Talk:Andrew Tate

Edit- Appeal

As someone who believes in fairness no matter their gender, sexual orientation, race, disability and others, I think it would be wise to not judge a book by its cover. Andrew Tate definitely said some socially-penetrating comments that are without a doubt insensitive and controversial. That we can all agree on. Is Andrew Tate a misogynist? Well, many news outlets have picked up on the fact that his material is. There seems to be consensus. Albeit, Andrew Tate did NOT describe himself as a misogynist directly. This is what seems to be bothering many people in this thread. I ask the editors that may be to change the line to "widely described as a misogynist", as it is more factual and also does not change the overall perception of Andrew Tate's dangerous rhetoric. FriendlyNeighborhoodDemocraticSocialist (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that many, many reliable sources characterize Tate as a "self-described misogynist", including but not limited to: The Washington Post, The Independent, Reuters, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, Chicago Tribune, Vox, The Hollywood Reporter, National Public Radio, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. When so many reliable sources use this exact phrasing, it allows Wikipedia to do so as well, even within BLP guidelines and even if the information isn't true. We've experimented with other phrases before (e.g. "widely described as misogynist", "Tate's misogynistic commentary", "often labeled as misogynist"), but there's always been pushback whenever alterations are made and "self-described misogynist" is the phrasing the current consensus favors. There's an (ongoing?) discussion above to change the consensus, as there often seem to be here, but so far the consensus remains intact. — Askarion ✉ 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's the editors' jobs to worry about pushback. Pushback from whom? It's rather vague and I would appreciate a more thorough explanation on this phenomenon. The search for integrity is what should preoccupy the editors. When one media source reuses and rehashes segments from this man to form a perception of him, you start asking questions when that one segment doesn't represent the full picture. Saying "self-described misogynist" is not only dangerous, it is entirely misrepresenting the behavior of Andrew Tate. I would place myself in the camp to say that it is too lenient, and it gives credence to the belief that his behavior is only self-reprimanding. Saying, as it has been before, that he "widely described as a misogynist", doesn't allow for much subjectivity. It is an objective claim based on the actions and words of Andrew Tate, as reported on by the media. Again, I ask that this line be reconsidered, as it leads to 1) confusion, 2) misrepresentation, and 3) a subjective claim to an otherwise objective reality. FriendlyNeighborhoodDemocraticSocialist (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

By pushback, I meant from other editors, to clarify. The word "misogynist" in the lead is probably the most debated word in the entire article as far as talk page discussions go. For a time, he was described as "allegedly misogynist", which became "widely described as misogynist", which became "Tate's misogynist commentary" by September, the last of which stuck for a while. It was challenged in November but was ultimately kept intact. It was challenged again in January and was kept again, but a few days later it was changed to the "self-described misogynist" wording that is still there today. In short, consensus is fluid and the way the article is worded today is definitely not etched in stone. The "self-described misogynist" wording gets debated a lot, but it's supported by the sourcing, so there's no issue. There might be merit in going back to the "widely described as misogynist" wording, but input from other editors would probably be needed first. I'm personally neutral on it; "self-described misogynist" and "widely described as misogynist" are both accurate and supported by reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. — Askarion ✉ 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another failed appeal on 03/14

Here is the source Tanline666 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't strike me as reliable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The failed appeal got covered in RS. I've added it to the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Health question grammar

Can someone please update: "...sparking online rumors on if he has lung cancer." to: "...sparking online rumors related to whether he has lung cancer." BurntSynapse (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Easier to read. Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

His religion

He became Christian again either in 2019 or 2020 not in early 2022 Truthwrites (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

provide a reliable source to support your statement. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Kickboxing retirement

I've listened to Tate give 3 different reasons for retiring. 1). Injuries and past surgeries to his eye or eyes including detached retina. 2) Time spent training vs potential pay for winning wasn't worth it. 3) Car accident caused a shoulder injury.

It's not clear if Tate can be considered a reliable source on his own life. A journalist could look into this more and attempt to verify. Technophant (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Technophant (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)