Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Andrew Tates Is Now A Muslim 2404:3100:1C0F:7C2:1:0:F281:1F42 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How come this article is no longer extended-confirmed protected?

Per WP:DENY it should be added back to prevent editors below 500 from expressing their opinion or adding changes to this article. If it remains this way there will be more disruption as seen from the past few days. This will make sure this article stays neutral and doesn't have people adding poorly sourced information about the subject. Another example is Jats. The protection should be reinstated to not allow vandals or trolls from making this article an advertisement for the subject. 5.133.154.102 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The original protection only lasted one year, which happened to expire last Sunday. I hope the 30/500 protection gets added back as well, but that would be up to the discretion of a protecting admin at WP:RPP. If the vandalism keeps up at this rate despite the semi-protection, it would create a case for permanent 30/500 protection. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Tate’s Philanthropy

The Tate brothers have TatePledge in their website, a philanthropist webpage dedicated to helping people in war-torn countries such as Syria and Ukraine. I think we should include that in the wiki article. CrownedBird6422 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Tate's chess playing during early childhood

Should we perhaps include anything about Tate's chess playing during his early childhood? H44dyss9900 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Tristan Tate not independently notable?

Apaprently, as of writing, Tristan Tate is a redirect to the "Early life" section of this article.

I don’t really know much about either of the brothers, but I would assume he’s independently notable.

A quick google search comes up with plenty of articles independently discussing him. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a draft for a page of his own but it was declined twice because at the time it was believed that he was not independently notable. Feel free to edit that draft and submit it again when you feel it's ready. I think it would be more helpful to redirect Tristan Tate to § 2022–present Romanian investigation in the meantime. 〜 Askarion ✉ 10:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like all the sources the articles cites are either fringe sources reporting on Tristan's sports record, sources that are primarily about Andrew and also mention Tristan, and a few pieces on Tristan specifically which still rely on him being the other Tate. Cortador (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Andrew Tate considered a "sigma male"?

Based off the opinions of little children in various YouTube Shorts posts about him. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

By at least a few people, probably. But it's not something we can really add to the article as it's not encyclopedic. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

fair enough GarethBaloney (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

3rd Paragraph of Lede:

"In December 2022, Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested in Romania along with two women; all four are suspected of human trafficking and forming an organised crime group. Romanian police alleged that the group coerced victims into creating paid pornography for social media.[8]"

In the first instance, I request a change from "social media" to "specialist websites" as per the cited source: "pornographic content meant to be seen on specialised websites for a cost". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64122628 One of the websites was Only Fans. BruckerState (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've simply removed "for social media" and left it as "... into creating paid pornography". The additional context of the specific source of the paid pornography seems like a redundant detail. —Sirdog (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the context of the article as a whole, your choice seems like the better solution. Thanks! BruckerState (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tate's gender identity

Andrew Tate now identifies as a woman. I think this should be reflected on her Wikipedia page. GHDmnespafro (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies that claim? Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Her Twitter account. GHDmnespafro (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Provide links to the specific tweets and describe their context. Have secondary sources discussed this? Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Here: https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1665414429628940290 - and the account description states "most Googled woman in the world". I don't think much more discussion is needed on the matter. She also identifies as a lesbian woman: https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1665427011689488384. GHDmnespafro (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

He is bullshitting to get attention. Analysis by reliable secondary sources is required. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's sarcasm. Similarly, Drake also made the song "Girls Want Girls". In the "Danny Glover" (Remix), Nicki Minaj rapped that she would "f*** ya wife". It's all attention-seeking nonsense.--2601:C4:C300:2890:517E:2636:7212:373E (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to a tweet by politician and activist Nina Turner that any person who identifies as a woman is a woman, Andrew Tate identified as a woman.

She also changed her Twitter profile description from "Most Googled Man in the world." to "Woman." and then changed it to "Most Googled Woman in the world."

Also in an now deleted Infowars podcast from July 2022 she talks about the idea to becoming a woman.

Also other influencers like Ryan Dawson or ALX refer to her as "(trans) woman". 2001:9E8:E92E:F200:4948:66EC:3D42:740 (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We cannot and should not conjecture or evaluate the motives but only whether it is serious or a temporary joke.

Since she has been talking about it for almost a year, the identification as a (trans) woman seems to be serious.

Also in view of the current investigations in Romania it might be more advantageous to be treated as a formal woman or at least trans instead of a cis man. 2001:9E8:E92E:F200:4948:66EC:3D42:740 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Tate is almost certainly not being serious. I would like to see reliable sources identify this as his legitimate gender identify before any consideration of changing pronouns. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• From a policy perspective, the way to look at it this: We use the pronouns used in the most recent reliable sources. A self-identification is usually a reliable source, but not always. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, statements about oneself are not reliable if the material is ... an exceptional claim. Obviously, this is an exceptional claim, so secondary confirmation is needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Obviously, this is an exceptional claim" -- hmm, I don't think we generally should be seeing gender identifications in primary sources as "exceptional claims" and, therefore, unusable. We can probably trust gender-ID's in primary sources for most people. We just need to apply some common sense and WP:IAR with situations like this, and I'd like to note they are becoming more abundant. This happened with Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah. It reminds me of the time that Ted Nugent said he identifies as a gay pirate from Cuba. Knowing what we know about Nugent, we should take that with a huge grain of salt and not actually start describing him as gay (or Cuban, or a pirate) in the Ted Nugent article. There was also a mass shooting at a gay nightclub recently where the shooter subsequently claimed to be nonbinary, even though he had never given any indications of such prior to the shooting. See Anderson Lee Aldrich. 2600:1014:B056:105A:7D45:D5A1:3099:4193 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Oh, I'm not saying that gender self-IDs are categorically exceptional claims; in fact, very few are. It's just that this one in particular is, due to the subject's known views on trans issues and his tone in expressing this "coming-out". But yeah, one can just as well view it as IAR; both roads lead to Rome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've pulled this back from the archive and pinned it, to avoid everyone having to make the same points each time someone brings this up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Threads like this one and the one below make me worry about what's going to happen in two weeks when the page protection expires. If there's massive trolling, no doubt it will be reinstated, but per WP:PREEMPTIVE, we're in for a wild few days at least. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand why we ever go through this song and dance on articles where we know frequent vandalism is inevitable. It's an all-around waste of time. DFlhb (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Tate's pronouns are incorrect, xe is not a she/her, but rather a xe/xim - xe identifies as xe/xim on all his official accounts and biographies.

