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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I agree with both of User:Throast's points and reverted again. The kickboxing section had a seemingly good source that was removed, with some redundant info added. The new sources used in "Criminal investigation" are very concerning to me. For example, they explicitly name the American girl whose accusation started the investigation, which no reputable news outlet bound by an ethical code would ever do (since she is a suspected trafficking victim, and apparently never stepped forward to the media or consented to being identified); they also uncritically republish the Romanian girl's mother's accusations that the American girl (the one whose boyfriend called the police) was the one who "orchestrated everything" (in other words, the alleged victim is accused of being the perpetrator); frankly, it's a mess, and no ethical news organization would publish anything like that. As you many know, many Romanian media outlets are tabloid-like and do not follow ethical guidelines, or only do so inconsistently (study: [1]). A few quotes from that study (it's not the only one):
Romanian media have professional and ethical codes, created by professional organizations and NGOs or drafted and adopted independently by newsrooms. However, they are barely observed or enforced.
Vasiliu said that whether reporters verify their information depends on the newsroom. But the practice of not verifying is increasingly frequent. He gave an example: “In December 2017, media reported a high-profile murder/suicide, claiming the husband murdered the wife before taking his own life and saying she had marks on her body. The next day, the Chief Prosecutor put out a statement: the two committed suicide several hours apart, and there were no marks on the woman’s body. But to the public, the husband remained the criminal.”
Recently, two tabloid newspapers, known for yellow journalism, have asked to be registered as quality “general newspapers.” One of the claims has been approved, while the other is still pending. “I am not that convinced these publications practice ethical journalism,” said Ispas. Matei Martin also noted that many publications mix hard news with blog posts. “They sell opinions as news,” he said
Romania has several all-news TV stations, and each general TV station produces at least one main news program. However, many of the news programs are almost tabloid in nature, with serious ethical and professional violations. Panelists agreed that many broadcast news shows are entertainment programs, and according to Matei Martin, “infotainment has a very important place in print.”
And here's Reuters talking about media trust and quality in Romania (go to page 98): [2]
Even Romanian news outlets that are seen as more reputable have been embroiled in ethical scandals (like Adevarul, whose owner has been indicted by — of all things — DIICOT); so we should be exceedingly cautious with citing potentially lower-quality outlets. The WP:RS policy applies for both English and Romanian sources; and keep in mind that the standard is quite strict when it comes to controversial WP:BLP claims, and especially anything related to criminal investigations or accusations; even some other popular sources that could be considered WP:RS for other contexts would not be usable for criminal contexts. That's why I reverted the section to what the section was like before; I do think DIICOT should be mentioned, so I kept that change since it's backed up by the DB citation (see Talk:Andrew_Tate#Ongoing_investigation for a discussion of DB's quality; I think it's fine to use it to backup the DIICOT addition). Sources that are already seen as reputable according to WP:RSN are more than welcome to be added, but sources that have never been discussed there before should ideally be discussed here in advance. DFlhb ( talk) 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism(fails both verifiability and notability). I don't want to bury you in Wikipedia guidelines when you may have little time to contribute here, but we have to follow them (especially for contentious BLP matters). While I'm sure the BBC has issues (no one is perfect), Wikipedia operates based on consensus around which sources are reliable, and which are not. The mother of the Romanian girl is not a reliable source. Antena 1 claims that the Tates own a webcam studio in Los Angeles; the only other reference I've found to that on the entire internet is a sherdog.com forum post (not the most reliable obviously). I've documented far more major ethical breaches above; I think it's pretty clear they're not usable as a source.
That's very strange language to use for someone violently beating a woman with a belt. "Appeared to" suggests there is some dispute about whether the video is genuine or not, which, to my knowledge, there is not.
