Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cosmopolitan citation

Source 17 cites Cosmopolitan. Although WP:Perennial Sources states that there is no consensus on the reliability of this source, I feel this article constitutes tabloid journalism and is therefore unsuitable for a WP:BLP article. Even if a more reliable source could be found the statement probably still falls under WP:NOTNEWS and should be removed in my opinion. TWM03 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Source 21, "Why Social Media Sites Are Removing Andrew Tate’s Accounts" for NYT, also corroborates that Tate said depression wasn't real in 2017 (though it doesn't mention the backlash it received). I was able to find an article from Insider (considered generally reliable for "culture" articles, which I believe this counts as?) that says, "In 2017, he drew derision for saying rape victims must 'bear some responsibility' and for tweeting later in the year that depression is not a real thing." Pending second opinion on if we should switch sources, leave as is, or remove from article. Askarion ✉ 19:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Covered in enough sources to make this due imo. Perhaps one or two more citations could be added to support the material. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. After further reflection last night, I think the solution to people complaining about the negative stuff in this article is just to add more cites to the controversial material. None of us can change the fact that there is a large amount of negative coverage of the subject, but we can continue to follow the Wiki guidelines regarding requiring controversial information to be cited properly and covered in a neutral POV/ FrederalBacon (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

With these other sources I am fine keeping the statement, maybe rewording it to reflect the aspects covered in the more reliable sources. TWM03 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

TWM03, which phrasing do you propose based on which citations specifically? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure as the NYT article is behind a paywall so I don't know what it says specifically. I would base it on that article and the Insider article, removing the Cosmopolitan citation. TWM03 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is the NYT article archived without a paywall. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

How about this: In 2017, he tweeted that depression "isn't real". Neither article seems to go into much more detail than this. TWM03 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Insider article states that the comment "sparked backlash" and "drew derision", so I guess we could drop "significant backlash" and swap the citations. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

How about In 2017, he was criticized for tweeting that depression "isn't real" TWM03 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, I will go ahead and add it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Tate’s Grindr ban

Recently, Tate has been banned from the Grindr site, so that should be eligible for addition to this page. 7EZdOLWN18 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If WP:reliable sources are reporting on it, it can be addressed with due weight, yes. Madeline (part of me) 20:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this was a joke. Grindr being a gay dating app, implying the subject to be gay. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You never know… Madeline (part of me) 16:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Well you never know", doesn't sound like a reliable source. Hearsay and/personal editors opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. Consigiliere (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No one is implying adding it to the article based off of that. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hustlers University

I don't think it is a pyramid scheme since only the first 600 people could get affiliate from promoting his links and the other 170K are making money other ways 155.4.222.64 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Critics have described it as such in the reliable sources that are cited with that sentence. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hustler's University can not be tagged pyramid scheme, he only saw the need to bridge a the gap between people and financial barrier in a way he happens to benefit from while also helping the people achieve their aim of enrolling. Ceo Ihemeje (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It does not really matter what we as editors think is true. It's been noted in reliable sources that his business model has been criticized as such, thus making it encyclopedically relevant. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg

So the article in question DOES support that quote, regarding COVID 19 misinformation. Quote from the article: The company said it first took action against one of Tate’s channels in July because it had posted a video violating YouTube’s Covid-19 medical misinformation policies. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And then, for the other part it is cited, about the deletion of the Twitch channel, from the article: On Monday, after this article’s publication, Tate or an associate removed his channel from Amazon.com Inc.’s video livestreaming site Twitch. So where is the claim that it isn't supported in the cite coming from? FrederalBacon (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article didn't include the quote and the title wasn't updated, which is probably what Grayfell was going off of. I've now included the archived version of the updated article, so it should be sorted now. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. Just for reference, I took both of those lines from the live article, so the archived versions are largely irrelevant to the quotes, since both are in the currently live version. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The archived version of the Bloomberg article matches the live one since I just archived it a few minutes ago. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I keep forgetting the WayBackMachine can archive whenever someone tells it to. Such a nifty little resource. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yup, that was my issue, and it's resolved now. I tried to use WayBackMachine, but it got hung-up on Bloomberg's bot filter. Obviously, I should've just used archive.today instead, since that doesn't seem to have that issue. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's no problem, I was just confused since both were in the article, I didn't know if I was missing what you were trying to say about it not being in the source. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Tate has stated that he is an Orthodox Christian in an interview. Can you add that to the article? ItzConman23 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

