Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Tate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Andrew tate)

This page has a bunch of lies

[edit]

Andrew Tate is not "far-right", whatever that means. He has never excirsized racial superiority online. Also, he described himself as a misogynist with sarcasm after being called a mysoginist multiple times by the media. The over-using of sources at the beggining shows the cherry-picking and framing in this page. I don’t like Andrew Tate, but lying or misleading on Wikipedia is not good. Hopefully this page gets redone. MicholIsUsed (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s cherry picking because the people who created this page wanted to paint a specific narrative and that’s easier to do using cherry-picked sentences from sources. Still didn’t adress the 'far-right' claim or the fact that him saying 'I’m a misogynist' in sarcasm when the media described him like this time and time before isn’t him saying 'I hate wommen'. I wonder why the page doesn’t quote him saying 'I absoleutly love wommen', he says that a lot and without sarcasm. Is that not cherry-picking? I never thought I’d be defending Andrew Tate. MicholIsUsed (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 'I love women' (by a misogynist) akin to 'I can't be racist, I have Black friends' (by a racist)?
As stated, Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say. Knitsey (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not actually say that Tate himself is far-right. The furthest it goes is in the lead when it says that Tate is "associated with far-right activists and ideologies" and in the § Views and influence section when it says that he "has ties to the far-right". The available sources suggest both of these statements are true. 〜 Askarion ✉ 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not associated to the far-right in any way. The far-right are ultra-nationalists, racists, usually anti-semites and anti-blacks. They also support authoritarianism, nativism, also 'ultra-conservativism', which Andrew always says (in a nutshell) 'these are the conditons I live in, you can live however you want' and he doesn’t even promote 'ultra-conservativism' on a personal level either - he brags about sleeping with hundreds of wommen, which is as far from ultra-conservativism as you get. Andrew Tate has never talked to a National Socialist or a Fascist online and doesn’t express their views, neither economically or politically. He is mixed-race, has never supported racism, anti-semitism or any of that bs. So, he isn’t far-right, not ascosiated with far-righties and has never supported the far-right. So, these 'reliable' sources are not so reliable. MicholIsUsed (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "here's my personal views on Andrew Tate and why he can't be associated with far-right figures" don't undo his documented associations with Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson, Jack Posobiec and other members of the far-right - all sourced in the article. On Wikipedia we go with what reliable sources say, not editor's personal analyses of the far-right. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he talked and agreed on some subjects with people having untraditional views, it doesn’t make him assosciated with the far-right, neither practically, nor in the general public. MicholIsUsed (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is just because he's associated with, agreed with, and promoted far-right ideologies, doesn't mean he's associated with the far-right? Reliable sources beg to differ on this, for good reason. [1][2][3][4] CNC (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right is indeed ridiculous, I'm not even sure he is considered right-wing --FMSky (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above this is about association with the far-right, not Tate's political views of being far-right. Even the right-leaning Telegraph see Tate has right-wing,[5], as does the left-leaning Independent.[6] I don't deny the content could be improved based on more recent sourcing, will work on that, but the content is very much verifiable. @FMSky Do you have any reliable sources that contradict Tate as being right-wing and associated with far-right ideologies, to add to the content? Some recent sourcing that's probably worth adding to the body for context sake as well: "While not explicitly far right, Tate’s messaging calls on the western “common man” to wake up, and he has shared far right propaganda, such as great replacement theory memes." [7] CNC (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In absence of reliable sources contradicting Tate being right-wing, associated with far-right ideologies and individuals, as well as promoting far-right propaganda, I've improved the sourcing and updated content. Thanks to all involved for motivating me to improve sourcing and update the content with the latest controversies, without you it wouldn't of happened :) CNC (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So last time I checked Tate was never described as far-right, but since the riots, he's achieved that description. Have therefore updated the body and the lead accordingly to reflect this new achievement based on multiple references describing Tate as both right-wing and far-right. As far as I can tell there is currently a balance between both descriptions based on RS, so this has otherwise been reflected. CNC (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot that being against illegal mass immigration is considered being far-right / neo-nazi these days, so yes it makes sense now -- FMSky (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, we both know it's not why he's described as far-right now. Spreading misinformation online about the Southport suspect, namely that he is a Muslim and/or immigrant , will likely get you that label these days, when you're amplifying far-right propaganda for a bunch of fascists. Even if setting fire to hotels housing migrants might not be considered "extreme right-wing" for some, even the right-wing papers think it's a bit much and not a good look either. Also, once you start spreading the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, then you're mingling a bit too much with the white nationalists aren't you? CNC (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is everybody alright? Those are very opinionated and thats great we are all entitled to it . I donot think that this is the place for all the hate and personal issues.
This should be a safe place for FACTS ONLY. 2603:80A0:401:F75E:4EE2:D947:A1C5:82C7 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In June 2023, all four were charged with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women"...... Complete misinformation!! They were arrested yes charged NO especially not all 4 of them!! Even Wikipedia is fake news now 36.255.115.1 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This far right nonsense is crazy. If you look back at Tate's Twitter/X account in 2023, his profile description said," 5 x boosted , Xe/Xim, Vice/BBC, BLM , Democrat, Vegan, Just Stop Oil, Climate change ! Biden 2024." You can view it here for proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20231009035713/https://twitter.com/Cobratate FloridaMan21 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

