Talk:Andrew Tate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 09:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Andrew Tate in 2023
Andrew Tate in 2023

Improved to Good Article status by CommunityNotesContributor (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Not a review, but this article might not be DYK material. (Primarily since our coverage is overwhelmingly negative) Sohom (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I've striked out ALT2, given it focuses on the negative. The other two hooks, specifically the first, I'd consider as neutral as they come. The coverage in the article is overwhelming negative due to RS, not due to contributors, with a lot of consideration for using NPOV language and attribution as per BLP policy, as well as including everything positive about Tate, or in defense of him. I'd argue this type of article would come under one of the goals of DYK: highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers. If we are not including controversial topics, then we are not achieving this diversity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do feature negative hooks about certain things (Site isolation had a semi-negative hook, despite having a overwhelmingly positive reception). I'm not insinuating that NPOV was compromised when building the article eithier (in fact the article great considering how freaking controversial the subject is). I'm just unsure if running a negative article about a BLP is the best idea. In any case, I'll defer to a actual reviewer. Sohom (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, appreciate the feedback. Just to clarify, we're not still talking about negative hooks are we? The hooks are currently neutral, if not positive. If the argument is along the lines of if Jimmy Savile were promoted to GA, and then nominated as a DYK, and that would be an issue, than I have no complaints. Simple as. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's my argument. The hooks look good from a neutrality POV (imo). Sohom (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommunityNotesContributor: I could do with you if I ever decide to GA Tate's Big Brother housemate Marco Pierre White Jr and try him on again here. I would just like to bring your attention to the bit of WP:DYKHOOK that says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided", emphasis mine. I see no reason why a rightfully negative article should not be promoted with a negative hook; we should not be providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. Out of interest, is there a reason you don't mention his appearance on Ultimate Traveller?--Launchballer 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because there doesn't appear to be a reliable source with coverage, all I could find was one line from Independent (via Yahoo) documenting this [4]. The show itself doesn't appear to be notable, based on the lack of Wikipedia page, though this minor detail could be added to BB section for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. I saw that the non-RS Rolling Stone mentioned that he flounced out of it with an eye infection, and wondered if there was a hook in it. Full review needed.--Launchballer 13:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed a GA review and was nominated in the proper time frame. Hooks are neutral. Both hooks are verified to the cited sources and are of usable length. Article is in compliance with all wiki policies as one would expect from a GA article. There was some discussion on the DYK talk page in the transgender topic thread about the use of the image being not desirable. Based on those comments, I would say that we should pass on this pic given the distaste expressed by several editors who regularly contribute at DYK for featuring this particular article in the most prominent spot. I personally prefer Alt 1, but I leave it up to the promoter on which of the two hooks they prefer to promote. This one is ready to go.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's go with ATL1 then with no image. Do you have a link to the discussion elsewhere? I didn't see it, as there are no issues raised with the picture on this template. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very brief subthread of Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Do we have to keep doing this?; lucid Launchballer says this could swallow a wider hearing. Pinging Viriditas.--Launchballer 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing. I don't think we should be making decisions on DYK templates based on obscured opinions made elsewhere, that sets a dangerous precedent and lacks transparency. The comment "although ALT1 takes him down a couple of pegs, so I'd be very happy for that to run" does raise an important point of NPOV in these hooks, and therefore I change my option to ATL0. Otherwise waiting for objection to use of picture that remains non-existent on this talk page. On a side note, it's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation was enough to make me uncomfortable in endorsing the pic. I stick by what I said. Alt1 is a perfectly good hook, and the original one is also fine. Either one could be promoted. I find the Alt1 hook better simply because it's more eye catching in my opinion and would make me want to read the article more so than the other hook. To me its more hooky for lack of a better word.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no issues with either hook being chosen, take your pick. The argument for it being a better hook I support, especially since it also links to Greta which is another GA, but not because it's considered a convenient POV. I think there needs to be a broader discussion over raising issues with DKY nominations outside of their templates though, either here or on the main talk page, as the implications over precedents being set and transparency remain concerning. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have pinged, my apologies. (Side note, shouldn't it be 'December 2022' response?)--Launchballer 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, let's leave it at that then, since this isn't being defended. I think "that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was ... in December 2022?" otherwise remains accurate, as this is the date when it became one of the most-liked tweets. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKHOOKBLP ALT1 does not work, it is about a tweet from a third party and it is very depreciating and body shaming. We should not feature a "someone tweeted something embarrassing about someone else's penis" hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the slang the kids use might be confusing you... The tweet was about their energy, not their penis (although there are humorous implication no penis is required to have big dick energy or small dick energy) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: see this article in The Independent[9]: "But don’t be fooled into thinking you actually need to have a large penis to have BDE - you don’t need to have one at all." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due apologies to the promoter, there is still some concerns over at WT:DYK if the article should have even been promoted yet. As such, the hook's been pulled from prep for now until a consensus either way forms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that was probably for the best. There's inherently an issue with DYKs when a negative hook can't be used for an article that's about an inherently negative person, even when NPOV is being respected. For example let's never raise awareness about Hitler or the holocaust because it's negative, let's focus on DKYs about rainbows and puppies instead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ...that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