He also stated that he was converting to Islam. In fact, he says a lot of contradictory statements. ZetaFive (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Remove the phrase "and that he would attack women with a machete were they to accuse him of infidelity" which isn't backed up by the cited source (NYT). See more detailed reasoning on talk page. DFlhb (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair; I thought WP:BOLD applied on protected pages too, and that Wikipedia:Consensus only applied when there was a preexisting back-and-forth on a talk page that hadn't been resolved or when there was an edit war. I'm still new here so bear with me.DFlhb (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Successful uses of the edit request templates are rare, even among experienced users! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I've just spent some time searching for the relevant policy and found WP:EDITXY, which makes it very clear. I appreciate your kindness. I hesitated on whether I should also start editing more "controversial" articles to learn how Wikipedia works more quickly, but I wasn't disappointed. I think that editing "tougher" pages (like the Death of Elizabeth II page or this one) is a way better way to "learn" Wikipedia quickly than editing minor pages. DFlhb (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with you to a certain extent, I think the source does create the implication that Tate would use the machete on a woman who accused him of cheating, the video makes it clear that is not what he was saying. But, to change it simply from watching the video is OR, so perhaps removing the reference to the machete entirely, since the source pretty clearly uses that out of context. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I see Throast actually did just that. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you. DFlhb (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Good fix! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy slipped into the article

The Wiki article states that:

"he would attack women with a machete were they to accuse him of infidelity"

The full relevant section from the NYT article cited is:

In one video Mr. Tate recorded while sitting in a bed, he described keeping a machete by his bed and what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her up by the neck.”

Notice the NYT (the only citation for the relevant sentence here) does not state he would attack women with a machete were they to accuse him of infidelity.

The video is still available in its entirety here:

https://odysee.com/@tatespeech:c/tate-on-womens-self-defence-fails:d

The video clearly shows that he is talking about making a woman drop the machete if she used it to attack him, not attacking her with it.

And it's clear to me that the context of the video is Andrew Tate's opinion that "female self-defense classes" make money off women by lulling them into a false sense of safety, and that they should run away instead. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can watch that video and dispute this interpretation. To twist it into supporting violence against women (again, based on this clip; not disputing any other clips if anyone can source them appropriately) is WP:NPOV and WP:OR. DFlhb (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, could you provide a timestamp of the approximate time in the video the quoted material comes in? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

1:15 until 2:18 is the relevant section for the statement quoted in NYT. DFlhb (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia is that we as editors do not get to interpret primary sources and include our own analysis; that would in fact be original research. We only include analysis of reliable secondary sources. You'll always find people who disagree with said analysis but that does not disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree that the NYT article is ambiguous as to whether he would actually use the machete to attack women, but this Guardian article plainly states: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. I've removed the machete part and left it at that he would attack women were they to accuse [...] in this edit. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 02:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, thought the Odysee link should be added as a citation to that sentence to better conform with WP:PRIMARYCARE, specifically the point about "clearly attributed controversial statements", along with a timestamp for the relevant section of the video, especially given that the secondary source does not link to any primary source, and given that the Odysee channel is run by Tate himself (Odysee policy dictates that only YouTube channel owners are allowed to mirror their channels onto Odysee). That would also help conforms with WP:ABOUTSELF. DFlhb (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

PRIMARYCARE and ABOUTSELF do not come into play at all here because we simply don't need the primary source. We have a reliable source (the Guardian article) that verifies the info in question and that's the end of it; it does not matter whether or not they cite the video in their article, only insomuch that one could argue that this makes the publication somehow less reliable, but this is an issue for WP:RSN, not for this talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I am not trying to debate WP:RS here, not was I implying that the secondary source should be replaced with the primary; merely augment the secondary source with a primary source. That seems to match the text and intent of the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy:

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

I don't see any "restrictions of this policy", original research, or sourcing policy violations with this addition.

It also follows the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy. And it wouldn't violate WP:BLPSPS (since the source is the subject of the article), nor would it violate WP:PRIMARY since I am not advocating for the primary source to be used to backup any WP:OR.

I also just moved my second edit request from above to a new section, since it is a separate argument and should not get mixed up with this one. DFlhb (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

My argument still stands because, as you explain, you do not intend to "augment" (i.e. expand) information based on the primary source. It is simply not needed. If people prefer to inform themselves based on primary sources, Wikipedia is not the place to go. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence lacks proper sourcing

"Some critics claimed that the affiliate marketing scheme effectively functioned as a pyramid scheme."

This sentence has two Guardian citations; one which doesn't contain the term "pyramid scheme", and one which only includes a denial but no reporting on accusations. A better source should be found. These citations may be reused to support other claims instead. DFlhb (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

From the second Guardian ref:but said previous criticisms, including claims it was a pyramid scheme, were “all false”. It explicitly mentions claims it was a pyramid scheme. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's a denial, not the Guardian reporting on any claims. If we follow WP:RS strictly then we could only write "Tate has denied claims that it was a pyramid scheme" without being able to actually include those claims in the article, which I think you'd agree would result in WP:DUE. A reliable source would usually allow us to include attribution. As it is, the sentence should read:

Some critics claimed that the affiliate marketing scheme effectively functioned as a pyramid scheme.