I've seen the video (regrettably), it is not an ambiguous thing. (it's online here and here, although I would exercise STRONG caution to anyone before watching that video who is not ready to see some quite graphic abusive violence). It is watermarked as from the Daily Star, a UK tabloid. A quick google brought me this article from the Daily Star. Keeping the reddit link above because tabloid sites are a mess and difficult to get media to play correctly. After seeing this video, I went to wikipedia to read more about it, and was surprised to find WP:Weasel words implying that he only "appeared" to beat this woman. The video shows graphic, extreme, violence, and there is no dispute about its authenticity. (Published by a tabloid sure, but still a UK media outlet that has to conform to libel laws etc.)
I'll say it twice, I really do advise caution to anyone thinking about following the link. Posting it here because the article is protected, and I think it's important to correct this phrasing, but, frankly, if you haven't already had the misfortune of seeing it, it might be best for you to just go about your day... Tomatoswoop ( talk) 00:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, to this day, no social media company gave a reason for the ban to Andrew Tate in August 2022. What is true though is that some spokeperson of those complanies said that he violated their terms of service, but they did not tell anyone what he did, neither what phrase or video caused his ban.
In this podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-C4CVGk28 Andrew for the first time could talk in depth about his ban. He said that he saw emails coming with bans from everything, Uber, Skype, Discord, Stripe, United Kingdom banks. He couldn't remember all, but he got banned from a lot of things other than just social media platforms. He also said that they did not tell him in any way why they banned him or what he did, and he believes they didn't do it and stayed general because in case he decides to use any legal option they can make up a reason for the ban at the last minute. What is even more suspicious (Still following what Andrew said in that podcast) is that the day after his ban these social media companies changed their terms of service and added a lot of things,
This article can be greatly improved if everything Andrew said in that podcast about his ban gets added What those spokeperson said should be kept in the article, obviously, but the way it's written at this moment of time is misleading
On the Social media presence section it can be added this (I will say the full story that Andrew gave from the podcast that i linked above) Andrew got a strike that prevented him from posting, the day after, Meta deleted his Facebook and Instagram, and at the same time the press came out and attacked Andrew Tate saying that he is a misogynist, dangerous person, the world is a worse place because of him etc. He wanted to get out his "Final message" (That's the title he gave) at his Youtube, explaining why the ban that Meta gave him is unfair. 12 hours later the video was ready, but Andrew couldn't post it because of his Youtube strike; a few hour before the Youtube strike expired and he would have regained the ability to post, he got banned from Youtube, Tik tok, Discord, i talked about it above. He ended up putting the video on freetopg.com, that then got share by Logan Paul https://twitter.com/jakepaul/status/1562177664269565953?lang=en Andrew Tate after the ban moved to rumble.com that, among a bunch of other things has the big advantage of being censorship free, so there is no way he's going to get deleted. Now he is uploading his new content there AkaneVento ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to add something about his recent cancellations on Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, and other social media platforms. That is all that I am requesting Thank you for reading.
Kind regards
User: Tate is king Tate is King ( talk) 12:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to remove the criminal investigation part of his Wikipedia article and the other untrue allegation and rumour that littered his Wikipedia article which for some reason has still stayed on the article for a long period.
Kind regards
User: Tate is king ✊🏼👑💯 Tate is King ( talk) 12:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. He is a public figure, and this is reasonably well sourced and seems worth including.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mother’s name is Eileen Tate https://www.facebook.com/eileen.tate 60.48.229.219 ( talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The source cited here is notoriously unreliable (see: TheTAB discussion page on wikipedia) and this quote is taken way out of context. In the video Tate clarifies he has no intention on every committing rape, he just "likes the idea of being free" 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 10:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
[...] to accuse him of infidelityin the social media presence section? Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"On 3rd September 2022, an Apex Legends player tweeted their report from EA stating that using “Andrew Tate” as a username in their game is now bannable according to their Positive Play Charter." There are multiple sources you can find online about this, but i will put a few https://www.ginx.tv/en/apex-legends/ea-bans-players-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-in-apex-legends https://www.dexerto.com/apex-legends/apex-legends-is-reportedly-banning-players-for-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-1922442/ AkaneVento ( talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I've attempted to discuss this before, but the inclusion of this sentence confuses me when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm more interested here in learning more about the nuances of WP:Verifiability than in getting consensus for any edit or removal, since this is a very minor part of the article (though this still seems like the most relevant page to discuss this at). This is going to seem pedantic but I'm actually curious as to how Wikipedia handles these types of cases since it has relevance for quite a few other cases involving controversial and non-controversial BLPs.
