This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tate recently made a video saying he will be leaving social media and focusing on charity FlyersFan1969 ( talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Andrew Tate is a supporter of the Republican party so Republican party should be added to his page. Rasmus1234551 ( talk) 10:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
tate has commented on these charges, maybe this section should be expanded 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Tate very recently released a "Final Statement" which included effectively debunking several claims on this page, including the sexual trafficking claim which is directly disputed with evidence. I think a need for more basis to claims like "misogynistic" is necessary, too. One citation which claims Tate said he 'moved to Romania for lax rape law enforcement' has no actual clips of him saying it. There's not even a single person who has ever actually came out directly accusing Tate of wrongdoing, and he's never been charged with a crime.
In essence: more care needs to be taken as to what is documented imo. Many lines read, to me, as definitely not from a NPOV. 2603:9000:8200:8957:5C85:5287:4A74:4E9C ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Should it really be allegedly? I understand Wikipedia wants to be as objective as possible and not start controversy but this isn't the hill to die on. There's no "allegedly" when you say yourself women are property. Leid Elend ( talk) 00:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of womenI disagree, that's not what we have to ask. We have to ask "Do we have enough high quality reliable sources for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL change to calling his views misogynist in wikivoice?"I would argue that whereas editors were close to that bar just yesterday, perhaps the source where the subject calls himself as such that is now located would put it over that bar. FrederalBacon ( talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as 'absolutely a misogynist.'Here is the primary source, Tate himself, for you to verify.
Tate describes himself as "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", since that is more accurate, and is literally what the subject himself said, but I'm not sure the sexist line has been covered in third party. FrederalBacon ( talk) 21:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
[1] This one talks about a link to Infowars and conspiracy theorists
[2] This one has some quotes from the subject, including a statement where he pretty much denies all the controversy around him.
[3] Source for the closure of "Hustlers University" FrederalBacon ( talk) 02:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “young directionless men” to “British Muslims” since that is all the source substantiates. 2603:3001:10A:B500:29AB:50AC:C2AD:EC64 ( talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost overnight, Tate has become a cult-like figure to young men and boys across many English-speaking countries.Further down, it says:
Worryingly, Tate appears to be the latest avatar of the internet pipeline that takes young directionless men from videos on life and male development to arriving at the conclusion that feminism is to blame for a lot in life.The author talks about Tate generally in about the first third of the article and only goes into the British-Muslim distinction later in the article. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that in the intro, mention of him being a “misogynist” is removed as this is purely opinion. 2001:48F8:7054:1038:DD47:66E5:842C:2FA5 ( talk) 21:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:214C:8802:5400:C5B4:6E8C:D0E5:1A01 ( talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)andrew tate was not a misogynist . Out of context tik tok made him seem like a bad guy you should really watch his podcasts and then form a final opinion. you should have a spherical point of view.
Andrew Tates birth records shows him born in Washington D.C and he has stated that he was born in Washington D.C https://www.tiktok.com/@lightofday0/video/7119440491212524805?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&q=where%20was%20andrew%20tate%20born&t=1661521909631 this is a tiktok of his deleted video "The worst things about being rich" full video here https://odysee.com/@tatespeech:c/the-worst-things-about-being-rich:7 Antoniogago l ( talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
andrew tate is not 6,1 that is wrong, hes 6,3. change 6ft 1in to 6ft 3in. Turtlepp934 ( talk) 05:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)He’s banned from twitch now Q78q ( talk) 05:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Animal Shelter and Rebuilding of Orphanage should be mentioned 2600:1014:B1A3:7F4A:14A2:B846:F94D:77B ( talk) 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove then words "Tate became highly prominent during 2022" 68.1.116.172 ( talk) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
His current profession should be updated to “former Internet personality” following his Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok bans. 2A02:C7E:3C65:D800:D9C4:F25F:49BE:C48B ( talk) 06:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Why not add his kickboxing and mma records as all fighters records are present? Blahwikiblah ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
His MMA Record was on there but has been removed and a Kickboxing record (incomplete) can be found on Boxrec. Blahwikiblah ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I was just reading through, I feel like listing each individual ban (which at this point consists of most mainstream platforms) makes the sentence too long. Would there be support for changing it to Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted bans from several platforms for violation of policy
FrederalBacon (
talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Tate's misogynistic commentary has resulted in bans from several social media platforms.It leaves open the question: Where was his misogynistic commentary? But, I also understand where you're coming from. I'm easy going Throast, if consensus desires change, it desires change. FrederalBacon ( talk) 00:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Title 23.186.80.194 ( talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The argument that this is subjective lacks a fundamental understanding of our NPOV policy. –– FormalDude talk 01:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The article has a whole section about Tate's social media presence yet his currently existing, non-banned accounts are not even mentioned. My suggestion is to add information about the existence of these accounts into that section, as well as to add links to these accounts into "external links" section. This is in my opinion the most important information that can possibly be on this page because a person's (this applies to everyone) speech is a more unbiased source of information than other people's interpretations of that speech. Accounts: https://rumble.com/c/TateSpeech https://gettr.com/user/cobratate Ki999 ( talk) 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by 'reliable source'. What does that even mean?and asked,
How do you determine a source's reliability?This talk page is not the place for general inquiries. If you are really clueless about these concepts, these questions should be asked at the Teahouse (as I linked to above) before starting a thread here. Per the content guideline on external links, links to social media accounts of the article subject are to be avoided unless the subject has no online presence outside of those social media platforms. Tate, of course, has his own website, which is already linked, both in the infobox and under Andrew Tate#External links. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I am going to address accusations towards me first. One of them is that I "evidently do not know what Wikipedia is" based on the fact that I have not read the manuals. I reject this because not having read every single manual does not mean "not knowing what Wikipedia is". Regarding guideline about social media links, I obviously did not know that rule and will follow it from now on. There is nothing strange that people doubt the existence of a video where Tate calls himself a misogynist. I am being accused of "seeming to be unwilling to do my own research", I will tell you I am not to blame for this because it is not my job to find that video. It is the job of journalists who publish that claim. They do not post a link to that video and I still see this as highly problematic. The actual quote was: "The typical feminist tactic is to cancel somebody, right? To come at somebody, call them misogynist and call them all these things and then that person loses their career or they're slandered; 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 fuck you money and you can't take it away so I'll say what I want because I'm a realist and when you're a realist you're sexist." Does this mean he actually calls himself misogynist? I would argue that it does not. But again this is just my opinion and everybody should have a very easy access to that video to form their own opinion. The problem with the word "misogynist" is the fact that it is commonly understood as hate towards women as a whole. Mr. Tate has repeatedly stated that this does not apply to him. He says things like "women cannot drive, cannot fight, should clean, cook, obey men" while "men should pay for women". These are not hateful, these are simply conservative thinking. But anyway, I did not come here to remove that label. People are going to see it is bullshit anyway, so no need to remove it. My goal is to add a single sentence into social media presence section mentioning the fact that Andrew Tate is using Gettr and Rumble. You refused to add it because "reliable sources have not covered it". So now there is wide media coverage so there is no excuse anymore. I must admit I fail to fully comprehend the reliable source criteria so I do not guarantee every source below is reliable but I am sure at least some of them are. I see you don't need much support for claims you put here anyway, e.g. there is a sentence "The raid resulted in the recovery of an American woman and a Romanian woman". Recovery from what? This is a very serious accusation and most likely false, yet single website writing such a thing was enough to include it on the article, that site is very hard to find, unpopular and not even in English. Below are sources for the fact that Andrew Tate uses Gettr and Rumble: https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-rumble https://vimbuzz.com/why-did-andrew-tate-join-rumble https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/video-platform-explains-why-its-letting-andrew-tate-speak-freely-after-numerous-bans-1913340 https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311455396112 https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/andrew-tates-narrative-control-completely-045532171.html https://www.sportbible.com/boxin/andrew-tate-ksi-fight-20220827.amp.html https://reclaimthenet.org/andrew-tate-joins-rumble https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1661266/Andrew-Tate-KSI-face-Swarmz-Luis-Pineda-Jake-Paul-Tommy-Fury-boxing-news https://www.revolver.news/2022/08/andrew-tate-joins-rumble-posts-farewell-video https://www.ginx.tv/en/twitch/andrew-tate-rolls-ksi-slams-him-as-being-a-hypocrite https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-rumble-skyrockets-to-top-of-the-app-charts-after-big-tech-censorship-revelations https://www.aubedigitale.com/andrew-tate-rejoint-rumble-apres-avoir-ete-deplateforme-par-les-big-tech-il-publiera-du-contenu-exclusif/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/boxing/andrew-tate-ksi-boxing-youtube-27850842 https://www.animatedtimes.com/the-matrix-is-attacking-us-lets-cancel-them-andrew-tate-breaks-silence-on-social-media-ban-agrees-not-in-a-million-years-can-he-be-canceled-with-70000-people-watching/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-boxing-news-controversial-kick-boxer-andrew-tate-challenges-ksi-to-a-fight-youre-full-of-st-youre-a-fking-hypocrite/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-company-that-offered-100-million-to-joe-rogan-welcomes-andrew-tate-with-open-arms-following-social-media-ban/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/pro-boxing/news-andrew-tate-goes-ksi-challenges https://www.rebelnews.com/social_media_platform_gettr_to_sponsor_youtuber_ksi_s_boxing_event