Which is quite poor for such a (currently) high-profile BLP. DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll just change it to this source from ABC (the australian one) that refers to it as a pyramid scheme several times, including by a professor of digital communications, and attribute it to him. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Note for @Throast:, that reference also has a comment from an extremism researcher with a PhD, specifically regarding Tate's misogyny. Scholarly source for the claim. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Another note: There are two professors both referring to it as a pyramid scheme in that source, I only noticed the first one originally. User:DFlhb, would you prefer both were referenced in the article to back up the claim, or is one okay? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pick whichever you think is the better/most credible one, I don't care. It's fine as it is now. DFlhb (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just leave it as one then. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. DFlhb (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Change citation 22

Online, Tate initially became known among far-right circles through appearances on InfoWars and acquaintances with far-right figures such as Paul Joseph Watson, Jack Posobiec, and Mike Cernovich.[22]

[22] links to a Washington Post article that states:

Tate initially had a following among far-right circles on social media, NBC News reported.

I think the citation should be changed to the original NBC article. This is a minor change. DFlhb (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo article goes into more detail than the NBC News article, stating: He dined in 2019 with Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson and “Pizzagate” conspiracy-theory propagator Jack Posobiec; Mike Cernovich, another proprietor of conspiracy theories, has called him a friend. He made several appearances on Infowars.. The sentence could be rephrased slightly to reflect the WaPo article more closely. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't notice that. Secondary sources are preferred to tertiary but since the tertiary is more comprehensive, keep. I think the sentence is fine as it is, what do you suggest? DFlhb (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be left as is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible citation interpretation error

From this Wiki article:

TikTok, where videos featuring his name as a hashtag have been viewed 13 billion times, initially removed an account associated with him, saying they would investigate the matter further, before removing his primary account as well after determining that it violated their policies on "content that attacks, threatens, incites violence against, or otherwise dehumanizes an individual or a group".

It's not clear to me that TikTok is talking about two separate accounts. The citations are:

While an account associated with Tate on TikTok has been permanently banned, CBS News learned Friday, the company says it continues to ramp up enforcement on videos of Tate expressing hateful ideologies

and

In a statement to The Washington Post, a TikTok representative said Tate’s account was removed

"Account associated with" is a common colloquialism and is equivalent to "account belonging to". This places emphasis on a conflict between two secondary sources that I don't think exists, and that hasn't been noted in any source. Seems like clear WP:OR. DFlhb (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that this seems to have been a misunderstanding. I will go ahead and remove initially removed an account associated with him, saying they would investigate the matter further, [...]. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence poorly based on source

From this article:

In a now-deleted video posted to his YouTube channel, Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because it was easier to be absolved of rape charges in Eastern Europe

I don't think this matches the source well enough. It says:

In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases

Proposed changes to the sentence:

1. "In a now-deleted video posted to his YouTube channel" -> "In a now-deleted YouTube video". The source doesn't clearly state that it was posted to his YouTube channel; we shouldn't contain more information than the source we're citing.

2. "because it was easier to be absolved of [...] charges" -> "because he was less likely to be investigated for". "Easier to be absolved" implies reliance on judicial corruption, whereas the cited source implies police corruption (less likely to investigate). The source article never talks about criminal charges, but police cases, two completely different things.

3. "rape" -> "sexual assault". The source doesn't back up the "rape" claim. Again, should be changed to match the source. DFlhb (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This GQ article, which I believe is already in use, states in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations. We could change "cases" to "allegations". Don't know what to do with "absolved" off the top of my head. Bear in mind that we can't paraphrase too closely. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation for that sentence should definitely be changed to GQ then.

I think my proposed change 1, 2, and 3 all stand; "absolved of allegations" implies winning in the court of public opinion, implying something about the Romanian public; it has a quite different meaning from both "absolved of charges" and "police less likely to pursue", so I think that would be a bad edit. With my changes and your comments, end result would be:

In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations.