I am concerned it sets a bad precedence and sets us up for discrimination claims if we refuse to call xim by xis correct pronouns? Dawg8162 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant "xis" not "his" - I apologise for the misstep. Dawg8162 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the above comment by Tamzin in this thread. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Would it be worth exploring to replace the {{Round in circles}} template with a {{FAQ}} one so that we can answer common questions like "why doesn't the article use xe/xim pronouns", "why isn't Tate listed as Muslim", "why does the article refer to Tate as misogynist", or any other of the requests we commonly get? It's clear people aren't actually using the Round in circles template to look in the archives anyway. Or are the templates at the top too busy as is? 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, absolutely go for it. Even if people don't read the top, we can easily point at it in our responses rather than having to put more time into answering the same questions repeatedly, and we'll have more of a reason to remove borderline concern-trolling as happens on these pages. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a short FAQ with three or four of the most common questions. I'm not always graceful with words, so feel free to make whatever edits you see fit. Now the battle becomes trying to make people read it before jumping to the "new section" button. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Superb, many thanks for this. I've made a few edits to it, and if any other questions come to mind I'll add them in too. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023 (2)

Remove Reference to 'Ex Boyfriend Calling the Embassy' plus another correction.

"On 11 April 2022, a man called the U.S. embassy to report that his former girlfriend, an American citizen, was being held captive in the Tate brothers' home in Pipera, Romania.[82][83] "

Change to,

"On 11 April 2022 the US Embassy received a claim that a US Citizen was being held against her will in a property owned by the Tate brothers in Pipera, Romania."

Note: TWO corrections. It was NOT the Tate brothers's compound, where Tristan and Andrew lived; the alleged victim had been transferred to a separate nearby property, run presumably by Georgiana.

Only one of the cited sources carries the ex boyfriend rumour, and it appears to state it as speculative and unconfirmed.

"The first searches were organized by the Ilfov police, mobilized based on a notification from the US Embassy in Bucharest. Apparently, it was the boyfriend of one of the young women who called the US Embassy and announced that his girlfriend was being held by force in the house of some Englishmen settled in Pipera."

Since this time, primary evidence has emerged of the alleged victims parents saying that she must not attempt to escape by herself and that the US embassy must be contacted. Zero evidence has emerged of an Ex Boyfriend being any part of events.

The Ex Boyfriend story was put out there by the four human trafficking suspects themselves and remains wholly unsubstantiated. BruckerState (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem correct on the first point. Second point is interesting. No idea what primary evidence you're referring to, but I found a reputable source that seems to substantiate it was her father. DFlhb (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great.

The chat logs for the WhatsApp conversations between the victim and her parents preceding the April 2022 DIICOT raid were leaked, but weren't published in the usual media sources, it was done via social media, where Andrew has been concentrating his disinformation efforts.

So, it was originally published on Twitter by a citizen journalist. I saved a copy.

Or more precisely, after a misleadingly edited version, designed to discredit witnesses, had been published in a Romanian newspaper and been heavily used as propaganda by Tate associates pushing disinformation on YouTube, Rumble and Elon's Twitter, the correct version was first leaked on Twitter by Nick Monroe/ Crab Crawler.

on Musk's Twitter,Tplus witter, YouTube an, thRumblethe version providing full context and

(,and whatever streaming platform Sneako uses) by Tate mouthpieces,

Currently, there are significant leaks on Twitter, new information from the case file to counter false claims from the defendants and their allies.

BruckerState (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an Interesting article that you gave! the journalist hadn't got the inside story, and legally didn't understand how trafficking laws differ from kidnapping, but it sounds like they reported this one piece of information which has since been redacted/ wasn't printed elsewhere, which makes the article a useful find!

BruckerState (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Remove unsubstantiated Kickboxing Record

The current cited source for '76 fights' is utter trash, it literally gives his net worth as 50 Billion... https://sidekickboxing.co.uk/the-life-of-andrew-king-cobra-tate/

"76 wins, 9 losses" is highly contested and doesn't pass the common sense test. Why would he have over 50 professional fights which left no record?

Furthermore: in February 2020, fighting Miralem Ahmeti, Tate was billed as having 40 fights and 7 losses, yet 10 months later, fighting Cosmin Lingurar, he was billed as having 75 professional fights with 9 losses. That implies a whopping 36 professional fights in ten months, with no record existing for all but two. This does not seem remotely possible.

