Talk:Andrew Tate

Andrew Tate was raised by a black father and is called "mixed". Barack Obama wasn't raised by his black father and is called "African-American".

I am disturbed by this discrepancy and it almost seems like it is intentional and political. I'd like to add that I am noting whether their fathers were present to show that arguably more "blackness" was imparted to Tate, not to make a joke about the presence/absence of black fathers. Andrew Tate has called himself half African-American (Source: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/andrew-tate-claims-he-is-being-targeted-as-a-person-of-color-1900318/) and here we are letting some hit piece writer in the Atlantic define his race. This is beyond fucked up. Regardless of what you think of this guy, you shouldn't let others define him, especially when it's at odds with what he says he is. Look at how we treat malicious misgendering. This needs to be fixed. I'd like to add that Barack Obama said he was "black" on the census, and Wikipedia seems to reflect/respect that (see NYT article "Asked to Declare His Race, Obama Checks 'Black'". We should do the same here. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What? This falls under MOS:IDENTITY. As with anything, we go by reliable sources. If you want to discuss how the Barack Obama article discusses his identity, that article's talk page is the place, but compare Category:Books about Barack Obama to Category:Books about Andrew Tate. We work with what we have, y'know? What do reliable sources say about Tate's race? Just as importantly, why are sources talking about it at all? We don's assume this is important unless reliable sources explain why it's important.

But also, I'm not seeing where there is any contradiction? Like it or not, The Atlantic is much, much more reliable than Dexerto. Dexerto isn't a reliable source, it's a gossip site, but that gossip column does quote Tate as saying "I am half African-American..." which is the same thing this article says. That's part of what "multiracial" means, so what is the problem, here? Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Some people might be particular and choosy about these terms. I think we should just be sensitive across the board, even if it involves someone we may find detestable. Some people may dislike the word "mixed" because an antonym is "purebred", for example. I did find an example of Tate calling himself mixed, so I suppose I have no objection here anymore. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

Maybe reword the last sentence in the lede to say "Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted in widespread rebuke and bans from several platforms."? I think noting the outlash people had against him, not just the social media companies, might show how unliked he is, as people get banned off of social media for minor and often incorrect infractions all the time. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that "widespread rebuke" would need to be at the very least attributed ("rebuked by whom?") and is a distinct claim that would need to be sourced. At that point it would get a bit too wordy for a lead. I think the Social media section already covers notable criticisms quite well (and obviously attributes them), so I don't think we're anywhere close to WP:NPOV territory, but feel free to propose any other notable criticisms you think should be included there (as long as they're not too redundant with what we already present, and are well-sourced). DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Hello, I feel like this article is a little biased, just as an example; it states that Andrew Tate identifies as a misogynist, this is what's called a 'dark joke', if this edit was made to Andrew's page it should be made to other pages right? I want to state that he said these things as a joke and didn't mean it seriously. FV101V2 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I've briefly checked the primary source, and it seems to be an accurate quote; and (IIRC) several WP:RS have reported on it. DFlhb (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate doesn’t hate women

WP:NOTFORUM Madeline (part of me) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He only thinks that they don’t deserve to be treated the same as men. They go and have a baby, and what do you know! The other guy with the same job got a promotion while you were gone. THATS HOW IT WORKS. They carry tasers, pepperspray, guns even, just for protection from men. THEY CAN ALSO KILL MEN TOO. These are all facts, not opinions, and that is what Andrew Tate is talking about. 107.122.225.23 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. Thanks DFlhb (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)