Which is the best change I can think of to match the source while avoiding plagiarism/close paraphrase. DFlhb (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

* "[...] for rape allegations in Eastern Europe". Looks good, I'll change it accordingly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 02:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just checked the updated article. Sounds good to me. Thanks. Also I don't want to clutter the talk page with fluff but I appreciate the patience shown by you and other editors here; editing a protected page was far less daunting than it seemed. DFlhb (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I wouldn't consider your proposals "fluff"; they seem perfectly well-intentioned. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I second Throast's comment, you're coming at this the right way, and several times you've helped us reinforce, copyedit, or remove issues in the article. If you think something isn't backed up properly, challenge it, I've got no problem digging deeper or removing if necessary. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Appreciate both of you! DFlhb (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request discussion on 9 September 2022

I'd like to get consensus on another edit request:

Remove:

He further stated that he plays an "online character".[25]

Move that citation ([25]) to the preceding sentence. Replace the removed sentence with:

Tate stated that his videos show him "playing a comedic character" and "have been taken out of context" by a "hate mob" and "amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives" about him."

(This is my first time doing a citation in source editor so I hope that's right)

Arguments for the change: this seems to be his "main" statement in response to the controversy, is more comprehensive than the separate statement cited by NBC, is cited in a WP:RS, is clearly WP:V, and would improve the page according to WP:NPOV. I don't believe including the longer statement breaks WP:WEIGHT, due to the fact that this is a WP:BLP. This also helps move the article more clearly away from WP:ATTACK; the dillema here being that almost all coverage of him in WP:RS is centered around controversies surrounding him, forcing us to walk a tight rope between WP:ATTACK, WP:RS and WP:N. Note: I don't know whether the "hate mob" comment should be included or not; up to you if you think the sentence flows well enough as is. DFlhb (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Well, the way it's currently written in the article pretty much matches your proposal with the exception of the "hate mob" and "false narratives" parts, which I'm unsure as to whether those are due. I think his POV is sufficiently covered as it is. Also, WP:ATTACK is a policy you shouldn't invoke unless you have clear evidence to support the criteria outlined; although due weight can always be discussed, the article is certainly well sourced. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

After reading WP:ATTACK again, it's clear you're right; what I should have referenced instead was WP:NPOV; you're right that the article is well-sourced.

Re: edit proposal: I think my proposal is more comprehensive; the term "online character" (while coming from the subject) is vague and may be misunderstood (while "comedic character" is plainly understandable to all). Here's why I don't think it goes over the line of WP:DUE: it's reliably sourced, attributed to the article subject, and represents a substantial view given the fact that this is a BLP and the importance of WP:BLPBALANCE. Currently there are 3 paragraphs detailing criticisms regarding his social media behavior, and 3 sentences describing his response to each; I am proposing replacing one of these sentences (which has only 9 words) with another that is clearer; which should improve WP:DUE as well as WP:BALANCE, not worsen them. I fail to see arguments why my proposal would cause WP:FALSEBALANCE, since again it relies on WP:RS. Secondly the amount of hate messages both this Andrew Tate, and another Andrew Tate (the weatherman) received were documented by WP:RS including https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/andrew-tate-ban-instagram-facebook-27787410 and https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/weatherman-named-andrew-tate-hit-27808351, though perhaps that should be covered in a separate sentence.

Perhaps you would prefer this proposal:

Tate stated that his videos show him "playing a comedic character" and denounced criticisms as "absolutely false narratives" advanced by a "hate mob."

In order to avoid redundancy with: "Tate responded to the bans, saying that, while most of his comments were taken out of context, he takes responsibility for how they were received" in the next paragraph. DFlhb (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source that supports your proposal is not the only consideration when it comes to WEIGHT. Including your proposed sentence along with the one already featured risks confusing readers because Tate's statements contradict each other. How can Tate take responsibility for his commentary while simultaneously believing that any criticism of it amounts to "absolutely false narratives" advanced by a "hate mob"? I'm not convinced that this addition is necessary to balance the article. I have nothing more to add. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I see zero contradiction there. I've read the book Extreme Ownership, which is an extreme best seller (#17 across the entirety of Amazon US, 7 years! after its release, and with almost as many reviews as the Hunger Games books); that book advocates for seeing everything that happens to 'us' as our fault, whether or not we caused it to happen. It's clearly a popular and widespread way to think. It's possible (and common) to denounce a narrative as unfair, while taking responsibility for one's part in its buildup. Besides, I fail to understand how that addresses my arguments or why our opinion on Tate's utterances has a relevance when considering inclusion. I sense that you may not want to argue back and forth on this, so for the record I'm replying not to "drag you into the weeds" but to give context to other editors who might see this discussion. DFlhb (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless that book mentions Andrew Tate, all that about how popular it is is irrelivant to this discussion.