https://www.blogdudemocrate.org/andrew-tate-sexprime-apres-avoir-ete-banni-de-facebook-et-instagram/ https://thedcpatriot.com/social-media-mogul-andrew-tate-banned-from-twitter-instagram-facebook-joins-gettr-revolution/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-gettr/ https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/big-tech-banned-andrew-tate Ki999 ( talk) 09:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Askarion: Most, if not all of what you wrote is simply your opinion which you cannot justify based on anything objective. I provided around 20 sources to support inclusion of a single sentence which exclusively consists of one/two completely undisputable fact(s) and somehow you managed to "debunk" every single one of them. You called 16 of them "outright unreliable" without a single justification of this label for a single one of these sources. Another three you rejected by saying "they mostly read like celebrity gossip". Based on what? Is it even allowed to use criteria like this to exclude a source? Then I can say that most of the sources included in the text read like obvious propaganda and dirt campaign (I actually think like this, I just did not know this is somehow relevant), let's exclude them too! "Tucker show is opinion show" - by which criteria? While the all articles you included are not opinion but facts? Are you saying the fact that Tate is on Rumble is not a fact but opinion? And "Rumble CEO advertises his product" - what? A company spokesperson talking for a short time about their service and policies when asked by a journalist has to be excluded? Well if that is the case, then many of the included sources/articles should be excluded as well because they have exactly that. If you are so picky about every claim made then most, if not all of this article is subject to removal. It is full of questionable claims supported by only one source or even no source at all, yet you still tolerate them. @ Throast: "I don't think there's a strong case for inclusion based on those sources." - I did not see anyone making case for including anything else at all, yet they are included. This is purely your opinion and if we look at the whole population of people who knows the subject I am sure this is in tiny minority. You are basically advocating for censorship of any non-big tech platform mention since they are not "major" and call them with negative word "fringe" while in fact the ones that have to be condemned are those who have big market share in a given niche, like YouTube and Twitter. These are not only anti-free speech but also monopolists and would be broken down if it was easy. Simply not being one of these monopolists - you call it "fringe" and point-blank refuse to mention them. And what you are saying at this point is simply false. Rumble is above many of these "major" apps in App Store top charts right now source and you continue to claim it is too "fringe" to be mentioned. Btw the link I just posted can be used as a source for this too, on top of around 20 links previously posted. Is this one also "unreliable"? Every single source that mentions a fact that you don't want to be mentioned magically happens to be "unreliable"? And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim? Maybe you or your "reliable sources" have conducted some survey among people who look for information about the subject asking them "do you care about the fact that he is still using some platforms who did not ban him?" and 100% of them responded "no"? Let me know if that is the case. Otherwise your claim is completely baseless, false, I would say offensive and probably intentionally provocative. If you Google the phrase "andrew tate social media" (huge part of this article) you will be automatically shown "What social media is Andrew Tate on?" which proves this is the most widely asked question when it comes to this topic and you want to exclude answer to this question from everywhere. Despite all this coordinated inorganic heavy censorship efforts in which you are involved his new video on Rumble already has more than 600,000 views. Imagine what would happen if there was no censorship. "Nobody cares"? So what is the reason now for not including this fact, a reason that does not apply to anything else that has been included? Ki999 ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Askarion: In my previous message, I forgot to mention the fact that you have falsely claimed that 2 of links I shared are "dead". In reality one of them is not dead ( this one). I noticed this article contains sentence "The account appeared to have been part of a promotion with Bugatti". I question this "fact"'s notability. Actually this is not even a fact. It is just impression of some journalist. So what was the "reliable source" for this "fact"? It is the website independent.co.uk and nothing else. This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you lied about. These 2 sites are from the same country and have similar similarweb ranking. Actually the site I suggested ranks a little higher. So it seems this site is the hardest to be called "unreliable" among all that I provided. Perhaps it was unintentional but I see it extremely likely that you intentionally lied to me and regard this as a fraud. I am considering reporting it. Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too? How about independent.co.uk? I am waiting for your answer. Ki999 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too?About that… Madeline ( part of me) 20:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. That's it. People who claimed that all the sources I posted fall into the "generally unreliable" category conveniently omitted the fact that this does not mean that they cannot be ever used. Ki999 ( talk) 11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
In short, this last response is totally irrelevant and you should come up with something else if you want to disagree. Ki999 ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we have a source on this now:
https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-tates-move-to-anti-cancel-culture-streaming-platform-rumble-after-social-media-ban-causes-surge-in-activity-12687658
I will go ahead and add this in, unless there is any objections?
