Talk:Andrew Tate

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2024

Hello I would like to be involved with editing his kickboxing as a lot of details are missing. U creates a page called ayoub bourass a kickboxer who competes in glory, check it out and you’ll find Im credible. I’ve been in wiki for over a year I would like u to allow me to edit Andrew’s kickboxing. Thank you Imintheweedz (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello, Imintheweedz. This page is currently extended-confirmed protected meaning that only accounts which are 30 days old with 500 edits may edit it. If you would like a specific edit to be made open a new request, specify where in the article you want to change things, include the explicit prose to add/edit/delete, and any reliable sources which may be needed for your changes. —Sirdog (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Hello, I was excited to see that an article on such a controversial character had achieved GA, which presumably means it meets GA criteria 4: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". However after reading a random section of the article ("Hustler's University" I am concerned that this may not be the case:

• This allowed Tate to get around bans on a number of social media platforms. The videos often attracted controversy as the result of misogynistic and violent commentary contained in them: The characterisation that Tate did this, intentionally or not, to "get around" bans is not supported by the source, and even if it was, it would require attribution at it would be opinion. "misogynistic and violent commentary contained in them" is an opinion of activist groups quoted in the article, not even an opinion of the Guardian themselves, and even if it was, it would still require attribution. This is important because supporters of Tate will often argue that he is not misogynistic, so stating the controversial idea as a fact is as far from neutral as you can get.
• After Hustler's University shut down, Tate launched a rebranded version of it called "The Real World" in October 2022: The first source does not support that it was a "rebranded version of it", and even if it did, that would be an opinion requiring attribution. The second source seems to not support any of the statement at all. Additionally, the first source is clearly biased, containing statements like "The Real World program will be available to students of Hustler's University, where thousands have found untold success".
• Another channel sharing the content had gained nearly 300 million views after bypassing social media bans using affiliate marketing schemes: The source says this was an opinionated characterisation of Tate's activity, it does not describe the "other channel". Once again, it is certainly not fact, and even the source itself attributes it.

Looking at the GA review, it is concerning that neutrality was not mentioned at all, and only three references were spot checked which is extremely low in my opinion for such a long and controversial article. I hesitate to open a GAR due to how recently this was passed, and I have not had time to read the full article, and this is not my area of expertise. Courtesy pinging: @CommunityNotesContributor, @DFlhb, @750h+. It is a wonderful world (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world, thanks for picking up on these, it's a very acute assessment of the content in question. See changes made diffs.

1. Agree, definitely reads as OR to me. I also don't see benefit of including those types of opinions in that section, because instead it's documented in reception and social media already which is where it belongs (with more specifics and details), and where it is appropriately attributed. It was also missing the observer source I realise that contained the related content, so have fixed that.
2. It looks like there was a cite placement oversight here. It was included at the end of the paragraph to comply with guidelines, even if failed to follow the MOS status quo by being placed at the end of the sentence (as per usual). Anyway, it's the independent describing the rebranding see "relaunched again" after documenting past rebrandings, which I don't believe requires attribution personally as a secondary source, even if not opposed to it being added. The gloabnewswire source (previously yahoo sync) looks borderline primary to me, meaning the inclusion of such opinions in this case helps to present necessary pov. This is similar to the next section war room, where Tate's opinion is in a quotebox to provide both POV (otherwise it'd be one-sided pov). If it were the primary source describing a rebranding then granted I would agree that's borderline opinion/marketing, but a newsorg doing so is a neutral assessment imo. If these opinions/statements of Tate are not included, then we risk presenting only one side of the story.
3. Agree the second part makes another OR connection between bypassing bans and affiliate marketing, where no such link is described. I've removed that claim and otherwise attributed the remainder, so hopefully that resolves any issues there as well.

As for the GA from 9 months ago, I did think it was a bit swift, although personally had more reservations of the criminal investigations section that I've had less involvement with, and is even more of a BLP-minefield than this article on it's own. With that content now split to Legal affairs of the Tate brothers, the article is overall probably in better shape for it. If you feel the article should undergo a GA review then certainly not opposed if there are more errors to correct or content to improve. CNC (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey CNC, thanks for being willing to work through these concerns. To see if the issue is more systematic, I did a quick check of parts of another section, The War Room:

• Issue with MOS:CLAIM
• Summarising "the BBC's investigation found that... "Iggy Semmelweiss" appears to be the War Room's true leader and intellectual driving force" as "The alleged leader of the group" is inappropriate attribution and goes against MOS:ALLEGED. This report should be placed in the context of other reporting to avoid giving undue weight
• "costing $8,000" per annum.
• "appears to have met Andrew Tate around 2018" does not verify "met Tate in 2018". Way more certain than the source, irresponsibly so.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems as though the issue is more systematic, so further discussion should probably be done in a GAR. It is a wonderful world (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right the "met Tate in 2018" is certainty not accurate per source, have amended. Thanks for that.

Per the source "appears to be the War Room's true leader" [1] and "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined" per ALLEGED; alleged appears appropriate here, as it is an undetermined claim, unlike others that are made. But I also think there are better words to represent this so made a couple of changes, as well as other MOS:CLAIM based. I otherwise think it's maybe more questionable whether this claim is left in the article at all based on WP:SUSPECT. Anyway, for now I've led with the description of senior member from bellingcat, followed by the vaguer attributed assertions from BBC.