I agree with Throast regarding the weight issue. If anything, to me the article already seems too accommodating to Tate's PR statements and his "just a character" claims. His comments in the NBC story seem to be a response to accusations that nobody was actually making. Nowhere was anyone claiming that he never made any videos which "praised women", which is itself extremely, comically vague. That source uses more space on a quote from Tate where he sarcastically implies all those who are calling him a misogynist are "fat losers on the internet" and that actually, he doesn't care if he's called a misogynist at all. Stuff like that is why sources aren't really taking his responses all that seriously, so neither should we. Expanding this without including that context would therefor be potentially misrepresenting the intent of those cited sources. Both the Telegraph source and the NYT one currently cited mention his claims that he was taken out of context. Anything beyond that seems like it's dipping into WP:MANDY. We're not here to help Tate or anyone else with their PR problems, we're hear to summarize sources in context, and in context, this change would be more confusing than helpful to readers. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your first comment is peculiar. The book was only used to prop up my argument, which is clearly not irrelevant to the discussion. Not a single WP:RS reporting his response describes Andrew Tate's statements as "contradictory", which makes it WP:OR; my explanation for its non-contradicting nature is no less relevant than arguments that they contradict. Besides, he did contradict his denial as backed up by sources, it should be mentioned and not suppressed.

WP:MANDY is an essay, not a policy. In a discussion of WP:MANDY located at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 49#Including denials, I see clear consensus that denials cited in WP:RS don't count as WP:MANDY at all.

Instead of essays, we fall back on WP:VNOT, WP:RS and, I think predominantly, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, whose criteria on including denials are: WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Given that the proposal merely replaced one (vague) sentence with a more precise, cited one, without setting up an equivocation with the preceding accusations, I see no issue with WP:FALSEBALANCE. And I'd be interested in argument as to WP:DUE. I don't see how WP:DUE is violated:

• This is a viewpoint that has been published in WP:RS
• "Articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely help views": it's standard on Wikipedia to have a rough "1 paragraph controversy, 1 sentence denial" balance; which my edit preserves.
• "It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view": I see no problem here since the quote is clearly cited.

There is appropriate coverage of his statement by multiple sources: the Daily Telegraph as linked above, ITV (link), the Evening Standard (link), Sunday World (link). These are well-regarded sources on Wikipedia, and each thought the subject's response met their journalistic standards and were relevant enough to include.

To be clear, exactly zero words in this article are citing these statements. The "online character" comments were made to NBC News and are far less clear than what I'd like to replace them by; and the "while most of his comments were taken out of context, he takes responsibility for how they were received" quote is a description of a video he posted himself online around a week later. I don't see any contradiction with the "intent" of any cited sources, and don't believe it is misrepresentation to quote them as I did. I'm not trying to change the whole article here, just switch a poor sentence with a better one.

I'd also appreciate alternative suggestions rather than merely shooting down this proposal. I'm sure you know how hard it is to propose changes to protected articles, and I'm only doing it because it forces me to familiarise myself with "deep Wikipedia" as I call it (processes, nuances and all). Thanks DFlhb (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors are not required to provide "alternative suggestions" if they disagree with your proposal altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a move that would bring easier consensus would be

1. replace "online character" with "comedic character" (much clearer out of context)

2. add: 'and denounced "false narratives"' about himself.'

And change the citation accordingly to the Telegraph so the quote is backed up.

I think the first change is uncontroversial; it clearly seems like a clearer quote that would be less likely to confuse readers. Second change may require more discussion but I think it's well within WP:POV. That's clearly more subjective. DFlhb (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the "comedic character" quote is totally fine. The second one is problematic imo because, although attributed, the way it's phrased seems to give his comments credence. I'd change it to and thought that people believed "absolutely false narratives" about him, which is more indifferent. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I like your version far better than mine. Helps avoid appearance of WP:POV on an article that's both controversial and popular. DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have tweaked it slightly. Tate's statements about other people's beliefs are unfalsifiable, so this is a claim. Whether or not he truly thinks this is not relevant, and the cited source doesn't seem to think it's relevant. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"Claim" fits perfectly here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell, I don't think we are synthesizing by using "thought" when quoting his own words, i.e. his thoughts. Using "claimed" risks giving the impression of doubt. I didn't think this would be controversial. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:CLAIM. Using "thoughts" as a synonym for "words" is perfectly normal, conversational English, but in my opinion it fails WP:TONE because it does imply something a bit more subtle. At the end of the day, Tate is not reliable for information about other people, and that's the issue here. Tate is not qualified to say what "people" (whoever they are) believe anymore than we as editors can speculate on Tate's inner mind. Cited sources already cast doubt on this claim because reliable sources preface it by repeating Tate's own words and actions for context. These sources explain why people have been talking about him, and then Tate says those people are wrong or are motivated by malice. It's a subtle form of editorializing to imply that Tate is qualified to say what other people think. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly not my intention and I don't know if I'd interpret it that way, but if that's the impression it gives off, your version is obviously preferable. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You're good. This is really subtle stuff, and includes a lot of subjective judgement calls. I know it seems fussy, but I think changes like this help keep sight of why this information is being included in the article at all. Some news outlets include Tate's comments on legal or ethical grounds (per right of reply) so going by raw quantity can distort the larger picture. For example, if we cited a hundred articles that explained this controversy, most if not all of them also include a brief explanation of who Tate is and why he's newsworthy. Does that mean we also have to include every single variation of why he's noteworthy in the article, too? That kind of redundancy would damage the article and confuse readers. Likewise, just because most news outlets include a right of reply guideline of some kind doesn't mean we need to re-summarize every single claim Tate makes regarding his own innocence. That kind of thing potentially blurs the line between BLP and PR, especially when those claims don't actually address the accusations being made. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no preference between "claim" and thought"; I can see justifications for both. DFlhb (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading it in context, I have a slight preference for "claimed"; just "feels" better. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