His claimed fighting record is strongly contested, here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVYtxg_DiX8&t=19m43s

I request that the current stats be replaced by stats of the circa 30 fights on record. BruckerState (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Tate is also listed as a contributor to the source provided for his record, so the source would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF - it would seem that criteria 1 and 4 are likely not met here. If a reliable source can't be found I'll change the record listed to 23 wins and 8 losses as confirmed by the fights recorded in the table. I'll note also that it raises a bit of a red flag for me that the ratio of wins to losses is so different between the two figures - although it is possible, I'm somewhat skeptical that Tate won all but one of the 54 unrecorded fights. Tollens (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done - record removed. Please feel free to undo this change if a reliable source not simply re-reporting his own claim is found in the future. Tollens (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Under Romanian Investigation, here are some suggested changes to make everything clearer:

Original

DIICOT accuses the Tates of having recruited women through the "loverboy" method—which consists of misrepresenting one's intention to commit to a romantic relationship—and having forced them to create explicit content for websites like OnlyFans, as part of an organised crime group the Tates are alleged to have formed in early 2021.

My proposal

DIICOT accused Andrew and Tristan Tate of having each recruited webcam workers for their unregistered and therefore illegal adult content business via the "loverboy" method, which consists of misrepresenting one's intention to commit to a romantic relationship.

The two assistants, Georgiana Naghel and Luana Radu, are accused of having continued the grooming process of the duped women, housing them and overseeing their production of explicit content for websites including OnlyFans, working the women up to twelve hours a day under the threat of violence.

In addition to the Human Trafficking charges for the specific actions each individual allegedly carried out, they each faced Organised Crime charges for the acts the gang allegedly committed as a whole; Andrew is alleged to have personally trafficked four women on record [or, was alleged...3] for which he picks up a Human Trafficking In Continued Form charge [was, three human trafficking charges] , and was allegedly the led the gang of Andrew, Tristan, Georgiana and Luana, which trafficked seven [was six] women on record (three recruited by Tristan), for which he picks up a charge for being a member of Organised Crime Group with the purpose of trafficking women.

- There should be no claims here that aren't in current sources, but here is a recent article, in case it helps: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66581218

Should it be in the past tense? to match the later,

On 13 June, DIICOT adjusted the charges from human trafficking to "human trafficking in continued form", a more serious charge.[116] One additional victim was identified, bringing the total count to seven.

I do some repetition, so it would be great if another editor could improve it. In the first instance, I needed it to be clear enough for fellow editors to understand!

Thanks! BruckerState (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ps - an absolute minimal alternative would be, replacing 'the Tates are accused of' with 'the Tate Gang is accused of' or 'the four defendants are accused having worked together to recruit & then exploit...'

BruckerState (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request since the requester is now autoconfirmed so could edit it themselves if necessary, and nobody has seen fit to review this in more than a month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Partial revert of recent edits

I see issues in edits made in the last month. Some already-mentioned material was added, causing repetition (like mention of the belt video) or duplication across sections (UK investigation). The "Views" section cited many unreliable arnd seemingly unreliable sources, like "Meaww", Sportskeeda, Ladbible, "Yardbarker", "TheSportsRush", Facebook or the Herald Sun (tabloid). I've kept the useful additions, like radicalization warnings from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the additional school warnings, and mention of him and his supporters spreading conspiracy theories. I've removed mention of his sister under WP:BLPNAME since she's a non-public figure. Reverted changes to British spelling as well under WP:ENGVAR.

I've also reverted this change which contradicted both the cited source and the original VICE report. DFlhb (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to make this page extended confirmed protected again. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Change “Parents: Emery Tate” to “Parents: Emery Tate (Father) and Eileen Tate (Mother) 2601:283:C000:BF70:196C:111C:D4AD:F3B7 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Misogynistic commentary

MrOllie: I feel like the term "Misogynistic" is loaded. And one of the MOSes agree with me. As seen in MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, the words to watch are cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic.... I believe that this term used directly to label something would be biased. I believe that either of these two would be better, but I see number 2 as the best one:

1: "Tate's commentary has resulted in his suspension from various social media platforms."

2: "Tate's commentary, which some has been described to be misogynistic, has resulted in his suspension from various social media platforms."

What do we say here? Best, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

When the reliable sources overwhelmingly use a term (as is the case here), MOS:CONTROVERSIAL doesn't apply. As to your claim of bias, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here - Wikipedia is biased towards the facts as they are represented in reliable sources. We also don't do WP:WEASEL wording to water down a factual claim with terms like which some has been described to be. What we say here is what the reliable sources do, in plain language. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Kickboxing Achievements

Rankings:

Ranked N1 90k kickboxer in the world - 2016

Ranked number 2 in the world - 2012

Ranked Number 1 in Europe - 2009

Ranked Number 7 in Britain - 2008

Titles:

ISKA World Full-Contact Light Heavyweight Title −81.5 kg. 2011

ISKA World Full-Contact Light Cruiserweight Title −84.6 kg. 2013 (1 defense) 2014

Enfusion champion 2014

Enfusion tournament runner up 2012

Enfusion world title runner up 2016

IKF British champion 2009

ISKA English champion 2009

ISKA world title title runner up. 2011

ISKA British title runner up 2007

NDC full contact title runner up 2011

Runner up for Its Showtime title 2012 Imintheweedz (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Partners and Children

Tate has acknowledged having children, including implying he has a lot and by more than one woman. Isn't it worth mentioning this? Articles about a person include their family. Tate's word is not a reliable source as he's a frequent liar at worst and a self-promoter at best, but isn't there a gap in this article by not mentioning his claims about kids? For example, in the recent Piers Morgan interview he references his kids numerous times and that he is their provider. Piers pushes him on specifics and Tate is coy.

