjango (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if that false and unnecessary part to be removed about the "self-described misogynist" Rewardesjango (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There are two sources accompanying that statement you are free to read EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

But that isn't self described at all, he himself said that women should be protected. Rewardesjango (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Tate began practicing kickboxing in 2005 and gained his first championship in 2009. He attracted wider attention in 2016, when he appeared on the British reality show Big Brother and was removed after his comments on social media attracted controversy. He began offering paid courses and memberships through his website and rose to fame as an internet celebrity, promoting a masculine lifestyle while giving out life lessons and personal stories along the way. Tate's "controversial" commentary has resulted in his suspension from several social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram, where he had amassed millions of followers. Rewardesjango (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Can it be changed to this or does this not meet the requirments of wikipedia editing Rewardesjango (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Both sources say he self-describes as a misogynist (WP:SECONDARY) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That wording seems alright to me. Ollieisanerd (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

On second thoughts probably remove "while giving out life lessons and sharing personal stories along the way", that doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You can put life lessons in quotation and he really does share his life stories in his podcasts or videos Rewardesjango (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll support that wording, though it's not the best it's still more neutral than the current paragraph. Ollieisanerd (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you. Rewardesjango (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think putting "controversial" in quotation marks is also a bit unnecessary. I don't think it's due to say that he shares life stories, either, most internet commentators share life stories to some degree so clarifying that detail isn't super important. I think the current wording on the article is fine, honestly, but we can take out "A self-described misogynist," if consensus calls for it; though I personally support the status quo of including the "self-described misogynist" claim because it's supported by the sourcing. Even if Tate said the words in 2021, the sources that the article cites are much more recent, so they can still count unless Tate is reported to have said otherwise by other reliable sources (though the Conversation article linked below by DFlhb is helpful in that regard). — Askarion ✉ 22:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Found a few more reliable sources saying he denied being a misogynist: [1][2][3].

Re your supported by the sourcing: I anecdotally noticed that media outlet usage of self-described misogynist absolutely exploded within just days of us making the change to the lead (and I'd think a thorough source survey would confirm this), which hints at unexpected citogenesis. I don't support removing "self-described", which is certainly due; best option is probably to move it to the body and make it more precise (e.g. On a 2021 podcast, Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist", adding that "I’m a realist and when you’re a realist you’re sexist." (the following RS quote him in full: [4][5][6][7]), and then return the lead to what it says between Aug '22 and Jan '23 (Tate's misogynistic commentary). The current wording is certainly not inaccurate, just imprecise (ironically, we only changed it because people kept complaining about POV on this talk page, but the change didn't help in that regard) DFlhb (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There might be a case for removing this wording from the lead, but definitely not from the article as a whole. Unless I'm misreading them, the request of the original poster is that the wording is not accurate under any circumstances, because, according to them, Tate does not describe himself as a misogynist, never has, and has "said quite the opposite about himself". This would make all instances of this phrasing is invalid, under this presumption. However, "self-described misogynist" is absolutely supported by the sources and is due for inclusion in the article, and is cited to reliable source The Washington Post. I think the current phrasing is fine, but so was "Tate's misogynistic commentary", so I'd be okay with either. Over the past few months, we've changed the phrasing countless times after being continuously accused of POV pushing, and it never satisfied everyone long-term, so we might as well find the most concise and accurate phrasing and stick with it. — Askarion ✉ 02:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That last part matches my thinking exactly. Articles aren't supposed to appease complaints on the talk page, but simply to reflect reliable sources. And I concur with you in disagreeing with the OP. DFlhb (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If we take what he says word for word can I get other things he said that proves otherwise? Rewardesjango (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

per WP:DUE, sources indicate it's a notable self-descriptor and we reflect that here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but if I get different sources that he said things that prove otherwise can it be added? Rewardesjango (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If they are reliable sources, we can open a discussion to change that consensus. A helpful list can be found at WP:RSP. These sources can't just be quotes from Tate, though, he would have to specifically deny that he identifies as a misogynist. And even then, the "self-described misogynist" line might still appear in the article in some respect, just maybe not in the lead. — Askarion ✉ 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This good article from The Conversation says: He has variously agreed, deflected – fine, he says, call me that, I don’t care – or denied, declaiming the love he has for women (and links to instances of each). That seems to be the most accurate summary of it. And there was also a YouTube Short going around where he implied you'd have to be dumb to believe he was a misogynist, so it doesn't seem like a label he genuinely endorses. Personally, I prefer the pre-January status quo wording ("misogynistic commentary" in the lead) and some variant of "variously agreed, deflected, and denied" in the misogyny paragraph of the body. DFlhb (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