MMA fights?

No mention of his mixed martial arts fights? Blahwikiblah (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a section called kickboxing that talks about his fights FrederalBacon (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked pretty hard for a RS that mentioned them but couldn't find a single one. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

His mma fights are on shedog.com very respectable source Blahwikiblah (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Also his (incomplete) kickboxing record is listed on Boxrec and should be available as well Blahwikiblah (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

His Sherdog profile only shows two fights other than the two discussed in the kickboxing section. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those are his two MMA fights. Sherdog keeps track of lots of fights, including fights of very much non-notable fighters. Unless those fights are discussed in some sort of detail in reliable secondary sources, I don't see why we should include them in prose. Both Sherdog and BoxRec are linked under Andrew Tate#External links, so readers can easily access his record that way. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Blahwikiblah, you've already made very similar points in this thread, so unless you can present additional sources that support the material's dueness or any other persuasive arguments for inclusion, there really is no need to bring this up again. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Better source for webcam claims

Found what looks like a better source for webcam claims. More reputable source than CNET and GQ at least (both should probably be replaced; I know GQ can be considered a WP:RS but it's more of a case-by-case basis, see the WP:RS bulletin board), and should allow us to flesh this out. Cnet really just restates claims from Tate's website. Also quote 17 is reused twice unnecessarily. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brothers-make-millions-using-webcam-26508739 DFlhb (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, CNET is generally considered reliable, Mirror is a tabloid with no-consensus. So we'd be removing a reliable source for a tabloid. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, just fyi, all green sources at RSP are only generally reliable, meaning individual sources can still be assessed on a case-by-case basis regardless of publication. However, technically, all sources are presumed reliable unless there are specific indicators that suggest otherwise or any criteria that excludes them from WP:RS. I'd avoid tabloids, which have a generally bad reputation when it comes to journalistic integrity, for potentially controversial BLP claims. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair to both; I didn't know the Mirror was a tabloid. DFlhb (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple of the UK tabloids do a really efficient job of making themselves appear to be legitimate journalism. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the article is mainly based on an interview that was given solely to the Mirror by the subject, I still think the source could be useful. I also found https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/andrew-tate-tiktok-instagram-ban-misogyny-b2149928.html which references that Mirror article and could itself be used. The Independent is considered WP:RS in the noticeboard discussions I looked at. DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want to add? The essentials seem to be covered already. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The wiki page says "fake sob stories to desperate men". I think "fake" and "desperate" are pretty clear WP:POV violations as is, as they're stated in encyclopedic voice.

1. "fake" should be put in quotes, as it references the source; maybe "fake sob stories" should be put in quotes entirely since it's a direct quote from Tate, according to the Independent.

2. "desperate" should be removed since it's not anywhere in either source.

3. "Webcam girls" is too informal and should be replaced with "webcam models", which is the actual dictionary term (some dictionaries list it as "cam models" but that's less clear).

4. The citation should be replaced with The Independent, since it's more comprehensive.

Here's the full passage from the Independent, for the record:

In an interview with The Mirror in March, Tate and his brother Tristan revealed they run an adult webcam business, which employs lingerie-clad models to have chat sessions with men.

During the chats, which are charged at $4 (£3.30) an hour, the models tell male callers about “fake sob stories”.

The brothers admitted that the operation was a “total scam”, but they are protected by two lines in their terms and conditions.

Tristan said: “One is broadcasting is ‘for entertainment purposes only’. That means if a model says she has a sick dog or a sick grandma it doesn’t have to be true. The next is that all cash given to models is ‘a voluntary sign of gratitude for their time broadcasting’.”