Canadianr0ckstar2000 (
talk) 14:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Take a look at this bullshit:
Mr. Tate posted a video on YouTube called the “Final Message” on a nonofficial account called “The Tate Bible.”
This has been disproven by the same article twice. First, it says that Tate is already banned from YT. Second, it says that channel is unofficial (i.e. extremely likely does not belong to Tate). If a person is banned from YT it is completely impossible for them to upload a video to YT unless they hide this fact very carefully (so that NYT cannot know it). Therefore they have no evidence for this and all evidence points to contrary. So "reliable source" New York Times lied. When it comes to many sites that have been declared as "fake news" on Wikipedia the best evidence for this claim is something like this (sometimes even that is not there, especially when it comes to naming a site or person "far-right"). And yet, "There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable" on W:RSP. Another source was declared "generally unreliable" because NYT criticised it. This W:RSP is essentially based on circular reasoning and totally questionable. Now back to the topic (the blockquote). In reality, Tate did not upload that video to some unofficial YT channel. He uploaded it to his official Rumble channel and someone just reuploaded it on some fan channel. The second part is obviously not notable. Especially bc it was taken down very quickly as well. So they should have written instead:
Mr. Tate posted a video on Rumble called the “Final Message” on his official account called “TateSpeech.”
They lied to prevent people from knowing about Rumble. Meanwhile the same article mentions YouTube 8 times. Not only Rumble is not mentioned, the author lied to remove even the slightest suggestion that Tate has a channel somewhere else, instead suggesting that he needs YT so much so that he desperately created a fake channel there. And whoever who wrote Wikipedia just copied that sentence with slight modification to remove the lie but end result is the same. Throast, you added this sentence, then someone else corrected it. Care to explain the reason why the fact that someone unknown re-uploaded a video on a fake YouTube channel is more notable than the subject himself uploading it on his official Rumble channel? Other than NYT's lie, of course. (I see you just made some changes right there couple minutes ago, so my text above may be a little bit inconsistent with the current revision but point stands.) Ki999 ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Tate responded to the bans in a video posted to an unofficial YouTube channeldoes not suggest that Tate posted it himself. NYT might have information we don't that confirms that Tate has some control over this "nonofficial" channel. If they indeed fabricated this as you suggest, I guess you could call that a "lie" but that seems a bit overblown, just like this entire discussion. What you need to understand is that Wikipedia includes information that is verifiable by reliable sources, not information that is true, meaning truth is not our standard for inclusion. It's a tough thing to wrap one's head around so I encourage you to read the essay. The community considers NYT reliable, hence information based on its articles is verifiable. If you want to challenge NYT's "reliable" label, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck with that. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will try to change NYT's label at Wikipedia:RS because I believe these labels are not determined in a reasonable way. Actually tons of discussions are already made about this site alone, and the problem with RSP is not limited to it. However, I would like to point out to the fact that NYT is labeled as "generally reliable" not "absolutely reliable". Therefore, depending on context, their claims are to be questioned. If someone actually claims that NYT has evidence that AT has uploaded videos to that fake yt channel, they need to either prove it or stop making such claim and agree that NYT lied.
I will not prove any of you having a COI because I don't have to prove something I never claimed in the first place. I only asked a question if you have one, this is something completely compliant with guidelines and does not mean a claim. Yet you claim that this question is something that is to be used against me, which is not. I have only said the following:
And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim?
This question was directed at Throast. To my knowledge, he has not responded.
Regarding OR claims from my side, yes, I am planning to provide evidence for these claims.
FrederalBacon, you have just admitted that you have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever other than things that you learned while editing this article. If that is the case, I would suggest you to not be involved in this article and go edit something else.
FrederalBacon, we were actually having an argument here. I have shown that your argument is invalid and politely asked you to either agree with me or bring another argument. You refused to do either of these and instead attacked me, accused me of making this "ridiculous" and then changed the topic to something that was being discussed on another page. Ki999 ( talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that?is a pretty wild accusation to throw at someone for saying what amounts to "I don't think Tate having a Rumble account is significant enough to include on its own". A big problem for the argument for inclusion is that, as of yet, Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble. He challenged KSI to a boxing match; that is not notable. If Tate does or says something notable on Rumble, I'm sure it will be covered by reliable sources. Until then, "Tate has an active account on Rumble" is not a necessary inclusion. Askarion ✉ 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that?was not an accusation. It was a question I asked because of the "nobody cares" claim. This claim was never justified. Are you sure that "Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble"? If so, how do you know it? Did you watch every single video on that channel? How about the now-terminated YT channel, did he do anything notable there? Ki999 ( talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tate recently made a video saying he will be leaving social media and focusing on charity FlyersFan1969 ( talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Andrew Tate is a supporter of the Republican party so Republican party should be added to his page. Rasmus1234551 ( talk) 10:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
tate has commented on these charges, maybe this section should be expanded 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Tate very recently released a "Final Statement" which included effectively debunking several claims on this page, including the sexual trafficking claim which is directly disputed with evidence. I think a need for more basis to claims like "misogynistic" is necessary, too. One citation which claims Tate said he 'moved to Romania for lax rape law enforcement' has no actual clips of him saying it. There's not even a single person who has ever actually came out directly accusing Tate of wrongdoing, and he's never been charged with a crime.