Fine, the article doesn't need to have specifics for something that isn't specified, but shouldn't this be addressed?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The article certainly used to mention that he is said to have a few children, but it was reverted by another user and never added back. This was the citation I used, from the London Times. I'd be open to adding it back if there are no objections. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reversal of easing of his travel restrictions.

It seems based on the official Romanian court's verdict, or at least the translation of the Bucharest court's appeal verdict, the decision to ease his travel restrictions to Romania from September 28, 2023, was reversed on October 10, 2023, and he still can't leave Ilfov County.

https://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000001081750&id_inst=2 (verdict of the court of appeal on the official Romanian court website from 10.10.2023, which overturns the 28.09.2023 verdict to ease restrictions on travel)

Translator was used to translate part of the text from Romanian: "On the basis of Article 4251(1) and 7(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upholds the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor's Office before the High Court of Cassation and Justice - Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism Offences - Central Structure against that judgment. Partially quashes the contested judgment and remands the case: Dismisses as unfounded the requests of the defendants TATE III EMORY ANDREW, TATE TRISTAN and NAGHEL GEORGIANA-MANUELA for substitution of the obligation provided for in Article 215(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to leave the municipality of Bucharest. București și jud. Ilfov except with the prior consent of the preliminary chamber judge or the court with the obligation provided for by the same legal provisions not to leave the territory of Romania except with the prior consent of the preliminary chamber judge or the court."

In case claims that are out of context, such as the relation of this text to the 28.09.2023 verdict about easing restrictions, you can translate the rest of the text and compare it with the link below to the case from 28.09.2023.

https://portal.just.ro/3/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000001081750&id_inst=3 (initial decision to ease restrictions from 28.09.2023)

I'm not sure if this will be accepted due to being a translation of a non-English source, even if it comes from a Romanian authority, but I guess there's no harm in trying. NagatoUz (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

To add to this, it seems (for now at least) that the order to not leave the municipality of Ilfov County and Bucharest was replaced once again with the order to not leave the territory of Romania. (23.11.2023) . Though it seems it is still subject to appeal, it may change like it happened with the 28.09.2023 order to replace it with restriction to territory of Romania.

https://portal.just.ro/3/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000001098190&id_inst=3 NagatoUz (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this time from media source that is considered credible (Reuters) for both claims that the prior ruling from 28.09.2023, about loosening restrictions on travel was reversed and the current ruling once again involving loosening restrictions on travel mentioned by me in follow up reply.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-judge-loosens-restrictions-influencer-andrew-tate-2023-11-23/ NagatoUz (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

He converted to Islam 2409:40C0:50:1E82:F45B:2F5A:529B:FAD5 (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already says that RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Change “he grew up Christian then converted to atheism.” To “he grew up Christian then converted to atheism, and finally reverted to Islam.”

here is a link to the source that he became Muslim now-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZN7EGkIrCQ&si=s_JcdhBGg48Kb1N8 Simbah27 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done: See § Personal life. Also, we probably wouldn't use "finally reverted", which implies that he could never change his religion again. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Before: Tate was raised Christian, and later became an atheist.

After: Tate was raised Christian, and later became an atheist and converted to Islam December of 2022

I would recommend for you change that as it is not up to date. -.xZukø- (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 13:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I’d like to add 2 more wins in record with proof. And more info that is currently not added yet. 92.99.113.170 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Media personality

Re: first line: Emory Andrew Tate III (born 1 December 1986) is an American-British media personality, businessman, former professional kickboxer and social media influencer.

I can't find any references to Tate as a "media personality" (celebrity), only as a "social media personality" (internet celebrity), the two being distinctly different. From a quick news search all RS references appear for social media personality.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Unless sources can be found referring to Tate as a media personality / celebrity, I suggest the following:

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

Likewise there are no sources for this in the article. I'm aware it's a very small change, it's more about where the wikilink takes you, and don't want to edit war over modifying the first line, this being quite a dramatic change arguably. @User:Partofthemachine

PS - Ignore comment on "businessman" references, was searching wrong, clearly there is enough about his businesses in the article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

His pro mma record is 1-0 his amateur is 4-2

Also he won 2 fights before the first one in his wiki AliM7mdd (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

I know his real record verified by many organizations I deal with ima kickboxer myself. AliM7mdd (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Not an actionable request.  Spintendo  16:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

U can edit I’ll just sent u proof what u say? 92.99.23.150 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes please provide a reliable source for his kickboxing record. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

86.16.144.209 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Tate converted to Islam

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. we already say this "After a video of him praying at a mosque in Dubai went viral in October 2022, he announced on his Gettr account that he had converted to Islam.[125][126][127]" Cannolis (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

Happysweetcountrygirl (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Record

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]]

[[10]] AliM7mdd (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This source is a WordPress blog and probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source (WP:WORDPRESS). This source is a website called "AndrewTateNetWorth.US" and is probably considered too close to the subject. The other two sources I can't speak to the reliability of. Are any other editors more familiar with the types of sources that individual kickboxing matches usually need? 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does it say 76 wins on his kickboxing record then? 105.107.113.195 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there an actual source that confirms his "76 wins"? Because if not, it should be corrected. 197.206.23.95 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding a redirect of this article