These are secondary sources that do not cite any primary sources for their point of view. Andrew Tate has repeatedly said that he is not a misogynist. Here is an interview with Piers Morgan from 6 months ago. The question from Morgan if Tate's views are misogynistic to Tate begins at 4:45 in this interview. The definition of misogyny according to Merriam Webster is: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women.

"...I do not hate women in any regard. I have no negative relationship with women. No women have come forward saying I've hurt them. I've no criminal record for hurting women. There's no way I can be seen as the face or the devil in regards to how men treat women on on the planet. I'm absolutely not - really the opposite - I believe in protecting and providing. I've been misunderstood..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWGcESPltM

A conversation can be had if Tate's views are indeed misogynistic, but he does not describe himself as a misogynist if you view primary source interview material. 73.188.93.240 (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparently he said that on his podcast with James English, but I haven't listened to it so I can't say for certain. Anyways that podcast was in 2021, and Tate might have changed his viewpoint since then. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a misogynist

Andrew Tate is not a misogynist at all, but rather a critic of feminism, there are many female critics of feminism, too. Feminism should not be confused with Women rights. Kindly replace the Category:Misogynists with Category:Male critics of feminism, in this article. Thanks. 182.183.147.193 (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that category exists at all, honestly. It's currently being considered for deletion and seems likely to pass. When that happens, I believe this page will automatically be removed from that category. — Askarion ✉ 12:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Passed away from poisoning on April 27, 2023 2A02:A451:755D:1:E4AC:604F:61F9:3B7F (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Religion ( stance ) - Muslim 178.220.236.195 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nationality

Looked at the archives and didn't see any in-depth discussions or clear consensus. Per WP:ETHNICITY, hyphenated terms should be avoided because they often imply ethnicity. In this case, British-American implies an American of British ancestry and vice-versa for "American-British". Per that guideline and MOS:FIRSTBIO, the only wording should be either "British and American" or just British. I know that talk on whether using British or English and whatnot is more appropriate for the individual but the sake of this post, I will just use British.

To me, only "British" per WP:ETHNICITY and MOS:FIRSTBIO would make the most sense. Though Tate was born and raised in America, he moved to England and that's where he begun his kickboxing career and would later appear in the British version of Big Brother. Until moving to Romania and the current issues surrounding his activities there, it appears his residence was in the U.K as well. Though if editors feel that his American origins have importance as well, then it can be discussed here.

For now, I've left it as "British and American" to avoid hyphenated terms. 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No issues with "British and American" if that's clearer. He holds dual-citizenship, so we do need to mention both. DFlhb (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No issues with the "and" part, though perhaps we should swap them around so it is "American and British", as it seems his American father had more of an influence over him than his British mother. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

The Tate brother's house arrest has been extended until May 29, and the article does not seem to have been updated to reflect this yet.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65351270 Comitialbulb561 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done: Article text says "On March 31, all four were moved to house arrest while the investigation continues" -- unless he's left house arrest, there's no need to update every time it's extended. Lizthegrey (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Tate's parentage/ethnicity

It is not relevant that he is, as stated currently in the article "mixed race" or which of his parents (his father) is African-American 70.40.83.37 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

He mixed race , that me he can't be racist Ivan.ivanovic.petrenko (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Add religion of Andrew tate as muslim

add muslim as Andrew tate's religion as he was reverted to islam on October 24, 2023

For reference : https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-02/is-andrew-tates-conversion-to-islam-toxic-to-the-muslim-community Wikipidiaedit1 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. See Personal life. — Askarion ✉ 11:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Tate has previously speculated that he was kicked out of the Big Brother house as a result of an altercation between him and two other housemates in the show. He told producers he wouldn’t wait for security in the event that another housemate attempted to get physically violent with him. He claims they fabricated the reason they gave to the public for his removal. Would this be worth adding to the “Big Brother” section?

