Talk:Andrew Tate

Andrew Tate is 6'1"

Andrew Tate is 6'1", that's what all the most reliable sources and his past kickboxing career data indicates https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19442356/andrew-tate-height/ https://www.sportsmanor.com/boxing-jake-paul-vs-andrew-tate-size-height-and-weight-difference-between-the-two-rivals/ https://footballpink.net/jake-paul-vs-andrew-tate/

If that wasn't enough, here's his face off with Jake Paul (6'1") where they're roughly the same height, and Andrew has at best half an inch on Jake: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kiAzwBk52T8 Pol Cəl (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources (unfortunately); and Tate does appear taller in that video (which would be WP:OR anyway) DFlhb (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the sources listed on the page and tell me if they're more reliable than the ones I posted. Also, they don't appear to be 2 inches apart. Their height difference is much smaller than that. Pol Cəl (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's a video from another angle, so you can see that their height difference is clearly way less than even a single inch.

https://www.tiktok.com/@alphamaleslifestyle/video/7167040472098163973?_t=1 Pol Cəl (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

... where they are wearing shoes. If we're going to go by WP:OR and online videos, then here's a video of Tate fighting Franci Grajš, who is 6 foot 3, where both are clearly the same height. DFlhb (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrew has very bad posture AkaneVento (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Big Brother Removal

Should the article not take this newly released information into account? https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/andrew-tate-kicked-off-big-brother-rape-investigation-1234656041/ D.C.Rigate (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait for more reliable sourcing; Vice and Rolling Stone are not it. Shouldn't take too long. DFlhb (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fight name

Pinging @RossButsy and @TatesTopG. Tate's fighting name was indeed "King Cobra", not "Cobra" (see [1] and [2] for example). This nickname is also supported by Sherdog and Tapology, and can be heard yelled by announcers in various fight videos when he's introduced. DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A title of a YouTube video isn’t a reliable source. If his various social media handles are CobraTate and not King cobra tate then the former suffices. RossButsy (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Interpreting his social media handle in this way seems like WP:SYNTH. I'll note that Luton on Sunday, June 12, 2011, page 67, says: "Andrew 'King Cobra’ Tate knocked out Jean-Luc Benoit to win the world ISKA light heavyweight title on home soil last Sunday." I was also not referring to YT titles, but to their contents, to show that there is no reason to doubt secondary sources are accurate for this claim. DFlhb (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

As a fighter he was King Cobra and that's all. I can confirm. .karellian-24 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Nationality

Why is "American-British" still being used? The term can't be used as it goes against guidelines for WP:CONTEXTBIO regarding a subject's nationality. It even mentions this in the article in the case of Isaac Asimov, as "Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Russian-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance."

I've made several edits meaning to fix this but the reasoning given for reverting them is that it makes the sentences "clunkier", even though it is meant to be edited to follow guidelines, and that there is a total of 4 characters changed. So why exactly are the reversions being made? SpyroeBM (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In Tate's case, he legally holds both nationalities; it is not an ethnicity, nor a statement of his origin. DFlhb (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Vice is a serious provider?

Exclusive: Andrew Tate Was Arrested on Suspicion of Rape in the UK in 2015 .karellian-24 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, transcripts from the brothers' file should be published?

Digi 24 is a reliable newspaper but I don't know what to say. https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/stenograme-din-dosarul-fratilor-tate-facute-publice-cei-doi-si-ar-fi-obligat-victimele-sa-isi-tatueze-numele-lor-2207105

Realitatea TV exclusively revealed other transcripts. https://www.realitatea.net/stiri/justitie/dezvaluiri-bomba-stenograme-cu-fratii-tate-cum-ademeneau-fetele-voi-fi-ultimul-barbat-din-viata-ta_63b6f6355c0b76331439de42 Realitatea TV is not a very serious channel, at the level of Digi 24, it is more like Fox in America. But the article is also picked up by HotNews, a serious newspaper (in this article, Hotnews puts the transcripts from Digi 24 and Realitatea TV on an equal footing). Both are national. https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-26006796-odata-esti-mea-vei-mea-pentru-totdeauna-stenograme-din-dosarul-fratilor-andrew-tristan-tate.htm

.karellian-24 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The transcripts seem authentic, but we can't source things directly to them due to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Is there anything mentioned in there that you think should be included? We could try to find secondary sources for those claims. DFlhb (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it fair to mention that the daughter of a TV mogul and former member of the Romanian parliament accused Andrew Tate of luring minors?