Hi, I have a question. An article for Andrew's brother - Tristan - does not exist, and the URL for his Wikipedia article simply redirects to Andrew's page. Arguably, Tristan is also quite popular/notable, because nearly everyone who knows Andrew also knows him as well. For example, nearly all of his podcasts feature his brother - who also speaks his opinions. There is a lot of content and external sources that could be used to formulate an article for Tristan, so I believe that he fits the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article very well. So, I would be keen to write a separate article about Tristan, rather than the URL for his page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tristan_Tate) simply redirecting to Andrew's article. Thanks. Styx276 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can replace a redirect with an article. However, please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability first, to determine whether Tristan meets our standard of notability (which is not the same thing as merely being popular or well-known in a specific community). And then please see Help:Your first article for guidance on how to write it. While you can edit the redirect at Special:Edit/Tristan Tate, I would recommend running the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation (at Draft:Tristan Tate) instead, to ensure it is vetted for notability and quality. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The redirect is protected from editing, so getting a Draft approved is the only path forward for the OP. I would suggest that for a first article it would be better to pick a subject that doesn't have a history of many failed attempts like this one. Why make things so difficult your first time out? - MrOllie (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! @MrOllie I just realized that it has a history of failed attempts to get submitted, but still included a suggestion of why it would be sensible to release the draft on Draft talk:Tristan Tate Styx276 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue referenced is WP:BLP1E, however based on WP:WI1E essay, I think he's past that now. He's been arrested, charged, remanded and under house arrest, all of which has been covered by RS. This isn't a case of one event and the subject disappears from the news, but an ongoing case with regular coverage that he's included in. There are also articles specifically about him [11] [12] [13], but unfortunately the default appears to be to decline the draft based on previous submissions. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The article did not survive an AfD, the main reason being a lack of WP:SIGCOV but the deleted draft could be recovered, but I would recommend waiting until there is more significant news about Tristan Tate Mr Vili talk 06:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Really long run on sentence that's somewhat unintelligible in the lead. I'd fix but idk what it's trying to say toobigtokale (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Tate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

CommunityNotesContributor, DFlhb and Mr vili I will be reviewing this article. 750h+ (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead should not have references. All of this should be cited inline. 750h+ (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken out the bulk of sources, leaving only those for the most contentious claims, in order to try and balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. per MOS:LEADCITE. Can remove the rest if you think it's necessary though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Great. 750h+ (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• ”In 2016, he appeared on the British reality series Big Brother, but was removed as he was the suspect in an open rape investigation in the United Kingdom.” Change to “the suspect of an open rape investigation.” 750h+ (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "the subject of, by any chance? "suspect of" doesn't seem right DFlhb (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually that’s my bad. Ignore that. 750h+ (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lead is a pass.

Not trying to be intentionally annoying, but changed Britons to British people, a more commonly understood term (especially for non-Britons). A note seems excessive here, as does linking to Britons for that matter. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually already saw "Britons" there, as an Australian, I have never heard of the term "Britons" (I had to google it). 750h+ (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Early life

• “Emory Andrew Tate III was born on 1 December 1986, in Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.” rephrase that to “Emory Andrew Tate III was born on 1 December 1986 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.” 750h+ (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done DFlhb (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Kickboxing career

• ”In 2009, he gained his first championship when he won the British ISKA Full Contact Cruiserweight Championship in Derby, and Won the International Kickboxing Federation British belt and got ranked number one in his division in Europe.” Rephrase that sentence to “In 2009, he received his first championship when he won the British ISKA Full Contact Cruiserweight Championship in Derby, won the International Kickboxing Federation British belt and received the top rank in his division across Europe.” 750h+ (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done DFlhb (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Big Brother

• I am passing this section, meaning it adheres to the criteria. 750h+ (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Online ventures

• I am passing this section. 750h+ (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Views and influence

• ”Tate is considered to be a "manosphere" and "alpha male" influencer. The Conversation described him as a longstanding "thought leader" in the online manosphere community, and able to mobilise his supporters to spread his brand and messages to a broader audience. He has also been described as a right-wing and far-right influencer, tied to far-right ideology, as well as connected to the far-right, including the prominent British far-right activist Tommy Robinson. He otherwise identifies as a libertarian.” To make this paragraph more readable, rephrase to something like: "Tate is known as an influencer in the 'manosphere' and 'alpha male' community. According to The Conversation, he's a recognized 'thought leader' in the online manosphere, able to mobilise his supporters to spread his ideas widely. Tate is also associated with right-wing and far-right ideologies and has ties to the far-right, including connections with the British activist Tommy Robinson. He otherwise identifies himself as a libertarian." 750h+ (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this paragraph suggestion, I was never happy with it but struggled with improving it. Hopefully this is better now. I otherwise returned the "fuck you money" part of quote, with wikitionary link for context, as it's not just about having a lot of money, but the way you present yourself with it (roughly speaking), also per WP:NOTCENSORED. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• ”online far-right circles” will people understand what this means? 750h+ (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not ncessarily  Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• ” He has stated that women "belong in the home", that they "can't drive",[70] and that they are "given to the man and belong to the man",[16] as well as claiming that men prefer dating 18- and 19-year-olds, because they are "likely to have had sex with fewer men", in order to "make an imprint" on teenagers,[71] and that women who do not stay at home are "hoes".” Can we chop this up into two or three sentences? 750h+ (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Have made a variety of changes in this section. Two sentences moved to opening paragraph, that didn't fit were they were previously, and better suited to an opening paragraph style summary. Paragraph starting with/based on 2017 content moved above 2019 content for consistency + due. The sentence in question has been split into two with wordiness removed, so this should read a lot better now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Good. I am happy to pass this section. 750h+ (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• I pass this. I did some minor copy editing, revert if an edit is wrong. 750h+ (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Social media