for ALT3. Valereee (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • After WP:DYK discussion this seems like the best alternative - 2 weeks have passed since discussion. Recent GA, no plagiarism. The hook is interesting and cited in the article. The article appears to be fairly stable and uses the correct inline citations. It is likely as neutral as it can be. No QPQ is required. Bruxton (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be added to T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lede concerns[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

'with most Britons aware of who he is.'[edit]

This has no source and is demonstrably untrue, as anyone who has talked to the average British person would know. Just because Andrew is well-known on the internet does not mean he is known by "most" of British public. Remove this line and replace the comma with a period. 82.38.200.45 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's from YouGov survey, referenced in Reception section of Views and influence.
"Pollsters discovered 63 per cent of British adults have heard of Tate" [10] "In the UK, 63% of Brits are familiar with Andrew Tate." [11]
Will add source to lead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit, and did not know who Andrew Tate was until recently. So I looked him up on Wikipedia, and what I noticed most of all was that you can tell the opinion of the editors from the article. Sadly this is becoming increasingly the case on Wikipedia because of the skewed demographics of the editors. This should not be a Good Article. Geometry guy 20:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it for reassessment at WP:GAR if you think this doesn't fit the Good Article criteria. The source attached to the statement writes that 93% of polled British adults were aware of who he is, which would probably be enough to say that "most British adults have heard of him". I do question how due this line is in the article's lead, but it's otherwise well sourced. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that just mean that 93% of British adults who are willing to respond to surveys have heard of Tate? seems like the non-response bias weighs in his favor, although the survivorship bias goes the other way here... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source that The Independent is citing (YouGov) confirms these numbers but interestingly does not expand on them; most of the poll is about how favorable he is among pollsters, not how known he is. In all, I'm not British so I wouldn't know for sure how known he is there, and I don't particularly care about this inclusion in the article either way. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stance section is incorrect[edit]

Andrew tate converted to islam source Omer ALFARHAN (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ #3. "Stance" in the infobox does not refer to religious stance. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024[edit]

The lede says, Tate “[promotes] a masculine, luxurious lifestyle.” The precise words the cited BBC article uses are “hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle” (emphasis mine). Those quantifiers are important, simply calling Tate “masculine” and “luxurious” is downplaying his attitudes; I think the article should be edited to say he promotes “a macho, hedonistic lifestyle”, or something to that effect.        —Showerlemon (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view, and your suggestions take the phrasing further away from being neutral. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynist quote[edit]

@AndyTheGrump: I don't see this quote as a unambiguous misuse of a quotation, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies. It's a quote he made presented in context, and it's a quote that aligns with the perception of reliable sources of him, and that is frequently repeated by reliable sources.