The national and reliable newspaper Adevărul took over the article written by this girl, now 19 years old, in a lesser known newspaper. Sources:

https://adevarul.ro/showbiz/vedete/andrew-tate-a-abordat-o-si-pe-fiica-lui-cozmin-2231663.html Full https://solidnews.ro/alte-stiri/2022/12/31/scandalul-telenovela-fratilor-tate-doua-certitudini-si-doua-intrebari-experienta-mea-cu-unul-dintre-ei/

Her father also confirms the story. .karellian-24 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Tate said on a podcast: “The reason 18 and 19-year-olds are more attractive than 25-year-olds is because they’ve been through less d***.”, according to The Independent. Andrew Tate denies comments on teenage women being more attractive as 'misogyny

.karellian-24 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems undue unless WP:RS confirm that he knew she was 16, and that it went beyond Instagram DMs (neither of which are alleged in the linked piece). There's also the problem that the Adevarul piece is a straight republishing of an identical article on Click.ro, a notorious tabloid, with no analysis or further journalistic work (I'll note that Adevarul and tabloid Click.ro have the same owner). DFlhb (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't modify the article because it is protected, so please do it instead of me

Wikipedia:SEALIONing from a Wp:spa; you can’t complain about neutrality and then throw in baseless claims of “radical leftism” Dronebogus (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"A self-described misogynist, Tate's controversial commentary has resulted in his suspension from several social media platforms.", this has a lot of problems and needs to be fixed. The "self-described mysoginist" shouldn't be there at all, it's ok to in someway point that a view that a lot of people have of him is that he is mysoginistic. It's also incorrect, he one time said he was a mysoginist and sexist in a podcast (A bit out of context bud he did) but "self described" doesn't make sense, if you had to write it, you should put it as "One time in a podcast Tate said he is a mysoginist" as you could put "One time in a podcast Tate said he is not a mysoginist" Saying that he got banned from social media platform because of his commentary is a non neutral point of view, a neutral point of view would be "Andrew got spendend from social media platforms, spokepersone of the company said it was because of hate speech etc" It should also be added that at the time there was a boom in popolarity, and his google searches from google trends were higher than world wide politicians, and there was a strong campaign and protest to deplatform him I would rewrite it like this: In August 2022, while in a sudden boom of popularity in Google searches and views, Andrew Tate got suspended (Or blacklisted) from major social media platforms following a strong outcry over his message, saying that it is "Extremely misogynistic" and "Harmful to the young generation of men" It would also be worth somehow noting that those tech platforms that banned him are radically leftist AkaneVento (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC) The sources that were used for this sentence are reliable. In case you think that you have better ones, provide them here. Just sharing your own opinion without stating other sources is not enough. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC) What is written there is so bad that it surprises me it is even there. You can't put "A self-described misogynist" just because in the article it is written that he is "A self-described misogynist". A self-described misogynist means that he universally describes himself as a misogynist, which will always be non-neutral. You could say, as they did in this source https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/andrew-tate-final-message-banned-b2151544.html or this https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/21/andrew-tate-tiktok-instagram/ that one time he described himself as a misogynist (As its written below in social media presence). As i have said before, that shouldn't be there anyway, writing that Andrew in one podcast said "I am an absolute misogynist, and i am absolutely sexist" doesn't add anything to that part of the article. Saying that his "Commentary is misogynistic" and it is what cause him a ban on social media platforms 1: Is completely non-neutral, a neutral statement would be "in August 2022, Tate was banned on four more major social media platforms: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. These platforms indicated that Tate’s misogynistic comments violated their hate speech policies." 2: "Meta said it had removed the kickboxing star from its platforms for violating its policies on dangerous organisations and individuals" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913 so they did not even claim it was because of his misogyni In August 2022, Andrew Tate got banned from four major social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok and YouTube, following a campaign to deplatform him. The ban has been applauded by advocacy groups, including Hope not Hate, White Ribbon Campaign and Rape Crisis England and Wales, commonly stating that his commentary is "Extremely misogynistic" and "Harmful to the young generation of men" Here are all the sources for this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2022/08/19/now-tiktok-investigating-ex-kickboxerinfluencer-andrew-tate-after-instagram-and-facebook-banned-him/?sh=482dfdab23c8 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/andrew-tate-banned-instagram-facebook-1234578232/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/21/andrew-tate-tiktok-instagram/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/youtube-bans-andrew-tate-over-sexist-remarks-still-on-twitch AkaneVento (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC) It would defeat the purpose of an article's lead section to restate information that can be found later in the article. For each suspension/ban of one of Tate's accounts, a company statement is linked explaining their bans under the "Bans" section of the article. To write them all out in the lead, where it can be found later down the page, would be a little redundant. We used to list the platforms he was banned from in the lead ("... including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok"), but we don't anymore; I'd support adding that short list back to the lead, personally. Askarion ✉ 14:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC) If you want to write it in a better way you can AkaneVento (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC) It's very good in some way to note that a lot of people and organizations described him as misygonist, but i just thought the way that it's written can be improved AkaneVento (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC) "Radically leftist" would be a massively unencyclopedic opinion; we obviously can't include that. As for how to describe him, I thought the new compromise wording would spawn fewer talk page arguments; guess that wasn't the case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ DFlhb (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Further clarification/s