It seems quite objective and straightforward to me that the secondary source outright conflicts with the primary source, and this is a topic that Wikipedia guidelines are notoriously ambiguous on. This isn't the same kind of problem as statements of opinion or interpretation made by WP:RS (for example, a comment criticizing MeToo could be described as misogynistic or trivializing in all WP:RS, and that would need to be included even if editors disagree). Here, we have not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact, and I feel it simply doesn't describe the source correctly. For my earlier arguments and evidence, see Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3#Factual inaccuracy slipped into the article. They are describing a comedic mise-en-scene within a video about female self-defense as a him "acting out how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating". He was not expressing his desire to attack any woman that accuses him of cheating, but was instead illustrating his view that female self-defense is "a scam"; it's a different topic altogether and seems like a plain factual inaccuracy. Due to the fact that this exact clip was perhaps Tate's single most viral clip; this is borderline WP:RSBREAKING.
Doesn't WP:VNOT give editors some leeway in determining if a claim is worthy of inclusion? Separately, WP:NPOV states that all viewpoints should be represented according to their representation in WP:RS and with due weight; I take "viewpoints" to refer to both frameworks of reality (for example, creationism vs evolution) and judgments (for example, saying that a claim is false, or labelling someone as misogynistic). But I don't believe "viewpoints" include statements of fact, in the legal sense of that term (for example, if the Guardian bizarrely published that Tate had great hair, we would clearly not include that in the article even if it was the only reliable source that described his hair, since we would just attribute it to a mistake or oversight). What if Biden made a joke, and an overwise-reliable source took it out of context and distorted it? I feel like editors would simply not include that (though Biden is a special case, since anything he says would have dozens of sources reporting on it, and we would just cite the good ones and ignore the others).
WP:OR only dictates that original research should not be included in the article; it does not mean that if all editors agree that a WP:RS claim is mistaken, it must still be included. And the spirit of WP:OR is to prevent WP from being flooded with editors' personal opinions, and remain encyclopedic; I think the inclusion of this sentence makes the article less encyclopedic, not more.
I've seen similar debates around transcripts on Wikipedia, where a full video was available, and secondary sources introduced mistakes in their transcript; there was no official transcript available. The consensus I saw (I wish I remembered which page this was on) was that the correct transcript should be included, and this would not count as WP:OR since it is plainly visible to anyone. Similarly, here, when a claim is plainly incorrect and has not reliably been reported in other WP:RS (and is therefore of dubious notability), shouldn't it be removed, as long as the move is not controversial among editors? WP:BLPGOSSIP also seems to apply.
Keep in mind that this question is not just about this passage; I'm also asking how I should approach these issues in equivalent disputes on other BLPs and topics. Though the policies are ambiguous, I'm sure there have been significant precedents. Most discussions I've seen on WP:Verifiability have been extremely poor quality due to the types of people who usually get involved in those discussions (IPs, non-good faith editors), and I've never seen a proper discussion of these nuances. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb ( talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As stated in the WP:RSN discussion, I've already reviewed all claims that we used the NYTimes and Guardian for, and I see no issues left.
I've just checked each claim in the Social media presence section to make sure the same problem hadn't made its way anywhere else. The section looks solid now, but I think I found a last issue:
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe
I've found the primary source for that claim. [5] (on Odysee). Primary source is called: "Tate on the MeToo Movement". Relevant transcript below. The passage necessarily has to be long because the media quotes two passages that are pretty far from each other in the original video (the TikTok clips combined them together), so I've abbreviated rambling with ellipses, and I've bolded the parts that are quoted by WP:RS. Not using {{ tq}} because it's less readable:
We currently use the GQ citation, out of 4 sources who mention this claim.