• I pass this subsection.750h+ (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Deplatforming

• I pass this sub-subsection. 750h+ (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal life

• ”Tate was raised Christian,[25] and later became an atheist.” Remove the comma and replace and with but
  •  Done DFlhb (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Criminal investigations

• I am passing this whole section. 750h+ (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Kickboxing record

• There is a citation needed tag in the first table. Find a reference. 750h+ (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Searching for this, there are only really a couple sources I could find: [14][15]. Pinkvilla isn't considered particularly reliable (pretty sure it's a copy and paste of this article as well), and ironically Muay Thai Records hasn't verified the fight. The fight however did exist as per RXF video: [16], so thinking a combination of MTR and YT for verification, thoughts? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the featured Taylor Swift article has a YouTube source, and we can't find anything else, I will accept it. Plus, we can see the fight for ourselves, so that's a plus one. 750h+ (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Great. The only concern per WP:YT would be copyright (that the account is not authentic), but this can be easily verified via [17] that links to the channel. Will put an AV media link together. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Read #Final opinion 750h+ (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Source quality

• Most references are of high quality or good quality; excluding the Twitter ones, however two of them are quoting a minor argument had by Greta Thunberg and Tate, so I'm letting it go. Pass 750h+ (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this is OK as per WP:TWITTER, as the Twitter conversation is referenced by Variety, and there is no doubt to it's authenticity, as the exchange is linked within that article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Random source integrity check

• Cite 81: "He further stated that he plays a "comedic character" and said that people believed "absolutely false narratives" about him" The Telegraph  Done 750h+ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Cite 95: "In October, a report by UK domestic abuse charity Women's Aid described Tate's content as a proxy for misogyny and sexism, claiming "the popularity of Tate is not a phenomenon in and of itself and, instead, is a current representation of existing misogyny". A survey by ORB International found 40 per cent of 7-18 year-olds had heard of Tate, including 21 per cent of 7-11 year-olds and otherwise 43-53 per cent of 11-18 year-olds. The report found a correlation between being exposed to Tate's content and having harmful perceptions of relationships," Mashable  Done 750h+ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Cite 52: "According to Rolling Stone, a guiding principle of the group is to attain multiple passports and citizenships, to achieve autonomy from "The Matrix", describing the group as a "fraternity-like organization"." Rolling Stone  Done 750h+ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Passing the random source integrity check. 750h+ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Final opinion

The article is well-written, sourced, and illustrated. We did have to come to some compromises, however it is overall good. Congratulations CommunityNotesContributor and DFlhb, for bringing this article to such high quality. After you address the final minor flaws, I will check over the article and promote it to GA. If I'm correct, you can receive the Million Award. 750h+ (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great, appreciate the effort you put in. With that missing citation I think that's everything in the review covered, unless I'm missing something then let me know? Never heard of that award before 😊 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The million award is awarded to anybody who gets a page which has over a million page views annually to good or featured article status. There is also the half-million award (500k annual page views), quarter million award (250k annual page views) and the three-quarter million award (750k annual page views). 750h+ (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judicial control

This is clearly a direct translation of the Romanian control judiciar, but it’s kind of meaningless in English. We should find a suitable equivalent. Maybe “court supervision”? There’s some discussion here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with context

With the content in the article:

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Tate posted the following lesson to his TikTok account, for the appropriate response if a man is accused of cheating: It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, 'WHAT’S UP BITCH'...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, 'shut up bitch,' sex

It's out of context and inaccurate, a full context video states what Tate would do if a woman threatens him with a Machete while accusing him of cheating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vYk0Qp1hX4 Mr Vili talk 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

While this isn't a reliable source, the BBC interview would be, where unless mistaken he provides the context to that quote [18]. Using Cite AV media this would be a reliable source (using the time parameter). From reading the report/article summarising that interview, there's definitely some responses from Tate that can be added to the article, so will work on that for now to provide more balance. Worth noting that ref is one of the few, if not only, interviews he's done with an RS recently that can be used to provide NPOV, even if a lot would be "Tate said he was being sarcastic" or "According to Tate this was taken out of context" or otherwise. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Regarding changes per MOS:OPENPARABIO: The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. and MOS:OPEN: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Naturally, the MOS:FIRST sentence does nothing to achieve this as an opening paragraph.

Hopefully we can all agree where the bulk of reliable sources comes from, it's undoubtedly regarding his social media presence, it's certainly not to do with his kickboxing career, Big Brother, or his online ventures, which gain passing mentions. The balance/difficulty here is being about to include his notability in a neutral manner, which is easier said than done, and should be achieved rather than abandoned.

Changes

• from His contentious commentary has resulted in expulsions from various social media platforms and concern from advocacy groups, parents, teachers, and counter-terrorism police. Surveys of British people have found that most respondents are aware of Tate, whose views are influential and popular mostly among young males.
• to His controversial commentary has resulted in his expulsions from various social media platforms and concern that he is encouraging misogynistic views among young men.

My concern with the change to the second sentence is POV and being too specific, hence the previous sentence was more vague and neutral (though could be better summarised). Likewise, the third sentence, helps provide the context of his notability. @Hemiauchenia in your edit you said "Tate is known worldwide, so it makes little sense to mention the UK exclusively here" [19], do you have a reliable source for this claim, or is this OR?

The context in that sentence he is British, and most British people have heard of him, as well as his influence. I haven't seen any surveys in other countries of his notability or influence, only UK based studies (that's half the section of Reception), so seems highly relevant for establishing notability in a neutral manner. Overall, I highly doubt he is very well known outside of the UK and US, and even in US I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most people have never heard of him, based on my research when creating the reception section.