A link to a video of Tate explaining this; ignore the gameplay video at the bottom. https://youtube.com/shorts/0edI5zCLZ-0?feature=share Bposterboard (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. See WP:RSPYT. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.indy100.com/amp/andrew-tate-fight-big-brother-2659042456-2659042456 Bposterboard (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 (2)

Joemama123578 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrew has been in many a podcast, for example, amethystyoormam and 1,2 buckle my shoe

 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. And Please provide a reliable source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Far right?

Why is he labeled as a far right influencer? it doesn't make sense and it distorts the term completely. 181.228.242.114 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe he is himself listed as a far-right influencer, just that he is popular with far-right audiences, which is true according to the reliable sources we have available, for example The Washington Post and Forbes. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

add manosphere

Not sure why this article doesn't mention it at all, but he's considered a major figure in the manosphere by an overwhelming number of sources; he should also be added to Category:Manosphere. Several examples:

https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199179

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018880575/the-toxic-world-of-the-manosphere

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/05/24/over-40-million-in-crypto-related-activity-linked-to-manosphere-influencers-like-andrew-tate/

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/andrew-tate-arrested-oped

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/godforbid/andrew-tate-and-the-manosphere/102204406

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-culture/with-andrew-tate-arrest-a-look-at-manosphere-8356385/

https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-report/2023/05/adventures-manosphere-andrew-tate

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/us/andrew-tate-manosphere-misogyny-solutions-cec/index.html

https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/1/10/23547393/andrew-tate-toxic-masculinity-qa

Jenny Death (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories need to be defining, not just verifiable, and I don't think we've met that more stringent criteria yet. You show that some sources use it, but not all are reliable (WP:FORBESCON), non-opinionated (New Statesman, which describes itself as giving a "left" perspective), or necessarily reliable specifically on politics (Vogue). Only three of the sources we currently cite mention the term "manosphere", and most news stories don't use the term for whatever reason (unlike "misogynist", obviously, which we mention in the lead). Seems too early to add it as a category. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the list of categories here though, I don't see how manosphere is less "defining" then, say, the many categories about his religion or the categories about Washington, DC - which he was born in, but doesn't seem to have a connection to otherwise. At the very least, there should be some category relating to misogyny since just about every source labels him as a prominent advocate for misogynist ideas, and some mention in the article (if not as a category) of his status in the manosphere. Jenny Death (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Explanation for Tate’s “Misogyny”

Many people now believe that Tate, when saying treat your women like your property, he meant care for them and protect them and love them. As Tate is extremely controversial, I think this controversial statement is meaningful. Elmo118 (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a source on this? We can’t really do much without a source. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Please just remove these and WP:DFTT. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is poor and one sided writing that paints him to be an absolute monster. Talk about the good he constantly says to youth. Author must be a lefty. 2A02:C7C:5F79:B600:141E:2157:69FC:C611 (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 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. Also, this article has been worked on by many people and doesn't have a single author. 〜 Askarion ✉ 11:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

In the "Bans" section, I would like to add that this sentence: He was banned on Twitter following the wave of bans, but his account was later reestablished when Elon Musk took charge of Twitter, due to him not violating Twitter ToS.

Relevant sources are not hard to find.

Also I would like to add "Charity work" section or add this to his personal life: He runs a dog shelter in Romania, rebuilt an orphanage in Romania, started a a foundation to defend women from domestic abuse and upports a charity that aids men with mental conditions. He also donated over 25M USD to feed children in war-torn countries as Iran and Syria.