In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.”[6]
in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations[7]
Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases[8]
In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations
I think it's basically the same scenario. The claim we currently use implies an intent to commit crime, or degree of premeditation, i.e. moving to Romania with the goal of doing things he couldn't get away with in Britain. I have the same arguments as before; source mismatch, WP:RSBREAKING, yadda yadda.
NBC and Guardian imply criminal intent quite explicitly IMO, by taking "I like being free" out of context. And GQ's also guilty of what we discussed in
WP:RSN, with He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds
[sic] in the same article. Which leaves the Daily Beast, already discussed here previously. I'll note that these 4 articles also disagree on whether it's about sexual assault
or rape
.
My main issue is that he doesn't discuss wanting to evade truthful rape accusations more easily, but wanting to avoid false rape accusations, also stating that being a millionaire makes it more risky (presumably due to the infamous out-of-court settlements we keep hearing about).
Also exact same problem of the YouTube video being removed before the media commented on it; 2 out of these 4 sources directly link to TikTok clips of the video, one hosted on reddit, one on Twitter (hence, WP:RSBREAKING due to inability of editors-in-chief to actually fact-check any of this unless they've somehow heard of Odysee). DFlhb ( talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
less likely to pursue rape allegationsand
less likely to pursue false rape allegations(or, alternatively, your wording,
the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society); I don't think the statements are equivalent. The belief that the police is dramatically underprosecuting rape cases (even in the West), and that a rapist is "overwhelmingly" likely to not be punished, is a common sentiment too. And I do think that it implies intent to commit rape, since there is no context that this was about false rape allegations specifically, within the context of MeToo criticisms, not about all rape allegations in general.
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be targeted by false rape allegations in Eastern Europe(adding "false", and changing "investigated" to "targeted" for the sentence to keep making sense); or
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because of the MeToo movement
because of more relaxed sexual assault laws, not because of
the MeToo movement, so that, too, would be original research. I think it comes down to retaining the sentence as is or removing it altogether. I have nothing more to add to my comments above, but you are of course free to take this to RSN again. I might very well be overruled there. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The article states "Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe". The citation doesn't substantiate this in any way, shape or form. If you follow the chain of links, you eventually arrive at a Twitter thread where all posts have been deleted. Therefore this false claim and the (non-)citation should be removed from the article. 82.2.204.195 ( talk) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to readers to add the "known for" parameter to the infobox. Since this might be a point of contention, I thought it would be a good idea to deliberate options here. If we are consulting the lead section, I would deduce that Tate is "known for" a) his misogynistic commentary and b) his bans from social media platforms. Having read pretty much every single RS on the subject (yikes), I feel this summary is accurate. Would editors agree to include these two, or are there alternative suggestions? Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
search:nytimes.com "Rico Verhoeven"
). To me, 33 sources (just the ones we currently cite) mentioning his career is enough to make it notable. I've found sources for 4 world championship victories of his. I'm puzzled as to how a 4x world champion's fighting career, properly sourced, would be non-notable or undue. I'll also note that the consensus in the Archives was that people seemed to prefer sourcing over removal, but removed since no one (not even Tate's fans) bothered to find those sources.
DFlhb (
talk) 01:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
our readers will expect to see. His change in appearance between the two images is quite jarring, and I think readers who've come to know the subject only recently (which I assume is the majority) will probably be confused seeing the older image at the top. While I agree that the more recent image is of inferior quality on a technical level, I think it's preferable because it depicts the subject around the time he was most popular. I ultimately don't care that much about it tho. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. I removed the martial arts infobox as he would not be DUE inclusion in wiki solely on the basis of his kickboxing career. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 00:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The writing here is obviously biased towards one view point. Focus on your simple mistakes prior to spreading disinformation. “Tate operates Hustler's University, a plaform where members pay a monthly” change plaform to platform 72.196.117.35 ( talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I agree with both of User:Throast's points and reverted again. The kickboxing section had a seemingly good source that was removed, with some redundant info added. The new sources used in "Criminal investigation" are very concerning to me. For example, they explicitly name the American girl whose accusation started the investigation, which no reputable news outlet bound by an ethical code would ever do (since she is a suspected trafficking victim, and apparently never stepped forward to the media or consented to being identified); they also uncritically republish the Romanian girl's mother's accusations that the American girl (the one whose boyfriend called the police) was the one who "orchestrated everything" (in other words, the alleged victim is accused of being the perpetrator); frankly, it's a mess, and no ethical news organization would publish anything like that. As you many know, many Romanian media outlets are tabloid-like and do not follow ethical guidelines, or only do so inconsistently (study: [1]). A few quotes from that study (it's not the only one):
Romanian media have professional and ethical codes, created by professional organizations and NGOs or drafted and adopted independently by newsrooms. However, they are barely observed or enforced.