In essence: more care needs to be taken as to what is documented imo. Many lines read, to me, as definitely not from a NPOV. 2603:9000:8200:8957:5C85:5287:4A74:4E9C ( talk) 02:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Should it really be allegedly? I understand Wikipedia wants to be as objective as possible and not start controversy but this isn't the hill to die on. There's no "allegedly" when you say yourself women are property. Leid Elend ( talk) 00:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of womenI disagree, that's not what we have to ask. We have to ask "Do we have enough high quality reliable sources for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL change to calling his views misogynist in wikivoice?"I would argue that whereas editors were close to that bar just yesterday, perhaps the source where the subject calls himself as such that is now located would put it over that bar. FrederalBacon ( talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as 'absolutely a misogynist.'Here is the primary source, Tate himself, for you to verify.
Tate describes himself as "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", since that is more accurate, and is literally what the subject himself said, but I'm not sure the sexist line has been covered in third party. FrederalBacon ( talk) 21:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
[1] This one talks about a link to Infowars and conspiracy theorists
[2] This one has some quotes from the subject, including a statement where he pretty much denies all the controversy around him.
[3] Source for the closure of "Hustlers University" FrederalBacon ( talk) 02:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “young directionless men” to “British Muslims” since that is all the source substantiates. 2603:3001:10A:B500:29AB:50AC:C2AD:EC64 ( talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost overnight, Tate has become a cult-like figure to young men and boys across many English-speaking countries.Further down, it says:
Worryingly, Tate appears to be the latest avatar of the internet pipeline that takes young directionless men from videos on life and male development to arriving at the conclusion that feminism is to blame for a lot in life.The author talks about Tate generally in about the first third of the article and only goes into the British-Muslim distinction later in the article. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that in the intro, mention of him being a “misogynist” is removed as this is purely opinion. 2001:48F8:7054:1038:DD47:66E5:842C:2FA5 ( talk) 21:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:214C:8802:5400:C5B4:6E8C:D0E5:1A01 ( talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)andrew tate was not a misogynist . Out of context tik tok made him seem like a bad guy you should really watch his podcasts and then form a final opinion. you should have a spherical point of view.
Andrew Tates birth records shows him born in Washington D.C and he has stated that he was born in Washington D.C https://www.tiktok.com/@lightofday0/video/7119440491212524805?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&q=where%20was%20andrew%20tate%20born&t=1661521909631 this is a tiktok of his deleted video "The worst things about being rich" full video here https://odysee.com/@tatespeech:c/the-worst-things-about-being-rich:7 Antoniogago l ( talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
andrew tate is not 6,1 that is wrong, hes 6,3. change 6ft 1in to 6ft 3in. Turtlepp934 ( talk) 05:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)He’s banned from twitch now Q78q ( talk) 05:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Animal Shelter and Rebuilding of Orphanage should be mentioned 2600:1014:B1A3:7F4A:14A2:B846:F94D:77B ( talk) 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove then words "Tate became highly prominent during 2022" 68.1.116.172 ( talk) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
His current profession should be updated to “former Internet personality” following his Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok bans. 2A02:C7E:3C65:D800:D9C4:F25F:49BE:C48B ( talk) 06:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Why not add his kickboxing and mma records as all fighters records are present? Blahwikiblah ( talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
His MMA Record was on there but has been removed and a Kickboxing record (incomplete) can be found on Boxrec. Blahwikiblah ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I was just reading through, I feel like listing each individual ban (which at this point consists of most mainstream platforms) makes the sentence too long. Would there be support for changing it to Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted bans from several platforms for violation of policy
FrederalBacon (
talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Tate's misogynistic commentary has resulted in bans from several social media platforms.It leaves open the question: Where was his misogynistic commentary? But, I also understand where you're coming from. I'm easy going Throast, if consensus desires change, it desires change. FrederalBacon ( talk) 00:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Title 23.186.80.194 ( talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The argument that this is subjective lacks a fundamental understanding of our NPOV policy. –– FormalDude talk 01:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The article has a whole section about Tate's social media presence yet his currently existing, non-banned accounts are not even mentioned. My suggestion is to add information about the existence of these accounts into that section, as well as to add links to these accounts into "external links" section. This is in my opinion the most important information that can possibly be on this page because a person's (this applies to everyone) speech is a more unbiased source of information than other people's interpretations of that speech. Accounts: https://rumble.com/c/TateSpeech https://gettr.com/user/cobratate Ki999 ( talk) 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by 'reliable source'. What does that even mean?and asked,
