Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

'with most Britons aware of who he is.'

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

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" [1] "In the UK, 63% of Brits are familiar with Andrew Tate." [2]

Will add source to lead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stance section is incorrect

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Misogynist quote

Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion

@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)

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)

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)

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)

For reference, the summary of that painful interview [3]; 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)

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)

Reliable sources continue to describe him as a self-proclaimed misogynist, even after the interview. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Andrew Tate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Downplaying the phrasing found in reliable sources is not what neutrality is about. The BBC did not simply call Tate “masculine” but ‘masculine’ to an extreme extent. I can’t think of a better word for that than macho. —Showerlemon (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You might have a point here. "hyper-masucline" could well be translated into macho, based on my understanding of the term. At least based on the short description "Pride in exaggerated masculinity". If there is a reliable source to identify his pride in his hyper-masculinity, it could well be amended. "hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle" could otherwise replace the current description, but it would require inconvenient attribution (at least for the lead). Ideally there would be more sources than just the BBC to make these sorts of claims, or otherwise an RS for macho for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On searching for RS, there are enough descriptions of "macho" in there worth considering:

Question: Is it worth making a change for accuracy sake? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, using masculine as an adjective for Tate's extreme beliefs about masculinity and machismo is not only letting him get off the hook for the latter by using a much less harsh word, but also smearing masculinity—which isn’t a negative descriptor by itself—by conflating it with machismo and male chauvinism. —Showerlemon (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Have changed "promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle" to "promoting a hyper-macho view of masculinity". This comes from the references in BBC article "...drawn to his hyper-macho image" [4] and the statesman "...ultra-macho view of masculinity" [5]. Upon searching for the "ultra-luxurious" and "hyper-masculine" descriptions of him, it appears to be more of less solely from the BBC article referenced in body, rather than a widespread description of him, so have not included either in the lead as doesn't appear WP:DUE per MOS:LEADREL. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 and CommunityNotesContributor: Masculine aside, I suggested replacing ‘luxurious’ with ‘hedonism’ because luxurious by itself sounds like an awkward adjective to use for a person. BBC, of course, didn’the simply call him “luxurious” but suggested he promotes excess and opulence—hedonism seemed alright to me. Though, arguably, it has more of negative slant than ‘ultra-luxurious’ entailed (the opposite case of masculine–macho).

Maybe we can use “opulent” instead? It feels awkward to use just “luxurious” as an adjective for a person. —Showerlemon (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done The only reason "masculine" was changed to "macho" was because there are reliable sources for such contentious labels. We can't translate ultra-luxurious to hedonist or opulent without a lot of WP:OR. Please otherwise find reliable sources that describe his as such for content to be added to the body. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Andrew tate didnt rape or coerce any women to have sex. Your bias is showing. You're violating wikipedias Neutral policy. 2600:100F:B1B6:B5DD:0:36:DCD2:E401 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Tate raped or coerced women into sex, it states he's accused of such, and he denies the allegations. Based on the criminal investigations, this is factual and accurate. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)