Vasiliu said that whether reporters verify their information depends on the newsroom. But the practice of not verifying is increasingly frequent. He gave an example: “In December 2017, media reported a high-profile murder/suicide, claiming the husband murdered the wife before taking his own life and saying she had marks on her body. The next day, the Chief Prosecutor put out a statement: the two committed suicide several hours apart, and there were no marks on the woman’s body. But to the public, the husband remained the criminal.”
Recently, two tabloid newspapers, known for yellow journalism, have asked to be registered as quality “general newspapers.” One of the claims has been approved, while the other is still pending. “I am not that convinced these publications practice ethical journalism,” said Ispas. Matei Martin also noted that many publications mix hard news with blog posts. “They sell opinions as news,” he said
Romania has several all-news TV stations, and each general TV station produces at least one main news program. However, many of the news programs are almost tabloid in nature, with serious ethical and professional violations. Panelists agreed that many broadcast news shows are entertainment programs, and according to Matei Martin, “infotainment has a very important place in print.”
And here's Reuters talking about media trust and quality in Romania (go to page 98): [2]
Even Romanian news outlets that are seen as more reputable have been embroiled in ethical scandals (like Adevarul, whose owner has been indicted by — of all things — DIICOT); so we should be exceedingly cautious with citing potentially lower-quality outlets. The WP:RS policy applies for both English and Romanian sources; and keep in mind that the standard is quite strict when it comes to controversial WP:BLP claims, and especially anything related to criminal investigations or accusations; even some other popular sources that could be considered WP:RS for other contexts would not be usable for criminal contexts. That's why I reverted the section to what the section was like before; I do think DIICOT should be mentioned, so I kept that change since it's backed up by the DB citation (see Talk:Andrew_Tate#Ongoing_investigation for a discussion of DB's quality; I think it's fine to use it to backup the DIICOT addition). Sources that are already seen as reputable according to WP:RSN are more than welcome to be added, but sources that have never been discussed there before should ideally be discussed here in advance. DFlhb ( talk) 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism(fails both verifiability and notability). I don't want to bury you in Wikipedia guidelines when you may have little time to contribute here, but we have to follow them (especially for contentious BLP matters). While I'm sure the BBC has issues (no one is perfect), Wikipedia operates based on consensus around which sources are reliable, and which are not. The mother of the Romanian girl is not a reliable source. Antena 1 claims that the Tates own a webcam studio in Los Angeles; the only other reference I've found to that on the entire internet is a sherdog.com forum post (not the most reliable obviously). I've documented far more major ethical breaches above; I think it's pretty clear they're not usable as a source.
That's very strange language to use for someone violently beating a woman with a belt. "Appeared to" suggests there is some dispute about whether the video is genuine or not, which, to my knowledge, there is not.
I've seen the video (regrettably), it is not an ambiguous thing. (it's online here and here, although I would exercise STRONG caution to anyone before watching that video who is not ready to see some quite graphic abusive violence). It is watermarked as from the Daily Star, a UK tabloid. A quick google brought me this article from the Daily Star. Keeping the reddit link above because tabloid sites are a mess and difficult to get media to play correctly. After seeing this video, I went to wikipedia to read more about it, and was surprised to find WP:Weasel words implying that he only "appeared" to beat this woman. The video shows graphic, extreme, violence, and there is no dispute about its authenticity. (Published by a tabloid sure, but still a UK media outlet that has to conform to libel laws etc.)