How do you determine a source's reliability?This talk page is not the place for general inquiries. If you are really clueless about these concepts, these questions should be asked at the Teahouse (as I linked to above) before starting a thread here. Per the content guideline on external links, links to social media accounts of the article subject are to be avoided unless the subject has no online presence outside of those social media platforms. Tate, of course, has his own website, which is already linked, both in the infobox and under Andrew Tate#External links. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I am going to address accusations towards me first. One of them is that I "evidently do not know what Wikipedia is" based on the fact that I have not read the manuals. I reject this because not having read every single manual does not mean "not knowing what Wikipedia is". Regarding guideline about social media links, I obviously did not know that rule and will follow it from now on. There is nothing strange that people doubt the existence of a video where Tate calls himself a misogynist. I am being accused of "seeming to be unwilling to do my own research", I will tell you I am not to blame for this because it is not my job to find that video. It is the job of journalists who publish that claim. They do not post a link to that video and I still see this as highly problematic. The actual quote was: "The typical feminist tactic is to cancel somebody, right? To come at somebody, call them misogynist and call them all these things and then that person loses their career or they're slandered; 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 fuck you money and you can't take it away so I'll say what I want because I'm a realist and when you're a realist you're sexist." Does this mean he actually calls himself misogynist? I would argue that it does not. But again this is just my opinion and everybody should have a very easy access to that video to form their own opinion. The problem with the word "misogynist" is the fact that it is commonly understood as hate towards women as a whole. Mr. Tate has repeatedly stated that this does not apply to him. He says things like "women cannot drive, cannot fight, should clean, cook, obey men" while "men should pay for women". These are not hateful, these are simply conservative thinking. But anyway, I did not come here to remove that label. People are going to see it is bullshit anyway, so no need to remove it. My goal is to add a single sentence into social media presence section mentioning the fact that Andrew Tate is using Gettr and Rumble. You refused to add it because "reliable sources have not covered it". So now there is wide media coverage so there is no excuse anymore. I must admit I fail to fully comprehend the reliable source criteria so I do not guarantee every source below is reliable but I am sure at least some of them are. I see you don't need much support for claims you put here anyway, e.g. there is a sentence "The raid resulted in the recovery of an American woman and a Romanian woman". Recovery from what? This is a very serious accusation and most likely false, yet single website writing such a thing was enough to include it on the article, that site is very hard to find, unpopular and not even in English. Below are sources for the fact that Andrew Tate uses Gettr and Rumble: https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-rumble https://vimbuzz.com/why-did-andrew-tate-join-rumble https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/video-platform-explains-why-its-letting-andrew-tate-speak-freely-after-numerous-bans-1913340 https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311455396112 https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/andrew-tates-narrative-control-completely-045532171.html https://www.sportbible.com/boxin/andrew-tate-ksi-fight-20220827.amp.html https://reclaimthenet.org/andrew-tate-joins-rumble https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1661266/Andrew-Tate-KSI-face-Swarmz-Luis-Pineda-Jake-Paul-Tommy-Fury-boxing-news https://www.revolver.news/2022/08/andrew-tate-joins-rumble-posts-farewell-video https://www.ginx.tv/en/twitch/andrew-tate-rolls-ksi-slams-him-as-being-a-hypocrite https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-rumble-skyrockets-to-top-of-the-app-charts-after-big-tech-censorship-revelations https://www.aubedigitale.com/andrew-tate-rejoint-rumble-apres-avoir-ete-deplateforme-par-les-big-tech-il-publiera-du-contenu-exclusif/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/boxing/andrew-tate-ksi-boxing-youtube-27850842 https://www.animatedtimes.com/the-matrix-is-attacking-us-lets-cancel-them-andrew-tate-breaks-silence-on-social-media-ban-agrees-not-in-a-million-years-can-he-be-canceled-with-70000-people-watching/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-boxing-news-controversial-kick-boxer-andrew-tate-challenges-ksi-to-a-fight-youre-full-of-st-youre-a-fking-hypocrite/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-company-that-offered-100-million-to-joe-rogan-welcomes-andrew-tate-with-open-arms-following-social-media-ban/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/pro-boxing/news-andrew-tate-goes-ksi-challenges https://www.rebelnews.com/social_media_platform_gettr_to_sponsor_youtuber_ksi_s_boxing_event https://www.blogdudemocrate.org/andrew-tate-sexprime-apres-avoir-ete-banni-de-facebook-et-instagram/ https://thedcpatriot.com/social-media-mogul-andrew-tate-banned-from-twitter-instagram-facebook-joins-gettr-revolution/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-gettr/ https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/big-tech-banned-andrew-tate Ki999 ( talk) 09:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Askarion: Most, if not all of what you wrote is simply your opinion which you cannot justify based on anything objective. I provided around 20 sources to support inclusion of a single sentence which exclusively consists of one/two completely undisputable fact(s) and somehow you managed to "debunk" every single one of them. You called 16 of them "outright unreliable" without a single justification of this label for a single one of these sources. Another three you rejected by saying "they mostly read like celebrity gossip". Based on what? Is it even allowed to use criteria like this to exclude a source? Then I can say that most of the sources included in the text read like obvious propaganda and dirt campaign (I actually think like this, I just did not know this is somehow relevant), let's exclude them too! "Tucker show is opinion show" - by which criteria? While the all articles you included are not opinion but facts? Are you saying the fact that Tate is on Rumble is not a fact but opinion? And "Rumble CEO advertises his product" - what? A company spokesperson talking for a short time about their service and policies when asked by a journalist has to be excluded? Well if that is the case, then many of the included sources/articles should be excluded as well because they have exactly that. If you are so picky about every claim made then most, if not all of this article is subject to removal. It is full of questionable claims supported by only one source or even no source at all, yet you still tolerate them. @ Throast: "I don't think there's a strong case for inclusion based on those sources." - I did not see anyone making case for including anything else at all, yet they are included. This is purely your opinion and if we look at the whole population of people who knows the subject I am sure this is in tiny minority. You are basically advocating for censorship of any non-big tech platform mention since they are not "major" and call them with negative word "fringe" while in fact the ones that have to be condemned are those who have big market share in a given niche, like YouTube and Twitter. These are not only anti-free speech but also monopolists and would be broken down if it was easy. Simply not being one of these monopolists - you call it "fringe" and point-blank refuse to mention them. And what you are saying at this point is simply false. Rumble is above many of these "major" apps in App Store top charts right now source and you continue to claim it is too "fringe" to be mentioned. Btw the link I just posted can be used as a source for this too, on top of around 20 links previously posted. Is this one also "unreliable"? Every single source that mentions a fact that you don't want to be mentioned magically happens to be "unreliable"? And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim? Maybe you or your "reliable sources" have conducted some survey among people who look for information about the subject asking them "do you care about the fact that he is still using some platforms who did not ban him?" and 100% of them responded "no"? Let me know if that is the case. Otherwise your claim is completely baseless, false, I would say offensive and probably intentionally provocative. If you Google the phrase "andrew tate social media" (huge part of this article) you will be automatically shown "What social media is Andrew Tate on?" which proves this is the most widely asked question when it comes to this topic and you want to exclude answer to this question from everywhere. Despite all this coordinated inorganic heavy censorship efforts in which you are involved his new video on Rumble already has more than 600,000 views. Imagine what would happen if there was no censorship. "Nobody cares"? So what is the reason now for not including this fact, a reason that does not apply to anything else that has been included? Ki999 ( talk) 15:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Askarion: In my previous message, I forgot to mention the fact that you have falsely claimed that 2 of links I shared are "dead". In reality one of them is not dead ( this one). I noticed this article contains sentence "The account appeared to have been part of a promotion with Bugatti". I question this "fact"'s notability. Actually this is not even a fact. It is just impression of some journalist. So what was the "reliable source" for this "fact"? It is the website independent.co.uk and nothing else. This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you lied about. These 2 sites are from the same country and have similar similarweb ranking. Actually the site I suggested ranks a little higher. So it seems this site is the hardest to be called "unreliable" among all that I provided. Perhaps it was unintentional but I see it extremely likely that you intentionally lied to me and regard this as a fraud. I am considering reporting it. Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too? How about independent.co.uk? I am waiting for your answer. Ki999 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too?About that… Madeline ( part of me) 20:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. That's it. People who claimed that all the sources I posted fall into the "generally unreliable" category conveniently omitted the fact that this does not mean that they cannot be ever used. Ki999 ( talk) 11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
In short, this last response is totally irrelevant and you should come up with something else if you want to disagree. Ki999 ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we have a source on this now:
https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-tates-move-to-anti-cancel-culture-streaming-platform-rumble-after-social-media-ban-causes-surge-in-activity-12687658
I will go ahead and add this in, unless there is any objections?