WP:RSPTWITTER self-description is not a reliable source per WP:TWITTER. CNC (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my remarks were unnecessary. FloridaMan21 01:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

[edit]
Themmajury (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I’d like to write about his kickboxing if u allow me

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

link to archive to full article for citation [26]

[edit]

The link to the "The Atlantic" link, citation 26,uses web.archive.org for archiving. but this archive doesn't contain the full article. this one does: https://archive.is/2I3W5 Im not afraid (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed the link. Cheers!
Cortador (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2024

[edit]

Change "has amassed 9,9 million followers on X" to "has amassed 10,1 million followers on X" Venis067 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done --FMSky (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a case of WP:BLUE. And if not, just Tate's account itself https://x.com/Cobratate --FMSky (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not a case of blue and Tate's account itself wouldn't be due in that context Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense --FMSky (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this considered out of date, does he have less than 9.9 million followers now or something? It doesn't say he has 9.9m followers, but that he has amassed that many (past tense). Dating this achievement is nonsense. CNC (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxing

[edit]

Hello I would like to add sourced information into his kickboxing career and record Alcapone211 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for Tristan Tate

[edit]

When searching Tristan Tate on Wikipedia it redirects to the article of Andrew Tate. But Tristan is a separate person and popular media influencer and deserves a separate article. In fact, a separate article for Tristan Tate is as important as Andrew Tate's article. So, let's make a separate article for Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate article was deleted at AfD in March 2024, that's why there is no article. See talk. CNC (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its an atypical close though, its extremely technical and does not preclude recreation with higher quality sources "This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: the close came down to sources, which isn't particularly atypical especially for a BLP. Has better sourcing emerged since the AFD? My recollection at the time was there there were lots of trivial mentions but no depth of coverage in RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The close (according to the closer) came down to WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, the coverage of the various trials is in-depth coverage in RS but much of it falls within this special BLP protection. This was essentially a TNT close on BLP grounds, it was no consensus after all not not a consensus to delete. WP:PERP in particular indicates that we could make a subpage for the court cases without making one for Tristan Tate specifically, so there are a few options here... Not just a stand-alone Tristan Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The close was definitively delete not no consensus. If no new, substantial sources are available since the closure then further discussion seems unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the entirety of the close: "The result was delete. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed." so you are clearly wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a delete closure, like I said. Not a no consensus closure. So no, I don't see anything that would result in me being "clearly wrong". I also (still) haven't seen any sources presented that would alter the outcome of that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation" and you don't seem to have offered an opinion on the options offered by the BLP page even through the closer mentions them explicitly, are we not supposed to follow WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT? You also appear to have been involved in the close, so you lack the objectivity to evaluate it... I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we now agree this was closed as delete, good. I was not involved in the close. I was involved in the discussion. Not that it matters. Anyways, since you're unable/unwilling to provide sources this appears to be a dead issue. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you contributed to the discussion then you are involved in the close, you appear to lack the objectivity to evaluate it which is why you are now attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "involved in the close" means. You don't get to choose who participates in a discussion. No one is "attacking" you. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theres an awful lot of aggression being directed my way by you if you do not mean to be attacking me. You've made this extremely personal and haven't actualy addressed policy or guideline here unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. If you have behavioral concerns move to my talk page, please, rather than distracting from my policy-based concerns that have been ignored thus far. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy based concerns have you raised which have been ignored? I will address them as best as I am able. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the 4th time: sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't lacking significant coverage, remember that all the stuff about the civil cases counts... Its only the criminal case coverage which doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get specific please? What specific secondary sources discuss Tristan Tate in depth and have come out since the last AFD, that might indicate that the subject now merits a stand-alone article? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they have needed to come out since the last AFD? It wasn't deleted for lack of coverage last time, it was deleted on a technicality. There is no consensus that the topic lacks the necessary coverage to be notable which would need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? BLP is a core content policy not a technicality. If there are no new sources since last time, then it's logical to assume that there still isn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was never a consensus that there wasn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to quote where you see that consensus in the closing statement, I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Most of the people voted to keep the article of Tristan Tate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). Still it was deleted. It seems undemocratic. Instead of deletion it could be sent to draft for further improvement. Tristan Tate is a notable online personality (social media influencer) along with his brother Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page, that's what it's there for. There is even a source list to work on, ie feel free to edit just leave a signature if you do. That's why I archived the discussion initially, as it has nothing directly to do with this page. CNC (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're discussing either a joint page for the brothers or breaking off the joint legal problems into their own article this is the right talk page. Please stop making these bold moves which you should know will be objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was that the other Tate brother's notability was entirely dependent on this one's... But from a quick google I think that they almost certainly are notable, much of the coverage of the two does treat them as an item ("the Tates" "the Tate brothers" etc) so the two ways I can see us going with this are deciding that they're best covered together on a joint Tate brothers page (which this more or less currently is) or making a main page for each brother and a combined one for the combined legal issues. Due to the immense amount of coverage we have I would have a hard time arguing that multiple pages aren't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: AfD nomination

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal affairs of the Tate brothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal affairs of the Tate brothers until a consensus is reached. CNC (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Tate&oldid=1255961111"