In the Human trafficking section it should be mentioned the arrest in April regards the same investigation as the current one. The Tates were released pending further investigation which has been confirmed at the time by the DIICOT spokeswoman. [DIICOT press release 29/12/2022] Tate has also been charged with rape as well as human trafficking and forming an organized crime group. [Ref 12 BBC]

And the term "mansion" is not entirely accurate. It is a converted warehouse, chosen purposefully by the perpetrator because of its former use as a shooting range, and strangely somehow, gives the current owner the right to carry weapons on the premises. This is in contrast with all other private homes in Romania, guns are generally not allowed and they must be stored securely if the owner has a licence. From all the reporting available this seems to be his "main residence" in Romania among the network of addresses searched by the authorities, so I suggest describing it as such instead of "Tate's Pipera, Voluntari, Bucharest mansion". Keshetsven (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The rape charge was already addressed in Talk:Andrew_Tate/Archive_6#Rape_charge, is incorrect, and was more correctly stated in later reporting; see WP:RSBREAKING for context. The current wording in our article is both more precise and more accurate.

chosen purposefully by the perpetrator because of its former use as a shooting range also appears factually false, and "perpetrator" is a WP:BLP violation. Tate has claimed, on social media, that he registered the property as a shooting range. As far as I know, we have zero indication that this is true. And no one, neither Tate nor reliable sources, claims the property was a shooting range before his purchase. But all of this is besides the point, because I don't see what it has to do with the article. DFlhb (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The rape change is going to be uncovered later, I accept that the wording is more accurate for now.

Second point was actually about wording around his Pipera mansion. Because "Pipera, Voluntari Bucharest mansion" is a very confusing description. The quoted text in green is part of my opinion, Talk Pages should allow discussion about wording in the article not police the wording in the talk page.

Also there is an update about his now 15 cars and 10 properties seized my the state. The reporting was done by the Associated Press. Should be reliable enough. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/romania-seizes-cars-tate-case-court-week-96266836

Keshetsven (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not policing your wording, I just don't see what a shooting range had to do with anything (though if you're referring to "perpetrator", see WP:BLPTALK). Will add the AP stuff, thanks. DFlhb (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Keshetsven I've addressed your proposal with my recent edit. DFlhb (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work 👍. Much more readable now. Keshetsven (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Love to hear it! DFlhb (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Block-evading sock TatesTopG

The block-evading sock TatesTopG (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits to this page [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please check these edits and manually revert where necessary per WP:EVADE. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! Thank you DFlhb (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

All reverted now. RossButsy (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

On Romanian sources

It seems I was wrong to distrust Gândul as a source. BRAT.ro, an independent auditor, classifies them as "general news" rather than as a tabloid. I dug deeper, and many of their journalists have pretty solid resumés; it's also been quoted a fair bit without reservations (WP:UBO).

(I'll note that User:.karellian-24, who is Romanian, also disagreed on it being a tabloid).

I propose we use BRAT.ro to assess Romanian sources' general reliability. Though we should likely be slightly more careful, per the studies I linked previously, which show that journalistic standards are sometimes a little inconsistent among many Romanian outlets (even established newspapers). DFlhb (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Tate and Atheism

I'd like the add a sentence in the personal life section, after the sentence about his tithing to the Romanian Orthodox Church, something along the lines of "Tate later identified as atheist.". I believe it's due because some of his louder comments on the Internet have been in favor of atheism, and he supposedly identified as atheist for years and years during the height of his popularity. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source, though, or any sources, honestly. Most of the results for "Andrew Tate" + "atheist" yield low quality reuploads from podcasts, as well as information about a book called "The New Atheist Novel" by someone also named Andrew Tate (I sincerely doubt it's the same Andrew Tate, though.. unless?). Are there any reliable sources that mention Tate being atheist? Or one we're already using, perhaps? Askarion ✉ 20:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Times, January 11, 2023:

He told followers last year: “I am no longer an atheist. I am an orthodox Christian. For that reason, I go to church twice a week.” He allegedly claimed to donate more than £16,000 a month to the Romanian Orthodox Church.[8]

From what I gather: atheist until maybe late 2021/early 2022 (depending on how accurate The Times is with dates), then identified as an Orthodox Christian, and in late 2022 converted to Islam. (Novel's not him though). DFlhb (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

British English

This article should use British English. Tate began his television, business, and kickboxing careers in the UK. He consistently speaks in British English and was originally only known in the UK. Not to mention sources covering his December 2022 arrest describe him as a Briton or a British citizen. There is no reason why the lede should say “organized crime” instead of “organised”. Asperthrow (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Support this change. He also consistently tweets with British spelling ("-ised"). DFlhb (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixing mistakes and typos

In the Criminal investigation section, 2015 British investigation paragraph, in one of the first lines it says "in the England" while it should obviously be "in England".