Canadianr0ckstar2000 (
talk) 14:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Take a look at this bullshit:
Mr. Tate posted a video on YouTube called the “Final Message” on a nonofficial account called “The Tate Bible.”
This has been disproven by the same article twice. First, it says that Tate is already banned from YT. Second, it says that channel is unofficial (i.e. extremely likely does not belong to Tate). If a person is banned from YT it is completely impossible for them to upload a video to YT unless they hide this fact very carefully (so that NYT cannot know it). Therefore they have no evidence for this and all evidence points to contrary. So "reliable source" New York Times lied. When it comes to many sites that have been declared as "fake news" on Wikipedia the best evidence for this claim is something like this (sometimes even that is not there, especially when it comes to naming a site or person "far-right"). And yet, "There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable" on W:RSP. Another source was declared "generally unreliable" because NYT criticised it. This W:RSP is essentially based on circular reasoning and totally questionable. Now back to the topic (the blockquote). In reality, Tate did not upload that video to some unofficial YT channel. He uploaded it to his official Rumble channel and someone just reuploaded it on some fan channel. The second part is obviously not notable. Especially bc it was taken down very quickly as well. So they should have written instead:
Mr. Tate posted a video on Rumble called the “Final Message” on his official account called “TateSpeech.”
They lied to prevent people from knowing about Rumble. Meanwhile the same article mentions YouTube 8 times. Not only Rumble is not mentioned, the author lied to remove even the slightest suggestion that Tate has a channel somewhere else, instead suggesting that he needs YT so much so that he desperately created a fake channel there. And whoever who wrote Wikipedia just copied that sentence with slight modification to remove the lie but end result is the same. Throast, you added this sentence, then someone else corrected it. Care to explain the reason why the fact that someone unknown re-uploaded a video on a fake YouTube channel is more notable than the subject himself uploading it on his official Rumble channel? Other than NYT's lie, of course. (I see you just made some changes right there couple minutes ago, so my text above may be a little bit inconsistent with the current revision but point stands.) Ki999 ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Tate responded to the bans in a video posted to an unofficial YouTube channeldoes not suggest that Tate posted it himself. NYT might have information we don't that confirms that Tate has some control over this "nonofficial" channel. If they indeed fabricated this as you suggest, I guess you could call that a "lie" but that seems a bit overblown, just like this entire discussion. What you need to understand is that Wikipedia includes information that is verifiable by reliable sources, not information that is true, meaning truth is not our standard for inclusion. It's a tough thing to wrap one's head around so I encourage you to read the essay. The community considers NYT reliable, hence information based on its articles is verifiable. If you want to challenge NYT's "reliable" label, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck with that. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will try to change NYT's label at Wikipedia:RS because I believe these labels are not determined in a reasonable way. Actually tons of discussions are already made about this site alone, and the problem with RSP is not limited to it. However, I would like to point out to the fact that NYT is labeled as "generally reliable" not "absolutely reliable". Therefore, depending on context, their claims are to be questioned. If someone actually claims that NYT has evidence that AT has uploaded videos to that fake yt channel, they need to either prove it or stop making such claim and agree that NYT lied.
I will not prove any of you having a COI because I don't have to prove something I never claimed in the first place. I only asked a question if you have one, this is something completely compliant with guidelines and does not mean a claim. Yet you claim that this question is something that is to be used against me, which is not. I have only said the following:
And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim?
This question was directed at Throast. To my knowledge, he has not responded.
Regarding OR claims from my side, yes, I am planning to provide evidence for these claims.
FrederalBacon, you have just admitted that you have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever other than things that you learned while editing this article. If that is the case, I would suggest you to not be involved in this article and go edit something else.
FrederalBacon, we were actually having an argument here. I have shown that your argument is invalid and politely asked you to either agree with me or bring another argument. You refused to do either of these and instead attacked me, accused me of making this "ridiculous" and then changed the topic to something that was being discussed on another page. Ki999 ( talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that?is a pretty wild accusation to throw at someone for saying what amounts to "I don't think Tate having a Rumble account is significant enough to include on its own". A big problem for the argument for inclusion is that, as of yet, Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble. He challenged KSI to a boxing match; that is not notable. If Tate does or says something notable on Rumble, I'm sure it will be covered by reliable sources. Until then, "Tate has an active account on Rumble" is not a necessary inclusion. Askarion ✉ 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that?was not an accusation. It was a question I asked because of the "nobody cares" claim. This claim was never justified. Are you sure that "Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble"? If so, how do you know it? Did you watch every single video on that channel? How about the now-terminated YT channel, did he do anything notable there? Ki999 ( talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)