I'll say it twice, I really do advise caution to anyone thinking about following the link. Posting it here because the article is protected, and I think it's important to correct this phrasing, but, frankly, if you haven't already had the misfortune of seeing it, it might be best for you to just go about your day... Tomatoswoop ( talk) 00:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, to this day, no social media company gave a reason for the ban to Andrew Tate in August 2022. What is true though is that some spokeperson of those complanies said that he violated their terms of service, but they did not tell anyone what he did, neither what phrase or video caused his ban.
In this podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-C4CVGk28 Andrew for the first time could talk in depth about his ban. He said that he saw emails coming with bans from everything, Uber, Skype, Discord, Stripe, United Kingdom banks. He couldn't remember all, but he got banned from a lot of things other than just social media platforms. He also said that they did not tell him in any way why they banned him or what he did, and he believes they didn't do it and stayed general because in case he decides to use any legal option they can make up a reason for the ban at the last minute. What is even more suspicious (Still following what Andrew said in that podcast) is that the day after his ban these social media companies changed their terms of service and added a lot of things,
This article can be greatly improved if everything Andrew said in that podcast about his ban gets added What those spokeperson said should be kept in the article, obviously, but the way it's written at this moment of time is misleading
On the Social media presence section it can be added this (I will say the full story that Andrew gave from the podcast that i linked above) Andrew got a strike that prevented him from posting, the day after, Meta deleted his Facebook and Instagram, and at the same time the press came out and attacked Andrew Tate saying that he is a misogynist, dangerous person, the world is a worse place because of him etc. He wanted to get out his "Final message" (That's the title he gave) at his Youtube, explaining why the ban that Meta gave him is unfair. 12 hours later the video was ready, but Andrew couldn't post it because of his Youtube strike; a few hour before the Youtube strike expired and he would have regained the ability to post, he got banned from Youtube, Tik tok, Discord, i talked about it above. He ended up putting the video on freetopg.com, that then got share by Logan Paul https://twitter.com/jakepaul/status/1562177664269565953?lang=en Andrew Tate after the ban moved to rumble.com that, among a bunch of other things has the big advantage of being censorship free, so there is no way he's going to get deleted. Now he is uploading his new content there AkaneVento ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to add something about his recent cancellations on Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, and other social media platforms. That is all that I am requesting Thank you for reading.
Kind regards
User: Tate is king Tate is King ( talk) 12:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to edit Andrew's state Wikipedia profile I believe that something is missing from his wiki profile and I would like to edit it if it is possible at this time. What am I editing you ask? I would like to remove the criminal investigation part of his Wikipedia article and the other untrue allegation and rumour that littered his Wikipedia article which for some reason has still stayed on the article for a long period.
Kind regards
User: Tate is king ✊🏼👑💯 Tate is King ( talk) 12:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. He is a public figure, and this is reasonably well sourced and seems worth including.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mother’s name is Eileen Tate https://www.facebook.com/eileen.tate 60.48.229.219 ( talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The source cited here is notoriously unreliable (see: TheTAB discussion page on wikipedia) and this quote is taken way out of context. In the video Tate clarifies he has no intention on every committing rape, he just "likes the idea of being free" 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 10:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
[...] to accuse him of infidelityin the social media presence section? Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"On 3rd September 2022, an Apex Legends player tweeted their report from EA stating that using “Andrew Tate” as a username in their game is now bannable according to their Positive Play Charter." There are multiple sources you can find online about this, but i will put a few https://www.ginx.tv/en/apex-legends/ea-bans-players-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-in-apex-legends https://www.dexerto.com/apex-legends/apex-legends-is-reportedly-banning-players-for-naming-themselves-andrew-tate-1922442/ AkaneVento ( talk) 16:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I've attempted to discuss this before, but the inclusion of this sentence confuses me when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm more interested here in learning more about the nuances of WP:Verifiability than in getting consensus for any edit or removal, since this is a very minor part of the article (though this still seems like the most relevant page to discuss this at). This is going to seem pedantic but I'm actually curious as to how Wikipedia handles these types of cases since it has relevance for quite a few other cases involving controversial and non-controversial BLPs.