Also, the 2015 subsection should probably come before the 2022 one. Pol Cəl (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling in first paragraph

In the first paragraph, second sentence: "...promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxuious lifestyle".

Change to "ultra-luxurious" if there is any interest in spelling words correctly on this subject. Beadbop (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. DFlhb (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

War room

@Abobeck11: feel free to find a reliable source about said war room and not one that says “the details of what actually occurs inside the program are unknown” since you claim it’s a major source of income. RossButsy (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He's claimed in several podcasts that he has two major online ventures, Hustler's University and the War Room, which has about 2000 members. 2000 members times around $5000 each is $10 million. There may not be sources to detail what happens in the War Room, but that doesn't mean its mere existence can't be mentioned in the article.Abobeck11 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So find a source for that then otherwise it shouldn’t be included. RossButsy (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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. And since the numbers you’re mentioning are contentious then this discussion is over as far as I’m concerned. RossButsy (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He says it in this podcast at around the 1:30:30 mark: [9]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lPiBKpTvjc&t=5423&ab_channel=EntrepreneursSpeach. So it could be included as long as it's clear it's only "self-proclaimed" or "according to Tate himself". Abobeck11 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No YouTube links. The onus is on YOU to find a proper source for what you want included. You should know all this by now considering how long you’ve been editing. RossButsy (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Then use the article from Newsweek like I originally provided and don't provide the numbers. Abobeck11 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That source isn’t sufficient. Whole reason why I reverted you. You want it in the article so YOU find the source for it. RossButsy (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe you could've said that in the first place instead of reverting me with no explanation. Also it's only an unreliable source because YOU decided it is. Per WP:NEWSWEEK, the source is to be evaluated for content on a case-by-case basis in an open discussion. There's also an article from AP that talks about it: [10]https://apnews.com/article/romania-government-bucharest-business-crime-3458065c0350ec217a21c627f725272c. Abobeck11 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any other users engaging in discourse. I gave you the option of finding a source and you can’t find one so I was right. The source ISN’T a good one, you paid no attention to read the article clearly and just picked the first one you could find. It’s just conjecture and tabloid speculation about something that hasn’t got near as much coverage as his hustlers university. RossButsy (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

AP is a credible source. Perhaps give other users a chance to engage in discourse, it has been 2 hours.Abobeck11 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see anything in AP about the war room having 2000 members which you say is it’s membership. RossButsy (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware. I'm not including that in the article. Like I said, all I wanted to do is add the fact that the War Room exists.Abobeck11 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Taliban support and Pimps category

I wonder if it’s worth mentioning that the Taliban reportedly expressed support for Andrew Tate, given that he is a Muslim convert and they think Western men “need” him due to allegedly being oppressed by feminists. [11]. Besides Tate’s article, another place where it might be worth adding would be the article on Sameera Khan, if it gets restored (I created it recently but another editor unilaterally deleted it without seeking consensus). Khan is the individual who reportedly persuaded the Taliban to support Tate.

On a different note, should this article be added to “Category: Pimps”? Tate has boasted about how many of his girlfriends were also his employees, and that he was the one who got them into the webcam business (and then took a cut of the money they got from making videos, because “their body belongs to him”). In other words, he has openly admitted to being, by definition, a pimp (even if he claims he didn’t violate any laws while doing so). I wonder if that is sufficient grounds for inclusion in the category. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and if I might add, Tate has expressed support for the Taliban, saying something along the lines that it's good to see an 'underdog' beat imperialist [Western] powers. He also said the same about ISIS, refusing to condemn them. I think we can infer his reasons for converting to Islam had strongly to do with his attraction to these violent groups that oppress women. A report detailed how some of the 'Muslim' converts who joined ISIS/Taliban, never even read the Quran or cared to know about Islamic theology, and they just were attracted to the violence of these groups. User6619018899273 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, tabloid gossip. RossButsy (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The first is undue; there's a reason Newsweek was reclassified as WP:MREL after 2013.

For categories, see WP:OVERCAT, WP:CATDEF, and WP:COPDEF; Wikipedia categories are used for defining characteristics, as defined by reliable sources; not to list a person's attribute (especially not based on WP:OR). DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)