Otherwise while Bellingcat provides more info on the accused, they don't appear to confirm the claim that he is the leader (singular) of the group, only his involvement. Instead they reference him at no.2 rather than at no.1, and for whatever reason Joule Sullivan isn't even mentioned which certainly lacks DUE weight in the article. CNC (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the use of words such as "claim", "accused", and "allegedly", it becomes clear that WP:SUSPECT applies to these undetermined assertions. The context matters as war group has specifically been accused of criminal activity by BBC, and their allegations is part a criminal investigation, so insinuating that someone is their leader, would be suggesting a person has committed a crime, and thus be a BLPVIO. This is precisely why it's not written in the same wikivoice language as other statements of fact. If you disagree this point would be best taken to BLP noticeboard. CNC (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CommunityNotesContributor, thank you for fixing these. Here are some further comments:

1. I think you did a great job of fixing this. No further concerns.
2. I'm fine with all the sources staying, and don't want to cut out any opinions in this case. I do insist on either attributing the word "rebranding" or changing it to "similar product" though. "rebranding" connotes the idea that the content was not changed at all. Either The Independent is using the similar term "relaunched" to promote this idea and make it seem more like a scam, or they have researched in depth and found that the content is identical. I suspect the former is more likely given the lack of evidence provided, lack of elaboration on the point and the PoV of the article being against Tate. If further reliable sourcing supported the latter, I would have no issue not attributing.
3. Your edit fixed most the problem, I just edited to reword it a bit, to make it clearer and tweaked the wording slightly for neutrality. I see no problems here now, but would appreciate if you gave my rewording a read to ensure I am not missing anything.

It is a wonderful world (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine. It's different how I would of worded, but I don't see a major issue with it. I'm never convinced we need to be attributing "estimates" to researches, when it's stated as a calculation, and instead I think it should be avoided. An estimate is often a less accurate than a calculation, so unless the sources specifies that, we should be avoiding imo. But this is semantics really, as regardless of the wording, the reader will almost certainly understand it's an estimate anyway. Otherwise whether the wording "relaunched" or "rebranded" to me is somewhat semantics in that sentence. The source implies rebranding, and to "suspect the former" is not an OR argument I'd run with. But if in doubt, the source-wording is preferred, ie that of relaunched, so will change. CNC (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Realise I missed "suggested" at the top of the source, so I believe this would be more accurate attribution than "estimated". The use of describing it as an estimate also fits better with YT response that is a must have. CNC (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with these changes, and happy to avoid quibbling over minor details. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

Can someone with extended please fulfil these two requests 1. Change the opening of the second paragraph from

• "Tate first began to kickbox in 2005, winning several kickboxing titles in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, he appeared on the British reality series Big Brother, but was removed, as he was the suspect in an open rape investigation in the United Kingdom."

to

• "From 2005, Tate began his kickboxing career in England, winning several kickboxing titles in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, he appeared on the British reality series Big Brother, but was removed, as he was the suspect in an open rape investigation by the UK government."

I believe this is better since the lead makes it unclear which country his career started and can only be cleared up by a single short sentence in the generally short early life section which is overbloated with blue links. It also clears up the timeline of where he was living prior to KickBoxing which is related to the second request

2 is that the year the brothers mother moved them to England (1997) be mentioned. Ive found a source by the independent which can be used (it's generally trust worthy from what I can remember). The second source is one that is used by the article for his father Source by:

• independent[2]

Shabazz, Daaim (2017). Triple Exclam!!! The Life and Games of Emory Tate, Chess Warrior. Chess Drum. ISBN 978-0998118093. (source used in the Emory Tate article). AssanEcho (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AssanEcho, I agree these changes generally improve the article, so have made them. I didn't include the bit about the rape investigation being by the UK government, since that wasn't supported by the body, and I didn't add the Emory Tate source since I think The Independent source was enough. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

By removing "in the United Kingdom" I think you've removed a critical part of summary though, as there are currently two open criminal investigations for rape in different countries, and this is closely related to the UK case that was effectively re-opened. It also drops the context of the following sentence per tag placement "The investigation was later dropped, but Tate was subject to an extradition request for rape charges in 2024". Including his boxing career starting in England is useful, but doesn't suggest the investigation was based in the UK either, nor which country the extradition request was from. When summarised in the OPEN where different investigations are based, I think it's also best to reference that in the lead where elaborated upon as well. CNC (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point, it is important. I removed it because it is not supported by the body. A source needs to be found to include this information in the body which can in turn support the lead. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's summarising the opening sentence of "Criminal investigations and civil cases", the CPS being the prosecution service in the UK, and the last sentence of Big Brother. Anyway, to avoid ambiguity I've added Hertfordshire Constabulary to Big Brother section, if it's apparently not clear it's referring to his first arrest (which I can sort of see ish). Ideally in future, instead of removing non-contentious content from the lead, use so that improvements can be made. CNC (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the suggestion. I didn't really realise it was so important since I'm not very familiar with the subject. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: Male critics of feminism

It is no secret that Tate opposes feminism, would this category be acceptable? Thermicknight7 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with the caveat that his opposition to feminism is referenced in the article, as at the moment I don't see it. It looks like the sourcing is there, even if a bit thin ironically. It seems like most RS don't reference him as being "anti-feminist", but rather "hyper-masculine" or "toxic masculinity". It's not that I think it'd be OR per say, but rather it would help improve the article to add such details. CNC (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)