I thought I'd bring this discussion to the talk page, as while I could of simply reverted your edits, given that reducing an OPEN to a FIRST is never an improvement, good faith edits are usually best discussed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the "most googled person of 2023" covers the idea that Tate is "well-known" without being UK-centric, though I would be open to adding something back like "Tate is a well known figure in the UK". I have no love of Tate, but your original version of His contentious commentary has resulted in ... concern from advocacy groups, parents, teachers, and counter-terrorism police. is negative in a vague way that WP:BLP tells us to avoid. Reading the sources, it's pretty obvious the concern is primarily about misogyny, and that should be reflected in the lead. I would be fine with modifying the sentence to mention encouraging violence and sexual assault against women if the sources support that. I also don't object to you moving the sentence up into the opening paragraph. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Yes the most googled reference is useful, even though it's not based on considerable number of RS, it does provide useful context of notability for the reader. It's true that the majority of references (stating concern over his social media presence and influence) is based on misogyny, nothing else, and maybe my attempt to sanitise this wasn't the right thing to do. As I said, with a figure like Tate, trying to provide context for notability, when the overwhelming notability from RS is negative, isn't easy to achieve based on a NPOV. I'll put a reference to UK notoriety back into the open, and see if anyone else has anything to say. Arguably also, "and concern that he is encouraging misogynistic views among young men" shouldn't be considered a POV, but more a matter of act. Especially given it casts doubt of whether he is encouraging misogyny, when in fact many RS state outright that he is. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "encouraging violence and sexual assault against women", the sources do not support this. This is specifically related to accusations against the War Room group, not Tate himself directly. Hence it's covered in the lead's second paragraph when summarising his online ventures, as there is significant RS coverage of this. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To avoid leaving the following tag to this new line: Tate later used his audience from his online courses to propel himself to fame as an internet celebrity promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle.

Are there specific sources to support this claim? No offence, but to me it seems like OR, among other issues:

• He uses his online courses to increase his reach, RS doesn't state he gained fame from this, that's a leap
• "propel himself to fame" comes across as a strong use of WP:PUFFERY, without sources to back up such claims either
• Where are the sources that he is famous for promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle? The reference used in the body only states "popularity" from this, not fame, which is a completely different concept. Again, where is this referenced?

It's one of those lines in a lead which "sounds about right", but doesn't appear to be supported by RS, nor is a summary of the body. Let's remember that the lead is NOT a summary of Tate himself, but instead the summary of the article about him. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The luxurious part refers to this portion of the body Tate gained notoriety on social media for promoting a "hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". which is cited to this BBC article [20]. The use of online courses refers to this part of the body Tate became highly prominent in 2022 by encouraging members of Hustler's University to post large numbers of videos of him to social media platforms in an effort to maximise engagement cited to this article in The Guardian [21] (full disclosure: I wrote this part of the body). I would be okay with "prominence" "widespread attention" etc if that's a better alternative. It's obvious looking at google trends he went from relatively unknown to well-known in 2022 [22], when he started to receive significant coverage by media publications, which is what I was getting at. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes admittedly, it's the use of "propel himself to fame" that seems out of place more than anything. I acknowledge that the body does cover the rest of the claim, thanks for referencing. "widespread attention" or "prominence" would be better. You said in your edit that "Various other parts of the lead are uncited to the body" - can you reference something in particular here? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What I meant that was that various parts of the lead are uncited and could be considered contentious, even if they are adequately sourced in the body. For example, the section on his various criminal charges at the end of the lead is completely uncited, which is why I originally didn't add the citations for my lead. I have changed "fame" to "prominence" if that helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is per MOS:LEADCITE as part of the GA review. Contentious generally means controversial statements, disputed content, otherwise challenged etc. There is nothing opinionated or questionable about the last paragraph, as it is more "matter of fact". It also hasn't been challenged yet, but only time will tell. If you're wording a sentence based on a combination of different sources, it's a lot more likely to be challenged than a well documented criminal investigation in reality. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being a pain anyway, there has just been many changes to the lead (rather than the content) which have been dubious at best in recent months. Hence me raising this discussion as I suspected you had beneficial edits, and I think the lead has improved now. Thanks. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

He was educated at Lea Manor High School http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lea_Manor_High_School (not Halyard as it currently states.) Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvcZaD8vQk @31min 56 sec 93.8.160.38 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done unrelaible source WP:RSPYT CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

AliM7mdd (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

His opponent Vincent has wiki add it

 Done 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Hello, I want to request a change of photo on the Tate page, due to it being taken in an unprofessional pose. MateoBuzan (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Jamedeus (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference sake available images of Tate can be found here [23]. The current image appears to be the best version available. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

AliM7mdd (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Miroslav wiki into his record it’s his 2nd last loss

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

2001:8F8:1D1B:5F48:859F:4B2D:6D3E:68A4 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Miroslav Cingel wiki It’s his second last loss

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 (2)

AliM7mdd (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Miroslav Cingel wiki

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

AliM7mdd (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

M

Add Scott Gibson and Miroslav Cingel wiki in his fight record their wiki is available Miroslav Cingel Scott Gibson(Kickboxer)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do you have a reliable source for information about the fights? PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede concerns

I'm concerned we're putting too much weight on relatively minor aspects of his life, and not enough on what he receives the vast majority of his coverage in reliable sources for - his views, the criticism he has faced, and the charges he is facing.