Sources are also not hard to find: https://www.insidesport.in/andrew-tate-charity-how-many-times-did-the-multi-millionaire-influencer-do-charity/ https://www.ndtv.com/feature/influencer-andrew-tate-reveals-hell-set-up-100-million-charity-for-falsely-accused-men-3758525 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/controversial-influencer-andrew-tate-sets-up-charity-to-help-women-and-men/news-story/ba228d845ba7f05d0e89524b3b64df8c Karolow99 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Twitter unban was already mentioned above, but that section has a bit of a confusing layout. I've restated the unban in the "bans" section. As for Tate's purported charity work, those sources seem to be of varying quality, and all of them simply report Tate boasting about said purported charity work. None actually confirm to what extent he has done anything. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the same charity we discussed last August, which is when the above article is dated from. I can't find anything about Tate's supposed dog shelter or about him rebuilding an orphanage. There might be local sources that discuss this but they would probably be in Romanian and I wouldn't know how to search for or read those, unless another editor is up for the task. In short, I don't think his charity work is notable yet per the sources we have at our disposal. 〜 Askarion ✉ 17:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Charges

This edit is WP:SYNTH. It appears that the BBC was simply wrong, or perhaps they meant 'not yet arraigned' rather than 'not yet charged'.

Reuters's coverage of the investigation is even being reprinted by mainstream Romanian news outlets (see Libertatea or Jurnalul through the Mediafax wire service), so I'd treat Reuters as more reliable than the BBC if they conflict; besides, we can't resolve that conflict through SYNTH. DFlhb (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Change “Christian” to “Muslim” in summary table 87.252.225.236 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Religion is not mentioned in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

Add article to "Category:People charged with rape" and "Category:People charged with sex trafficking" JellyfishReflector (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Tate’s denial must be included in lede.

Title. This is in the interest of balance. When we cover allegations against a person, we must include their response if it can also be sourced. A simple “Tate denies any wrongdoing.” or “Tate denies all charges.” at the end of the lede’s last paragraph will suffice. Asperthrow (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

Andrew Tate should not be listed as a boxer. It should be changed to convicted rapist and human trafficker.

Also, Tate has denied everything since the beginning so nothing should be different now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097.amp 2601:282:117F:3F30:948A:B3C3:1CD8:98D3 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: He hasn't been convicted, he has been charged. Also, "so nothing should be different now" is not an edit request. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Tate's "My Job" mission statement

In the recent BBC interview, it is mentioned that Tate once described his "job" on his website as:

meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, get her to fall in love with me to where she'd do anything I say, and then get her on a webcam so we could become rich together

The interview then proceeds with Tate lying into the interviewer's face by claiming to have never said this, and the BBC lets this stand with a reticent "The page has since been taken down."

Actually, the Internet Archive has captured the relevant page, quote (3rd paragraph) & all.

Since the quote indeed succinctly sums up what Tate is on about, I'd argue that it should be included.

-- 2003:EA:F29:7400:FA9E:94FF:FEEC:9B31 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well isn't that pretty, Tate's crew has now manually intervened and placed a block on the subpage for archive.org, as this message only appears after deliberate action: "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

Too bad for him it's still available on other webarchives, like archive.is here. Be sure to download your own copy.

-- 2003:EA:F24:6400:FA9E:94FF:FEEC:9B31 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The BBC article linked above would be enough proof of these statements if we wanted to explore adding these details to the article. Unfortunately if the archive sites take down their version histories of Tate's website, there's not much we can do; our own downloaded copies couldn't be cited (WP:OR). 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2023 (2)

Please change "On June 20, they were charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organized crime group to sexually exploit women.[11]" to "On June 20, they were charged with rape, human trafficking and forming an organized crime group to sexually exploit women, and are under investigation for separate charges including money laundering and trafficking of minors.[11]"

The added text is supported by the article sourced (11 — https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097) by the unedited text: "There are also separate charges still under investigation which could lead to a separate indictment, including money laundering and trafficking of minors." 2001:4653:27E0:0:4193:A341:7DBA:3453 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've added it to the body, under "Criminal investigations". I haven't put it in the lead yet because it is supposed to be a summary of the most important points from the body, but if people agree that it's fitting for the lead, we can do that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree that's a fitting spot for it. 2001:4653:27E0:0:4193:A341:7DBA:3453 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Add Eileen Ashleigh as his other parent

Add Eileen Ashleigh as his other parent Sarah1976 (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah1976: EIleen Ashleigh is not notable, and only notable parents are listed in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Andrew tate is a muslim 190.213.200.5 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That is noted in the Personal life section. It's not clear what you want changed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Tate’s denial ought to be included in lede.