DFlhb (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No objections for my part. The citation doesn't have to be replaced tho; I will supplement it with the Independent article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Chess sentence

I just made an edit, but feel free to revert if you disagree with it. I'd like to check for consensus here:

The page said:

Tate learned to play chess at the age of five and competed in an adult tournament as a child, although his father withdrew him as soon as he lost games and became frustrated

Throast mentioned (→‎Early life: more chess info, don't know if this is due so anyone feel free to cut down) in his edit summary when adding that sentence. After checking the source I have 2 comments:

• The source says "During one adult tournament...", implying that he played in multiple tournaments (so the sentence should be changed to plural)
• The "withdrew him as soon as he lost games and became frustrated", in context, seems to somewhat WP:UNDUE to me (especially after the edit, since it implies that he withdrew from one of several tournaments)

I decided to make the edit before checking for consensus since the article didn't seem to match the source (singular over plural); regarding the second part of the sentence, my impression is that due to the change to plural, it doesn't make as much sense and feels slightly more WP:UNDUE. See:

Tate learned to play chess at the age of five and competed in adult tournaments as a child, although his father withdrew him from one after he lost 3 games and became frustrated

I'm inclined to remove it since it sounds like trivia and WP:GOSSIP. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty trivial. I was unsure about the material's dueness when I added it, so that's totally fine with me. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation

DFlhb, mentioning that the investigation was ongoing in April is superseded by the Romanian police saying that the investigation was ongoing in the summer. The Guardian article states, The Romanian authorities said last week that the investigation, later expanded to cover human trafficking and rape allegations, was ongoing.. The article is dated August 6, 2022, so "mid-2022" is certainly fair. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly fair, I hadn't noticed the discrepancy. I think we can change it back to "As of mid-2022", I'll update that. DFlhb (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, mentioning that no arrests were made seems kind of excessive. This is already clearly implied by omission and the fact that the investigation is, well, ongoing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; since DIICOT (that investigates organized crime, among other things) is involved, it would be normal for someone (or multiple people) to get arrested, and for an investigation to go on. And more generally, it's perfectly possible to be arrested without having been charged yet; or to be charged (but not convicted yet), and released on bail (which hasn't happened here as far as reliable sources go). There's enough subtleties to how the police operate in general, that I think articles should strive to clarify that for WP:BLP reasons. A DIICOT press release (https://www.diicot.ro/mass-media/3506-comunicat-de-presa-12-04-2022) implies (they weren't directly named) that the Tates were heard as "witnesses" rather than suspects (and therefore not arrested, which they could have otherwise been), but since it isn't stated explicitly I fell back on the Daily Beast article that states it explicitly. DFlhb (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the citation I added was also broken; I fixed it. To be clear, my additions were strictly from the Daily Beast article, no WP:OR. DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair. I remember removing the Daily Beast citation earlier due to the publication's uncertain reliability, but I guess it's fine to use here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree about using DB here, RSP specifically cautions using it relating to BLPs. If it was an uncontroversial person I’d say we might be able to, but I think Tate is too controversial to use DB. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I hear that. Do you know of a RS that supports this info? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought the romanian language reference included a mention of the fact that no one had been charged. I'll have to look at it again. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with you if this was about using DB as a source for an accusation, or any bound-to-be-disputed claims like "misogynist" in the lead, etc. But the DB is "no-consensus", not "generally unreliable", meaning it's case by case. And the previous consensus doesn't "caution using it relating to BLPs", just against "controversial statements of fact related to living persons" (i.e. using the DB as source that someone is a misogynist, for example). Here their claim is both uncontroversial, and is straightforward journalism work (asking the Romanian police for comment) as opposed to opinion. Given that the claim taken from the article is perfectly neutral, I see no reason to remove or replace the source. DFlhb (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What looks like "straightforward journalism work" can also be disguised as such. Unreliable sources embellish, downplay, and omit. The Daily Beast is obviously a marginal case evident by lack of consensus, so I do agree with Frederal Bacon that, if a more reliable source can be found, we should use that instead. Until then, I think it's fine to keep. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 08:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Urgent remove per WP:BLP

I just urgently removed a sentence due to WP:BLP, specifically:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

While going over the article and checking each source; I was absolutely convinced that Gândul's reliability had already been discussed in the talk page archives here, but it never was. The passage was added by an IP, initially with the DB as source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Tate&diff=prev&oldid=1084254643) After doing some more digging, I found that Gândul was bought by a notorious tabloid owner in 2019 (according to [1], [2]).