It's both relevant and WP:DUE, in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a perfectly adequate explanation as to why the use of the quote is improper. He made a later statement where he described the "absolutely a misogynist" comment as made when "playing a comedic character" and "taken out of context". That, regardless of what we, or anyone else, thinks of the validity of his later defence, is entirely sufficient to make the use of the quote invalid. It is being used in a manner that can only be described as disinformational, for effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should stick to what RS describe him as, not our own interpretation or opinion on the matter? Including any direct response to that statement if there is any, of which is not referenced in the body. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the quote comes from a podcast in 2021 (per Views and influence section); "You can't slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I'm absolutely a misogynist, and I have fuck you money and you can't take that away." ref, and doesn't appear out of context. Hence it's been regurgitated dozens of times by reliable sources, and therefore does appear due.
Re this revert comment "this seems to be quoting Tate for a self-description he later states he doesn't consider valid." The key word is seems; in that article Tate doesn't specify which "old videos" he was referring to, so no point in speculating it's the interview in question ref, as he's said plenty of controversial things in videos (see views section). I've never found him retracting that statement in any written RS. Maybe in the BBC interview he does which could be used as a source for "which Tate has since retracted", but otherwise, he made that statement in 2021 which is reliably referenced and should be used as such. I'm otherwise not going to waste my time watching that BBC interview again, someone else can though and use cite AV media. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the summary of that painful interview [12]; denies rape, human trafficking and exploiting women; denies spreading misogynistic rape culture; preaches hard work, describes himself as a force for good, etc. Notably: "Mr Tate suggested that some of his comments had been taken out of context or intended as "jokes", but nothing about identifying as a misogynist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether we think Tate's denial of misogyny (and worse) is in any way valid. We can't quote him as self-describing himself that way, after his 'role-playing' response. And why the heck is it so utterly essential to use a quote that is clearly questionable in that manner anyway? The article is jam-packed full of quite sufficient impeccably-sourced content for any reasonable person to come to their own opinion as to whether Tate is a misogynist or not. Why is it so necessary to resort to context-free phrases? Do we really think that readers need to be spoon-fed in such a manner, lest they mistake the article for some sort of defence of Tate's behaviour? What exactly is the purpose of the quote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources continue to describe him as a self-proclaimed misogynist, even after the interview. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank with you, I don't think it's essential at all. I even removed it from the lead previously because I considered it an over-inflated statement from RS — tabloid style as you would put it. It was reinstated as others felt it was due based on MOS:LEADREL — which is also true. The context should however be pretty clear; concern that he promotes misogynist views to his audience followed by the fact that he identifies as a misogynist. The context being, he has absorbed the accusation that has been thrown at him and self-identified as such. Someone identifying as misogynist carries a lot more weight of relevance (context wise) than accusations that someone is spreading misogyny, CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an off hand comment here; yes, some users need to be spoon-fed. Not everyone can put 2 and 2 together and get 4. In fact, it's terrifying how much the average person doesn't understand basic things. We're not here to cater solely to the reasonable and rational, we're here to cater to human beings of all kinds, especially the less intelligent, as an openly accessible encyclopedia. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's the point. We are attempting to 'carry more weight' by quoting the man himself, despite his statement that it was 'role-playing'. Why exactly is that perceived as even remotely necessary? Why are we cherry-picking single words from sources in an attempt to bolster up something that absolutely does not require such tabloid-style tactics? It is core Wikipedia policy that quotes should only be used in a manner that summarises what the source has to say on a subject. Not a pithy phrase or two, extracted for effect and later described by the same individual as 'out of context'. As for your comments regarding spoon-feeding, maybe we need to consider whether WP:CIVIL needs to be extended to descriptions of Wikipedia readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source that it was "role-playing", or that it's out of context? He never said he was role-playing in that interview, per the source you provided, only "old videos of me". This is an assumption at this point with no RS to back it up, despite my attempts to help you find one. As for cherry-picking, have you searched for "self described misogynist andrew tate" and seen how many RS describe him as such? It's not a phrase or two, it's usually a title or an opening description in the first sentence. Sure, let's expand civility though, why not. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what CNC said, even if this was one of the statements he was referring to, retractions aren't always honest - to determine whether we should respect the retraction we should follow reliable sources, and in this case reliable sources continue to use the statement. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to go ahead and provide some sources for "self described/proclaimed misogynist" if this is a sourcing issue:
Naturally only taking one ref per different source, so there are plenty more not referenced. Would this better as a cite bundle of a dozen sources, similar to the other cite bundles? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think half a dozen refs should do here, don't need all of them clearly. Can now see why this was previously in the MOS:OPEN prior to being moved to second paragraph. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Tate&oldid=1223887604"