Again, I have to insist that Tate’s denial is included following the description of his charges in the lede. “Tate denies all charges.” or “Tate denies any wrongdoing.” would suffice. As it stands, this paragraph seems unbalanced to me. It’s only one side of an argument. Asperthrow (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I'm fine with including or omitting it from the lead, seeing as his denial is discussed later in the article. It makes little difference, so in the interest of fairness I've added it to the lead unless someone else objects. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 29

Citation 29 is used to claim rate admits to owning the webcam business on his website but it actually just links to an article about him being banned from Twitter. I just want an actual source for the webcam site info. 2601:18C:9101:4930:6D6E:519A:52E4:E2FD (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The 18th paragraph of [29] reads:

It also includes a ‘PhD program’ on “all male-female interactions”, where Mr Tate claims that the success of a webcam studio he runs is due to the fact that “over 50% of all my employees were actually my girlfriend at the time” and that his job was “to get women to fall in love with [him]”.

This is the paragraph the article is citing, which backs up that Tate runs (or claims to run) a successful webcam business using his girlfriends as employees. 〜 Askarion ✉ 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Tate is a woman

Trolling. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tate discussed in her most recent interview with Patrick Bet David that she is now a woman. In order to maintain consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, and not be transphobic, all of her pronouns should be changed in the article. 2601:341:8100:B420:FC1C:B4B:B896:D820 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) This has already been discussed. Tate is not a woman in comments about being one are said in jest. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) You don’t get to decide if they were said in jest. If she says she’s a woman, that’s all it takes to be an irrefutable fact. Now stop being transphobic and change her pronouns! 2601:341:8100:B420:FC1C:B4B:B896:D820 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) There are no reliable sources that report Tate's pronouns are she/her or that his identity as a woman is genuine. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) She said it. That’s all it takes and all that matters. 2601:341:8100:B420:FC1C:B4B:B896:D820 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recentexpressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources... Commonsense will tell you that someone like Andrew Tate is not authentically identifying as a woman and the absence of secondary reliable source's affirming his proclaimed womanhood is also telling. We can argue over the linguistics of any given guideline or policy, such as whether a primary source is reliable enough to evoke GENDERID protections. But that's not needed here because we know what's going on -- just ignore the rules. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Go on YouTube and look up her interview. She literally says her pronouns are now she/her. As far as ignoring the rules, changing Dylan Mulvaney’s pronouns to she/her doesn’t make Wikipedia better, but if (BLP violation removed), I’d get an IP ban. Do you see the incoherence in this trans ideology and why Wikipedia should take no part in it? 2601:341:8100:B420:FC1C:B4B:B896:D820 (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) If you want to discuss Dylan Mulvaney go to Talk:Dylan Mulvaney, but you are correct in that you would likely be unsuccessful in arguing to change Mulvaney's pronouns from she/her. The reason why the Dylan Mulvaney article uses she/her is because there's no doubt that her identification is genuine and the identification is reported as so in reliable sources. I don't believe there is an inconstancy on how Wikipedia treats transgender issues in the way you are suggesting. Wikipedia accepts authentic gender identifications, and Tate's is simply not authentic while Mulvaney's is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) (BLP violation removed) 2601:341:8100:B420:FC1C:B4B:B896:D820 (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's too big

The article is too long to navigate comfortably and should be split up, including a separate article about the criminal investigation and a new article about Tristan Tate who is notable in his own right. JamiroquaiTopG (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Most Viewed Interview

Wiki is very biased. Why was his interview with Tucker Carlson removed from the number one spot on most viewed interview? Can we not report facts anymore? 213.7.30.219 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate please? I can't seem to find where this removal happened. If you could link the article/diff, that would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe his interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight was ever included in the article because Tucker Carlson Tonight isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards (WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). I couldn't find any revisions through WikiBlame that included the words "Tucker Carlson", anyway. This request is most likely trolling nonsense. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Could you please remove the category search tags that include any charges that Andrew Tate hasn't been fully convicted of. This could be misleading to people. Athan Kokkinos (talk) 11:54, 18 July 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. --Ferien (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)