Gândul claims that its information comes from "sources close to the investigation". Even the Daily Beast (which as noted above isn't a reliable source and should be avoided for controversial BLP claims) doesn't repeat the claim as factual, but instead specifies "according to the report" every time information from Gândul is brought up. There has never been discussion on the WP:RS noticeboard regarding Gândul; I search both with and without accent. Due to their current ownership by a tabloid group, I think there is strong room for doubts regarding its use for a WP:BLP. I haven't found any other source that repeats the "Romanian woman" allegation, except the Daily Beast that can't be used for this claim as discussed above; so I removed it. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Another source-mismatch problem fixed

I've just changed DIICOT to "the police"; since if you check, Gândul, the Guardian, as well as DIICOT themselves (I know we can't cite DIICOT directly, nor should be cite Gândul, that's not my point): there's complete agreement among all three that the raid was done by the police on the orders of the Buftea Public Prosecutor's Office, and that the raid was neither done nor ordered by DIICOT. DIICOT later stepped in and took over the investigation. I don't believe DIICOT does raids, anyhow, they're an investigative agency.

I replaced the Gândul source (which is no longer necessary, see above) with the Guardian, which clearly states that he was raided "by police."

Frankly I'm surprised that this clear inaccuracy, where the sources aren't even vague or easy to misread, lasted so long. Obviously I'm not blaming anyone here whatsoever, I didn't catch it myself until today despite having gone over the sources a week ago already. But it's useful to always remember how easy it is to make mistakes, even on highly-viewed BLPs. DFlhb (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's that egregious of an error since the DIICOT was reportedly involved at some point. It probably slipped into the article because of a language barrier between the editor who added it and the Romanian source. You removed it, it's gone, and nobody has reverted you or challenged your edits in any way. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure; I didn't write this section as an attack on Wikipedia or its processes; more about status-quo bias where things that haven't been immediately reverted are later assumed to have either been checked thoroughly or to have been debated on the talk page. I have nothing bad to say about Wikipedia the concept, or its editors (the Foundation, sure; that's something else). DFlhb (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Far right?

How can you call all these people far-right in the social media section? Opinion very much? I mean, come on, what a shit-tier quality for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1906:ff00:dfa:d2f9:3d28:5d21 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

We can call them such because that's how they are commonly described in reliable sources. The WaPo article cited also supports the term "far-right". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to be strict in following Wikipedia guidelines (due to this page being BLP), then I think we should take out the second instance of "far-right."

The WaPo article says Tate's initial social media following was (at the minimum partly) far-right. It never states that Watson, Posobiec or Cernovich are far-right. The Wikipedia articles on 2 of these 3 do not describe them as far-right, it only describes them being associated with far-right figures and shows. I'm sure there's been long discussions on precisely what they can be called at the respective article talk pages. Throast's comment references specifically the lead sentence (MOS:ROLEBIO); but if editors of 2 of those 3 pages came to a consensus against the "far-right" label, then I think there needs to at least be consensus here before we can call them that.

The WP:BLP policy explicitly states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content", italics mine. i.e., Cernovich or Posobiec being linked to shows described as "far-right" in reliable sources is necessary but not sufficient for Wikipedia to consider them far-right, without reliable secondary sources making the link).

As a consequence I removed the second mention of "far-right" which isn't present in either WaPo (the tertiary source) or NBC (the secondary source). To be reinstated, the second mention should either be backed by a WP:RS, or attributed. The first mention is in the original source, and is perfectly appropriate under WP:RS. DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO is analogous to descriptions of people in articles other than their own, meaning if a ROLEBIO is sufficiently supported in the subject's article, it can be used to describe the subject in other articles. The 2/3 you mention are described as "alt-right" in their respective articles. Do you not consider alt-right ideology a subset of far-right ideology? To me, and dare I say to most, alt-right is to far-right as roses are to flowers. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m fine with “alt-right” being put back in. I’m not familiar enough with the movement to know whether they’re far-right or not.

I’m on mobile right now, but if you find any WP:RS making the link directly then feel free to put it back in. I’m more comfortable with the “alt-right” descriptor since it was the result of consensus. DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Using "far-right" as an umbrella term for "alt-right" should be uncontroversial (some sources: NYT, LA Times, Al Jazeera). However, we cannot use "alt-right" in place of "far-right" to describe all three people because 1/3 is described as the more general "far-right" rather than the more specific subset "alt-right". If the "alt-right" descriptor is well supported in the subjects' respective articles, we neither need to cite "alt-right" nor "far-right" in this article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of persuasion, the New Yorker describing Posobiec as "far-right", and NYT describing Cernovich as "far-right". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Good enough for me.

Also I wasn’t suggesting citing it in this article; just making sure it’s sufficiently supported as you said above. DFlhb (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)