As a start, I think:

1. We should remove "businessman, and former professional kickboxer" from his list of roles. They receive minimal coverage in reliable sources, and providing them here gives them WP:UNDUE weight
2. We should remove his number of followers and his google popularity; again, these receive minimal coverage in reliable sources and including them is WP:UNDUE
3. We should remove the number of subscribers
4. We should move his self-description as a "misogynistic and sexist" to the first paragraph; it is one of the the most significant aspects about him per coverage in reliable sources.
5. We should merge the third and fifth sentences of the second paragraph, to say After his kickboxing career, Tate and his brother, Tristan, began operating a webcam model business, followed by selling online courses that have been alleged to teach violence against women and coerce women into sex work - I don't think the details of his courses, or the number of subscribers they have gained, are WP:DUE.

BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to these points, that aren't only based on MOS:LEAD, but also other sub-guidelines (recent discussion over OPEN can be found here):

1. MOS:FIRSTBIO (first sentence), for example, 4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) Note the first sentence, unlike the lead, isn't about what is DUE, but instead basic information.

2. This is about the MOS:OPENPARABIO that follows the structure of MOS:OPEN: provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.. His following on X (while banned on nearly every other social media platform), is therefore notable. It's the context related to what is due (social media influence). There are otherwise multiple sources that have referenced Tate's X following in recent months, they are simply not included as don't add anything to the article.

3. This comes back to context of opening paragraph, whereby subscriber count is relevant context given Tate is a social media influence.

4. His self-description as "misogynistic and sexist" was made on a podcast in 2021 (see the body). The fact that many RS have regurgitated this does not make it more due in my opinion, as he's only expressed this once. Being dubbed as the "king of toxic masculinity" should be considered "enough" for the opening paragraph. Taking one statement Tate has made and amplifying it doesn't make sense to me.

5. This I can understand, it could better summarise the lead, and with a growing third paragraph there is logic to refinement. However given the online courses are clearly due, the context related to these (ie subscriber figures) should be considered so as well (even if referenced by less RS). The main issue would be removing the "neutral" aspects over his courses (the data) and leaving only the "negatives". The BBC coverage of The War Room I wouldn't consider due necessarily without the neutral information preceding it for example.

Overall this article has to tread carefully in to respect WP:NPOV, as while the majority of RS is overwhelming negative towards Tate (as reflected in the body), aspects that show Tate in a "good light" should also be referenced, if anything to give credibility to the negativity. I don't think anyone could read the lead and think that it paints a positive picture of Tate, which is an accurate reflection of the RS in the body. I'm therefore not in agreement in making the lead more negative than it already is. I consider it to have already been pushed to it's limits here.

On a personal note: my main issue is with suggestions to whitewash Tate's influence in society, especially within schools and towards young males. His influence is substantial as referenced in the lead, hence it is very clearly due to provide context of notability as per opening paragraph. Pretending like this isn't the case, or that he's "no big deal", or ignoring his substantial and growing following, is an insult to numerous survivors of sexual violence and harassment, by perpetrators influenced by the likes of Tate. Downplaying this is like giving him a pass and excusing him of his influence, which he does not deserve. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

1. I think my proposal aligns with this; the only noteworthy position he holds is social media personality.

2. I don't think we need to present these figures in the lede to accommodate that; we can say he has a "worldwide profile", "major internet presence", or similar - I think this will be better aligned with both the sources and with our guidelines on the lede. Further, it will present this information without glorifying it.

3. Similar to #2

4. I would think we should remove "king of toxic masculinity" and replace it with the self-description of being misogynistic and sexist - the former has received less attention than the latter, and I am concerned that we are giving undue weight to the grandiose image he is trying to present.

5. The online courses are due in the general, but I don't think they are in the specific - and I also think they are excessive detail for the lede.

BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

1. He is widely referenced as a former kickboxing champion in RS, which remains noteworthy. Businessmen can be considered a stretch, but there are RS that confirm this, and his whole "online ventures" which are well documented easily put him in this category on it's own merit. For reference I previously suggested changing the first sentence to simply social media personality, but it was reverted, mainly because it unnecessarily shortens the first sentence, without anything NPOV that can duely replace it.

2/3. Can we find some RS referencing this? I've only come across number of followers referenced in recent months, rather than specifically how notable those numbers are. For example, 10m isn't really that many compared to actual celebrities, so need to avoid MOS:PUFFERY here. While the numbers could be considered too specific detail for the lead (not arguing against that), contextualising it isn't straightforward, there's no obvious category here. Also if anything "he became prominent as an internet celebrity promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle" in the second paragraph covers this I think. I otherwise don't see how simply providing the figures without commentary is glorifying anything, these are just the facts, and is better than puffery imo.

4. "king of toxic masculinity" is well referenced, probably as much as his self-description. The latter has flip flopped between the end of first paragraph and the second. You could move it back up and see how long it takes to get reverted over NPOV concerns again, or see if others will engage in discussion here, or both. The relevance being the label is one he has been given, his opinion is one of many. I don't see how this label paints in him a good light, as he doesn't identify as being toxic. It's otherwise pretty accurate.

5. I still think this is about balance. There is detail over his courses in the lead as there is detail over his criminal investigation. Removing the former would make the latter somewhat undue, both of which are well documented by RS.

I'll be honest I'm pretty tired of discussions and changes over the lead in recent months. I'd prefer just to continue updating the article; splitting reception into reception & surveys, and work on building a "response" section with recent information over training and courses in UK & Australian schools to combat Tate's views, as his influence continues to grow and so do the problems in education systems. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)