It seems quite objective and straightforward to me that the secondary source outright conflicts with the primary source, and this is a topic that Wikipedia guidelines are notoriously ambiguous on. This isn't the same kind of problem as statements of opinion or interpretation made by WP:RS (for example, a comment criticizing MeToo could be described as misogynistic or trivializing in all WP:RS, and that would need to be included even if editors disagree). Here, we have not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact, and I feel it simply doesn't describe the source correctly. For my earlier arguments and evidence, see Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3#Factual inaccuracy slipped into the article. They are describing a comedic mise-en-scene within a video about female self-defense as a him "acting out how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating". He was not expressing his desire to attack any woman that accuses him of cheating, but was instead illustrating his view that female self-defense is "a scam"; it's a different topic altogether and seems like a plain factual inaccuracy. Due to the fact that this exact clip was perhaps Tate's single most viral clip; this is borderline WP:RSBREAKING.
Doesn't WP:VNOT give editors some leeway in determining if a claim is worthy of inclusion? Separately, WP:NPOV states that all viewpoints should be represented according to their representation in WP:RS and with due weight; I take "viewpoints" to refer to both frameworks of reality (for example, creationism vs evolution) and judgments (for example, saying that a claim is false, or labelling someone as misogynistic). But I don't believe "viewpoints" include statements of fact, in the legal sense of that term (for example, if the Guardian bizarrely published that Tate had great hair, we would clearly not include that in the article even if it was the only reliable source that described his hair, since we would just attribute it to a mistake or oversight). What if Biden made a joke, and an overwise-reliable source took it out of context and distorted it? I feel like editors would simply not include that (though Biden is a special case, since anything he says would have dozens of sources reporting on it, and we would just cite the good ones and ignore the others).
WP:OR only dictates that original research should not be included in the article; it does not mean that if all editors agree that a WP:RS claim is mistaken, it must still be included. And the spirit of WP:OR is to prevent WP from being flooded with editors' personal opinions, and remain encyclopedic; I think the inclusion of this sentence makes the article less encyclopedic, not more.
I've seen similar debates around transcripts on Wikipedia, where a full video was available, and secondary sources introduced mistakes in their transcript; there was no official transcript available. The consensus I saw (I wish I remembered which page this was on) was that the correct transcript should be included, and this would not count as WP:OR since it is plainly visible to anyone. Similarly, here, when a claim is plainly incorrect and has not reliably been reported in other WP:RS (and is therefore of dubious notability), shouldn't it be removed, as long as the move is not controversial among editors? WP:BLPGOSSIP also seems to apply.
Keep in mind that this question is not just about this passage; I'm also asking how I should approach these issues in equivalent disputes on other BLPs and topics. Though the policies are ambiguous, I'm sure there have been significant precedents. Most discussions I've seen on WP:Verifiability have been extremely poor quality due to the types of people who usually get involved in those discussions (IPs, non-good faith editors), and I've never seen a proper discussion of these nuances. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb ( talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As stated in the WP:RSN discussion, I've already reviewed all claims that we used the NYTimes and Guardian for, and I see no issues left.
I've just checked each claim in the Social media presence section to make sure the same problem hadn't made its way anywhere else. The section looks solid now, but I think I found a last issue:
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe
I've found the primary source for that claim. [5] (on Odysee). Primary source is called: "Tate on the MeToo Movement". Relevant transcript below. The passage necessarily has to be long because the media quotes two passages that are pretty far from each other in the original video (the TikTok clips combined them together), so I've abbreviated rambling with ellipses, and I've bolded the parts that are quoted by WP:RS. Not using {{ tq}} because it's less readable:
We currently use the GQ citation, out of 4 sources who mention this claim.
In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.”[6]
in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations[7]
Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases[8]
In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations
I think it's basically the same scenario. The claim we currently use implies an intent to commit crime, or degree of premeditation, i.e. moving to Romania with the goal of doing things he couldn't get away with in Britain. I have the same arguments as before; source mismatch, WP:RSBREAKING, yadda yadda.
NBC and Guardian imply criminal intent quite explicitly IMO, by taking "I like being free" out of context. And GQ's also guilty of what we discussed in
WP:RSN, with He claims only to date 18 and 19 year olds
[sic] in the same article. Which leaves the Daily Beast, already discussed here previously. I'll note that these 4 articles also disagree on whether it's about sexual assault
or rape
.
My main issue is that he doesn't discuss wanting to evade truthful rape accusations more easily, but wanting to avoid false rape accusations, also stating that being a millionaire makes it more risky (presumably due to the infamous out-of-court settlements we keep hearing about).
Also exact same problem of the YouTube video being removed before the media commented on it; 2 out of these 4 sources directly link to TikTok clips of the video, one hosted on reddit, one on Twitter (hence, WP:RSBREAKING due to inability of editors-in-chief to actually fact-check any of this unless they've somehow heard of Odysee). DFlhb ( talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
less likely to pursue rape allegationsand
less likely to pursue false rape allegations(or, alternatively, your wording,
the presumption of innocence is increasingly rejected by Western society); I don't think the statements are equivalent. The belief that the police is dramatically underprosecuting rape cases (even in the West), and that a rapist is "overwhelmingly" likely to not be punished, is a common sentiment too. And I do think that it implies intent to commit rape, since there is no context that this was about false rape allegations specifically, within the context of MeToo criticisms, not about all rape allegations in general.
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be targeted by false rape allegations in Eastern Europe(adding "false", and changing "investigated" to "targeted" for the sentence to keep making sense); or
Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because of the MeToo movement
because of more relaxed sexual assault laws, not because of
the MeToo movement, so that, too, would be original research. I think it comes down to retaining the sentence as is or removing it altogether. I have nothing more to add to my comments above, but you are of course free to take this to RSN again. I might very well be overruled there. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The article states "Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe". The citation doesn't substantiate this in any way, shape or form. If you follow the chain of links, you eventually arrive at a Twitter thread where all posts have been deleted. Therefore this false claim and the (non-)citation should be removed from the article. 82.2.204.195 ( talk) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to readers to add the "known for" parameter to the infobox. Since this might be a point of contention, I thought it would be a good idea to deliberate options here. If we are consulting the lead section, I would deduce that Tate is "known for" a) his misogynistic commentary and b) his bans from social media platforms. Having read pretty much every single RS on the subject (yikes), I feel this summary is accurate. Would editors agree to include these two, or are there alternative suggestions? Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
search:nytimes.com "Rico Verhoeven"
). To me, 33 sources (just the ones we currently cite) mentioning his career is enough to make it notable. I've found sources for 4 world championship victories of his. I'm puzzled as to how a 4x world champion's fighting career, properly sourced, would be non-notable or undue. I'll also note that the consensus in the Archives was that people seemed to prefer sourcing over removal, but removed since no one (not even Tate's fans) bothered to find those sources.
DFlhb (
talk) 01:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
our readers will expect to see. His change in appearance between the two images is quite jarring, and I think readers who've come to know the subject only recently (which I assume is the majority) will probably be confused seeing the older image at the top. While I agree that the more recent image is of inferior quality on a technical level, I think it's preferable because it depicts the subject around the time he was most popular. I ultimately don't care that much about it tho. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. I removed the martial arts infobox as he would not be DUE inclusion in wiki solely on the basis of his kickboxing career. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 00:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The writing here is obviously biased towards one view point. Focus on your simple mistakes prior to spreading disinformation. “Tate operates Hustler's University, a plaform where members pay a monthly” change plaform to platform 72.196.117.35 ( talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)